Could Humanity Really Build 'Elysium'? 545
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Miriam Kramer writes at Space.com that in the new movie Elysium, Earth is beyond repair, and the rich and powerful have decided to leave it behind to live in a large, rotating space station stocked with mansions, grass, trees, water and gravity. 'The premise is totally believable to me. I spent 28 years working on NASA's International Space Station and retired last summer as the director of ISS at NASA Headquarters. When I took a look at the Elysium space station, I thought to myself, that's certainly achievable in this millennium,' says Mark Uhran, former director of the International Space Station Division in NASA's Office of Human Exploration and Operations. 'It's clear that the number-one challenge is chemical propulsion.' Nuclear propulsion could be a viable possibility eventually, but the idea isn't ready for prime time yet. 'We learned an incredible amount with [the International Space Station] and we demonstrated that we have the technology to assemble large structures in space.' The bottom line: 'If you threw everything you had at it, could you reach a space station of the scale of Elysium in 150 years?' says Uhran. 'That's a pretty tall order.'"
Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm invoking Betteridge's law of headlines and saying "no."
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, without bold advances in genetic engineering, psycho-pharmaceuticals, or social psychology, we'll be hard-pressed to find enough humans who derive greater satisfaction from putting a spacecraft into orbit than from putting a spacecraft on a reentry trajectory toward the nearest loathsome nest of foreigners.
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:4, Interesting)
You're thinking about it all wrong. All you need to do is invent a religion that makes space travel a sacred duty. For inspiration see the works of L. Ron Hubbard and the the second Riddick movie.
Re: (Score:3)
For inspiration do not see Heaven's Gate [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Very true. That is why we are all still living under trees (if we're lucky!) and have no tech.
Dang religion. If only it would allow us to advance. Heck, without religion, we might even have machines that would let us talk to each other across mass distances.
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Insightful)
He's simply postulating that religion didn't *stop* us from advancing. And that's not a postulate, it appears to be demonstratively true, given our computers, smartphones, medical tech and just science in general. We have had religion for some significant portion of our advance through civilization and all the way through our scientific advancements. And we're using the technology that religion did not stop to complain about religion stopping technology.
Now you could argue that it slowed us down. But you could also argue that since most universities started as schools of theology in the West, and that at many points religion actually encouraged scholarly and literate discussion about topics, that it may well end up being a wash in the end.
Point being, if you want to blame religion as a general cause of all that is evil, and suggest that deleting it would delete many problems, you are in no way able to do so by simply pointing at history. The world may not be a great place, but it's the best place it has ever been, and it did that even with a bunch of priests holding the occasional Inquisition or the occasional Crusade or Jihad.
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet and iPads notwithstanding, we're not advancing here in the US. For one thing, we seem to think it high-minded to discuss this type of sub-topic without the contributions of philosophy ever occuring to anyone. The rest of you Anglophones are being dragged behind us into the same morass of mawkish religion and consumerism (the worst of both materialism and metaphysics).
As for religion, it has an ability to short-circut the process of questioning and preventing the digestion of new data. As such, its a major contributor to overpopulation and other forms of ecological distress. That won't pan out well over multiple generations in constrained artificial environments.
Re: (Score:3)
(Bonus points if you can say it with a strait face.)
Re: (Score:3)
Well in this case, I think we were talking about scientific advancement specifically. Nuclear weapons were the demonstration of matter-energy equivalence and as such were an excellent application of (at the time) advanced physics. Of course, that might be one application that perhaps we could have done without.
As far as ethical or moral advancement, that's a good question. Clearly some beliefs would be great in theory, but their institutional representations have not come out very well in practice. Pure
Re: (Score:2)
For a headline, what would be the right question? After reading the wiki bit on Betteridge's law it seems that almost any headline question is good only for trolling. however, I'll take the high road of seeing this as a vaild starting point for a /. discussion.
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Informative)
...if you can build an intercontinental ballistic missile, you can build a spacecraft...
Wrong. Two very different levels of technology involved. And missles of the type you are describing use chemical propulsion, already discussed in the article as being insufficiant for the tasks nessessary.
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Interesting)
Humanity will build such a thing as and when such a thing becomes desirable to those with the money and power to make it happen.
In this movie, Earth becoming horrendous provides the impetus for the rich and powerful to push for the development. And when the rich and powerful want something, they will make it happen - especially in popular fiction. Nuclear launchers - no problem.
