Earth II

Hash: SHA1

Selvaraj,

What I mean by poorly worded is your insistence that there wouldn't be
an "gadgets" in the second colony. I understood your meaning of limited
or no mechanical technology. However, what you do not seem to recognize
is that biological organisms (machines) you are referring to as "grass",
"trees", "goats", etc, are some of the most complex mechanisms on this
planet. Additionally, balancing the interdependencies between organisms
is very hard. Life on earth (the ecosystem) is not now and has never
been static. Even without interference from man, many many species of
plants and animals have evolved, lived, died and gone extinct. The more
complex any system or system of systems (ecology) is, the more subject
it is to chaotic instabilities. Theoretically, it is not impossible to
design a dynamically stable system, just very hard. Trying to predict
that the system will remain stable or only change within certain
limitations over a thousand year time span is beyond our capabilities at
this time. The more complex an organism is, the more adaptable it is
and the more likely it is to respond in hard-to-predict ways to any
change in its environment. Combining a variety of these complex
organisms into an even more complex ecosystem where they compete,
cooperate and prey on one another raises the difficulty even further.

Jonathan

sraj wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> I don't understand what you mean by my enquiry being 'poorly worded'.
>
> All that I was enquiring was, can we make the space hab large enough, and
> with all passive elements. Instead of solar cells for lighting, try to bring
> in sunlight directly. Next load the space hab with soil, water and create
> proper thermal conditions so that grass and tree can grow, goats can thrive;
> throw in a few predators so that the population of goats will be controlled
> ... etc ... etc..
>
> Remove humans from the scene. Design such a robust system that this space
> hab can thrive on its own for a thousand years. Having confidently made such
> a design, next we can now think of habitats for humans in the very same
> environment.
>
> Your take on biotechnology is interesting, but that was not my question.
>
> Regards
> Selvaraj
>
> 2010/1/7 Jonathan Lee
>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> Joe Strout wrote:
>>> sraj wrote:
>>>
>>>> I only wish we could put the idea into practice.
>>> Why can't we? I think we'll have gazillions of space habitats before we
>>> have the ability to ship 6.5 billion humans in a million spaceships
>>> between the stars.
>>>
>>>> Which is more high tech:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A space hab that is choke full of the latest computers, actuators,
>> solar
>>>> cells (with limited life of say 100 years).. and which packs up if the
>>>> computer goes out of order.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> 2. One that is designed the way our planet is designed. No gadgets at
>> all.
>>>> At the basic level the system is self-sustaining. Even if all the
>>>> technicians pack up and leave, the space-hab continues to function (more
>> or
>>>> less).
>>> The former is more high-tech. The latter is harder.
>>>
>> I would have to dispute the definition that the former is more
>> high-tech. In fact, I would say that the original poster's second
>> scenario is poorly worded. Instead of "no gadgets at all" I would argue
>> that the reality is "no gadgets that we know how to use as much more
>> than clubs". Our current technology is high tech compared to the early
>> industrial period. That period was high tech compared to older iron age
>> and its predecessor bronze age technology. However, comparing our
>> technology to the current biological ecosystem is not a fair comparison.
>> We have developed our iron/steel/silicon technology from scratch. The
>> biological systems we have access to are "found" technology that we are
>> reverse engineering. We are just beginning to turn biology into a
>> technology we can manipulate using any more than the very crudest
>> cross-breeding methodologies. The equivalent analogy with mechanical
>> technology would be if we were relocated to a planet (or other
>> environment) with a fully functioning molecular nanotechnology based
>> ecosystem (nanology?) without fully understanding how the underlying
>> mechanisms work and only the ability to take existing mechanisms and try
>> to jury rig them to meet our needs and desires. However, our
>> limitations in our ability to manipulate the existing complex organisms
>> (or mechanisms in my scenario) does not mean that the underlying biology
>> or nanotechnology is low tech.
>>
>> I would have to agree though that the second scenario is harder. In the
>> second scenario, you have to build (or evolve) the regulatory and
>> maintenance capabilities into the infrastructure. In the first
>> scenario, those capabilities exist indirectly through the abilities of
>> the inhabitants. Just as the still existent Model-T automobiles are
>> kept in perfect working condition through maintenance, there is no
>> inherent limitation to the lifespan of a type 1 colony.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>

- -=-=-
... "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich
out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to
anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of
any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian
Rogers
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAktH6uoACgkQ9lVwGqYpXfFBUQCfasS0HW34NOpS82xkUwHBrGsC
AhsAnitAIUJHLHwQHKiRrYbPWEU3mZU6
=W8HH