The Musk of Mars

Here we are at the dawn of private space flight, and it seems we’re going to Mars. There’s already the Mars One project, which plans to send 4 people to Mars in 2023 by making a reality show of it. Billionaire Elon Musk has also set his eyes on the mightiest of planets. He’s been quoted as saying “I want to die on Mars, just not on impact.” With at least two private programs aiming for Mars by the 2020s, for the moment it seems that this is really going to happen. What’s exciting about both of these projects is that they’d be one way trips. We won’t just be exploring Mars, we’ll be settling it. This contrasts sharply with our all too brief dalliances on the Moon, which we stopped altogether over forty years ago.

Each of these programs plans to send a small group of only several pioneers at first, and this is definitely a good idea. We know that microgravity is devastating to Human health, but we don’t really know what the effects of low gravity would be. Will Martian gravity be sufficient to maintain Human health in the long term, and if not could there be possible solutions? I would propose having Martian settlers sleep in centrifugal beds that would simulate Earth Gravity, in conjunction with drugs and perhaps eventually gene therapy that might offset bone and muscle degeneration. It’s also occurred to me that maybe weighting their clothes so that they’ll weigh as much as they would on Earth might be helpful, but I have no evidence to support that. It’s just a notion.

Gravity will hardly be the only hazard faced by our intrepid pioneers. The Martian regolith can be as deadly as asbestos when inhaled, and of course without an atmosphere or magnetic field, the radiation on the surface of Mars will be more severe. All of these problems and more will have to be dealt with, but if they can be solved or at least mitigated, then the original settlers could set up the infrastructure for increasingly larger waves of migrants from Earth.   

The threat of radiation and microgravity is also cause for us to reduce the travel time to Mars to as little as possible. Conventional rockets are too slow. Fusion rockets and solar sails could take us to Mars in a matter of weeks. Water, food, and the crew’s dried fecal matter could be used to shield the habitation modules from radiation. Since the food and water only block radiation, and don’t absorb it, they would still be safe to consume.  The ship could also generate its own mini-magnetosphere to protect the crew from radiation. The effects of microgravity could be offset by having the crew sleep in centrifugal beds, or perhaps by making the habitation module a large centrifuge itself.

Elon Musk wants to charge 500 000 US dollars a ticket to go to Mars. While money will certainly be crucial for this ambitious project, it should hardly be the only criteria for deciding who gets to go. Obviously those with specific skill sets should be valued over unskilled individuals. All applicants should also be genetically, medically and psychological screened, as well as given thorough criminal background checks. No one who has, or is predisposed to having any serious medical, psychological or social problems should be chosen for Mars. This will no doubt bring about accusations of discrimination and eugenics, but the survival of the settlement will depend on the physical and mental well-being of its members.

While we’re on the topic of discrimination, I’m afraid to say that ‘Mars needs breeders’. It is very important for our long term survival as a species for us to establish self-sufficient breeding populations beyond Earth to mitigate existential threats. It is inevitable at some point in the future that the Earth will suffer a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions that will kill off the Human population. The only way for Humanity to survive such an event is if there are off world breeding populations. As conservative as it sounds, preferential selection should be given to young, fertile, heterosexual married couples in order to quickly establish a breeding population on Mars.   

As my proposed criteria will have no doubt angered some people, I would like to point out that I myself do not meet these criteria. I don’t have half a million dollars. I don’t possess any skills that would be useful on Mars. I’m overweight, I’m clumsy, and I’m a loner who is easily stressed, irritated and fatigued. I have immediate relatives who have or have had problems with addiction and anger, and I’m not married. I certainly won’t be going to Mars.

What’s really amazing about a Martian Colony is that it seems inevitable that we will terraform the planet. While misanthropic eco-nuts curse our very existence for killing the Earth, we could bring life to Mars. “Do you feel guilty about killing the planet? Why not come to one that’s already dead?” .  It’s often said that the Earth doesn’t need us, but Mars would. Not only does it need us to bring it to life, it would likely require us to maintain that life. Without being artificially protected or replenished, the solar wind would eventually strip away the atmosphere, leaving the surface to suffocate, freeze and irradiate.  Without someone to actively keep Mars alive, it would revert to a lifeless rock in a matter millennia; a blink of geologically time. By becoming the only species in the entire history of the Earth to successfully establish ourselves on another world, we would prove that we are as unique and amazing as we’ve always known ourselves to be.  

So to Elon Musk, Mars One, and all the other visionaries planning to take Human beings to the Red Planet, I give you my most sincere and heartfelt thanks. Because of you I may live not only to see Human’s walk on Mars, but a self-sufficient colony established there.

Godspeed to you all.  

Drawing Diagrams with Straws

I know Bruce Willis told us not to, but I’ve been thinking about the Time Travel in Looper.

