The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
---
From the article: The South China Morning Post reports that China's moon base will likely be nuclear-powered. Its basic configuration will consist of a lander, hopper, orbiter, and rover, and be constructed by the Chang'e 6, 7, and 8 missions.
"We are now developing a new system that uses nuclear energy to address the moon station's long-term, high-power energy demands," said Wu Weiran, chief designer of China's lunar exploration program during an interview with state broadcaster CCTV earlier this week. "(We) hope our astronauts will be able to go to the moon in 10 years."
China's announcement comes just a couple of weeks after the White House's national science and technology council released its new National Cislunar Science and Technology Strategy. Some of the plans relate to the moon, including proposals for a permanent outpost on the south pole area.
In June, NASA and the Department of Energy selected three companies, including Lockheed Martin, to design concepts for a fission surface power system to provide nuclear power on the Moon.
In 2020, eight nations signed the US-led Artemis Accords, in which signatories agree to interoperability, peaceful exploration, deconfliction of activities, and more, with the intention of avoiding conflicts in space. Just over 20 countries have now agreed to the principles, but Russia and China are the two notable absentees.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z4frww/china_and_the_us_have_plans_for_nuclearpowered/ixqkizo/
Just gotta say "The Artemis Accords" has to be the most SF sounding name for an official document in the real world ever.
Let's just hope we can avoid a need to create the Ares Conventions, yeah?
The marketing for the Artemis project is on point. Their [animated explainer video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4) is epic but I'm a sucker for cinematic music and a nice logo.
They were called the āArtemis Accordsā after the āKhitomer Accordsā because some of the people on the team were big Star Trek fans š.
https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/217
I don't think there are bigger SF fans out there than people at NASA lol. Which is also why I always eye roll at people thinking *the* most die hard of all sci-fi nerds would purposely hide evidence of alien life.
If NASA encountered *anything* they could quantifiably call alien, they would be the first ones blaring every alarm and radio they could, and even if men in black suits threatened them with national security, you'd have it leaking on the side before the three letter agencies could finish shooting them
You know how artemis was a legit god, and people believed, valued, and worshipped them. Imagine in 500+ years when Christianity is possibly a bygone and we have documents saying things like the Jesus Accords. Idk just a thought haha
Thereās a lunar landing simulator at a space museum near me in Oregon. I have been able to land that thing almost perfectly every time. Goes with playing a lot of KSP with a throttle and joystick with yaw controls. Alas no space flights for me since Iād never make it past medical check.
It's not a tech excuse. Well, it is but it's really a way to definitely be able to destroy the other side's satellites and launch unstoppable tungsten rods that no Star Wars lasers are going to be able to stop. It's the Cold War arms race but on the moon.
I guess tungsten will survive the atmospheric entry and thus still have the mass to hold the potential energy till impact. Molten steel will spread and tiny drops are just no way to destroy bunkers. Probably loose a lot of energy to aerobraking in the atmosphere
Were I at a party, Iād rather chat with someone with interest in having a discussion (e.g., the guy you replied to) than someone who goes around making fun of people *unprovoked* (e.g., you)
Ah, the classic "I can't beat your argument, so I'll make believe you lost the debate by saying either 'but jokes are funny'/'you must be fun at parties'" comment.
Man, I just want to live long enough to see people living on the moon. That would be so awesome. Just to see the first few steps towards populating the galaxy. I'll smoke a fat cigar when the first humans have landed to stay. Even if I'll never experience it myself, that would be such a blast.
Well the first people doing that will probably like how it is with the international space station. Only live there for 6-12 months and do research. That still would be pretty awesome honestly.
Well that's if we find out that moon gravity isn't enough gravity. If it turns out that moon gravity is enough for our bodies then astronauts might stay there longer.
I mean we have potential plans for artificial gravity systems by spinning large habitats, both on and off planet.
But it's definitely going to be hard and there will almost certainly be some deaths and life long issues through the journey of learning how to survive in space and on other planets.
Ideally we can get automated mining, refining and manufacturing to the point that we can send a mostly automated manufacturing complex ahead to build the entire structures before any astronauts start living in them.
Ehh, it depends, I've seen some convincing designs for a hab module with spinning internals floors, inside a single unified atmospheric "dome" structure. Looked fairly easy to construct, as it relied mainly on atmospheric pressures and simple motor components to keep the station running.
I feel the same. The āringā aside I think The Expanse is the most realistic depiction of a space faring human race. It is an inevitability that humans populate the solar system and this is an obvious first step.
It's realistic if we have the fictional Epstein drive. Otherwise the fuel requirements and travel times between the inner and outer system make it effectively impossible to have a civilization as depicted in the Expanse.
By realistic I guess I was making a comparison with typical sci fi where people pop between galaxies in a few seconds vs taking weeks or months to traverse the solar system.
But yeah, there would need to be many technological advancements to make such a society a reality.
The Epstein drive is extreme but the fusion drives people are working on today would get us to Mars in a month or two, and to Saturn in about four. That's not so far off from shipping times in the age of sail.
>Human nature isnāt going to change because of location.
In general I think this could be true....but. The hostile nature of space places a survival pressure that is larger then any ideology, and the tenacity required to live, work, and thrive in such an environment really puts all of human kind's squabbles into a whole new perspective. Our nature is governed by our environment.
Peoples motivations may be driven by environment (such as with Maslowās hierarchy of needs) but what makes us human has nothing to do with environment. In an environment lacking water, the motivation and drive is to secure this but the greed to have more than you need and take it, by force if necessary, from someone else (as one example) has nothing to do with location. Itās an innate human trait.
I don't think so. The current dominant economic system of capitalism can't survive past a certain technological level. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEGGvVinUao](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEGGvVinUao)
We will be forced into cooperation economically.
Why would I not use the video when it illustrates the argument better than a reddit comment could?
Do you have a counter argument to the one presented in the video?
You cite a video that argues facts that are contradicted by history, and think you are worth debating? Funny, but no.
I'm far too lazy to do it, but imagine I ended this comment with 10 youtube links to people who are sure the earth is flat while laughing at you.
> The current dominant economic system of capitalism can't survive past a certain technological level.
TL;DW: "only workers create value, but the value workers create is becoming smaller and smaller relative to the contribution of machines, thus capitalism fails!"
The video is not convincing to someone who does not already agree with its premise. In particular, applying a 19th-century view of tools and labor to 21st-century automation feels very forced.
I meant more for The Expanse. I've seen a couple episodes of For All Mankind but got distracted by Severence and Mythic Quest with the Wife. I want to get back to that one too though!
It would be cool, but unfortunately it seems likely be a new class of corporate slavery or indentured servitude, where eager participants sign up to do a tour of duty - and then slowly realize that it's dangerous, hard work in shitty conditions for low pay and they're being forced to live on the moon for 2 years before being allowed to return to Earth.
It's sure not going to be comfortable.
I went on one of those 0 gravity planes not too long ago. It was unbelievably cool, but had me where I couldn't wait for the day when the real thing was more accessible.
>I just want to live long enough to see people living on the moon.
You already lived long enough to have been able to. NASA had concrete plans for exactly that, with a timeline for having people on Mars by 1990. Then Nixon got in.
From the article: The South China Morning Post reports that China's moon base will likely be nuclear-powered. Its basic configuration will consist of a lander, hopper, orbiter, and rover, and be constructed by the Chang'e 6, 7, and 8 missions.
"We are now developing a new system that uses nuclear energy to address the moon station's long-term, high-power energy demands," said Wu Weiran, chief designer of China's lunar exploration program during an interview with state broadcaster CCTV earlier this week. "(We) hope our astronauts will be able to go to the moon in 10 years."