In addition, seeds are a lot lighter than trees, so all plants on the station would be grown in-situ. Assuming a 50 year build span, with the first plant-supporting-biomes being installed ten to twenty years into that build time, after 50 years there would be a lot of 30 year old trees.
Soil, that's an issue. That would have to be a combination of fertilizer,humus,natural soil bacteria, nemotodes, fungi, insects, etc, and space dirt - rock dust from asteroid mining, lunar regolith, etc.
I agree with the author that 2154 is probably a bit early for all that, given our current rate of space development, unless a big breakthrough is made in getting into space effectively, regularly, and cheaply in the next thirty years. 2254 I could understand more.
Self-replicating technology can make it faster (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when NASA was more ambitious and had better political support: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ [islandone.org]
"What follows is a portion of the final report of
a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press.
What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable. Please enjoy."
As I said elsewhere:
http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/the-science-behind-elysium/ [slashdot.org]
"The cheapest way forward may be to create an open source plan for an automated seed that could be sent to an asteroid where it would begin to grow into a space habitat. Then the habitat could duplicate itself by making more seeds. The habitats could create transport spacecraft to land on Earth and solar space satellites to power them on the ground for launching back into space with people on board. So, all it takes is crowd-sourcing and the cost of the first seed and the first launch. Well, of course the first might fail, but by the tenth try it might work. So, it might be doable for only a few billion dollars in real money for materials and the first launches. Testing could be mostly done via simulation."
Related projects I've participated in:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html [pdfernhout.net]
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/ [kurtz-fernhout.com]
http://openvirgle.net/ [openvirgle.net]
It may be easier to figure out how humans can live in zero-G by bio-engineering though, compared to spinning big heavy things.
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Asgard [wikia.com]
I also suggest living in liquid with probably "liquid breathing" as an option to prevent muscle wasting and bone loss (since whales do OK by resistance from water):
http://www.oscomak.net/wiki/Liquid_breathing_to_resist_bone_loss [oscomak.net]
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:5, Funny)
What?! When did this happen?
What the hell happened to the other billion???
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, it is the wrong question. Humanity could build such a thing, but probably won't. Technically, it was already possible during the second world war (if you can build an intercontinental ballistic missile, you can build a spacecraft).
I don't think there was actually a functional ICBM available during WW2, although the V-2 came close, I don't think it was capable of achieving a stable orbit. If Germany's program had continued (that is, if they hadn't lost the war and all of their scientists to the US and USSR), it may have been achieved sooner. As it was, I don't think we had the technology until at least the mid-1950's.
There's more to life than headlines (Score:4, Interesting)
Physics and sociology would be the major factors with such a space outpost. I think the physics say 'yes' while social factors say 'definite Maybe'.
The wealthy habitually promote the idea of the Earth being endlessly exploitable without fear of enviromental repercussions. They even tell us that pollution = good. So...... how do such people learn to live in a space vessel where limits are glaringly obvious and all waste must be dealt with or else risk their environment quickly becoming nonviable?
Their exploitation mindset may set them up to fail at life in space. Or, they may grow more ecologically conscious before their separatist project becomes set in stone. Or they might internalize some combination of values that allow them to become complete Space Nazis.
150 years is a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And then we can look at how relatively little progress was made during the 1000+ years previous.
Re: (Score:3)
And then we can look at how relatively little progress was made during the 1000+ years previous.
Protip: Think of an exponential curve, not a linear one. ;)
Each new bit is an addition to already known facts. The only real interruptions involve civilizational collapse and/or disruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Well when the country best suited to lead technological advance is more concerned about preventing marriages that have zero impact on their own life and think that genetic engineering is "playing god" we might be heading to a pretty significant "disruption". It's up to the rest of the world to pick up our slack.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:4, Informative)
Because of course, no significant progress was made between 1013 and 1863. We didn't have any little things like the renaissance, the second agricultural revolution, the first industrial revolution, etc. There were no significant technological advances like the printing press, the spring-driven clock, the steam engine, or anything like that. Nor any scientific advances like classical mechanics, thermodynamics, and so on. Nope. Absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that really depends on how you view innovation. Keep in mind that time economic growth and innovation were at a fairly steady rate of about 2% for tens of thousands of years... the first big change we had was Fire and the wheel... then we were stagnant for a very very long time. Then with the industrial age and scientific method things shot forward again. We seem to be in the middle (or perhaps near the end) of an age of great discovery. People tend to see innovation as a constant upward slope, or eve
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally fascinating insight, we also don't know if the Hospitallers used M-16s in 1066 because we weren't alive back then. Or you know, we have this study called history that tells us things about the past without us having been personally present.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we're working to the mind-set of "If I can't see/feel it myself, nothing you can say will ever prove anything."
