Comment on Terraforming of Mars by Valinakova
As for the subject of the image & accompanying text, unfortunately the incredibly high cost of space travel isn't the only hurdle.
We think ourselves wise, but the gaps in our knowledge of how the universe actually works are so wide they dwarf Valles Marineris. IMHO, Large Scale Planetary Alterations will forever remain grand dreams.
Even if we could change the ratios of it's chemical compositions, the red planet will never be a "home" for us - it just ain't got what it takes.
I understand the sentiments though. TPTB go to great lengths to promote the grand "We got this & don't worry, we'll get it right next time" mentality of species survival. Hollywood directs their might to instilling such hopes into the general population.
The Martian, for example, was a visually impressive movie, but it takes more than sticking seeds in some crap spread around inside a dome to grow plants.
What's ignored in all films of that type is the proper energetic conditions of the entire planet are required for a viable garden.
Plants like certain music and Mars just doesn't sing in our song, it boogies to it's own tune.
I don't know if Mars will ever be as comfortable as Earth, I personally doubt it will, but we will be merging with technology in the next few decades. Putting the brain in a robotic body and maintaining the brain indefinitely just as one example. Humai, a new start up aims to do just that.
highlights my points quite well. I've read a number of the results of experiments
conducted on the ISS including seed germination, growth of various plants, waterbears &
structured cell materials.
We're lead to think that the keys to life and the colonization of other worlds are
within our collective grasp, but that link showed our knowledge base is sorely lacking
& we still have much to learn. Those experiments revealed that what's considered the
most important force in space travel & cosmology, doesn't hold the same place in
biology; Living cellular structures are NOT result of gravity. "The new study revealed
that features of plant growth we thought were a result of gravity acting on plant cells
do not actually require gravity". While it was great surprising to them, it wasn't to
me; in fact, it's exactly what I expected. Life, biology (and cosmology) are electric.
The revised conclusion that now prevails is all ya need are the seeds, the right
chemistry (soil & air), sufficient temp & light - poof! - things will grow.
Sadly, that's incorrect.
Yes, the experiments eliminated g effect, but the ISS is still within Earth's unique
electromagnetic sphere of influence.
Tests done decades ago on plants & lab animals using Faraday cages to isolate them from
Earth's EM field conclusively established a vital link between things living here
and earth's specific signal. All other variables (soil, nutrients, water, light level
etc.,) were identical and yet the living things in the shielded groups experienced
increasingly negative reactions. The long term results consistently demonstrated that
not only did seeds fail to germinate, but the young &/or mature plants and lab animals
weakened to fatal levels. The mechanisms onboard & atmospheric production methods do
provide some bolstering, but the reduced connection experienced by the ISS crews are
why no matter how much exercise is done by the astronauts onboard, they continue to
suffer from unusual health issues.
I hear the objection already: Yes, we can establish a similar field around the living
quarters and grow ops areas. These would need to be added to the list of Vital
Functions. Creating & maintaining those artificial sources however, (either a single
large or multiple smaller fields) would likely be a significant drain on what would be
precious limited power resources.
Of course, the other shoe drops too - You can't just insert "isolated" fields. Those
new "earth-friendly zones" would be at odds with a planet sized power source; the
backlash would likely be significant. I surmise it would lead to some unique and
potentially catastrophic discharge &/or weather conditions around the base.
Again this is just IMHO, but I feel it to be criminally negligent to even consider
sending anyone to Mars before conclusive tests are done to establish that it is even
possible for us to create conditions for Earthly organisms to exist for any extended
duration.
The transhumanist angle strains my credulity even more than the push to colonization.
Eternal brains in robot bodies may sound wonderful to some, but there are so many
issues there I hardly even know where to start. The manipulation of public opinion
towards private goals is one of the most commonly used tool for those in positions of
power. A vast number of stories both fictional & historic testify great advances are
rarely distributed for truly altruistic purposes. The top echelons of society are
motivated by power first & foremost. The "for the good of the general population" angle
is more often than not simply added for sales pitch value. The proposals for the
potential indefinite extension of a cellular brain are via the use of nanotech. Any
tech capable of that would also be able to reroute synaptic connection as directed, so
"changing your mind" suddenly has a whole new meaning.