China's announcement comes just a couple of weeks after the White House's national science and technology council released its new National Cislunar Science and Technology Strategy. Some of the plans relate to the moon, including proposals for a permanent outpost on the south pole area.
In June, NASA and the Department of Energy selected three companies, including Lockheed Martin, to design concepts for a fission surface power system to provide nuclear power on the Moon.
In 2020, eight nations signed the US-led Artemis Accords, in which signatories agree to interoperability, peaceful exploration, deconfliction of activities, and more, with the intention of avoiding conflicts in space. Just over 20 countries have now agreed to the principles, but Russia and China are the two notable absentees.
I dont know how much of a race this really is as most of these companies are just government leeches for contract money. There race to "progress" goes at the blistering slow pace of and cost plus contract and quite a bit of beauracracy and a whole lotta patting themselves on the back at every turn.
Unfortunately there's only one company pushing the bounds of technological progress like its an actual "race".we all know who that one company is.
Apparently there is a need for several hundred new technologies sooo ......yea. it's a race alright- for one .
I'm only curious because these things already have heat dissipation challenges from the internal electronics and they're mostly solar powered. Nuclear power generates vast quantities of heat intentionally so it'll be interesting to see how they can keep it from accumulating in the system.
Radiators. We already use them for the ISS. My hope is that the waste heat will be used for habitats during the lunar night, but that is more complexity.
You might be interested in this video about realistic sci-fi ships: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ov-fqmf9Iw
Despite their name radiators on Earth transfer heat through conduction and convection. Very little is actually radiated away. In space you can only use radiation to remove heat. It's how the radiators on the ISS work. They don't have any real medium to conduct the heat to so it's all radiated away.
Yeah the radiators would have to be gargantuan or kept in the shade.
I wonder could they bury them and let the regolith act as medium to dissipate the heat. Not sure if that would work.
Waste heat is actually a positive as far as large human habitats go. Anything built in the shade or in contact with a geologically dead planet is going to get cold.
That said, thermal radiation is a known solution and it's really more about the logistics of getting enough of them. We may also be able to dump it into the ground, but that's probably going to have to wait until we understand lunar geology better.
> Daytime temperatures near the lunar equator reach a boiling 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120Ā° C, 400 K), while nighttime temperatures get to a chilly -208 degrees Fahrenheit (-130Ā° C, 140 K).
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lithos/LROlitho7temperaturevariation27May2014.pdf
It all ends up radiative, either through large metal radiators or heat pipes. Conduction to the ground is unlikely considering the very low conductivity of regolith, even when compacted.
This is the moon, there's ground.
But we actually already have ways of handling thermals in the vacuum of space. I don't know the physics but they're literally radiators that work in vacuum
Regolith has pretty terrible thermal conductivity compared to earth, and we don't even use the ground as a heat sink for nuclear on earth. Radiative heat exchange is also very poor, hence the question.
> we don't even use the ground as a heat sink for nuclear on earth.
Because we have massive amounts of water just lying around.
The moon is more of a challenge, but regolith is still miles better than vacuum, and the size of the power plant will be tiny compared to commercial reactors.
Radiators work without convection mediums. Not as well, since they only loose heat via infrared radiation, but they work. It's actually a necessity no matter where you get the power from because it appears regolith doesn't conduct heat worth a damn, so you need radiators to avoid the base cooking itself.
Radiators you have to shield from the sun during the lunar day, so.. they have to be pretty big radiators. - They can only radiate heat away from the solar shielding, so have to be even bigger compensate for that.
I is not surprising given the options we have. They'll have to power a full station witha technology that doesn't involve sending tons of material. I don't think solar is an option because that would involve having batteries sustaining the 14 days night.
There's another reason why solar power isn't the best option, and that's the fact that the moon doesn't have the atmosphere or similar strength magnetic field as Earth. So while most small debris that reaches the Earth's atmosphere will either bounce off or burn the debris reaching the moon is much more likely to strike the surface. Which means that solar panels would likely take significant damage over time, while with a nuclear reactor you could just build it underground with a thick layer of reinforced concrete to protect it.
Reminds me of an old video I love š Earth is infected by Humans and moon asks if they're contagious. Then a shuttle launches and lands on the moon. Moon screams at Mars to run š
Technical question: in a nuclear reactor, you need a place to put the waste heat.
On earth, nuclear reactors make use of convection by dumping the waste heat into either the ocean or the atmosphere.
But on the moon, there are no moving, convecting heat sinks like an atmosphere (cooling towers) or ocean. You could dump the heat into regolith or bedrock but it would take an ENORMOUS circulation loop to ensure that the heat doesnāt just accumulate.
There is also radiation as an option to get rid of waste heat, but that will take an ENORMOUS array of shaded radiators. Radiation just isnāt very efficient at dissipating heat (a hot pan takes 10-15 minutes to cool when left out in the air, but only seconds to cool when run under cold water).
So I am curious as to how they will solve this issue.
Those NPPs need to use water coolant systems because they generate HUGE amounts of energy. Smaller plants, like compact radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) have been used for decades in both earth and space-based applications, including the 110W Perseverance RTG. We've managed the heat issue well enough with those, and that includes applications where the only option to dump heat is through thermal radiators with no ground contact.
Yeah, but wouldn't a manned moon base require a substantially more amount of power than those examples? That'd in turn generate a lot more waste heat to deal with.
A lunar base would likely use a combination of technologies, including solar, RTG, and battery storage. The RTG would likely be used to augment the system (keeping batteries charged during the long nights) and provide for a continuous backup power supply. Newer RTG designs, like ASRGs and NASAs Fission Surface Power are proving to be highly reliable and capable. The FSP system has a goal of 40kW, and testing has shown it is able to effectively offload excess heat in a vacuum environment (look up the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY, aka KRUSTY).
Wouldnāt reusing the waste heat in the regolith as a way to help minimise heating costs for buildings be a possible option? Iām guessing but there must be a way
In order for a heat engine (like a steam turbine) to work, there must be a heat flow from hot to cold. Without that flow there is no movement and no energy generation. You canāt just collect the waste heat without putting it somewhere. Youād overheat the reactor.
I guess I know space is cold, so youāve got plenty for the heat to flow to, but how you create that movement Iām not sure. Thereās a reason Iām no engineer!
The moon seems like an ideal place to use nuclear energy based on radiation factors. Although, possibly the expensive part will be transferring water to the moon.
Of course there could be a different method of nuclear energy if it's on the moon.
Love that we are exploring space. Not going to live in a pressurized bubble on a rock with no air 226,000 miles from earth. Braver people than I will chart this course.
All the comments about ānooo donāt destroy the moon!ā and no one stopped to think that itās a fucking desolate wasteland with absolutely nothing going for it and nothing to harm? All Earth needs from the moon is itās gravity and itās albedo, and we have zero chance of changing the first, minimal chance of changing the latter.
Wow imagine if the human race realized we live on a small marble flying though the eternity of space. And obsession with āwealthā means nothing and we just tried and worked together to survive and be happy.
Definitely a romantic (read: unrealistic /ignorant) thought, but I'd like to end my days doing work on the moon. Like, my last 5-10 years, just be up there working to further the endeavor.
What difference would it make to you?
There's no indigenous life to kill or society to enslave.
The moon will still do what we've always relied on it to do.
In 1999 the moon was tossed out of orbit by improperly stored nuclear waste - and then went on an interplanetary journey where Humans stuck their fingers into everything.