Very popular position amongst conspiracy theorists.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I think it's more characteristic of the default mode of human thinking. A kind of weak skepticism untempered by philosophical underpinnings. People don't naturally understand and embrace the scientific method, the historical method, or ethics, and it takes education to come to terms with those concepts.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's made all the more worse by another "default mode" of human thinking: Once I've come to a conclusion, admitting I was wrong and/or changing my mind is A Bad Thing.
So you start out with X must be wrong (where X is the moon landing or vaccines being safe or the Holocaust having happened) because the individual didn't personally experience it or has anecdotal "evidence" to the contrary (even if said evidence is that a friend of their uncle's neighbor said it). Then, once their opinion has been set, they refuse to change it no matter now much evidence is presented to them because altering their opinion/admitting being wrong is A Bad Thing. It's better (in the person's view) to decide that the mountain of evidence pointing to them being wrong is itself wrong (or part of some conspiracy) than it is to admit that they are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
The pedant in me wants to point out that if they did use M-16s, it wouldn't have been in 1066 as they were only formed in 1099 - but given I wasn't alive in 1099 I don't have any proof of that either :/
Although I guess they could have used whatever time-travel machine they used to get a hold of M-16s to go back and fight in the Battle of Hastings.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
i don't know about the Hospitallers but since you mentioned 1066 I do know that William I with his Normans used a stirrup, something the Saxons didn't have, requiring the Saxons to dismount before attacking, whereas the Normans could use cavalry charges. The Saxons only lasted as long as they did that day becuase they had a nice, up hill defensive position and using the shield wall tactic were able to withstand the Norman charges for a while.
I wasn't there; how do I know this? PEOPLE WRITE STUFF DOWN, Sperbels.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How are you so sure Sir?
Yours truly,
Duncan McCloud
Re: (Score:3)
He's your nephew, you forgetful fool. Don't you remember sparring with him in Highlander 3?
Re: (Score:2)
So, therefore we have no way of knowing how things have changed since 1863? Right.
The use of electricity, indoor plumbing, cars, powered flight, computers, radio, television, plastics ... none of these we can say anything about how this changed society.
Instead, we have no idea of what has changed.
Seriously, do you have anything of value to add here?
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM has an artificial brain with as many synapses as a human brain right now.
I bet it has 10 times as many atoms as a human brain. Not that that has anything to do with anything.
Fusion energy is on the verge of a breakthrough
And will always be on the verge of a breakthrough.
3-D printers are almost cost effective on a per-household basis
Sure, if your household needs hundreds of shower rings for some reason.
solar power is dropping to the cost of coal power
Perhaps at the quantites we can produce today. Try scaling solar power up by a factor of 1500.
Moore's law has held steady for decades..
Exponential decreases in the size of transistors can't continue forever in a granular world made of molecules.
We are at the start of a second industrial revolution
Or we're at the end of an incredibly bountiful time, where man has used a limited resource to pick all the low hanging fruit off of the tree of knowledge. Fossil fuels are going to run out, and nothing comes close to meeting todays needs, let alone projected growth. Climate change will disrupt economies across the world, making warfare a much bigger priority than science, even more than it already is. And without cheap energy, any science that gets done will take longer and longer to accomplish.
The world will be totally unrecognizable in a hundred years.
I agree with you there. But I expect it to look more like Mad Max than Elysium.
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Informative)
True..
However, until mankind figures out how to get out of the mechanical age, we aren't going to be building things like what are in movies.
for example...
Nuclear power. Generated (supposedly) by the escaping electrons of nuclear matter.
in most sci-fi movies, these escaping electrons are captured and immediately used to power ships, mobile suits, cities, etc. "Nuclear reactors" are micro-miniaturized because they don't need the huge plethora of safety gear, nor do they require the electrical/mechanical conversion that we use today.
how do we use nuclear? We use it to heat water to steam, which then drives turbines to generate electricity via magnetic induction. Essentially a mechanical means to acheive the desired result.
Actually, though what you say abut how we use nuclear power is true, it seems your understanding of what happens there is not correct.
