What Billionaire Tech CEOs Get Wrong About The Future, with Adam Becker

[Flyaway]

Dec 6, 2025 StarTalk Podcast
Are we making science fiction a reality? Is that a good thing? Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chuck Nice, and guest Adam Becker, science communicator and author of More Everything Forever, take a clear-eyed tour through sci-fi dreams, tech-bro promises, and the real science shaping our tomorrow.

We explore the predictions made by billionaires and futurists who claim they’ll build space empires, conquer death, and upload human consciousness. Adam breaks down how he researched the book by reading tech bro predictions, cross-checking with experts in their field, and getting stonewalled by the CEOs themselves. From there, the trio examines Mars fantasies: Elon Musk’s dream of a million-person colony by 2050, the brutal physics of radiation exposure, perchlorates in Martian soil, and why even The Martian got key dangers wrong.

We explore the singularity, “functional immortality,” and whether intelligence is a single number fated to grow exponentially. We unpack why Moore’s Law has already hit physical and economic limits, why AGI won’t magically fix global warming, and how physics (not hype) sets hard boundaries on computation, energy, and runaway technological dreams.

Do tech bros need a lesson in reading comprehension? We explore the misreading of science fiction as blueprints instead of warnings, and the real dangers of concentrating wealth, power, and hypothetical AI “genies” in the hands of a few. Along the way they revisit Star Trek, dystopian futures from Blade Runner to Soylent Green, and what science fiction can teach us about ourselves—if we actually read it correctly.

Neil closes with a cosmic perspective: the future will be shaped not just by invention, but by wisdom, restraint, and how responsibly we wield the tools we create.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6UdRXloqGc

 

[Archibald]

This will be a very useful tool to drive the SpaceX fanboys crazy.

 

[Justo Miranda]

You are too young to have lived in a time before the Alien myth, when people believed that the future would be much better than the present.

 

[abheiden]

Well they talk and laugh a lot.
The more the people laugh at you and make you rediculous you maybe on the right track.
It is Neil de Grass tysons bisiniss model.

 

[publiusr]

The thing is, without an Elon...you never get anything like Falcon let alone Starship.

Now I am no libertarian by any means. NASA cuts are unjustifiable. Any time something gets too popular (even bagging on tech-brahs..ick) we need to re-examine.

Without an Elon, only expendables are built. Had Bernie soaked him pre-SpaceX, that doesn't happen. Musk wants cheaper flight to Mars. Primes want to gouge.

There are examples where things can backfire:

I don't know if these two findings are fixed...but it is good to question everything:
https://phys.org/news/2025-12-inequalities-egalitarian-societies-anthropologists.htmlhttps://techxplore.com/news/2025-12-residential-solar-panels-electricity.html
There are folks with a Unabomberesque de-growth agenda, and while Elon and some of his foolishness make for easy targets--even government programs are not immune:
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/w...eport-EU-Space-Act-Cost-Impact-Assessment.pdf
Europe finally looks to be putting some real money behind space --and this think tank takes a shot. If this had been a wind-farm project--I am thinking they would remain silent.

There are folks who want us back in caves. Owning little, living in nature... it's called Alabama...and it isn't that great

On space dreams

Now to use a libertarian's words against him.

John Stossel laments the rise of Wikipedia, and frets over bias:

--which I argue is an argument AGAINST pure market forces where time consuming, old school craftsmanship (printed books, MSFC) fall to instant lies (shoddy internet sites, Lunar Starship, etc.)

So, to the John Stossels of the world--don't dare fuss about bad products (Wiki, Grok, etc.) as long as you defend the "whatever the market will bear" garbage.

You cannot follow Thoth and Mammon.

Take that, Stossel

 

[Justo Miranda]

Can anyone believe that millionaires plan to colonize Mars?

What happens is that in their new story they are using memes that already existed in the collective mind about what the future is supposed to be. The future that these guys are planning does not include us, and they prefer to try to change the current negative paradigm for a more positive one that eliminates social resistance to their projects.

Both the black future that they sold us with Alien and the bright future that these guys want to sell us will never happen.

The future is built by young people: when they choose to be architects and engineers we advance, when they choose to be lawyers or brokers, they eat up the profits of the previous generation.

Whoever leads the aspirations of youth builds the future.

 

[RanulfC]

Well they talk and laugh a lot.
The more the people laugh at you and make you rediculous you maybe on the right track.
It is Neil de Grass tysons bisiniss model.

Eh, no if smart people are laughing at you it is usually because your ideas are not all that smart. Especially if they have the "receipts" which there are LOT for people going to Mars in any near future time period.