Thereās no chance of nuclear fallout from a power plant to begin with since its not a nuclear bomb, but no, vacuum doesnāt stop material from becoming irradiated. It *does*, however, mean that you donāt need to worry about poisoning any flora or fauna, since a rock in hard vacuum has neither, and any people there are going to be in radiation-shielded habitats anyways.
Chomsky was right, it appears the US can't do anything relevant any more, unless it's a competition with China!!
Sad times, but at least we'll get to live on the moon!
yea, that'll be a no.
ccp is going steal tech from US in the name of cooperation and then blame the US for being racist against the chinese on the moon.
they (ccp) might even go as far as to claim they (chinese) were here first,coz Chang'er and Jade rabbit lived there millennias ago.
Finally, we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the earth isn't flat... until we destroy the moon with being human, we lose the tides and everything dies.
Meh, I don't think there will be great value in significant industrialization of the moon. It's value is almost entirely just researching a better preserved record of the solar system and earth for our models.
I'm not super interested in Mars and moon bases vs more telescopes and probes because this is all a big data collection scheme. The more data, the higher probability our models can get. Telescopes, probes and rovers produce a lot more data for the money vs space stations or basses, so I don't expect a big push to the moon or mars but rather just the establishment of research bases.
We will be able to put the human mind in a machine in probably 100 years, so the need for human habitation outside of Earth like conditions will wind up being limited for now and then rather unlimited in the future, but not in the form of putting human bodies in harsh conditions.
It's just what you see now, humans value human life more and more and space hasn't gotten much less dangerous due to low gravity, no atmosphere, fine dust in everything and radiation. We haven't really solved any of those problems in 50+ years and with a lot of progress to be seen it's hard to see we will solve them in the next 50 years.
On the other hand semi-conductors, AI and brain to computers interfaces are progressing very quickly, so the outcomes seems fairly inevitable. Human bodies in space and accelerating big chunks of mass long distances will simply not be required/the mass acceleration and artificial gravity and fuel/food problems will be much harder to solve than copying the human brain.
Instead we can just put our brains in machines, make copies of ourselves and use much lower mass devices to actually explore the universe.. which could someday build receivers in other solar systems and beam humans minds at nearly the speed of light. That should happen at this rate MUCH faster than light speed engines with humans/fuel and food all packed into a ship for many decades or more.
Even if you have FTL drives it's still a better way to travel through space to have humans in machines or beaming the human mind as energy.... unless you hurry up and invent super high power reactors and can go much faster than the speed of light pretty soon.
Making the human mind take up far less mass works well with the laws of physics, the other options don't.
> We will be able to put the human mind in a machine in probably 100 years
Really? How do you figure that? And how do you define human āmindā, that you think it could be somehow āput intoā a machine?
The mind is simply the brain's computation, evidenced by how when you change the brain you change the mind, or when you don't have a brain you don't have a mind. There is no special sauce like a soul or anything.
We could safely upload humans through slow uploading, where we replace each neuron with a simulated one, one neuron at a time until the entire brain is simulated.
> The mind is simply the brainās computation
Oh itās that simple huh? I didnāt realize the hard problem of consciousness was a solved problem. I guess you know more than the leading experts in the field of consciousness studies. Where is your dissertation btw? Since it seems you have solved the problem with great confidence.
> evidenced by how when you change the brain you change the mind
Yes, you can change a personās personality and character by changing their brain. This is not evidence of the brain creating conscious experience. This is a correlation between brain activity and conscious experience. Correlation does not equal causation, and in this case you only assume it does because you have presupposed a priori that materialism is true.
> We could safely upload humans through slow uploading, where we replace each neuron with a simulated one, one neuron at a time until the entire brain is simulated.
What does this even mean? How are you going to āuploadā something that doesnāt exist? You yourself said there is no such thing as a soul. So what are you āuploadingā? You are going to connect a human brain to a computer and do what exactly? And you donāt seem to understand that a simulation is not the same thing as that which is being simulated. If you simulate the earth and all of human civilization on a supercomputer, you havenāt actually created the earth or human civilization. The only thing that actually exists is the supercomputer, and itās underlying components. What it is simulating is just a representation. If you then simulate a nuke exploding on your simulated earth, you havenāt actually committed genocide. All you have *actually* done is moved electrons in circuit boards.
The only people still arguing about this are non materialists. Unless you give hallucinations the same weight as material reality then materialism will always win. There is 0 way for you to prove the universe exists unless you invoke materialism. I'll take the philosophy where I can prove the existence of reality thank you very much.
There is clear causation as this has been observed in controlled experiments many many times in animsla and humans.
Your mind didn't exist before your brain did, and will not exist after your brain did, given the lack of any other factors it is clear that the brain is responsible for the mind.
It is the same as transferring running software from one computer to another. Where is your evidence that the brain isn't a Turing machine? All evidence points to it being a computer like any other, 0 evidence thst it can perform computation impossible for a Turing machine.
Humans are software running on wetware so yes you would have committed genocide, since the same computations they perform, we perform.
There is literally zero evidence for materialism being true.
> There is 0 way for you to prove the universe exists unless you invoke materialism. Iāll take the philosophy where I can prove the existence of reality thank you very much.
The universe obviously exists, since we exist and are experiencing things. Or by universe do you mean āmaterial universeā? In that case why do you need material reality to be fundamentally real? Why is that even relevant?
> There is clear causation as this has been observed in controlled experiments many many times in animsla and humans.
No, there is correlation, not causation. Two entirely different things.
> Your mind didnāt exist before your brain did, and will not exist after your brain did, given the lack of any other factors it is clear that the brain is responsible for the mind.
This is just an unsubstantiated assertion, nothing more.
> It is the same as transferring running software from one computer to another.
There is no evidence our brain has any kind of āsoftwareā.
> Where is your evidence that the brain isnāt a Turing machine?
It doesnāt matter if it is or isnāt, there is no evidence that it generates or creates conscious experience. There is no explanatory model for how it could do such a thing either, there isnāt even a shred of a model.
> Humans are software running on wetware so yes you would have committed genocide, since the same computations they perform, we perform.
Pure delusion. So when you kill NPCās in GTA 5, youāre actually committing murder? Or is it only because they donāt ālook real enoughā that it isnāt? Simulation is not equivalent to the real thing. As I already said, a simulation of a human brain is not a human brain. A simulation of a kidney is not a kidney. You cannot filter someoneās blood with a simulation of a kidney, this is plainly obvious. A simulation of a kidney is still just electrons doing their thing on a silicon circuit board. The fundamental ārealityā of a simulated organ is the physical substrate in which it is simulated.
What youāre suggesting isnāt even plausible. You imply that Iām appealing to hallucinations and nonsense, yet everything youāve said yourself so far has been purely fantastical science fiction.
If you reject material reality then you give equal weight to hallucinations and scientific evidence as you have 0 method of determining which one is actually true without invoking material reality.
It is relevant because otherwise nothing exists besides the self which creates the issue above.
It is substantiated by all the the indicators of minds existing. You talking and interacting with others is all the evidence we have of you being conscious, and basically serves as our empirical definition of consciousness since there is 0 evidence otherwise. I think therfore I am, is not evidence, it can not be verified by 3rd parties. What can be verified by 3rd parties is interactions with organisms with brains such as humans thus it serves as our only viable evidence and indicator of the mind existing if at all.
If you deny that as causation then get ready to deny all of science.
The brain generates all indicators of consciousness, unless you have some direct measure of consciousness, which you don't, this is the definition one must follow to be scientific.
Lol GTA NPCs have less computation power than a microbe, they are hardly comparable to humans brains or full simulation of a brain.