Unfortunately, controlled nuclear power doesn't generate enough free electrons to be captured and used. What it does generate is heat due to neutrons flying around and getting atoms to move around faster and faster. Many times a neutron hits an atom's core, it kicks out another neutron there which then flies around at high-speed to kick another neutron out of another atom. In these situations, the atom receives a big chunk of energy and starts "wobbling" around heavily, which we then see as heat.
Even with nuclear fusion, the situation would be the same - except exponentially higher.
In order to use "real nuclear power" the way you describe on how we should, we would need to implement matter-antimatter-annhilition. In this case, there is enough free electrons generated that can be captured to use it directly, without having to use centuries-old mechanical technology. It is also what I dream of and I do agree with you that unless we leave mechanical age behind us, we will never reach our full potential.
On a cosmic scale...we're still in the stone age.
On, this I partially disagree. We're not even in the stone age - on a cosmic scale...
Re: (Score:3)
The moral decay of America will save us. When people realize sex and orgies are a lot of fun, they'll want more physical contact with other human beings. The natural progression of such a society may level off into something like Europe or Japan (with or without the freakiness), or carry all the way to Greco-Phonecian society where children are involved in the sexual exploration of life rather than simply not obsessively shielded from it. Animals might get involved, because what the hell?
It's like Phlo
Re: (Score:3)
Physics doesn't change, but our understanding of it certainly does. I mean, power generation from nuclear fission was just as possible two thousand years ago as it is now. So why weren't they using it? There was also nothing stopping the Egyptians from using chemical rockets to launch artificial satellites into space, right, because physics doesn't change?
Fundamental scientific discoveries don't arrive on a schedule, and they don't arrive just because we've tried really hard. The next game-changing discover
Re:150 years is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me, or is this movie being promoted through tons of tech sites/blogs?
Re:Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Transformers isn't science fiction, its explosion porn.
Elysium may be, at least somewhat.
Moon [imdb.com] is the pinnacle of science fiction for the last 20 years.
Science fiction isn't simply a story that takes place in the future or involving technology. It is an exploration of the human condition, societal issues or ethics within an environment plausibly different from our own.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the promotion is a side effect of legitimate questions being asked about its premise. Aren't you curious if this is possible in the foreseeable future? At least it's more "real" science-fiction than something like Transformers.
I suspect that talking about space stations is also more popular than talking about massive inequality, squalid impoverished masses, heavily robotized security apparatuses, and other non science-fiction elements.
Re:Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going for Slashvertisement at this point.
Two Posts about a movie that basically In Time [imdb.com] but in space is fishy to me.
I haven't seen this movie at all, But I can all but guarantee that the ending is going to be the Space station crashes onto earth and the rich survivors now have to live their lives just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
You can put the first two of those down to just sacrifices for the allegory. The introduction actually instructed the audience to do just this, by explaining that it didn't matter how the situation came about. More serious concerns abound:
- Everyone gets one free year at birth.
- The clock starts ticking at age 26.
What this means is that even if the protagonists win, destroy the rich and redistribute the wealth then it achieves very little. There is no possible way, mathematically, that the average lifespan
Re: (Score:3)
Science Fiction. Is Fiction. Not prophecy!
The Elysium is not much about science but an extradition of our culture. Figuring it will end up the Haves vs Have Nots will be so split that they don't even know that they exist. This idea has been expressed in many ways for a long time. The problem comes down to the fact if you live in world with all the Haves... There will still be competition for the resources so they will still be Haves and have Nots in that sub population, then the Have Nots will try hard
Re:Movie ad's disguised as science news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of the savings, and the security... and the general sense of self importance that could arise out being half a world away from the nearest criminal.
Plus, there would be a nice sense of irony in their newfound situation that would be lost on most.
What about air? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd think the #1 issue would be air. Between leaks, meteor punctures, the necessarily less than 100% efficient airlocks (they can't get ALL the air out, so some puffs away when you open the outer door), and outgassing, you need a 'top-up' every so often. See, for instance, the book 'Fallen Angels'- the main characters are from an orbital station, on a 'scoop' mission to gather air from the upper atmosphere of Earth at the start of the book.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hi, and welcome to Remedial Biology 101.
Today's lesson: How Plants Create Oxygen [wikipedia.org]
Study hard!