Randy

 

[Justo Miranda]

Eh, no if smart people are laughing at you it is usually because your ideas are not all that smart. Especially if they have the "receipts" which there are LOT for people going to Mars in any near future time period.

Randy

All that separates an idiot from a genius is the success of an idea. Smart people never laugh at strange ideas, they take advantage of them and many become millionaires.

 

[Airbus A340]

In one of the space exploration threads every factually based objection to Mars colonisation is "refuted" with "Well they will get better technology." There is no arguing with faith. A Mars colony would require removing ROI and even then it cannot be done. Some people will not accept this and will waste endless resources pursuing it.

 

[publiusr]

It is easier to stop an asteroid than colonize Mars, but it is easier to do Mars travel than stop a supervolcano. Survival is the return on investment.... something bean counters never understand.

A response for the ages

https://twitter.com/x/status/1999213910772351437

Elon is Gen X like myself. I guess we are just different

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=trxpl3LpZBM&pp=ugUHEgVlbi1VUw%3D%3D

 

[BlueAbyssal]

This will be a very useful tool to drive the SpaceX fanboys crazy.

Not really. Nearly all of the arguments against Mars colonization are typically bad faith, tendentious, make arguments that their holders explicitly disclaim elsewhere, overstate issues (some of which are real, even so), and so on. I say this as someone who is not particularly interested in settling Mars, and is concerned about how much gravity we need for healthy gestation and childrearing.

Eh, no if smart people are laughing at you it is usually because your ideas are not all that smart. Especially if they have the "receipts" which there are LOT for people going to Mars in any near future time period.

Randy

Not necessarily. 'Smart' people ridiculed the Wright brothers, Goddard, Ignaz Semmelweis, Alfred Wegener, John Snow, Nikola Tesla, Stanislaw Ulam, and directly applicable to this forum, Elon Musk. I would argue it's easier to snow 'smart' people and get them to believe a foolish idea, because there are a good many ideas that are so dumb only an educated person could believe them.

In one of the space exploration threads every factually based objection to Mars colonisation is "refuted" with "Well they will get better technology." There is no arguing with faith. A Mars colony would require removing ROI and even then it cannot be done. Some people will not accept this and will waste endless resources pursuing it.

This itself is a faith-based argument (one that neglects numerous non-economic reasons for historical colonization, and I suspect is based on the idea of Mars' value being exporting raw materials to Earth, as that is the usual objection), and argues against strawmen. To say all the fact-based comments are on one side is absurd.

 

[Volkodav]

Mars is the new heaven.

Work hard, sacrifice and all will be good as we colonise Mars.

In the meantime, Billionaires $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[CaseyKnight]

Conquering death is impossible: It directly goes against entropy

 

[Airbus A340]

Conquering death is impossible: It directly goes against entropy

The Mars project is their denial of death.

 

[Airbus A340]

It is easier to stop an asteroid than colonize Mars, but it is easier to do Mars travel than stop a supervolcano. Survival is the return on investment.... something bean counters never understand.

Did anything survive the Deccan Traps? Did anything survive the Chicxulub impact? That proves the sheer idiocy of the Mars argument. The worst places on Earth are far more habitable than Mars. The Earth during the Deccan eruptions and during the impact was more habitable than Mars will ever be.

 

[publiusr]

Life in general yes....had we been around back then? Not good.

https://www.reddit.com/r/geology/comments/5dd7xx/why_doesnt_the_earth_have_volcanic_traps_anymore

In space propulsion
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/5116/1
On space law
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/5117/1

 

[Dilandu]

Do tech bros need a lesson in reading comprehension? We explore the misreading of science fiction as blueprints instead of warnings, and the real dangers of concentrating wealth, power, and hypothetical AI “genies” in the hands of a few. Along the way they revisit Star Trek, dystopian futures from Blade Runner to Soylent Green, and what science fiction can teach us about ourselves—if we actually read it correctly.

Techno-pessemists are desperatedly trying to regain their former status of wise prophets - after peoples finally realized that they were just a bunch of fools, pretending to be wise by scaring peoples with dark omens.

 

[Dilandu]

Conquering death is impossible: It directly goes against entropy

As long as there is energy & thermodynamic imbalance, the entropy could be locally decreased (at the cost of general increase, of course).

 

[Dilandu]

In one of the space exploration threads every factually based objection to Mars colonisation is "refuted" with "Well they will get better technology." There is no arguing with faith. A Mars colony would require removing ROI and even then it cannot be done. Some people will not accept this and will waste endless resources pursuing it.

Some peoples refused to accept that millions dying from smallpox is inevitable price on living. They pulled endless resources into it. Result? Smallpox is dead; we live.