I truly mean no offense, but the thought that everyone will be become immortal techno-
demigods without the TPTB having the ability to override any individual's free will is
a level of naivety I'm just not able to entertain. As hacking & data manipulations
occur for many various reasons & there's no way to ensure the integrity in systems we
have at present, I find no basis to assume it would NOT happen when the source is the
very minds (and hearts) of humanity. Transhumanism offers incredible opportunities, but
it's at the risk of direct dire influence; it represents a method of absolute power over the
population.
It's such a well known quiche that I'm assume you're aware of the warning about
Absolute Power and corruption.
And a detailed one. I appreciate it. My response won't be terribly lengthy, but here it is: Anyways, from what I've read, A Faraday cage is just a conductor. Conductors respond to electric fields. The idea is that when there's an electric field that enters the Faraday cage, it will push electrons around. They'll keep getting pushed around as long as there's an electric field, so eventually they get pushed around enough to cancel the electric field.
Faraday cages don't really cancel out EM fields. What faraday cage do you speak of? And do you have a link to a study? So I can take a closer look as to what type of cage it is.
I brought up the topic of cyborgs in the form of brain in a robotic body because this could make living on Mars much safer. If your vertical farm, something horribly goes wrong on Mars, you would starve much faster than if you were a brain in a robotic body requiring only 1/50th of the amount of food a completely biological body would need, and the many other benefits.
You touched on public opinion, and The manipulation of public opinion towards private goals
You are correct that most goals are not purely altruistic, but they are complex. But even with that in mind, these achievements still improved our lives and inspired many to take up science. The technologies which would lead to the world wide web is just one of those examples. I doubt everyone who worked it were all altruists, some after a stronger more powerful military, some after profit perhaps, and some want to connect the world and improve science and lives. As a whole, technology is a double edged sword, but has overall, improved the standards of living.
I feel the same way about the technology which will lead to consumer use of cyborg bodies. We do have groups like 2045 initiative which legitimately want to save lives. Start ups like Humai which could eventually turn a profit when the technologies become mature, and of course, i'd imagine various parts of my government are interested. In the long run this technology would be a major benefit to many individuals. Even if we do factor out the altruism aspects of it, cyborg bodies could be a very profitable venture. And if this does end up becoming affordable to mass produce (and mass production does tend to make things much cheaper), it would be more profitable to sell them at a lower cost, comparable to a vehicle than it would be to sell them for prices out of reach of the 99%.
When it comes to nanobots in the brain, there will be some grand challenges ahead to make this a practical reality, it maybe a good two decades away from now. They will play an Important role in fighting diseases of all kinds. Diseases which kill millions. But you are right, there are risks, but there will also be safe guards. An example of a necessity of a safe guard would be - Example: If we do intend to connect our neural nanobots to the world wide web (Some will do this, others will not), safe guards such as firewalls to prevent intrusion from spies and other malicious activities will be quite important. But I also don't think any nanobot that would be able to capable of indefinite life extension of the brain would automatically be able to reroute synapses. That I believe would depend Very Much on how the bot is designed. But I think there is a large potential safeguard for that: do not give them the ability to connect them to the web. It maybe wise to not have all your nanobots be connected to the web. And the once which would have access should have their functions physically limited. This too could be considered another potential safeguard. Even for those who choose not to connect to the web, the nanobots will still have to be safe and regulated and reliable, like how medical treatments of today have to be safe. Our brains are a type of computer, but a biological and conscious one at that. Our brains do not use 1s and 0s like our digital computers, but they are machines that are capable of logic and calculations. Our brains are decently reliable, not perfect, but reliable to some extent. If technology were to continuously advance, I think there will be a point that these such nanobots will be at least as or even more reliable than our brain's functions. Reliability I believe will play a role in safety.
