|
|
Post by steev on Jul 12, 2016 2:19:57 GMT -5
I've been thinking about these, the whole notion of enormous ecosystems floating off to possibly-accepting planets and it occurs to me that there is no way these expeditions (which may involve centuries of travel) will not involve very restricted genetic stock, not just of plants. but of humans. How are we to ensure the least restrictive entrance to the genome we send on such missions? We have no idea what conditions will be encountered by those we send, so how can we maximize their success?
This is entirely the point of landrace crops, genetic diversity, and ecological diversity. Our planet, Earth, is a restricted ecosystem; currently our only home; we diminish its biodiversity to our peril, in ignorance of the value of what we extinguish.
I'm not talking about "The Martian", I'm talking about when we leave the solar system, as we will, if we don't stupid ourselves to death. We will need the greatest genetic diversity and species diversity we can muster, if we are to have any hope of success, because we have no clue what we will find.
I seriously doubt that patented hybrids will serve, nor will their owners allow them to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by billw on Jul 12, 2016 13:53:32 GMT -5
At the rate that our knowledge of biology is increasing, I suspect that we will be able to produce synthetic genomes from stored data by the time we are ready to try interstellar journeys (if that ever happens). And at the rate that data storage is increasing, we will probably be able to take along a library containing all of the genomes of all known varieties of every crop plant. Then you only need to pack a selection of species that can provide the proper sort of cells necessary to receive the synthetic nuclei.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueadzuki on Jul 12, 2016 14:33:23 GMT -5
I'd go one further. By then, we'll probably have sufficient understanding of gene and environment interactions that the very concept of "variety" and indeed "species" will be rendered irrelevant. The computer will simply assess the environment then stitch together an assembly of genes into the optimum karyotype to thrive perfectly in that environment; one that may not correspond to ANY species that has ever existed naturally on earth. We may even have reached the point of being able to do it for environments where the ideal organisms aren't even carbon based.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jul 12, 2016 15:51:41 GMT -5
Both excellent amplifications.
|
|
|
|
Post by reed on Jul 12, 2016 16:20:35 GMT -5
To paraphrase Mr. Spock as Kirk improvised a weapon to battled the Gorn, "if we have time", which I highly doubt we do.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jul 13, 2016 0:24:12 GMT -5
The notion that we're gonna be able to send spacecraft to interstellar space and whip up whatever is appropriate to our needs is enticing, indeed. I don't see why that doesn't mean we send robots to other star systems to fabricate organisms that suit those environments; what has that to do with us?
I admit to being more convinced that enormous rotating cylindrical habitats voyaging for (many) generations seem more feasible than even phasers that can be set to "humiliate" (the setting at which they disintegrate the enemies' underwear elastic). I'm rather more hopeful for space-going habitats such as that of the aliens in "Independence Day", although one hopes without the army-ant mentality.
I realize that this is idle "feculation" (speculative BS-ing), but I think it bears on what we do here on Earth, in the meantime; we have lost genetic resources, of which we are largely ignorant, in the last century; will we summon up what we don't even know was there exactly, through a synthesizer? Earth is our multi-generational space-going habitat; that it is tethered to Sol is a detail; the concept is still valid in general.
As I have mentioned, I think we can deal with this stuff, if we don't stupid ourselves to death; I am optimistic that the monkey-brain can see the sense of not killing itself, Inshallah!
I only regret that I will not live to see how this stuff works out, hoping that it doesn't (soon) come to a catastrophic conclusion, nor at all. World without end; works for me.
I think contemplation of what would be useful/necessary in such a self-contained habitat through generations and possible eventual colonization casts useful light on what we need to do right here.
It's nice to think that technology will make everything easier and it will be lovely if it turns out to be so; if not...?
We may have to clean up our own act/shit; damn! That's so unfair; shouldn't some imaginary friend do it for us?
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Aug 3, 2016 3:38:34 GMT -5
Perhaps our capacity for technology has surpassed our understanding of our own limitations, which in some respects may be a good thing but on balance probably isn't. Like the 4 year old who shot his sister dead we don't really understand the implications of what we do, and some of what we do may not be fixable.
I've just spent a week listening to interviews with scientists and doctors discussing Alzheimers. One comment seems pertinent to this. One of the doctors used to be an emergency room Dr and he said they had a state of the art computer in the area that they used to check for drug interactions. If there were more than three prescription drugs involved, he said the computer "would go tilt." There were so many possibilities it was simply impractical to try to consider them all. Yet many people are actually taking many more than three, because each is considered in isolation, in spite of it being understood that there may well be unwanted and unwelcome interactions. That seems to me to be a very good metaphor for how humanity by and large has approached living on the earth, especially since the industrial revolution. This is a big part of why I doubt technology will "save" us.