Some peoples refused to accept, that muscle power, windmills and water wheels are the only source of power available. They pulled endless resources into it. Result? Steam, internal combusion, atomic energy, solar energy.

Some peoples refused to accept that famine and hunger just can't be fought. They pulled endless resources into it. Result? The Earth support far more peoples than anyone considered possible before, and the hunger firmly moved into social, not industrial problem.

The humans always denied death. And by our very natural purpose - to make tools, to change environment to suit our needs - we done that numerous times. It's what we are. Life by definition is denial of the death through adaptation, evolution - or active resistance. Humans evolved to be the best in third.

 

[BlueAbyssal]

The Mars project is their denial of death.

What does this even mean?

Did anything survive the Deccan Traps? Did anything survive the Chicxulub impact? That proves the sheer idiocy of the Mars argument. The worst places on Earth are far more habitable than Mars. The Earth during the Deccan eruptions and during the impact was more habitable than Mars will ever be.

Yes, and yes, given the profusion of life today. Mars is inhospitable as-is, but habitability is driven by our level of technology. We could not long survive across much of Earth without an intricate, complex web of technical support, certainly not in our current numbers. Claiming Earth will always be more habitable than Mars is another faith-based argument. It may be true, but there isn’t enough evidence to make such a strong claim.

 

[pathology_doc]

Neil de Grasse Tyson is probably consumed by the constant knowledge that he is not and never can become Carl Sagan.

If anything, he is Temu Carl Sagan. At best.

At worst, he is the sort of person Sagan warned against.

 

[Airbus A340]

Neil de Grasse Tyson is probably consumed by the constant knowledge that he is not and never can become Carl Sagan.

If anything, he is Temu Carl Sagan. At best.

At worst, he is the sort of person Sagan warned against.

I think this is a great point. The thing is, if Carl Sagan were around today, no one would listen to him. Instead of a candle in the dark, he would be a voice of sanity calling out in a cacophony of rubbish and no one would hear him, now would they want to.

 

[Airbus A340]

EROEI. Look at the EROEI for "Green Energy". It's low. EROEI for coal, oil, and gas is decreasing and the rate of decrease will increase until it is not worth producing it. The last gasp is thorium, which has not received the effort it should have. They were too busy building other things.

To think that the limit on tech is people is ridiculous. The idea that tech naysayers have any influence is absurd. The limit is energy. Potential energy stores let people make technology. When potential energy stores run out, that's it. No more "economy" and not more growth. There's no "innovating" our way out of that. The tech enthusiasts should be putting everything on thorium as a bridge to fusion. Fusion is 20 years away so we need thorium to bridge that 20 years. In 20 years, fusion will still be 20 years away so we'll need another 20 year thorium bridge. In 20 years, fossil will largely be played out so we will need massive amounts of thorium. But wait, there's more. The wind and solar that has worn out will need to be replaced. So we need more thorium. It's mind boggling that so little effort goes to the only source capable of keeping it all going. Where is the all out effort to build thorium fission? The people doing the tech do not even understand how tech actually works. Technology is ways of using energy. "The economy" grows when we tap potential energy stores. The last available store is thorium. It's the only way forward and very little is being done. We can look forward to seeing a collapse over the next 20 years unless there is a crash effort to develop thorium fission.

 

[BlueAbyssal]

You’d be more believable if you came up with some numbers-for example, how much energy industrial society currently uses, what the primary sources are, what demand you expect over the next couple decades. Otherwise this is all mere fearmongering.

If ‘tech naysayers’ had no influence, our grid would have far more nuclear deployed decades ago, and data center operators wouldn’t be thinking it’s a better idea to move to space than to deal with Earthly regulations.

 

[Brett Davidson]

Peter Sellers at least made the prospect of living in tunnels under a poisoned wasteland funny.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZct-itCwPE

 

[Brett Davidson]

data center operators wouldn’t be thinking it’s a better idea to move to space than to deal with Earthly regulations.

Laws and regulations don't stop at the Karman line. This book expends a good many words explaining this fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars#Sociology,_law,_and_politics

 

[dan_inbox]

Hmm. This discussion may be useful as an outlet for people's frustrations or beliefs, but it is difficult to see what it has to do with a database dedicated to unbuilt projects.
Maybe this thread should be moved to the "discussion & speculation" area.

 

[BlueAbyssal]

Laws and regulations don't stop at the Karman line. This book expends a good many words explaining this fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars#Sociology,_law,_and_politics

Nowhere am I implying they do; but the process is significantly different, and rules that make sense on Earth do not intrinsically make sense for space. It is a unique environment.