But I will point this out: over regulation can be very harmful too. There are many medical conditions conditions which could seriously benefit from nanobots, if they are over regulated by the FDA or an org like it, many many could suffer and die when it could had been prevented. Terminally ill individuals often being prevented from trying risky or unapproved medical procedures are one such example, So when it comes down to safeguards, a balance is important.
On the whole, I think there is quite a lot to be excited about, and it's also important to think about safeguards and how we would be able to apply them in a reasonable manner. That I believe is going to be important in getting the best that technology could offer. Also if you do have that study, please link
Have a nice day.Oh do I wish that I could provide a link right now. I'd found much of the info by accident when searching for something else. Some of the stuff I had was from a couple of books I'd stumbled across years ago. Even if I still had access to the title & publisher info, they were rather obscure then and no doubt they're no longer in print. Unfortunately, there's a large amount of stuff I had I can no longer access. ((I lost a lot of links/docs/images the last time this laptop had to go in for servicing. I'd copied a number of files before I brought it in, but I hadn't double checked after. Of course, when I got it back & tried to reload stuff, I find that one of the problems included data corruption during most of the backups. I even lost some images that are posted on here.
))You're correct, "canceling out" isn't the correct term for the process in action - the F cages act as antenna collectors that redirect to ground.
I do remember images from one of the later tests that were done, the whole thing was done underground with grow lamps. The "cages" were multiple layers of metal mesh on all sides with tuned coils to intercept all other EM signals, including ELFs like the Schumann resonance.
It's not that I don't understand the attraction of Transhumanism, I do. LOL! I'm very aware of the frailty of the human condition. Yes, TH has a lengthy list of selling points that makes it highly desireable to many. My issue is the downside is hardly (if ever) promoted with the same enthusiasm, honesty or aplomb by those promoting the "advances". I agree wholeheartedly that technology is a double edged sword. Unfortunately we most often recieve it blindfolded, scabbardless and blade first. Altruism is a wonderful virtue, but again all too often it's reduced to hitchhiking and unless there's an "ass, gas or grass" angle to exploit, Profiteering has a "no-stopping" policy when it's allowed to drive the bus of motives.
Greed & gluttony go hand-in-hand, the twins of insatiable hunger & incessant demands for wealth, resources & power. Coupled with a sharp mind, it constantly hones strategic skill and learning how to maximize it's advantages. The PTB know how to keep their darker motives well hidden, while similtaneously spinning their cause as a boon to all. They also know the tricks to misguide "true believers" and love employing them as a smoke screen of innocence.
They always work on their goals mutiple steps in advance - playing Go, while convincing others the game is nothing more than tic-tac-toe.
Pricing & availability are the most common pry bars used for centuries to widen the gap of Have & Have-not.
As it stands now, the only security we have is the sanctity of our own minds... and even that is questionable if one considers the near telepathic ability of some "body language readers" and will twisting drugs like scopolamine. When you add micro & nano tech into the mix, "security" is a nothing more than a dream. Any nano that is capable of repair is also capable of switching off certain connections and making new ones. Non connected "human active" systems can be breached as easily as a nano loaded mosquito bot or with a cloud of "free floaters" that only need to be inhaled or simple skin contact.
If you listen to tech prediction gurus like Ray Kurzweil, you can begin to get the scope of the Great Plan. He openly admits that nano tech is more advanced than most folks dream and "they" want a nanocom marker in every possible molecule by no later than 2050. He's also bragged that it's to be the key to future space exploration. Simply put, they want to infect every place a probe lands; self-replicating nanos with advanced batch assembly construction abilities are the planned future. In fact in Ray's future we (as biologic entities) aren't even needed at all; AI, nano-built creations & "neural pattern downloads" are the plan to ensure "humanity" survives.