Another thought, whatever happened to that habitat that was supposed to be a sort of dry run for space travel? Did they all stay in it for the two years? Does it still stand? The frustrations of an iPad, don't know how to open a new page without losing this one, so can't look it up...
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Aug 3, 2016 9:37:45 GMT -5
Yes Biosphere 2. That article is a bit tougher on the project than the Wiki one I looked up this morning but either one showed up the issues likely to erupt in a closed group. I don't hold pumping in air against them, there'd be little point in having them all die from lack of oxygen - think of the smell! - and they learned some things from that at least.
Other than that I agree completely about the pseudo science we are served up as science these days. It was interesting to learn that drug companies are not even required to provide all the data from their research projects, which of course means that it would be easy to fiddle with such details as truth. It may help explain why deaths from prescription drugs are among the top causes of death according teven to the AMA, and such things as degenerative brain disorders being treated with drugs proven to cause seizures according to the WHO. And so it goes...
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Aug 3, 2016 9:50:27 GMT -5
One Indictation of the difficulties that space travellers would face is the formation , generally followed fairly speedily by the self destruction of intentional communities. Very very few seem to survive past about 5- 10 years, most dissolve long before that. That's without being forced to live in relative isolation from the larger world, and presumably consist of people with shared basic values and motivations.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueadzuki on Aug 3, 2016 15:14:36 GMT -5
I keep remembering a story by some Sci-Fi author(I think Fredrick Pohl, or maybe Fritz Leiber) about the attempts to set up a permanent colony on Venus (this was backed when we knew little enough about Venus to think you could set up a colony there) Every time they sent up a crew of handpicked astronauts and colonists, it utterly failed. Then someone had the idea of simply opening the colonization to anyone, with free land and an agreement of minimal interferance (as well as some stories of Venus's mineral wealth) so that the next group out consisted of fortune hunters, criminals evading capture and so on. And that colony worked. As the stroy pointed out, the first colonists of a region are usually people with little or nothing to lose by trying, who stay because the near certain death there is in their mind preferable to the absolutely certain death, poverty etc back home.) They go out, some make good, and THEN the civilization comes into play. Australia likely wouldn't have made it without the convicts and prospectors, the US needed the homesteaders and the Wild West.
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Aug 3, 2016 19:22:51 GMT -5
Undoubtedly true, but imagine NASA trying to sell the idea of entrusting a billion dollar expedition to criminals and fortune hunters to the US government  |
|
|
|
Post by steev on Aug 3, 2016 19:34:07 GMT -5
Bear in mind that the American colonies got the convicts and prospectors until the colonies rebelled to become the USA, at which point they were diverted to Australia; it was only after the Rebellion that the homesteading boom got rolling, back when the "Wild West" was Ohio and Kentucky.
What makes you think the American government is averse to handing billion-dollar investments to criminals and fortune-hunters?
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Aug 8, 2016 9:28:08 GMT -5
Well, you have a point, but they are generally people who can claim some veneer of being non criminal, or at least who don't have any convictions for anything serious. I doubt that the ones who already have m/billions would be first in line at the spaceport.
The ones I would like ( at least today, after reading a news story this morning) to see pressganged into going are the yuppy newly rich silicon Valley psychopaths who are trying to drive out any hint of those less wealthy than they are " I shouldn't have to see them" and who freely announce they make life as difficult as possible for those who are struggling to make ends meet that happen to cross their path. No wonder computer programs are becoming weirder and weirder, these tech people seem sometimes to barely BE people. Ship 'em off, say I.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Aug 8, 2016 10:14:59 GMT -5
Good point. Maybe we could design spaceships like galleys and let them pull the oars.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueadzuki on Aug 8, 2016 15:16:15 GMT -5
Nice idea, but alas, oars don't work in space (nothing to push against) On the other hand sails (at least, solar sails) DO. Maybe some time "before the mast" might shape these people up (especially if they hire someone to stand behind using the cosmic equivalent of a cat o' nine tails) If they still need more labor, make the oxygen pumps manually operated, so they have to pump to keep breathing (not my concept, this adaptaion of an old sea shanty gave me the idea link |
|