As for A City On Mars, I’m familiar with it, and its authors cannot be taken seriously, as they had a predetermined conclusion and shaped the evidence to fit, rather than the other way around. They have a handful of good points, but they’re wasted in the midst of a morass of partisan, one-sided rhetoric that doesn’t honestly engage with the topic they present. They’re charlatans.

 

[RanulfC]

In one of the space exploration threads every factually based objection to Mars colonisation is "refuted" with "Well they will get better technology." There is no arguing with faith. A Mars colony would require removing ROI and even then it cannot be done. Some people will not accept this and will waste endless resources pursuing it.

In that aspect there's more people in general who assume that "technology" will allow many of the most silly things to happen "real soon now".
My current favorite is "Nano technology and AI will at last let the "libertarian", loner "colonist" to finally be "left alone"...

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

It is easier to stop an asteroid than colonize Mars, but it is easier to do Mars travel than stop a supervolcano. Survival is the return on investment.... something bean counters never understand.

By "bean counters" you mean most everybody OTHER than those who are heavily invested in the concept of "space" colonization?

The main issue (and I'll get more into this below) is that space is vastly and quantifiably "different" than any attempted settlement or colony on Earth by its most basic nature. The majority of people do not see "species survival" as a priority or even for the most part anything they actually think about. Which is why as a "reason" for space exploration, exploitation or colonization never gets any traction.

Not really. Nearly all of the arguments against Mars colonization are typically bad faith, tendentious, make arguments that their holders explicitly disclaim elsewhere, overstate issues (some of which are real, even so), and so on. I say this as someone who is not particularly interested in settling Mars, and is concerned about how much gravity we need for healthy gestation and childrearing.

So more leaning toward colonizing Venus then
More seriously the numerous problems with living and working in space are very real and the majority have not been adequately addressed, especially by folks such as the Mars Society and Elon Musk. It's not an actual "goal" as much as something to "aim" for "someday" but that reality doesn't bring people in to help pay the bills. So they spin a dream of it all being possible "now" with all the problems "solved" by "modern technology" when that is patently untrue. But who's going to tell that the dreamers and visionaries that want to go "now" not someday in the future... Or never.

Not necessarily. 'Smart' people ridiculed the Wright brothers, Goddard, Ignaz Semmelweis, Alfred Wegener, John Snow, Nikola Tesla, Stanislaw Ulam, and directly applicable to this forum, Elon Musk. I would argue it's easier to snow 'smart' people and get them to believe a foolish idea, because there are a good many ideas that are so dumb only an educated person could believe them.

Actually in most cases it was smart people that defended them, not derided them and often the "opposition" only had more media reach or the ear of more people than the actual people who understood what was going on.

In context Elon fancies himself the modern "Tesla" and in fact I tend to agree since Tesla essentially had one "good" idea and then ran with the media to talk up nonsense and false progress for most of his "later" work, just like Elon does.

This itself is a faith-based argument (one that neglects numerous non-economic reasons for historical colonization, and I suspect is based on the idea of Mars' value being exporting raw materials to Earth, as that is the usual objection), and argues against strawmen. To say all the fact-based comments are on one side is absurd.

Eh but there literally is no "economic" return to drive colonization of space. At all.
You say there were "non-economic" drivers for colonization which were so far and few that they really are not a valid argument. I'll ask for some examples please.

There's literally nothing in space worth going out there to get at any current or projected prices for access. There COULD be a lot of things but the most often touted or suggested usually fall short or do not need a "colonization" effort. Even if/when prices come down by several orders of magnitude the paradigm of "offshore-resource-extraction/services" model would likely be both cheaper and better served by automation or "skeleton" crew type operations.

Now me, I very much want space exploration/exploitation/colonization to happen. But there's no chance any time soon of the latter two and we need way more of the first to even be able to characterize the other two before we can even really begin.
Yet the true believers say we just need to slap a colony down "someplace", "extract and refine some water ice" and go to town.
The problems and issues with any of that are huge and not being addressed by any of the groups that are advocating to "go now", but they all act like the problems are "overblown" or the issues are actually "trivial" and that the "other side" is being (as you say) "bad faith" or "overstated" when they actually are not. It's rather (un)funny but the groups or people who have actually tried to research, address and try to solve the "problems" and "issues" at a grassroots level tend to get even more disdain from the "true believers" as being too "slow" in setting goals by those same "true believers".

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Techno-pessemists are desperatedly trying to regain their former status of wise prophets - after peoples finally realized that they were just a bunch of fools, pretending to be wise by scaring peoples with dark omens.