Re:What about air? (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent was discussing the unavoidable losses of atoms/molecules. Sure you can use photosynthesis, if you have the raw materials to hand, but that's not going to work if they've left the space station.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thats just using energy to convert elements and molecules into different molecules, but it doesn't change the fact that you will be constantly losing molecules over time and they will eventually need to be replaced some how.
... Big ass hose dropping into the atmosphere?
Just snowballin' ideas here.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, in the movie, the primary wheel of the station is more of a U-shaped trough, completely open on the inner "sky" side wall. That's actually one of the major issues I had with the movie...because I'm pretty sure one just gee of centrifugal force is nowhere near enough to keep an atmosphere only a few miles deep in place (it's maybe 5-10 miles...it's hard to judge scale with all the "homes" inside being palatial estates). Nowhere is there discussion of any sort of force fields or anything of the li
Re: (Score:2)
who is the author? Sounds like a good read and google have too many 'fallen angel' books to pick through.
why would i want to live on a space station? (Score:4, Insightful)
when the earth has everything?
Re:why would i want to live on a space station? (Score:5, Insightful)
when the earth has everything?
And even a pretty fucked-up-dystopian-hellworld version of earth still has convenient gravity, atmospheric pressure and loads of raw materials. Short, possibly, of a good, enthusiastic, all-out, nuclear war (which would also...reduce...the odds of magnificent space-constructs), there isn't much you could do to earth that would make living on a space station cheaper and easier than just throwing up some habidomes with climate control and a ring of razor wire and killbots to keep the proles away.
Re: (Score:3)
..yeah that's whats stupid(among other things) about the plot.
move to friggin antarctica if you want away from people. it'll be cheaper and you can have more coke'n'hoes.
Re:why would i want to live on a space station? (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard someone once say in response to space colonies: Try building a self-sustaining colony in Antarctica. And when you realize how freaking hard that is, remind yourself that at least you can breathe the air and you won't pop if there's a hole in the wall. Antarctica is a bazillion times more hospitable that any space colony would be.
Two words: (Score:2)
The view.
Two more words: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
It's much more practical to build a paradise community in Antarctica than in space. It's much more practical to build a paradise community deep inside a mountain than in space.. It's much more practical to build a paradise community under the ocean than in space.
There are plenty of good places that eliminate at least half the cost and problems with going to space while still providing essentially all the benefits.
Just look at an inventory of all the supervillain lairs, and many of them fit the cri
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe just put all the baddies into space...remember Australia? Isn't this just the reverse of the movie's premise?
The thing is... Forced Transportation to America, and then Australia was a cheap way to dispose of the surplus and the undesirable, plus serving a dual version of taming a colonial area for the expanded glory and commercial wealth of the British Empire. No such return would be found for the expense in this case.
Done (Score:5, Insightful)
Miriam Kramer writes at Space.com that in the new movie Elysium, Earth is beyond repair, and the rich and powerful have decided to leave it behind to live in a large, rotating space station stocked with mansions, grass, trees, water and gravity.
So, Wall-E?
Re:Done (Score:4, Insightful)
The original part of Wall-E was the non-human, almost entirely non-speaking POV. That's pretty rare in both Hollywood and literary sci-fi.
Dupe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Different links, same director, same story.
With unlimited funds? Yes. Otherwise? No. (Score:2)
The only scenario where it seems even halfway possible is some wartime economy scenario where the entire world puts aside ideas about eq
Accomplish in this millennium? (Score:2)
If I'm not able to do the Kessel Run in fewer than 12 parsecs by the end of this millennium, I will be *very*disappointed.
All I know is my gut says maybe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
NOTE: I don't know anything about Elysium except that which I've gleaned from trailers/Internet chatter. That being said...
I could see an Elysium-like situation occurring. Not "everyone else is poor and downtrodden and the rich escape into space", but "the rich make an orbiting resort for them to enjoy zero-g vacations." I can imagine that the rich and famous would LOVE such a place. Being able to brag to your friends that you just vacationed on Club $pace would make you the envy of your friends. To sa
Did I miss something? (Score:2)
The movie never made any attempt to explain how they maintain an atmosphere. Here on Earth, the gravitation of effect of Earth's mass does that for us. On Elysium, there is simulated gravity due to centripetal force, but that would only effect masses that are bound do it. Since the atmosphere floats above it, it would drift away and potentially escape through the open structure.