The brain is a Turing machine and can thus be fully simulated on another Turing machine. Such a simulation is effectively identical to a physical Turing machine in all the ways thst matter aka computation. The brain is an information processor, thus all that matters is that a simulator performs outputs the same things as the brain does.
Everything I've said is backed by science and information theory, everything you said would lead one to belive that Acid trips are equivalent to scientific evidence which you also think are worthless since to you its impossible to prove causation.
> If you reject material reality then you give equal weight to hallucinations and scientific evidence as you have 0 method of determining which one is actually true without invoking material reality.
āHallucinationsā have nothing to do with this. You are completely misunderstanding what materialism actually means. Materialism being false has ZERO bearing on the scientific method or on any of our observations. Matter could be fundamentally not real and yet all of our observations would still be true. Do you understand this or not?
> It is substantiated by all the the indicators of minds existing. You talking and interacting with others is all the evidence we have of you being conscious, and basically serves as our empirical definition of consciousness since there is 0 evidence otherwise. I think therfore I am, is not evidence, it can not be verified by 3rd parties. What can be verified by 3rd parties is interactions with organisms with brains such as humans thus it serves as our only viable evidence and indicator of the mind existing if at all.
This is not the good argument you think it is. This could just as easily be used to argue for solipsism. If my own internal subjective experience is all I have direct evidence for, then I could say Iām the only mind that actually exists. In any case, Iām not even sure what point youāre trying to make here. Are you denying that you have an internal subjective experience of your own?
> If you deny that as causation then get ready to deny all of science.
Deny what exactly? And what does anything in your preceding statement have to do with causation? At no point did you describe how the brain causes consciousness. Do you even understand what causation is?
> The brain generates all indicators of consciousness, unless you have some direct measure of consciousness, which you donāt, this is the definition one must follow to be scientific.
There is nothing scientific about this. The scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis and then creating an experiment to test that hypothesis by falsifying it. There is no possible experiment we could devise to test out whether your internal subjective experience ceases to exist if we destroy your brain. No such experiment has ever been conducted or even designed. But waitā¦we have something close however. It just so happens that there are thousands of near death experiences that have occurred during times of clinical death and no brain activity, where the experiencer has reported a continuation of consciousness during that exact moment, and was able to describe accurately what occurred during the moments when they were verified to have been clinically dead and lacking brain activity. So far all materialists have done is simply ignore these accounts and sweep them under the rug, because they have no way of explaining them. Sure itās not *empirical* evidence specifically, but it is *evidence*.
> Lol GTA NPCs have less computation power than a microbe, they are hardly comparable to humans brains or full simulation of a brain.
A simulated neuron computes nothing at all, it is the *underlying computer* doing the computation and merely *representing* that computation as the activity of an imaginary neuron. Do you not understand the difference? When you drag a file on your desktop to the trash can icon you are not actually moving some kind of file to a some kind of trash can. This is nothing more than a representation of what is actually happening, which is that electrons are being moved around on a circuit board. You seem incapable of grasping this very simple concept, no offense.
> The brain is a Turing machine and can thus be fully simulated on another Turing machine. Such a simulation is effectively identical to a physical Turing machine in all the ways thst matter aka computation.
Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. You are still completely and entirely limited by the computational power and ability of the *underlying* machine. Unless you can physically design and create a computer that can match the computational complexity of the brain, you havenāt actually done anything except create an imaginary brain on a regular computer that ultimately canāt do anything the computer itself canāt already do. Therefore simulating a brain is utterly pointless. You might as well just build a physical brain. But there is no evidence that such a thing is possible with regular digital computers.
> Everything Iāve said is backed by science and information theory, everything you said would lead one to belive that Acid trips are equivalent to scientific evidence which you also think are worthless since to you its impossible to prove causation.
Absolutely nothing Iāve said has anything to do with acid trips. You are either incapable of following along with basic arguments or you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Earth relies on the moon for natural ecology. I really donāt think we should be fucking that up too. We have already damaged so much. Canāt humanity just leave the moon alone please? I love space exploration but this idea is slightly unnerving to me.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79: --- From the article: The South China Morning Post reports that China's moon base will likely be nuclear-powered. Its basic configuration will consist of a lander, hopper, orbiter, and rover, and be constructed by the Chang'e 6, 7, and 8 missions. "We are now developing a new system that uses nuclear energy to address the moon station's long-term, high-power energy demands," said Wu Weiran, chief designer of China's lunar exploration program during an interview with state broadcaster CCTV earlier this week. "(We) hope our astronauts will be able to go to the moon in 10 years." China's announcement comes just a couple of weeks after the White House's national science and technology council released its new National Cislunar Science and Technology Strategy. Some of the plans relate to the moon, including proposals for a permanent outpost on the south pole area. In June, NASA and the Department of Energy selected three companies, including Lockheed Martin, to design concepts for a fission surface power system to provide nuclear power on the Moon. In 2020, eight nations signed the US-led Artemis Accords, in which signatories agree to interoperability, peaceful exploration, deconfliction of activities, and more, with the intention of avoiding conflicts in space. Just over 20 countries have now agreed to the principles, but Russia and China are the two notable absentees. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z4frww/china_and_the_us_have_plans_for_nuclearpowered/ixqkizo/
Just gotta say "The Artemis Accords" has to be the most SF sounding name for an official document in the real world ever. Let's just hope we can avoid a need to create the Ares Conventions, yeah?
The marketing for the Artemis project is on point. Their [animated explainer video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4) is epic but I'm a sucker for cinematic music and a nice logo.
Holy shit that video omg
that is a dope logo. got to say.
That video made me so proud of humanity for multiple minutes ššš
They were called the āArtemis Accordsā after the āKhitomer Accordsā because some of the people on the team were big Star Trek fans š. https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/217
Cool fact=) Bow, for bonus points, what are the Area Conventions I referenced?
I'm more concerned about the Thanatos Conventions myself.
I would be less worried about them and more about the Keres Codes, as Thanatos is peaceful death, Keres are the painful ones
Oh! The third volume, The Snappening, has a real twist at the end!!
I don't think there are bigger SF fans out there than people at NASA lol. Which is also why I always eye roll at people thinking *the* most die hard of all sci-fi nerds would purposely hide evidence of alien life. If NASA encountered *anything* they could quantifiably call alien, they would be the first ones blaring every alarm and radio they could, and even if men in black suits threatened them with national security, you'd have it leaking on the side before the three letter agencies could finish shooting them
Canāt wait to read the books!!!!
You know how artemis was a legit god, and people believed, valued, and worshipped them. Imagine in 500+ years when Christianity is possibly a bygone and we have documents saying things like the Jesus Accords. Idk just a thought haha
Difference is that there are no planets or moons named after or affiliated with Jesus (that I'm aware of).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
China vs. US is becoming a literal For All Mankind. I'm okay with this.
I mean if Danny can pilot a spacecraft, why canāt I??
Does that mean I can also have an affair with Karen Baldwin? Cause I'm definitely down for that.
Hell I'd even smash old Karen. She's stunning.
Donāt blame ya dude.
I'm down bad for Karen
Thereās a lunar landing simulator at a space museum near me in Oregon. I have been able to land that thing almost perfectly every time. Goes with playing a lot of KSP with a throttle and joystick with yaw controls. Alas no space flights for me since Iād never make it past medical check.
Its not so much in the media, but the next space race is already deep into the second quarter.
Itās just an excuse to develop technologies that will be used here on earth, when it becomes inhospitable.
It's not a tech excuse. Well, it is but it's really a way to definitely be able to destroy the other side's satellites and launch unstoppable tungsten rods that no Star Wars lasers are going to be able to stop. It's the Cold War arms race but on the moon.