Techno-optimists have pretty constantly over-inflated and fallen short of their aspired goals, and when those techno-promises don't meet people's expectations or the promised goals they tend to turn off more people than they ever inspired.

The "reality" as is the case most often is somewhere in the middle.

Some peoples refused to accept that millions dying from smallpox is inevitable price on living. They pulled endless resources into it. Result? Smallpox is dead; we live.

Great example as many people today no longer think that disease and viruses are that big a threat and are literally bringing them back from the precipice of extinction. They are pouring "endless resources" (and in fact reducing the resources to fight such efforts) into turning back the clock so it goes both ways.

Some peoples refused to accept, that muscle power, windmills and water-wheels are the only source of power available. They pulled endless resources into it. Result? Steam, internal combustion, atomic energy, solar energy

And in most cases the "techno-optimists" oversold the actual technology and long stretches of development time were needed to make those systems actually workable.

Some peoples refused to accept that famine and hunger just can't be fought. They pulled endless resources into it. Result? The Earth support far more peoples than anyone considered possible before, and the hunger firmly moved into social, not industrial problem.

Very often through the use of technology and chemical means that had longer term serious side and follow on effects that are still issues today. Progress has always had downsides that were not just "techno-pessimism" as you call it.

The humans always denied death. And by our very natural purpose - to make tools, to change environment to suit our needs - we done that numerous times. It's what we are. Life by definition is denial of the death through adaptation, evolution - or active resistance. Humans evolved to be the best in third.

And we still don't live everywhere on Earth because the needed technology isn't affordable nor realistic to try and develop to a point where this is possible. Now space in inherently more hostile and unforgiving that the most inhospitable place on Earth and the technology we have is barely adequate to allow us to live there only with a very close support system with a very deep technology and industrial base that can only be found one place in the Solar System.

Your flowery language and attempts to produce an emotional response simply do not address the actual issues and problems, and the "techno-optimism" without actual technology solutions, let alone any actual "plan" is simply vainglorious boasting.

Randy

 

[Brett Davidson]

Nowhere am I implying they do; but the process is significantly different, and rules that make sense on Earth do not intrinsically make sense for space. It is a unique environment.

As for A City On Mars, I’m familiar with it, and its authors cannot be taken seriously, as they had a predetermined conclusion and shaped the evidence to fit, rather than the other way around. They have a handful of good points, but they’re wasted in the midst of a morass of partisan, one-sided rhetoric that doesn’t honestly engage with the topic they present. They’re charlatans.

Well, having actually read it, I see that they present plenty of facts not subject to opinion, so name-calling doesn't exactly refute them or indicate that these facts can be ignored. Their bios also indicate that they have relevant qualifications and are taken seriously by respected publications and institutions. Your claim that the authors' predetermined their outcome contradicts their own statements that they began their research with a far more optimistic belief than the one they ended up with - so quite the opposite actually.

Their conclusion, contra Musk, is that space colonisation will be difficult, expensive, risky, not much fun at first, and take time... but they certainly don't say that it's impossible or shouldn't be done. It just can't be done next Tuesday. An entirely reasonable conclusion I would think.

 

[Brett Davidson]

It's rather (un)funny but the groups or people who have actually tried to research, address and try to solve the "problems" and "issues" at a grassroots level tend to get even more disdain from the "true believers" as being too "slow" in setting goals by those same "true believers".

An astrophysicist on YouTube read out some of the hate mail she'd received after posts on the impracticality of warp drive and the necessity for centrifuges. One accused her of preventing a return to the moon for the last fifty years, and that wasn't one of those with a death threat.

Depending on your level of medication, it's amusing or depressing.

 

[RanulfC]

Yes, and yes, given the profusion of life today. Mars is inhospitable as-is, but habitability is driven by our level of technology. We could not long survive across much of Earth without an intricate, complex web of technical support, certainly not in our current numbers. Claiming Earth will always be more habitable than Mars is another faith-based argument. It may be true, but there isn’t enough evidence to make such a strong claim.

Eh no, because Earth WILL always be more habitable than Mars because any kind of "terraforming" is not possible with current or foreseeable future "technology". Technology failure on Earth means 'some" humans die, technology failure in space means everybody there dies. Space is as I've said inherently hostile and unforgiving, more so that any place on Earth. The Earth is literally the ONLY "habitable" planet and that is a simple and straightforward fact.
We can survive on other planets and in open space but only with applications of loads of technology and then only in small numbers.

It's not a matter of "faith" it is a fact base assertion, because we know our technology and it limits. (This includes technological trends and paths we are currently pursuing) Our current knowledge of ourselves also reinforces these facts since we do NOT actually know biological limits in space which we are still learning about.
The assumption that "technology can solve all the problems" ignores the very real problems and issues that technology literally CAN NOT address.

