[ExI] Maybe space exploration will be a task for AI humanoids

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2024, 3:22 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Not slavery, but instead a well-paid service sold at market value. If
> the Homo sapiens radiodurans, wants to live planet-side and find some
> market niche or collect Universal Basic Income with the rest of us, then
> that is up to them.
>

Slavery.  They would be ill adapted to live on Earth and they would know
it.  They would not have a practical choice due to the design of their
bodies, which they had no say in.  There would be little perceived need, or
incentive, to pay them in anything but life support.

The best one can do is incentivize them taking jobs
> in space by offering higher wages relative to the same jobs planet-side.


And prices where they live would be higher to match.  But if they are the
only ones up there, why would they care about our money?

Similar to the way that deep-sea welders make
> more than land based welders.
>

Not even remotely similar.  Any land-based welder can train up and become
sea-based; that's where they come from.  Also, the two types are part of
the same species and civilization; they can expect to be in many of the
same situations, and interact in many ways that those stuck in orbit will
never interact with those who live their whole lives on the ground.

You keep thinking in terms of a centralized top-down science project
> where these variant humans are grown in some government lab at tax-payer
> expense.


No, what I am talking about includes purely private approaches too.
Company towns were usually not official organs of the government.

I am talking about an
> agoragenics approach in which sets of genes coding for traits and the
> adaptations they code for are provided to consumers by private "designer
> baby" labs using AI and CRISPR and then subsequently selected for by the
> labor market.


Babies designed to live in orbit, do not participate in the same labor
market as the rest of humanity.  Thus, it is meaningless to speak of "the"
labor market when referring to them.

A few years ago, I
> discovered what might be the most efficient way to put water into orbit
> as a byproduct of trying to find a cheaper space-launch 1st-stage
> mechanism. I call it a hydraulic gravity cannon. I built a small-scale
> prototype and stuff which worked as expected, but I didn't patent it
> because I realized patents are best for small consumer gadgets and not
> big large-scale devices. If you are interested, then I can explain to
> you how it works.
>

I already know, at least well enough.  I also know that, unless you give it
a turnable or mobile mount, which you probably won't out of an effort to
save money, it will only be able to reach one particular orbit, which will
probably not be an orbit with a space station or colony unless you build it
after that station or colony already exists - in which case, it will have
to be built and set up assuming there will not be a cannon such as yours to
supply it, unless you (or your employer) set up the station or colony too.

Maybe the most immediate value of spending
> time in space is that no government has jurisdiction there. So maybe
> women could get abortions in orbit to avoid prosecution? ;)


You are blatantly thinking only of what would be of value to Americans and
ignoring the rest of the world.  Don't, if you wish to be taken seriously.

Besides, that is only an issue in parts of the USA.  Getting to other
parts, like Califirnia, will always be far cheaper - unless you suppose
there will be a nationwide ban, in which case, getting to Canada or Mexico
will always be far cheaper.

But your
> point of financially incentivizing space colonization is well taken. It
> is not an easy question. I will think more on this and get back to you.
>

Please do.  The economics are a less solved problem than the technology.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240702/cb3fe71c/attachment-0001.htm>