Apart from that, if they can create such a structure out in space that is a perfect habitable environment, it seems to me they shou
Re: (Score:2)
"for much greater cost"
Gahhh, meant to say much lesser cost.
Great place for the 0.001% (Score:2)
Like most schemes to move off of this planet which we are in the process of destroying, this "solution" will be incredibly expensive and only accommodate a very small proportion of our 7 billion population. Of course, the rich will claim the space (along with a few essential maintenance people such as the phone sanitizers), leaving the rest of us stranded on Earth to deal with climate change, toxins, etc.
So, yes, this could probably be done at great expense (paid for by all of us) for the benefit of the few
Comment removed (Score:3)
Law and Order (Score:3)
Which if you currently live in the USA right now, are finding that LAW applies to the average person, LAWLESSNES applies to the government and its crony bankers.
You go to jail, they do not.
Since 2007, the monied elite have stolen whole countries to continue their lifestyles unabated. The amounts of money are staggering to imagine, some 17 trillion by FOIA that was accidentally leaked, which probably is many times that amount was actually stolen from countries world wide entangled in the Western Banking System.
I have no doubt, that if we took that money back and instead of allowing the wars and the fancy mansions these bankers continue to create and build today with it we could have easily cured cancer, develop far more creative solutions to Nuclear power. (i.e. Fukishima is rapidly turning from a catastrophe to an Apocalypse.)
With that money we could hace solved very interesting issues in material sciences for example to make a space station work.
We can do anything we can imagine. The problem is there seems to be something wrong with the human spirit.
We have had so many opportunities in our history to achieve these things, but war and psychopaths which amount to a very few people, end up destroying the entire civilization others have built.
Then we go back to mud huts.
We are on that same path AGAIN, which isn't surprising. What is surprising is the almost lack of interest anyone has in stopping it.
-Hack
Fabulous Idea (Score:5, Funny)
1.Build a huge, opulent space city, and populate it with the obscenely rich and the world's political leaders.
2 Blow it up.
3.Start over.
Re: (Score:3)
150 years project(s) (Score:3)
Cathedral (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wondering: are 150 years projects viable at all? Is there any example of such an enterprise?
The biggest european cathedral have been build over very long period of time, some spanning a few centuries
(to the point that some have mixed architectural styles, because styles has changed as the centuries passed by during the building of different sections).
But I personally don't think that the building of the station itself is going to span that much time. Don't think of it as a space cathedral. (Where building it starts immediately now, and takes 150 year until you've brought all the needed parts into orbit and assembled them).
Think of it more with what hapened with genetics, and for human genomes.
- Quite some time has passed between the discovery of the chemistry of DNA and the sequencing of the human genome.
- Yet the sequencing it self only took a decade.
- Most of the time was spent developing technologie, and scaling up in speed and volume, only the last 10 years where spent sequencing genes.
- And same again, nowadays we have "personnal genomes". It took quite a few year for the technology to scale from the human genome to now, but the personalised genome itself only takes a few hours.
Very probably the same with a huge station:
- the first decade will be spent developing the space industry and scaling up capability. (Having Space-X and such grow, and be able to put more ships into orbit, for example).
- the station it self will probably get built over the last decade or two.
Re: (Score:3)
Just wondering: are 150 years projects viable at all? Is there any example of such an enterprise? What's the incentive for human beings to take part in thigs they won't see the results of?
The Second Avenue Subway project in New York City was started in 1929. It's expected to be partially open in 2016. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway [wikipedia.org]
The Great Wall Of China has seen nearly continuous work and improvement over 1500 years.
There are a number of Japanese temples that have periodic maintenance/reconstruction schedules that have been running continuously for 500 years.
We can do anything (Score:5, Interesting)
Like intermodal, I'll go with "No", but add a bit more.
First the basic premise that we "wreck/destroy/damage" the earth to the point where rich folk want to get off is pretty far fetched. I agree with the concept of climate change and I feel that humans have a nasty habit of pooping in their own house, but the Earth is a pretty large house. Given the resources to build a space station the size of Elysium it would be less expensive to carve out an area of land on earth and make it more habitable. Building a dome(s) over large areas of land is more plausible then Elysium.