RAndy

 

[publiusr]

By "bean counters" you mean most everybody OTHER than those who are heavily invested in the concept of "space" colonization?

Bean-counters are like Bloomberg... individuals who aren't futurists.

It is easy to mock tech-bros---but there are far worse individuals.

Over the years, I noticed that more noble pursuits on programs like SHARK TANK simply didn't get the kinds of funds less worthy start-ups enjoyed.

One episode saw Mark Cuban all but throw money at a wine-cooler company. He invested because they were marketing "fun."

Like we didn't have enough drunks.

The lack of funding for more noble pursuits is why some tech-brahs are a necessary evil...

Take the Falcon rocket.

It doesn't get made if Elon gets soaked April 15th, and VCs run from aviation/aerospace (read FREE FLIGHT). Short sellers damage institutions, and folks like Vought want NASA strangled.

The problem is that not only do VCs tell engineers "no," so do politicians.

Greens hate levy construction, and the DNC loves social programs like Republicans love tax breaks.

The result of bipartisan stupidity was Katrina, which cost taxpayers more to fix than to prevent--and the flooding was a worse environmental disaster than boosting levy construction.

But idiot judges blamed the Army Corps of engineers, who could do nothing WITHOUT MONEY.

I just wish I could find a tech-bro who likes paving roads.

One of the worst stretches of roads was in front of an asphalt plant. The suits tried to get the county to do it. The county tried to get the state to do it--they in turn fussed at the company and wanted them to fix what their heavy trucks damaged in the first place.

The ability to just fund things out of pocket is liberating. Pave a road, and if some nobody in local government fusses about some legal technicality--who cares? The road exists...is smooth, etc.

In context Elon fancies himself the modern "Tesla" and in fact I tend to agree

Poor Nikola was badly used by businessmen.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/tesla-contract/

Now me, I very much want space exploration/exploitation/colonization to happen.

This is why both Old Space and New Space needed to have each other's back.

What I expect to happen is that Trump will continue to attack NASA, the DNC retakes Congress--they go after Elon with taxes, and now both Old Space and New Space are wrecked.

That is what I see happening.

You can always depend upon people being evil, and Becker's backbiting makes him just as much a villain in my eyes as is Vought or Proxmire.

All heat-no light.

People need to quit trying to kill the other guy's thing and learn to get along.

 

[RanulfC]

Neil de Grasse Tyson is probably consumed by the constant knowledge that he is not and never can become Carl Sagan.

If anything, he is Temu Carl Sagan. At best.

At worst, he is the sort of person Sagan warned against.

I think this is a great point. The thing is, if Carl Sagan were around today, no one would listen to him. Instead of a candle in the dark, he would be a voice of sanity calling out in a cacophony of rubbish and no one would hear him, now would they want to.

Eh, no actually. Growing up with Sagan, and having listened to Tyson I can say that the eternal optimism of Sagan was often misplaced. (As was his occasional doomsday moments) Technology can't solve every problem and neither can techno-optimism that does not consider aspects that are non-technical and can't ignore possible short and long term consequences of that technology, especially when applied without proper safeguards. Sagan and Tyson would probably argue a lot but would fundamentally have the same core agenda and beliefs, but different ways of presenting those beliefs. Both would (and do) decry the current anti-intellectualism but frankly would find common ground more often than not.

Randy

 

[BlueAbyssal]

The majority of people do not see "species survival" as a priority or even for the most part anything they actually think about. Which is why as a "reason" for space exploration, exploitation or colonization never gets any traction.

This isn't actually true. When Gerard O'Neill was presenting his ideas, there was a significant surge in support among ordinary, non-enthusiast types. It died when the promise of the Shuttle died, but it was there.

So more leaning toward colonizing Venus then

No. Venus is a worse target.

More seriously the numerous problems with living and working in space are very real and the majority have not been adequately addressed, especially by folks such as the Mars Society and Elon Musk. It's not an actual "goal" as much as something to "aim" for "someday" but that reality doesn't bring people in to help pay the bills. So they spin a dream of it all being possible "now" with all the problems "solved" by "modern technology" when that is patently untrue. But who's going to tell that the dreamers and visionaries that want to go "now" not someday in the future... Or never.

The same was true-more so, in fact-when Kennedy announced the goal of putting a man on the Moon and returning him safely. I do not agree with your assertion that it's seen as 'something to aim for someday,' or that it's 'all possible now.' These are caricatures, nor does anyone serious claim 'modern technology' can solve all the possible issues. I would also note that the so-called 'dreamers and visionaries' are making rather more progress at addressing the need that underpins all other requirements-cheap launch-than the doubters.

