How far are we from colonizing off Earth?

[Umbran]

why would you assume that we humans wouldn't survive an environmental change where other animals would?

Because, honestly, in the middle of such drastic changes, it isn't really "survival of the fittest". It's more survival of the lucky. In such disasters, it isn't just competition within your accustomed niche. It's a question of whether or not your niche gets ripped out from under you. In a mass-extinction event, nobody, and I mean nobody, gets a free pass.

We humans are typically adaptable if we get to plan, and work together. Drop an unprepared human into a harsh situation and he or she usually dies pretty quickly. We are not well protected against the elements (cold or hot, wet or dry). We are not strong, we are not fast. We are tool using monkeys, but most of us don't know how to make tools anymore.

 

[jonesy]

Because, honestly, in the middle of such drastic changes, it isn't really "survival of the fittest".

It kind of is, but the term was always a bit of a misnomer. It should be called "survival of those best suited, prepared and placed to live through all particular situations they will experience in their lifetime". In other words, lucky enough to be exactly what, who, and where the situations require you to be to survive.

If a meteor hits Eurasia and kills everyone there, one would be lucky to have the attribute "american".

 

[Umbran]

If a meteor hits Eurasia and kills everyone there, one would be lucky to have the attribute "american".

Part of the point is that if a meteor hits Eurasia and kills everyone there, being in the Americas won't save you. Mass extinction events have global, not local. Once you get over a certain scale, everything is connected, one large system, not several isolated ones.

Basically, it isn't so much a question of who survives, but who doesn't die. If I have six people, and a revolver with five bullets, and we play a modified Russian Roulette, it is not "fitness" to be the one who lives. There's nothing about your design and makeup that makes you the survivor.

 

[jonesy]

Basically, it isn't so much a question of who survives, but who doesn't die. If I have six people, and a revolver with five bullets, and we play a modified Russian Roulette, it is not "fitness" to be the one who lives. There's nothing about your design and makeup that makes you the survivor.

That again depends on how one defines it. If you are the kind of person who likes standing on the left side of the room, and the empty chamber happens to end up handed to the person on the left side of the room, which is you, then your tendency to be at the right spot saves you.

Even if the chamber is re-rolled every time, and the gun is handed to the next person randomly, it's still your placement in the space time continuum which saves you.

It's lucky, because it's not something you trained for, but it is a part of what you are, because of where who you are ends up taking you.

Which ends with the question of whether your makeup defines where you end up in space time, or whether makeup of space time ends you where you go. Or whether it really is all random.

At the atomic level cause and effect seem to pre-determine a lot, while at the quantum level cause and effect don't seem to get along very well. How this makes any sense, I have no idea.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Basically, it isn't so much a question of who survives, but who doesn't die. If I have six people, and a revolver with five bullets, and we play a modified Russian Roulette, it is not "fitness" to be the one who lives. There's nothing about your design and makeup that makes you the survivor.

..and when it's my turn, instead of accepting the premise of the situation and submitting to random chance, I can take the gun and start shooting the other four, or simply throw the gun away...

If one allows their self to be completely at the whim of random chance, you're right. However, those who prepare may have an increased chance. Luck may be the biggest factor, maybe even the dominant factor by magnitudes, but it's not the only one...

 

[Umbran]

If one allows their self to be completely at the whim of random chance, you're right.

You speak as if you have an option to be otherwise.

On the species-scale, if and when you can make an argument that humanity is trying to take control of the gun, or somesuch, then maybe you'll have a point. Right now, I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that we're doing anything other than trying to shove a sixth bullet into the chamber.

As for individuals, there's a very simple problem of not being able to predict what the circumstances will be, leading to an inability to prepare. Do you prepare for ice-age conditions, or heat and decade-long drought? Are you going to need to be far inland, to avoid rising seas, or will you need to be near shore to get rain and seafood resources? What kinds of plants (if any) will grow in your new environs? What kind of animals can you keep? You don't know, and unless you're Bill Gates you probably don't have the resources to prepare for everything.

If you cannot prepare for everything, you have to guess, and we are back to roulette, rather than fitness.

And that's ignoring the usual risk-assessment issue of spending resources preparing for low-probability events - which generally turns out to be a dumb idea.

 

[Banshee16]

We are not strong, we are not fast. We are tool using monkeys, but most of us don't know how to make tools anymore.

This is a very good point. This is something I was thinking of during this discussion.

In addition, we, like any other animal, are adapted to live in certain conditions. Looking at what's happening/happened in Moscow in August, a lot of people died, and one of the things it came down to was air clarity....and...temperature. When temperatures get over a certain level, people can't cope. The weak die. We're just not biologically adapted to live in certain conditions.