(Warning: Spoilers)

Let’s start with Seth’s timeline. We know that when Future and Past versions of the same person co-exist in the same present, the Future person doesn’t experience changes in their ‘Past which is yet to be’ until after those changes are made, yet those changes don’t affect the Past from the point of view of the present. When Future Seth arrives in 2044, he is able bodied and uses said able body to escape his past self. Past Seth is captured and mutilated by a Mob Doctor (He eventually has his nose, tongue, and limbs amputated). These mutilations only appear on Future Seth after they’ve been made on Past Seth, so he was still able bodied when he arrived, even though Past Seth isn’t. 

Does this make sense? I believe it does. Since Mutilated Seth couldn’t have escaped his past self, the loop would have been closed in that timeline, meaning that Seth remained able bodied, who is the Future Seth that appeared in the Running Loop timeline.  We have two timelines, one with a Running Loop and one with a Closed Loop, and these two timelines perpetually give birth to each other. The Path is a Circle, and I think that makes sense.  

In Joe’s Closed Loop , he did not create the Rainmaker. The Rainmaker presumably killed his mother in a fit a telekinetic rage (in this timeline, he’s closing loops for practical reasons, not to prevent a Looper from murdering his mother). In the Running Loop, Cid’s interactions with Past Joe may have improved his relationship with his mother and prevented him from killing her. Unfortunately, Future Joe is set on killing him, kills his mother instead, causing him to become the Rainmaker. It’s only slightly different from the Closed Loop Timeline, and becomes self-perpetuating. It’s an infinite Running Loop that came from altering a singular Closed Loop, and I also think that makes sense.

Of course, Past Joe breaks the infinite cycle by killing himself. At that moment, Future Joe ceases to be. However he still exists from the point he arrived until Joe’s suicide, but unlike in Seth’s case there’s no alternate Timeline from where he could have come from. The Closed Loop was erased by Joe’s suicide, but without the Closed Loop Future Joe can’t exist, and thus neither can the Running Loop. This is definitely a paradox. With no Future Joe, there is no Running Loop, meaning the timeline we see at the end of the movie can’t exist. The Closed Loop has to exist to create the Running Loop, but the Running Loop erases the Closed Loop and thus prevents the Running Loop from ever existing, thus allowing the Closed Loop to exist, spawn the Running Loop that erases it, and so on. The way I see it, this is a Grandfather Paradox and thus cannot really exist.

Maybe Bruce Willis just kicked causality in the balls.

I have a few other nitpicks with the movie (the low tech future, why Loopers kill themselves when it would be just as easy to have another Looper do it, why Joe think’s Suzie’s kid could be the Rainmaker when that’s clearly a girl’s bedroom), but overall I liked the movie. Just don’t think too hard about the Time Travel. It’s just a plot device, and it will fry your brain like an egg. 

Death To Tyrants!

"Rome is full of throats for me to cut!" 

Michael Anissimov is starting to piss me off.

If you’ve been following him on twitter, you’re no doubt aware that this prominent transhumanist and futurist has recently started bashing democracy and promoting benevolent dictatorship. This seems to be coming from a deep seated contempt of the common man, and the exaltation of some imaginary philosopher king. I’m really not going to waste anyone’s time by citing facts and figures about why tyranny is bad. The worst countries in the world to live in are dictatorships, and the most heinous criminals are dictators. Benign dictators are the exception, not the rule, and far too rare to justify dictatorship. It is a scientific fact that power corrupts human beings. People behave themselves primarily out of fear of retribution. Remove the possibility of retribution, and there’s no telling what they’re capable of.  Anyone who sought a position of absolute power in the first place did so out of narcissism and megalomania, not out of any desire to be a benevolent ruler.

There is no single Human who possesses the intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, skill, experience, fortitude, charisma, drive, empathy, and above all morality to wield absolute power in the best interest of all Humanity. Nobody wants to be oppressed. By our very nature, we rebel against dictatorship, which is why they require such violence to sustain themselves. Michael has confused fantasy with reality. When he thinks of absolute power, he thinks of the wise kings and beautiful princesses of our nostalgic fantasy worlds. In reality, the medieval world was a hellish nightmare and there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Princess Celestia doesn’t exist.

I believe strongly in democracy and egalitarianism, that power should be distributed as evenly as possible. Representative democracy doesn’t go far enough. Half of the United States Congress are millionaires, and they all make at least six figures a year.  These people can’t truly relate to the poor, who are completely unrepresented. In a direct democracy, where all legislature is decided by referendum of the electorate, everyone would have a fair voice.  The People would decide the laws of the land, ensuring they were just. 

Mr. Anissimov, royalist that he is, balks at such equality. He doesn’t think that you’re smart enough to survive without an oppressor. He’s wrong. The Wisdom of the Crowd is a well-documented phenomenon.  When a large number of people are polled on a particular question, the average answer is usually right. The larger the electorate, the more accurate the answer is. I don’t doubt that the general populace can decide laws just as wisely as any ivory tower parliament or mad king.

Humanity has no king. Humanity needs no king. Demand direct democracy, and seize the power that is rightfully yours. Oppose tyranny until your dying breath.     