Actually in most cases it was smart people that defended them, not derided them and often the "opposition" only had more media reach or the ear of more people than the actual people who understood what was going on.

Not at all. In every single case I listed, the smart people thought they were stupid and actively opposed them.

In context Elon fancies himself the modern "Tesla" and in fact I tend to agree since Tesla essentially had one "good" idea and then ran with the media to talk up nonsense and false progress for most of his "later" work, just like Elon does.

Forgive my digression into sarcasm: I forgot that selling hundreds of thousands of vehicles that can drive themselves, launching more often than the rest of the world combined, and operating more satellites than the rest of the world combined, is nonsense and false progress.

Eh but there literally is no "economic" return to drive colonization of space. At all.
You say there were "non-economic" drivers for colonization which were so far and few that they really are not a valid argument. I'll ask for some examples please.

Your first claim is a faith-based argument. Either you cannot imagine, or you have already persuaded yourself, that there are no possible economic drivers, but that isn't the same thing.

Non-economic examples: religious (such as the Puritans and Pilgrims establishing colonies in New England); geopolitical rivalry (the Scramble for Africa), security (Russian expansion into Siberia); even political exile (the ancient Greeks, in places like Miletus or Corinth, expelled dissidents and founded colonies to house them).

There's literally nothing in space worth going out there to get at any current or projected prices for access. There COULD be a lot of things but the most often touted or suggested usually fall short or do not need a "colonization" effort. Even if/when prices come down by several orders of magnitude the paradigm of "offshore-resource-extraction/services" model would likely be both cheaper and better served by automation or "skeleton" crew type operations.

Give specific examples with dollar amounts. 'Literally nothing' and 'at *any* current or projected prices' is so extreme as to be absurd. In reality, there are a fair number of raw materials that at even $8,000/lb ($4,000/kg), they could be shipped from Mars to Earth profitably, should someone decide to do so, because demand is fairly elastic, such as platinum, rhodium, iridium, and palladium. AstroForge has already signed letters of intent for the purchase of up to $8 billion worth of PGMs through asteroid mining, though they're targeting NEOs rather than the Main Belt.

Now me, I very much want space exploration/exploitation/colonization to happen. But there's no chance any time soon of the latter two and we need way more of the first to even be able to characterize the other two before we can even really begin.

I agree, we need to do a fair amount of actual exploration, not the faux exploration currently done by NASA, with ground truth, to decide where to place early colonies. Had the pejoratively-called 'visionaries' and 'enthusiasts' been in charge, rather than the 'serious' people, it's likely we'd have done far more of that already.

Yet the true believers say we just need to slap a colony down "someplace", "extract and refine some water ice" and go to town.

Strawman. In reality, the people who take it seriously have put a fair amount of thought into where a colony might go, without being so strident.

The problems and issues with any of that are huge and not being addressed by any of the groups that are advocating to "go now", but they all act like the problems are "overblown" or the issues are actually "trivial" and that the "other side" is being (as you say) "bad faith" or "overstated" when they actually are not. It's rather (un)funny but the groups or people who have actually tried to research, address and try to solve the "problems" and "issues" at a grassroots level tend to get even more disdain from the "true believers" as being too "slow" in setting goals by those same "true believers".

Give specific examples, please. I'll name some issues that are overblown anent Mars: perchlorates, radiation, dust storms, and energy. All of those have solutions that are well within the state of the art of our present knowledge. From my perspective, the 'true believers,' to use your pejorative, are generally far more interested in actually solving issues than the doubters, who consistently come off as being primarily interested in showing off how smart they think they are, or tearing others down.

Well, having actually read it, I see that they present plenty of facts not subject to opinion, so name-calling doesn't exactly refute them or indicate that these facts can be ignored. Their bios also indicate that they have relevant qualifications and are taken seriously by respected publications and institutions. Your claim that the authors' predetermined their outcome contradicts their own statements that they began their research with a far more optimistic belief than the one they ended up with - so quite the opposite actually.

Having also read it, they present plenty of opinions disguised as facts. I am not particularly persuaded by credentialism, the technocratic idea that experts have all the answers is not one I buy into. They consistently interviewed people who are lacking in their scholarship (Daniel Deudney, for example, cannot be taken as a credible source unless one's goal is to signal your tribal values over taking an honest look at the problems of space settlement), and they essentially make the argument that we should endlessly plan and research everything, instead of starting with a minimum viable approach and iterating as we learn what our real needs are.