If the earth is so wrecked/damaged/destroyed (and I have not seen nor will I see this movie), how are all those people still living on earth. From the trailer's I see damaged buildings, but breathable atmosphere. I see over turned cars, but sunlight and the few quick shots from orbit I see clouds and clear areas so that means rain. If the planet is toxic then the population would eventually die. If not then the population would die off to a level that allows for survival, then growth, then ultimately revenge. How does Elysium get supplied? If from Earth then it would not be that difficult to shut down launch facilities (lots of people still live on Earth I presume) thus eventually requiring the Orbitors to need to negotiate with those on the planet. if those in orbit don't need Eath then why not just commit genocide for any group put under the whip will eventually rise up angry.
Who builds this thing? It is not small so construction would take a large amount of human resources and the rich folk would (1) have to pay them (2) make up a story about how everyone working on the place will get to stay (3) be so united that not one hint of deception would get out. If it did, I figure construction would quickly stop. Rich people may be good at massaging money, but I doubt they have the requisite skills to perform orbital construction or the other countless jobs it takes to build Elysium. Along with that idea, once built, who maintains the place. Rich folk? Hardly for they still need waste/garbage disposal. They need life support crews to ensure air and water keep flowing and they need cleaning crews for all those mansions and quaffed grounds. It is not hard to imagine that at some point the "lower class" on the station will not like what they see going on on Earth and do something to make a change. On Earth, control the resources is hard but doable, on a station is is much easier to commit sabotage and compromise delicate systems.
If the rich folk have that much money, power, and high tech capability to create Elysium, why wait for the crash of Earth, but sue their skills to repair, then take over Earth. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. By isolating themselves on Elysium they actually make themselves more vulnerable then by being spread out on earth, manipulating and using the population to their own ends (kind of like today). Even better, keep the masses fat and happy and you would either not have need for an escape station, or you'll get long lines of people wanting to build the station, but stay on Earth.
tl;dr The premise is quite unbelievable, I dare say it is not really science fiction, more like the current trend of Hollywood to create action adventure in space, so they throw in CGI and space to make it seem different from the large number of films that have underdeveloped plots, weak characters, and forgettable eye candy.
Could we build it? Sure, but I'd rather hold out for a Ring World.
Re: (Score:3)
I get the impression you haven't seen the movie.
So you are ripping apart the premise of the movie based on the trailer? I've heard of judging a book by it's cover (there's apparently some popular aphorism regarding that), but this is ridiculous.
What next, are people going to start ripping apart Slashdot articles based on the summary?!?
We already are building Elysium... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just not in space.
This is already how the 0.1% live.
They live in gated communities with private police/security and second and third homes at ski, golf, coastal resorts.
They fly in private jets, or cruise in private yachts.
They have private rooms in private hospitals with access to the latest advances in health care. They get sick less frequently because they live healthier lifestyles with more leisure time, access to better food, and less stress.
They contribute to PAC's and politicians to make sure that legislation gets passed to allow them to keep more of their wealth and contribute less proportionately to the rest of society than at any time in the last 150 years.
Meanwhile, the 99% are increasingly disenfranchised, increasingly less likely to have job or retirement security, less able to purchase a first home, and with decreasing access to increasingly expensive and less effective health care. ... just not in space.
Re: (Score:2)
The French wealthy, in 1789, depended on the poor for their military and civil protection. What happens when the most effective soldiers are robots doing exactly what they're told? Can you rebel when you have handguns and they have hellfire missiles?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The premise is still borked (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you rebel when you have handguns and they have hellfire missiles?
Yes.
The people with the guns can still kill and destroy at will. They will strike at the vulnerable parts of the civilization. They will also be likely to give up their lives for the cause.
The people with the hellfire missiles, however, will be hamstrung by the sheer destructiveness of those weapons. A Hellfire missile is of no use if the target is in the very location you are striving to protect. Yes, you /could/ kill the insurgent, but the collateral damage would vastly outweigh the gains you would achieve with such a "victory".
Given the history of the last seventy years, it's surprising this is even a question anymore. Those super weapons are great for destroying (other) civilizations, but not so awesome for protecting or maintaining your own. For that you use psychology and propoganda; that way it doesn't even /occur/ to your own people to rebel. It's the old "bread and circuses", a maxim that's been known and in use for over 2000 years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
IF the people who live in the "bad" part of town actually wanted to make their part of town the nice part of town they could.
It is called beating their children to the point where they are pushed to succeed more than the previous generation.