Yes, heavy regulation can be harmful too. There have been a number of inventions that worked well for a number of applications, but were lost to the "tossing the baby with the bathwater" mentality. That can be blamed on the unscrupulous of both sides - those making claims of unverifiable benefits for sale-by-any-means profit and those in charge of testing funded by companies connected to competing technology. The result was the same though - the products ended up being banned or just religated to "toys & entertainment". Electrical plasma devices are a great example. The old Violet Ray Generators are extremely effective against infections and can significantly reduce instances of inflammation, but they were delibrately targeted by those with investments in the Pharma industry who pushed through having them completely banned for use as medical devices.
Nano offers advantages, but all micro & macro robotech have weaknesses that are ignored. Extreme sudden variences in EM conditions can easily play havok with them, in some cases much more than they do with living tissue. EMPs will scramble or interrupt nano processes, but leave biologic systems more or less untouched. I'm a sci-fi & comicbook fan from way back, so of course I agree robot parts sound cool. However, I'm also familiar with the results of extreme surgical measures (my father had to have a lower leg amputation). Bionics are neat, but it's still better for the patient that the maximum efforts be concentrated on the person being able to regenerate their original tissues
I've come across faulty studies in the past. Such as "marijuana destroys braincells" which was debunked. That's why I wanted to take a look.
As for hyper-advanced nano-bots, yeah, there are quite a lot of risks and benefits involved. It seems to me both ends of the "doubled edged sword" would be getting longer. Now I do know about Ray's predictions and he did suggest the use of sending nanobots far-off worlds to build places. I however have not heard about Ray wanting a nanocome in every molecule, give me a link? Anyways, it appears that while nanobots can certainly re-connect neurons for both useful as well as negative reasons, it's certainly possible that good nanobots (perhaps a bionic immune system) can prevent undesired and unauthorized changes while having the extra advantage of overpowering biological pathogens.
EMP, I've read about this, the nanobots ultimate weakness. I've read about the possibility of using it as a type of safeguard, should nanobots behave undesirably. EMP from what I am aware of does not destroy viruses, but I could see this being useful against "bad" nanobots.
I do hear some people who think "we" should simply refrain from aiding it's development of of nano-tech. This would actually make the technology more risky as it would be driven underground, perhaps giving a major advantage to dangerous groups, and we certainly do not want them to have the upper edge while simultaneously delaying it's benefits. I believe that the public has a moral obligations to bring these technologies to maturity first and in a timely manner, develop the safeguards needed to ensure that the downsides are kept to a minimum. This is the only possible way forward in both solving the problems of today and reducing the possible downsides of this new tech.
IDK of you heard of Center for Responsible Nanotechnologies crnano.org/faq.htm
But they did bring up an interesting topic...
From Center for Responsible Nanotechnologies: If MM is so dangerous, why not just completely halt all research and development?
However, a naive approach to limiting R&D, such as relinquishment, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, it will almost certainly be impossible to prevent the development of MM somewhere in the world. China, Japan, and other Asian nations have thriving nanotechnology programs, and the rapid advance of enabling technologies such as biotechnology, MEMS, and scanning-probe microscopy ensures that R&D efforts will be far easier in the near future than they are today. Second, MM will provide benefits that are simply too good to pass up, including environmental repair; clean, cheap, and efficient manufacturing; medical breakthroughs; immensely powerful computers; and easier access to space.
It appears inevitable that this will be developed at some point in the future by some group. To minimize risks, research 'n' understanding in this field really should be increased.
CRN: We are boosters for safe use of nanotechnology. CRN promotes research into molecular manufacturing not in spite of the risks, but because of the risks. Only through exploration, understanding, and education can we hope to make good decisions about developing and administering this transformative technology. Moreover, an attempted global shutdown of development would not assure anyone’s safety or security. Rather, it would drive research underground and could result in a dangerous and unstable black market in arms.
Another delay attributable to malfunctions of the laptop.
Oh I completely agree that there have been many poorly conducted studies. The one consistency seems to be that the flawed conclusions get promoted as "cutting edge scientific research". That Regan era "Pot kills brains cells" study was as ridiculous as the old "Reefer Madness" film. LOL! Lets burn a pound of marijuana at time and pump ALL of it into the gas mask strapped to the face of 1 poor immobilized monkey. Gee, it died - I wonder why? WOW! The necropsy shows extreme damage to the brain! Well, we need repeatable results though, so bring in the next monkey!