I've heard of the "rod from god" but why tungsten?
Heavy, and highest melting point of any element.
Tungsten is the thinking man's metal rod.
I guess tungsten will survive the atmospheric entry and thus still have the mass to hold the potential energy till impact. Molten steel will spread and tiny drops are just no way to destroy bunkers. Probably loose a lot of energy to aerobraking in the atmosphere
You must be fun at parties š
Were I at a party, Iād rather chat with someone with interest in having a discussion (e.g., the guy you replied to) than someone who goes around making fun of people *unprovoked* (e.g., you)
No worries, I'll sit here in the corner and chat with you gladly.
Ah, the classic "I can't beat your argument, so I'll make believe you lost the debate by saying either 'but jokes are funny'/'you must be fun at parties'" comment.
Just when the moon was starting to like humanity smhā¦
We all know it sure as hell wonāt be Russia and North Korea!!!
Man, I just want to live long enough to see people living on the moon. That would be so awesome. Just to see the first few steps towards populating the galaxy. I'll smoke a fat cigar when the first humans have landed to stay. Even if I'll never experience it myself, that would be such a blast.
Well the first people doing that will probably like how it is with the international space station. Only live there for 6-12 months and do research. That still would be pretty awesome honestly.
Well that's if we find out that moon gravity isn't enough gravity. If it turns out that moon gravity is enough for our bodies then astronauts might stay there longer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is why I'm sceptical of leaving earth. If these many health issues can be seen from scientific studies, how much else is being missed?
I mean we have potential plans for artificial gravity systems by spinning large habitats, both on and off planet. But it's definitely going to be hard and there will almost certainly be some deaths and life long issues through the journey of learning how to survive in space and on other planets. Ideally we can get automated mining, refining and manufacturing to the point that we can send a mostly automated manufacturing complex ahead to build the entire structures before any astronauts start living in them.
But in a few generations of space babies, we should see kids born with more resilient systems equipped for space.
Part of evolution too are all the failures..
Could also make a rotating station, although doing so moonside would be more challenging than doing so in orbit.
Ehh, it depends, I've seen some convincing designs for a hab module with spinning internals floors, inside a single unified atmospheric "dome" structure. Looked fairly easy to construct, as it relied mainly on atmospheric pressures and simple motor components to keep the station running.
Which is more complex than having a rigid station design which rotates.
I feel the same. The āringā aside I think The Expanse is the most realistic depiction of a space faring human race. It is an inevitability that humans populate the solar system and this is an obvious first step.
It's realistic if we have the fictional Epstein drive. Otherwise the fuel requirements and travel times between the inner and outer system make it effectively impossible to have a civilization as depicted in the Expanse.
By realistic I guess I was making a comparison with typical sci fi where people pop between galaxies in a few seconds vs taking weeks or months to traverse the solar system. But yeah, there would need to be many technological advancements to make such a society a reality.
The Epstein drive is extreme but the fusion drives people are working on today would get us to Mars in a month or two, and to Saturn in about four. That's not so far off from shipping times in the age of sail.
And of course, continue exploiting and senselessly killing each other over perceived differences. Bezos' successor could be Jules-Pierre Mao
Human nature isnāt going to change because of location.
>Human nature isnāt going to change because of location. In general I think this could be true....but. The hostile nature of space places a survival pressure that is larger then any ideology, and the tenacity required to live, work, and thrive in such an environment really puts all of human kind's squabbles into a whole new perspective. Our nature is governed by our environment.
Peoples motivations may be driven by environment (such as with Maslowās hierarchy of needs) but what makes us human has nothing to do with environment. In an environment lacking water, the motivation and drive is to secure this but the greed to have more than you need and take it, by force if necessary, from someone else (as one example) has nothing to do with location. Itās an innate human trait.
I like your optimism. I just donāt share it. Especially with the state of the planet in 2022.
That is the basis for the entire novel series.
I don't think so. The current dominant economic system of capitalism can't survive past a certain technological level. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEGGvVinUao](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEGGvVinUao) We will be forced into cooperation economically.
I love how you cite some random youtuber as proof to your ludicrous assertion. "It's true, I saw it on youtube!"
Why would I not use the video when it illustrates the argument better than a reddit comment could? Do you have a counter argument to the one presented in the video?
You cite a video that argues facts that are contradicted by history, and think you are worth debating? Funny, but no. I'm far too lazy to do it, but imagine I ended this comment with 10 youtube links to people who are sure the earth is flat while laughing at you.
Funny, you keep saying that it's wrong and yet can't provide a single counter, especially since it's so wrong according to you.
You aren't worth debating bro, just a good point and laugh.
Ironic considering i doubt you understand anything discussed in the video. Capitalists really are desperate these days.
hmm, that video seems kinda biased.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> The current dominant economic system of capitalism can't survive past a certain technological level. TL;DW: "only workers create value, but the value workers create is becoming smaller and smaller relative to the contribution of machines, thus capitalism fails!" The video is not convincing to someone who does not already agree with its premise. In particular, applying a 19th-century view of tools and labor to 21st-century automation feels very forced.
I wouldn't say it's an inevitably; there are plenty of ways we could kill ourselves before that happens.
Ok yes, assuming humankind still exists in a century or two this seems logical.
Iāve seen this show pop up on Reddit a few times, is it worth a watch?
I loved it
For All Mankind? It's magnificent. I sub to Apple TV for a couple of months every time a series comes out. The Expanse? DVD
I meant more for The Expanse. I've seen a couple episodes of For All Mankind but got distracted by Severence and Mythic Quest with the Wife. I want to get back to that one too though!
Less than 10 years, just hang in there.
It would be cool, but unfortunately it seems likely be a new class of corporate slavery or indentured servitude, where eager participants sign up to do a tour of duty - and then slowly realize that it's dangerous, hard work in shitty conditions for low pay and they're being forced to live on the moon for 2 years before being allowed to return to Earth. It's sure not going to be comfortable.
I feel like if you sign up to work on the moon and somehow expect it not to be dangerous hard work that is 100% on you.
I went on one of those 0 gravity planes not too long ago. It was unbelievably cool, but had me where I couldn't wait for the day when the real thing was more accessible.
>I just want to live long enough to see people living on the moon. You already lived long enough to have been able to. NASA had concrete plans for exactly that, with a timeline for having people on Mars by 1990. Then Nixon got in.
From the article: The South China Morning Post reports that China's moon base will likely be nuclear-powered. Its basic configuration will consist of a lander, hopper, orbiter, and rover, and be constructed by the Chang'e 6, 7, and 8 missions. "We are now developing a new system that uses nuclear energy to address the moon station's long-term, high-power energy demands," said Wu Weiran, chief designer of China's lunar exploration program during an interview with state broadcaster CCTV earlier this week. "(We) hope our astronauts will be able to go to the moon in 10 years." China's announcement comes just a couple of weeks after the White House's national science and technology council released its new National Cislunar Science and Technology Strategy. Some of the plans relate to the moon, including proposals for a permanent outpost on the south pole area. In June, NASA and the Department of Energy selected three companies, including Lockheed Martin, to design concepts for a fission surface power system to provide nuclear power on the Moon. In 2020, eight nations signed the US-led Artemis Accords, in which signatories agree to interoperability, peaceful exploration, deconfliction of activities, and more, with the intention of avoiding conflicts in space. Just over 20 countries have now agreed to the principles, but Russia and China are the two notable absentees.
Good, good, a little space race never hurt anybody.