Instead the mentality is "The 'hood was good enough for me, it is good enough for my son/daughter"
They wallow in their own failure as parents and thus their children are locking in a cycle of mediocrity. If a recent immigrant from Africa can come and within 10 years o
Re:The real question (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is the US is a country with low upwards mobility, and is totally in denial about it. When you adjust wages for inflation and stop describing healthcare as "benefits" maybe the bottom hundred million Americans will be in a better shape to "succeed".
Re:The real question (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is the US is a country with low upwards mobility, and is totally in denial about it.
Part of the reason for this is that in just about every society across recorded history, the degree of upwards mobility was much worse. We tend not to see this because it's much easier to compare our situation to other modern societies (i.e. European welfare states) or hypothetical utopias than to a past we never experienced. I don't want to idealize the American system, because it does have warts, but even the poor in America have vastly more opportunities (and wealth, and freedom, and political rights) than most people who have ever lived. That doesn't mean that we can't do better, just that a sense of perspective is helpful.
Re:The real question (Score:4, Informative)
Part of the reason for this is that in just about every society across recorded history, the degree of upwards mobility was much worse.
Yeah, and compared to a corpse, I'm in excellent health.
Hard facts: The essential American myth is that of unlimited upward mobility. The hard truth is that the upward mobility is a lot higher in most of Europe. Especially in those loathsome socialist, scandinavian countries.
The US is rapidly approaching the social structure of central- and south america when they were dictatorships while being in complete denial about it. Not that I care, it's fun to watch from a safe distance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+mobility [lmgtfy.com]
If you're born poor in the US, your chances of making it to the middle class are lower than those of a poor person in quite a few other industrialized countries. It's shameful is what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Of particular interest to you would be the section [wikipedia.org] that claims:
In recent years several large studies have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in the United States than in most developed countries.[11] A 1996 paper by Daniel P. McMurrer, Isabel V. Sawhill found "mobility rates seem to be quite similar across countries."[12] However a more recent paper (2007) found a person's parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries.[5] The United States had about 1/3 the ratio of mobility of Denmark and less than half that of Canada, Finland and Norway.[1] France, Germany, Sweden, also had higher mobility, with only the United Kingdom being less mobile.[1] Economic mobility in developing nations (such as those in Africa) is thought to be limited by both historical and global economic factors.[13] Economic mobility is everywere correlated with income and wealth inequality.[14][15]
Don't worry, this small blurb is peppered with no fewer than five citations. We're an
Re: (Score:3)
If you're black, sometimes someone moves the food tray away, and you have to wait for WIC to move it back.
That's basically it. People have this idea that being black means you're permanently glued to welfare, because the poor cities run by broken administrations where poor people migrate are often full of black people. Poor white people somehow don't look poor; we call them "rednecks", and they blow their $6.50/hr pizza delivery boy salaries on turbochargers for their Nissan sports cars.
The reality is
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, then feel free to present your evidence. Oh wait, you don't have any.
Just for fun, here are some other reports
from 2012: http://milescorak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/inequality-from-generation-to-generation-the-united-states-in-comparison-v3.pdf [wordpress.com]
from 2010: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/02/moving_on_up_and_hitting_a_wall_social_mobility_in_the_us_and_europe.html [colorlines.com]
from 2009: http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp(2009)48 [oecd.org]
from 2008: http://www.br [brookings.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
I moved to the hood. My neighbors are drug dealers. There's broken sidewalks, abandoned houses, ill-maintained streets, cats everywhere, and shopping malls where 40% of the stores are closed. Trash rolls through the street, it's archived in the topsoil if you start digging.
I planted a tree in my yard. It produces fruit.
I've been tearing out the topsoil. Going to plant new grass, level the yard. It's a 170sqft yard but I have a big cutter mattock and I'll get stronger the more I work at it. The exi
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that the 1% upper class is racist on a global scale. That might by the case in the US, but I doubt that in other countries and continents the situation is the same. However, they are classists which is the same with just a different distinction method.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How is this a new and interesting idea to people?
What a silly question. You might as well ask why well-understood science is still interesting to newcomers who have never seen it before. It's because they've never seen it, that's why!
Not everyone has read Neuromancer (in fact, shame on me, I haven't), but it, like everything else, is simply recombining ideas in new ways. Looking at it from the outside, I could easily see how someone who hadn't read it could dismiss it quite easily with a question like yours. After all, Blade Runner predated it with its cy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This made me laugh, and I almost gave you a Funny mod. But... grammar. s/b:
Man, even the quality of the trolls has gone way downhill.
Re: (Score:3)