200 dead monkeys later, they conclude weed is just plain EVIL!
*FACEPALM*
Similarly, the debacles that were perpetrated to "disprove" the Cold Fusion discovery of Pons and Fleischmann were so horrendous they should only have served as how NOT to conduct scientific replication experiments. IMHO, when the original discoverers of a brand new process specifically outline absolutely critical requirements for the experiment's success, it is nothing short of egotistical incompetence for the replicators to immediately ignore them and substitute their own ideas & design modifications!
Considering the crap I've had to deal with concerning my laptop, I'll include a mark agains the MS & it's marketing engine here. From experience, I've found the "upgrade" versions of it's OS software rarely works as well as a full complete install version. Yet again, there's also the matter of the hidden trade-offs. One of Win 10's most promoted selling points is the return of a start menu format that was preferred by the majority of the users. What they don't tell ya is you sacrifice control, which becomes obvious is in the system's updating. You no longer have any say in what gets updated or when it's going to DL them; the ONLY option you have control of is when the system reboots to apply them.
I'll add a whack at Bill himself for his financial backing and open promotion of the Common Component Core Curriculum for education. It should be titled Commoners Complete Confusion Curriculum. Even communist countries who developed an eerily similar teaching methodology found it to be so counterproductive it was abandoned.
As for Ray, I didn't mean it imply the "nano-in-every-molecule" was to be done at his direction; these are the goals of the "captians of industry". He has said however that he fully supports the ideas. That info was included in one of the media interviews done with him in the section about how the future Super AIs are going to be able to have a completely "inventoried and active planet wide nano-network". Yes, I'm sure there will be "good" nanos, but as our history has shown, even when we find something of advantage to us, it's only temporary at best. As our antibiotics resulted in tougher bugs, better security makes for craftier, more inventive baddies. To paraphrase Jurassic Park's Dr. Grant "there's always a workaround" and either nature itself or someone else will find it.
EMPs and other severe short duration EM anomalies are the biggest dangers to the workings of any electronic tech including Nanos. I'm sure you're aware how even slight wobbles in the powersupply will adversely affect the functions of any chip or CPU. This also holds true for any artificial intellects. As many stories & movies have warned, including the Will Smith "I, Robot" outline that adaptive AIs will be susceptible to their own delusions.
In fact, when progrmammed to care for their own needs, these artificials grasp the concept of "survival" almost too well. Some of the most recent work with AI robotics have found they do follow their own "oddities of random code". A couple of groups placed AI bots in a restricted area who's outer boundry shape was changed regularly. The bots primary directive was to continuously explore, map & track any changes. They were also to find & mark the location of power stations at which they could recharge as they needed. Secondary functions included certain "self preservation" survival sub-routines - basically to prevent the bot from travelling too far from last known stations. When they reduced the number of available stations within the area, the programmers were shocked at the way the bots adapted. After discovering the stations were often busy servicing other bots, they very quickly abandoned their primary missions altogether and would instead park themselves at the known power stations. Most confusing to the designers was this became a common event - even if the bot already had a full charge, they would "camp" on the rechargers delibrately rather than risk leaving and not being able to access them when the individual bot needed. It seems AIs aren't any more immune to greed than humans.
As you obviously realize by the 1st reason stated in the paragraph on relinquishment, the genie is pretty well already out of the bottle. In every age Big Business & private interests have availed themselves of ANY methods to advance their agenda - in most cases at the great expence of the general public. They do whatever they need to ensure their power structures and their dominance at all costs. Any advantage to folks like us is either marketing or incidental. Billions are spent in the pursuit frivolous branches of "research" while good people are starving & homeless. Many leaders (political & corporate) have admitted that they have no interest in the survival of the masses - they only need cooperation & obedience of their workforce. To think that they'll demonstrate benevolence when that need no longer exists is to deny history.
LOL! Even after what I realize is a rather dark diatribe, I wish you the best.