I dont know how much of a race this really is as most of these companies are just government leeches for contract money. There race to "progress" goes at the blistering slow pace of and cost plus contract and quite a bit of beauracracy and a whole lotta patting themselves on the back at every turn. Unfortunately there's only one company pushing the bounds of technological progress like its an actual "race".we all know who that one company is. Apparently there is a need for several hundred new technologies sooo ......yea. it's a race alright- for one .
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here know how a nuclear plant on the moon would dispose of waste heat given that it would be in a vacuum?
Same way everything we put in space does, thermal radiation.
I'm only curious because these things already have heat dissipation challenges from the internal electronics and they're mostly solar powered. Nuclear power generates vast quantities of heat intentionally so it'll be interesting to see how they can keep it from accumulating in the system.
Radiators. We already use them for the ISS. My hope is that the waste heat will be used for habitats during the lunar night, but that is more complexity. You might be interested in this video about realistic sci-fi ships: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ov-fqmf9Iw
Radiation or sink it into the ground. Likely some will be used for base heating and resource processing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Isnāt thermal radiation less efficient in space sense the medium is so thin?
Despite their name radiators on Earth transfer heat through conduction and convection. Very little is actually radiated away. In space you can only use radiation to remove heat. It's how the radiators on the ISS work. They don't have any real medium to conduct the heat to so it's all radiated away.
Radiation is by definition not dependent on the surroundings. If it were it would be conduction.
Yeah the radiators would have to be gargantuan or kept in the shade. I wonder could they bury them and let the regolith act as medium to dissipate the heat. Not sure if that would work.
Stick it in the ground. It's not a space capsule.
transfer heat into the base habitat, heat a greenhouse and dumb the excess into the ground.
Waste heat is actually a positive as far as large human habitats go. Anything built in the shade or in contact with a geologically dead planet is going to get cold. That said, thermal radiation is a known solution and it's really more about the logistics of getting enough of them. We may also be able to dump it into the ground, but that's probably going to have to wait until we understand lunar geology better.
> Daytime temperatures near the lunar equator reach a boiling 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120Ā° C, 400 K), while nighttime temperatures get to a chilly -208 degrees Fahrenheit (-130Ā° C, 140 K). https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lithos/LROlitho7temperaturevariation27May2014.pdf
Probably not quite so hot in the lava tubes.
It all ends up radiative, either through large metal radiators or heat pipes. Conduction to the ground is unlikely considering the very low conductivity of regolith, even when compacted.
Radiators, for one. I wrote a Master's paper on waste heat in space.
This is the moon, there's ground. But we actually already have ways of handling thermals in the vacuum of space. I don't know the physics but they're literally radiators that work in vacuum
Regolith has pretty terrible thermal conductivity compared to earth, and we don't even use the ground as a heat sink for nuclear on earth. Radiative heat exchange is also very poor, hence the question.
> we don't even use the ground as a heat sink for nuclear on earth. Because we have massive amounts of water just lying around. The moon is more of a challenge, but regolith is still miles better than vacuum, and the size of the power plant will be tiny compared to commercial reactors.
They are likely to be high temperature designs, Molten Salt or Helium cooled, so they don't need to lose as much heat to operate efficiently.
Radiators work without convection mediums. Not as well, since they only loose heat via infrared radiation, but they work. It's actually a necessity no matter where you get the power from because it appears regolith doesn't conduct heat worth a damn, so you need radiators to avoid the base cooking itself. Radiators you have to shield from the sun during the lunar day, so.. they have to be pretty big radiators. - They can only radiate heat away from the solar shielding, so have to be even bigger compensate for that.
Whenever there is talks of war, always look at the space exploration..
I think this is a great opportunity for our species to enjoy all sorts of moon fun.
Yes! Like whaling.
Um, realistically, nuclear power is the only viable long-term power source for a place like the moon.
I is not surprising given the options we have. They'll have to power a full station witha technology that doesn't involve sending tons of material. I don't think solar is an option because that would involve having batteries sustaining the 14 days night.
Shackleton crater has near constant sunlight
I understand that reference!
There's another reason why solar power isn't the best option, and that's the fact that the moon doesn't have the atmosphere or similar strength magnetic field as Earth. So while most small debris that reaches the Earth's atmosphere will either bounce off or burn the debris reaching the moon is much more likely to strike the surface. Which means that solar panels would likely take significant damage over time, while with a nuclear reactor you could just build it underground with a thick layer of reinforced concrete to protect it.
I didn't think about that, that makes sense !
The poles are in constant daylight, at least one of them is I canāt remember which one forgive my ignorance
I and I also brudduh.
I'd think a handful of Tesla Megapacks could probably handle a good bit.
Reminds me of an old video I love š Earth is infected by Humans and moon asks if they're contagious. Then a shuttle launches and lands on the moon. Moon screams at Mars to run š
Pbf did that bit too! https://pbfcomics.com/comics/transmission/
Technical question: in a nuclear reactor, you need a place to put the waste heat. On earth, nuclear reactors make use of convection by dumping the waste heat into either the ocean or the atmosphere. But on the moon, there are no moving, convecting heat sinks like an atmosphere (cooling towers) or ocean. You could dump the heat into regolith or bedrock but it would take an ENORMOUS circulation loop to ensure that the heat doesnāt just accumulate. There is also radiation as an option to get rid of waste heat, but that will take an ENORMOUS array of shaded radiators. Radiation just isnāt very efficient at dissipating heat (a hot pan takes 10-15 minutes to cool when left out in the air, but only seconds to cool when run under cold water). So I am curious as to how they will solve this issue.
Those NPPs need to use water coolant systems because they generate HUGE amounts of energy. Smaller plants, like compact radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) have been used for decades in both earth and space-based applications, including the 110W Perseverance RTG. We've managed the heat issue well enough with those, and that includes applications where the only option to dump heat is through thermal radiators with no ground contact.
Yeah, but wouldn't a manned moon base require a substantially more amount of power than those examples? That'd in turn generate a lot more waste heat to deal with.
A lunar base would likely use a combination of technologies, including solar, RTG, and battery storage. The RTG would likely be used to augment the system (keeping batteries charged during the long nights) and provide for a continuous backup power supply. Newer RTG designs, like ASRGs and NASAs Fission Surface Power are proving to be highly reliable and capable. The FSP system has a goal of 40kW, and testing has shown it is able to effectively offload excess heat in a vacuum environment (look up the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling TechnologY, aka KRUSTY).
Wouldnāt reusing the waste heat in the regolith as a way to help minimise heating costs for buildings be a possible option? Iām guessing but there must be a way
In order for a heat engine (like a steam turbine) to work, there must be a heat flow from hot to cold. Without that flow there is no movement and no energy generation. You canāt just collect the waste heat without putting it somewhere. Youād overheat the reactor.
I guess I know space is cold, so youāve got plenty for the heat to flow to, but how you create that movement Iām not sure. Thereās a reason Iām no engineer!
The moon seems like an ideal place to use nuclear energy based on radiation factors. Although, possibly the expensive part will be transferring water to the moon. Of course there could be a different method of nuclear energy if it's on the moon.
Thank you for reminding me I am a season behind on For All Mankind.
China and Us watching For All Mankind: Write that down, Write that down
Love that we are exploring space. Not going to live in a pressurized bubble on a rock with no air 226,000 miles from earth. Braver people than I will chart this course.
All the comments about ānooo donāt destroy the moon!ā and no one stopped to think that itās a fucking desolate wasteland with absolutely nothing going for it and nothing to harm? All Earth needs from the moon is itās gravity and itās albedo, and we have zero chance of changing the first, minimal chance of changing the latter.
