I'm sure I can quibble with some of their conclusions, but it is obviously an attempt to rationally and throroughly evaluate the options. Thanks for sharing this Raoul. I want to get a copy of this book to read in more detail. The authors sound reasonable enough to stimulate a good technical debate and to provoke some deep thinking.
In particular I disagree with evaluating the feasibility of potential technology such as L-5 colonies based on comparisons of predictions versus where we are. Nothing happens unless you try to do it and we didn't try. Now I believe we didn't try for the obvious reason it couldn't be cost justified, but that is technology dependent and we certainly have proven we can't predict revolutionary technology very well. Running out of oil is going to be a big motivator for developing new technology eventually as long as we look ahead and don't let our civilization get in an energy starvation mode.
What I do know is that exploration (scientific or physical) is a technological driver and the only way to find unknown resources. I'm not sure the writers really appreciate that in the little I read, but If they're astronomers that would be a puzzling stance.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to re: This book is a thought exercize
Looks Like A Good One To Me
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Surviving 1,000 centuries, can we do it ?
- I think so, or at least whatever we evolove into. (n/t)
- If idiots remain in charge as they are today, I doubt Humanity will survive for ONE more century. (n/t)
- Maybe it's best humanity not survive.
- re: Surviving 1,000 centuries, can we do it ?
- A relevant article in the latest New Scientist
- Re: Section 4.3. We're gonna need to monitor volcanos. (n/t)
- Psychologically probably not.
- This is like neaderthal predicting 21st century and that is less than 100K years
- SPACESHIP EARTH