There are many people who likely wouldn't survive if the food supply system broke down for instance. And, in certain parts of the world, (like most of my country) many people would die if we had extended power outages in the heart of winter.....not just days.....but months. Not that humans can't survive in cold climates. The Inuit show us that they can. But not everybody has their knowledge.

What percentage of people could start a fire? Given matches? What about with sticks? Or by banging rocks together? What percentage of people still likely know how to make snares, or proper lean-to's or any number of things in survival conditions? Geeze, I know enough people who can't even tell the cardinal directions of the compass.

As a society, we have lots of information at our fingertips, but I think that the specialized training so many of us receive in order to fill our specific roles in society means that general knowledge that might be important in situations where we didn't have our computers, transportation systems etc. goes by the wayside.

Of course, those who *do* possess these skills could always teach others in the event that it became necessary. But could it be done in sufficient numbers quickly enough if there was a collapse?

Hopefully this never really becomes an issue.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I once saw someone with a great sarcastic t-shirt.

On the front it said "What Would The Dinosaurs Have Done?".

On the back was a meteor hitting Earth.

Nice

I haven't said any of this to say that I think the sky is falling. More, that we don't know. We can't predict what will happen. It's vastly more likely that tomorrow, people will get up, have breakfast, go to work, go home, have dinner, and go to sleep.

But when we're talking about planet wide changes, major environmental modifications, meteor strikes etc. we *think* we have better than normal chances of surviving, but it's kind of like the guy smoking his cigarette saying that "I won't get sick from this, that'll just happen to someone else". You really can't predict what nature has in mind, and we're very tiny, when it comes down to it.

People get weird diseases, they slip and fall, have strokes, heart attacks, get run over by drunk drivers, hit by stray bullets in gangland shootings. A baby only a few weeks old was left parentless a few days ago, when her parents were with her in the family car, coming home from a wedding, and got hit by another vehicle. Both parents dead. No chance. Baby survives. Another family in my area years ago......were driving on a local two lane highway, and a tree falls on their car. Husband and child killed, wife survives. Again, no warning, no chance, no choice. Nothing to do with survival of the fittest....just pure, dumb, bad luck.

IMO, when your time is up, your time is up, and there's nothing you can do about it.....and that goes on an individual level, as well as a global or racial level.

That doesn't mean to just sit there like a bump, and not strive for anything....but it does mean to appreciate every day, because you're never sure if you'll have another.

Banshee

 

[El Mahdi]

You speak as if you have an option to be otherwise.

...

As for individuals, there's a very simple problem of not being able to predict what the circumstances will be, leading to an inability to prepare. Do you prepare for ice-age conditions, or heat and decade-long drought? Are you going to need to be far inland, to avoid rising seas, or will you need to be near shore to get rain and seafood resources? What kinds of plants (if any) will grow in your new environs? What kind of animals can you keep? You don't know, and unless you're Bill Gates you probably don't have the resources to prepare for everything.

If you cannot prepare for everything, you have to guess, and we are back to roulette, rather than fitness. ...

Short of something that would turn the entire planet into a bubbling ball of magma (like when the moon was created), I do think there are options (which have been explored quite extensively in sci-fi - most in a laughable manner, but some quite seriously). So yes, even as an individual, I do believe there are things one can do to change the odds and remove oneself (or at least attempt to remove oneself) from the game. No matter how impractical they may be, or may appear, there are still things that can be done...even by individuals.

On the species-scale, if and when you can make an argument that humanity is trying to take control of the gun, or somesuch, then maybe you'll have a point. Right now, I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that we're doing anything other than trying to shove a sixth bullet into the chamber. ...

I do have a point...because I agree with you (on this anyways).

But, it doesn't change the point that we (humanity) are only in this game of Russian Roulette, because we choose to be. We have the ability to do something about it, and choose not to (currently).

I like your analogy of doing our best to shove a sixth bullet in the chamber. That's exactly what I think we've done by cancelling the Constellation program. Hopefully we won't remain so shortsighted forever. I wouldn't necessarily be happy if another country picked up the torch and carried it instead of us, but it would be better than doing nothing (as a species).

 

[jonesy]

I wouldn't necessarily be happy if another country picked up the torch and carried it instead of us, but it would be better than doing nothing (as a species).

Not to be snarky or anything, but the post-soviet-russian space missions kind of did that already while your shuttles were grounded. What I think we need now is russian ruggedness with internationally designed and tested parts with american production capability. Best of everything instead of lowest bidder.


Edit: you know, sarcasm really is hard to detect on the Internet. I'm looking at what I wrote and I can't decide myself what that actually means. And when the sentence begins with 'not to be snarky or anything' you should always get a bit suspicious.

Don't mind me. I'm a goofball.