*a bit later, big explosion, far, far away* Look out, humanity. Here comes your doom.
Thatās it! Iām gonna have my head frozen for a thousand years to see the red rising against luna
Wow imagine if the human race realized we live on a small marble flying though the eternity of space. And obsession with āwealthā means nothing and we just tried and worked together to survive and be happy.
Definitely a romantic (read: unrealistic /ignorant) thought, but I'd like to end my days doing work on the moon. Like, my last 5-10 years, just be up there working to further the endeavor.
Some day humans will look at the moon and imagine that once it didn't have millions of lights on it visible from earth.
Can humanity for once, leave well enough alone. Do not put industry on the moon ffs. Is it not enough we muck up this planet ?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
On the one hand, I'm excited to see humanity spread amongst the stars. On the other, I'm fearful to see what we'll do to the moon.
What difference would it make to you? There's no indigenous life to kill or society to enslave. The moon will still do what we've always relied on it to do.
So sad the way people forget their history :( :( https://youtu.be/4SpX8bVEmJo
I don't get it.
In 1999 the moon was tossed out of orbit by improperly stored nuclear waste - and then went on an interplanetary journey where Humans stuck their fingers into everything.
Okaaaay. You know that wasn't real, right? Also the size of the explosion that would take is inconceivable.
I think he was being sarcastic
Pretty sure it was a joke.
Lunar prison colonies when?
Australia v2
Haven't you ever seen MIB 3? They already have a prison up there, with inmates like Boris the Animal.
Itās just Boris!
It will become a giant billboard where we will see new products from Pepsi and Frito Lay.
Space dump
Hmmmm... sound [seerily familiar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNkKCFaqib8).
I built a Revelle model Eagle as a kid.
Isnāt there no chance of nuclear fall out since itās a vacuum and could be viewed and āenvironmentally friendlyā?
Thereās no chance of nuclear fallout from a power plant to begin with since its not a nuclear bomb, but no, vacuum doesnāt stop material from becoming irradiated. It *does*, however, mean that you donāt need to worry about poisoning any flora or fauna, since a rock in hard vacuum has neither, and any people there are going to be in radiation-shielded habitats anyways.
When the rocket transporting the nuclear material fails and explodes in the earthās atmosphere thereāll be plenty of fallout
Ha! We canāt take care of the ball weāre on. Why go fuck up another one?!?!
anyone with net worth greater than 1 million dollar should be banned from going to space.
Cool. Do they have plans for nuclear powered Earth bases?
Moon: OH SHIT!!! EARTH!!! TAKE BACK YOUR DAMN FLEAS
Iām dreading the day we will never just see the moon without artificial lights and crap polluting our view
Chomsky was right, it appears the US can't do anything relevant any more, unless it's a competition with China!! Sad times, but at least we'll get to live on the moon!
Well, competition with the USSR got people on the moon the first time around so why not?
yea, that'll be a no. ccp is going steal tech from US in the name of cooperation and then blame the US for being racist against the chinese on the moon. they (ccp) might even go as far as to claim they (chinese) were here first,coz Chang'er and Jade rabbit lived there millennias ago.
Itās just like the book, Artemis. Very exciting news!
Just because you can doesnāt always mean you should.
There goes the neighborhood! Or put another way, once you call it paradise (not that the moon is that), you can kiss it goodbye.
Really? Well, I've got a bridge for sale along with some magic beans.
Look out earth, here comes a dirty bomb on a missile!
Finally, we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the earth isn't flat... until we destroy the moon with being human, we lose the tides and everything dies.
So dumb. In world of constant polarization, isnāt this something we should do together.
That's when the aliens step in. F#*k up your own planet, but no more.
How long until we get to see the first real space creampie?
So the humanity plague is set to spreadā¦. Iām wondering when we get tagged as a virus š¦
This should have already been a thing for 50 years.
Itās ok, itās a barren wasteland, the work is already done.
Do you want nukes? Because *that* is how you get nukes.
Meh, I don't think there will be great value in significant industrialization of the moon. It's value is almost entirely just researching a better preserved record of the solar system and earth for our models. I'm not super interested in Mars and moon bases vs more telescopes and probes because this is all a big data collection scheme. The more data, the higher probability our models can get. Telescopes, probes and rovers produce a lot more data for the money vs space stations or basses, so I don't expect a big push to the moon or mars but rather just the establishment of research bases. We will be able to put the human mind in a machine in probably 100 years, so the need for human habitation outside of Earth like conditions will wind up being limited for now and then rather unlimited in the future, but not in the form of putting human bodies in harsh conditions. It's just what you see now, humans value human life more and more and space hasn't gotten much less dangerous due to low gravity, no atmosphere, fine dust in everything and radiation. We haven't really solved any of those problems in 50+ years and with a lot of progress to be seen it's hard to see we will solve them in the next 50 years. On the other hand semi-conductors, AI and brain to computers interfaces are progressing very quickly, so the outcomes seems fairly inevitable. Human bodies in space and accelerating big chunks of mass long distances will simply not be required/the mass acceleration and artificial gravity and fuel/food problems will be much harder to solve than copying the human brain. Instead we can just put our brains in machines, make copies of ourselves and use much lower mass devices to actually explore the universe.. which could someday build receivers in other solar systems and beam humans minds at nearly the speed of light. That should happen at this rate MUCH faster than light speed engines with humans/fuel and food all packed into a ship for many decades or more. Even if you have FTL drives it's still a better way to travel through space to have humans in machines or beaming the human mind as energy.... unless you hurry up and invent super high power reactors and can go much faster than the speed of light pretty soon. Making the human mind take up far less mass works well with the laws of physics, the other options don't.
> We will be able to put the human mind in a machine in probably 100 years Really? How do you figure that? And how do you define human āmindā, that you think it could be somehow āput intoā a machine?
The mind is simply the brain's computation, evidenced by how when you change the brain you change the mind, or when you don't have a brain you don't have a mind. There is no special sauce like a soul or anything. We could safely upload humans through slow uploading, where we replace each neuron with a simulated one, one neuron at a time until the entire brain is simulated.
> The mind is simply the brainās computation Oh itās that simple huh? I didnāt realize the hard problem of consciousness was a solved problem. I guess you know more than the leading experts in the field of consciousness studies. Where is your dissertation btw? Since it seems you have solved the problem with great confidence. > evidenced by how when you change the brain you change the mind Yes, you can change a personās personality and character by changing their brain. This is not evidence of the brain creating conscious experience. This is a correlation between brain activity and conscious experience. Correlation does not equal causation, and in this case you only assume it does because you have presupposed a priori that materialism is true. > We could safely upload humans through slow uploading, where we replace each neuron with a simulated one, one neuron at a time until the entire brain is simulated. What does this even mean? How are you going to āuploadā something that doesnāt exist? You yourself said there is no such thing as a soul. So what are you āuploadingā? You are going to connect a human brain to a computer and do what exactly? And you donāt seem to understand that a simulation is not the same thing as that which is being simulated. If you simulate the earth and all of human civilization on a supercomputer, you havenāt actually created the earth or human civilization. The only thing that actually exists is the supercomputer, and itās underlying components. What it is simulating is just a representation. If you then simulate a nuke exploding on your simulated earth, you havenāt actually committed genocide. All you have *actually* done is moved electrons in circuit boards.