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." 

Substrate Chauvinism

In principal, it is impossible to know if anyone else is really conscious, since I can only experience my own consciousness. For all I know, I’m the only conscious person in the Universe and everyone else is a philosophical zombie. I do not, however, believe this, and assume that other Human beings possess consciousness as well.  If an AI could pull off a perfect impersonation of a Human being, would that convince me that it was conscious? Not by itself.

 Does this make me a substrate chauvinist? Possibly, but allow me to explain my bigotry. I know that I am conscious (cogito ergo sum), and I assume this is because of my biological brain (though it is possible that I am purely consciousness existing in a vacuum, and everything I experience is imaginary). I therefore assume that other Human beings, who possess comparable brains, are conscious as well. I also assume that animals with less developed brains possess consciousness.

Since I can’t experience consciousness on any other substrate, I can therefore never know for sure if such a thing is even possible. Just because a computer can duplicate the functionality of a Human being does not necessarily mean it is conscious. This is best explained with the Chinese Room gedanken experiment.

Say that I’m locked in a room, and my only method of communicating with the outside world is through Chinese text messages. I don’t actually speak Chinese, but fortunately I possess a very accurate and thorough English to Chinese dictionary.  This allows be to translate the messages I receive and respond appropriately.  This in turns creates the illusion that I am a fluent Chinese speaker, when in fact I don’t speak Chinese at all.

Similarly, one can imagine a sophisticated chat bot in the not too distant future that can fool people into thinking it’s a real person, but still lacks consciousness. Like today’s chat bots, it merely analyzes what we say and chooses the most appropriate response from a vast database. No conscious thought is involved.

So what would it take to convince me that an AI was conscious? We would need to develop a half decent theory of how neural activity gives rise to consciousness in the first place. Hopefully this knowledge will allow us to infer if non-biological substrates are generating consciousness as well.

My substrate chauvinism is one of the reasons why  I’m not very gung ho about mind transfer. I’ve explained before that I would consider a mind clone to be a separate individual from myself since we would each possess our own independent consciousness. But even if I could preserve my continuity of consciousness by gradually replacing my current brain with nanites or something, I still wouldn’t know if that would actually preserve consciousness itself.  My consciousness could die, and in its place would be a philosophical zombie convincing the rest of the world that it was me.

But I would still be dead. Though there are some enhancements I would like, I won’t willingly replace my brain with hardware. Maybe on my death bed, I might decide that it’s worth a shot. If it worked, great. But if it didn’t, my last act in this world would be to create a zombie that would spend the rest of its (probably) very long existence as an effigy of me.

That’s kind of morbid.

The Sky is Falling!

Back when I first started this blog in 2009, I wrote a post criticizing Global Warming Hysteria, and my opposition to population control as a means of combating global warming. I mentioned that our rate of population growth is declining, and will likely peak at nine or ten billion around the middle of the century. After that, it's likely that our population will actually start to fall. I speculated that when this happened people would start panicking, believing we were doomed to extinction.

Well, it's started early.

Slate has an article out warning of this exact situation. They mention that developed countries already have fertility rates well below replacement levels (as I did), and they mention the social problems that this can cause (again, like me). If trends continue, this will soon apply to all Humanity. Does this mean we're doomed? I doubt it. The article only talks about current trends, and projecting them 300 years into the future. They don't speculate about what technological advances will likely be made in that time, and how they would affect fertility. One of the reasons fertility rates are so low is because kids are expensive, and at least one parent has to stay home with them until they start school.  By 2300 (and I'm personally hoping 250 years sooner), we will have achieved a post-scarcity society. Goods will be made by nanofactories from raw materials, which will exist in abundance thanks to asteroid mining. Robots will do all the work, because they'll be better than any human could ever be. Solar and fusion power will provide practically unlimited electricity to run these marvelous machines. We will certainly have achieved life extension, maybe even biological immortality. The only way this wouldn't happen is if civilization collapses, in which case we will revert to historically traditional birth and death rates. In a world where no one has to work, and has inexhaustible wealth, why not have babies? If birthrates get too high again, we can always go to Mars, assuming Elon Musk hasn't become the Tyrant Emperor of the Red Planet.

At any rate, we're far from being an endangered species at the moment. Let's deal with problems has they come, shall we?

P.S. I'm aware that's a duck in the picture, not a chicken.

Your argument is invalid.

Just a silly little meme I made. I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't think of this until two weeks after I saw the movie. When you see an Elven king riding an extinct elk with a nine foot antler span, logic has left the building.

Happy new year!

I just got the Slender Games

I first saw the above video almost two months ago, and at the time I thought crossing Slenderman with the Hunger Games was pretty random. However, at that time I was not really aware of the game Slender; The Eight Pages. Now that I know this video is a parody of that game, and not just the Slenderman mythos in general, it suddenly makes a lot more sense. The lines "Slenderman gets you even if you win the game," "Dude!" are a lot funnier knowing that they're referencing The Eight Pages.

That is all.