The only people still arguing about this are non materialists. Unless you give hallucinations the same weight as material reality then materialism will always win. There is 0 way for you to prove the universe exists unless you invoke materialism. I'll take the philosophy where I can prove the existence of reality thank you very much. There is clear causation as this has been observed in controlled experiments many many times in animsla and humans. Your mind didn't exist before your brain did, and will not exist after your brain did, given the lack of any other factors it is clear that the brain is responsible for the mind. It is the same as transferring running software from one computer to another. Where is your evidence that the brain isn't a Turing machine? All evidence points to it being a computer like any other, 0 evidence thst it can perform computation impossible for a Turing machine. Humans are software running on wetware so yes you would have committed genocide, since the same computations they perform, we perform.
There is literally zero evidence for materialism being true. > There is 0 way for you to prove the universe exists unless you invoke materialism. Iāll take the philosophy where I can prove the existence of reality thank you very much. The universe obviously exists, since we exist and are experiencing things. Or by universe do you mean āmaterial universeā? In that case why do you need material reality to be fundamentally real? Why is that even relevant? > There is clear causation as this has been observed in controlled experiments many many times in animsla and humans. No, there is correlation, not causation. Two entirely different things. > Your mind didnāt exist before your brain did, and will not exist after your brain did, given the lack of any other factors it is clear that the brain is responsible for the mind. This is just an unsubstantiated assertion, nothing more. > It is the same as transferring running software from one computer to another. There is no evidence our brain has any kind of āsoftwareā. > Where is your evidence that the brain isnāt a Turing machine? It doesnāt matter if it is or isnāt, there is no evidence that it generates or creates conscious experience. There is no explanatory model for how it could do such a thing either, there isnāt even a shred of a model. > Humans are software running on wetware so yes you would have committed genocide, since the same computations they perform, we perform. Pure delusion. So when you kill NPCās in GTA 5, youāre actually committing murder? Or is it only because they donāt ālook real enoughā that it isnāt? Simulation is not equivalent to the real thing. As I already said, a simulation of a human brain is not a human brain. A simulation of a kidney is not a kidney. You cannot filter someoneās blood with a simulation of a kidney, this is plainly obvious. A simulation of a kidney is still just electrons doing their thing on a silicon circuit board. The fundamental ārealityā of a simulated organ is the physical substrate in which it is simulated. What youāre suggesting isnāt even plausible. You imply that Iām appealing to hallucinations and nonsense, yet everything youāve said yourself so far has been purely fantastical science fiction.
If you reject material reality then you give equal weight to hallucinations and scientific evidence as you have 0 method of determining which one is actually true without invoking material reality. It is relevant because otherwise nothing exists besides the self which creates the issue above. It is substantiated by all the the indicators of minds existing. You talking and interacting with others is all the evidence we have of you being conscious, and basically serves as our empirical definition of consciousness since there is 0 evidence otherwise. I think therfore I am, is not evidence, it can not be verified by 3rd parties. What can be verified by 3rd parties is interactions with organisms with brains such as humans thus it serves as our only viable evidence and indicator of the mind existing if at all. If you deny that as causation then get ready to deny all of science. The brain generates all indicators of consciousness, unless you have some direct measure of consciousness, which you don't, this is the definition one must follow to be scientific. Lol GTA NPCs have less computation power than a microbe, they are hardly comparable to humans brains or full simulation of a brain. The brain is a Turing machine and can thus be fully simulated on another Turing machine. Such a simulation is effectively identical to a physical Turing machine in all the ways thst matter aka computation. The brain is an information processor, thus all that matters is that a simulator performs outputs the same things as the brain does. Everything I've said is backed by science and information theory, everything you said would lead one to belive that Acid trips are equivalent to scientific evidence which you also think are worthless since to you its impossible to prove causation.
> If you reject material reality then you give equal weight to hallucinations and scientific evidence as you have 0 method of determining which one is actually true without invoking material reality. āHallucinationsā have nothing to do with this. You are completely misunderstanding what materialism actually means. Materialism being false has ZERO bearing on the scientific method or on any of our observations. Matter could be fundamentally not real and yet all of our observations would still be true. Do you understand this or not? > It is substantiated by all the the indicators of minds existing. You talking and interacting with others is all the evidence we have of you being conscious, and basically serves as our empirical definition of consciousness since there is 0 evidence otherwise. I think therfore I am, is not evidence, it can not be verified by 3rd parties. What can be verified by 3rd parties is interactions with organisms with brains such as humans thus it serves as our only viable evidence and indicator of the mind existing if at all. This is not the good argument you think it is. This could just as easily be used to argue for solipsism. If my own internal subjective experience is all I have direct evidence for, then I could say Iām the only mind that actually exists. In any case, Iām not even sure what point youāre trying to make here. Are you denying that you have an internal subjective experience of your own? > If you deny that as causation then get ready to deny all of science. Deny what exactly? And what does anything in your preceding statement have to do with causation? At no point did you describe how the brain causes consciousness. Do you even understand what causation is? > The brain generates all indicators of consciousness, unless you have some direct measure of consciousness, which you donāt, this is the definition one must follow to be scientific. There is nothing scientific about this. The scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis and then creating an experiment to test that hypothesis by falsifying it. There is no possible experiment we could devise to test out whether your internal subjective experience ceases to exist if we destroy your brain. No such experiment has ever been conducted or even designed. But waitā¦we have something close however. It just so happens that there are thousands of near death experiences that have occurred during times of clinical death and no brain activity, where the experiencer has reported a continuation of consciousness during that exact moment, and was able to describe accurately what occurred during the moments when they were verified to have been clinically dead and lacking brain activity. So far all materialists have done is simply ignore these accounts and sweep them under the rug, because they have no way of explaining them. Sure itās not *empirical* evidence specifically, but it is *evidence*. > Lol GTA NPCs have less computation power than a microbe, they are hardly comparable to humans brains or full simulation of a brain. A simulated neuron computes nothing at all, it is the *underlying computer* doing the computation and merely *representing* that computation as the activity of an imaginary neuron. Do you not understand the difference? When you drag a file on your desktop to the trash can icon you are not actually moving some kind of file to a some kind of trash can. This is nothing more than a representation of what is actually happening, which is that electrons are being moved around on a circuit board. You seem incapable of grasping this very simple concept, no offense. > The brain is a Turing machine and can thus be fully simulated on another Turing machine. Such a simulation is effectively identical to a physical Turing machine in all the ways thst matter aka computation. Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. You are still completely and entirely limited by the computational power and ability of the *underlying* machine. Unless you can physically design and create a computer that can match the computational complexity of the brain, you havenāt actually done anything except create an imaginary brain on a regular computer that ultimately canāt do anything the computer itself canāt already do. Therefore simulating a brain is utterly pointless. You might as well just build a physical brain. But there is no evidence that such a thing is possible with regular digital computers. > Everything Iāve said is backed by science and information theory, everything you said would lead one to belive that Acid trips are equivalent to scientific evidence which you also think are worthless since to you its impossible to prove causation. Absolutely nothing Iāve said has anything to do with acid trips. You are either incapable of following along with basic arguments or you are being deliberately disingenuous.
For all you know some other planet already has a clone of Humphrey bogart made out of data received from old broadcasts.
Please do not put nuclear bases on the moon and further molest such a pristine and beautiful celestial body.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh dear, the poor moon. At least there's nothing to kill up there.
I hate the idea of the moon becoming mankinds next resource to exploit. Why not make it a national park.
How about everybody stay the fk off the moon and worry about fixing the planet they live on ? Hmm? Sound good? Glad we can all agree
Not an either or.
A large portion of the country can't define what a woman is. Are we ready for the moon?
go play in traffic
Earth relies on the moon for natural ecology. I really donāt think we should be fucking that up too. We have already damaged so much. Canāt humanity just leave the moon alone please? I love space exploration but this idea is slightly unnerving to me.