Their conclusion, contra Musk, is that space colonisation will be difficult, expensive, risky, not much fun at first, and take time... but they certainly don't say that it's impossible or shouldn't be done. It just can't be done next Tuesday. An entirely reasonable conclusion I would think.

Musk has said it will be difficult and expensive and not much fun at first, and that it will take time. So has virtually everyone else seriously interested in the subject. Why do you think he's so focused on figuring out how to pay for settling Mars? Don't confuse making the cost to get there much cheaper, and being cheaper on an individual level, with the cost of an entire colony.

Eh no, because Earth WILL always be more habitable than Mars because any kind of "terraforming" is not possible with current or foreseeable future "technology". Technology failure on Earth means 'some" humans die, technology failure in space means everybody there dies. Space is as I've said inherently hostile and unforgiving, more so that any place on Earth. The Earth is literally the ONLY "habitable" planet and that is a simple and straightforward fact.
We can survive on other planets and in open space but only with applications of loads of technology and then only in small numbers.

We can survive on most of Earth only with the application of loads of technology. Even in the past century our capabilities for something as basic as agricultural productivity per acre have dramatically increased. Technology failing in space doesn't mean everybody dies unless the engineers are abysmally foolish. Just as we do on Earth, we'll build redundancy into our habitats beyond it.

It's not a matter of "faith" it is a fact base assertion, because we know our technology and it limits. (This includes technological trends and paths we are currently pursuing) Our current knowledge of ourselves also reinforces these facts since we do NOT actually know biological limits in space which we are still learning about.

We don't know our limits. It's a postmodern mindset, and rather a hubristic one, that thinks we are the apex of technical civilization.

The assumption that "technology can solve all the problems" ignores the very real problems and issues that technology literally CAN NOT address.

To again descend into sarcasm, it's a good thing that literally no one serious is making that argument then, isn't it?

 

[Dilandu]

Techno-optimists have pretty constantly over-inflated and fallen short of their aspired goals, and when those techno-promises don't meet people's expectations or the promised goals they tend to turn off more people than they ever inspired.

They at least were trying. While techno-pessemists were doing... what exactly? Puffing cheeks?

Great example as many people today no longer think that disease and viruses are that big a threat and are literally bringing them back from the precipice of extinction. They are pouring "endless resources" (and in fact reducing the resources to fight such efforts) into turning back the clock so it goes both ways.

And this is exactly the techno-pessemists to blame - a lot of resistance to new vaccines came from hordes of idiots who screeched, babbled and quacked against genetic engineering, with their dire predictions and media attention.

And in most cases the "techno-optimists" oversold the actual technology and long stretches of development time were needed to make those systems actually workable.

The point is, in long terms they actually worked exactly because techno-optimists weren't willing to give up at first underperforming results.

Very often through the use of technology and chemical means that had longer term serious side and follow on effects that are still issues today. Progress has always had downsides that were not just "techno-pessimism" as you call it.

Those problems were solved, aren't they?) And peoples even start to consider those problems only because the more fundamental ones went away. Before 1950s, the majority of mankind were too worried about what to eat at all, than to worry about dangerous chemicals in food.

And we still don't live everywhere on Earth because the needed technology isn't affordable nor realistic to try and develop to a point where this is possible. Now space in inherently more hostile and unforgiving that the most inhospitable place on Earth and the technology we have is barely adequate to allow us to live there only with a very close support system with a very deep technology and industrial base that can only be found one place in the Solar System.

Why should we spread into inhospitable regions of Earth? What they could provide? Space, at least, have abundance of energy, space and raw materials. Hardly could be said about Antarctica or ocean floor; both those areas aren't energy-rich.

Your flowery language and attempts to produce an emotional response simply do not address the actual issues and problems, and the "techno-optimism" without actual technology solutions, let alone any actual "plan" is simply vainglorious boasting.

And your dire warnings do not make you looks smart, so what?

 

[Brett Davidson]

I am not particularly persuaded by credentialism, the technocratic idea that experts have all the answers is not one I buy into.

And yet you need the experts to build the technology - it is distinguishable from magic after all.

Getting a higher degree is hard work and being a professional means maintaining standards under the scrutiny of your peers. I'll place more trust in someone who has credentials than someone who's permanently addled by ketamine and trying to attract investment to shore up the immense overvaluation of Tesla. The companies that Musk has bought or established employ some fine engineers indeed, but his claims about terraforming Mars are frankly idiotic and it's a demonstrated fact that time and again he has been wildly inaccurate about his timetables.

When things like this happen:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7NJo2Ckbw0


It's worthwhile to consult expertise, not PR.

 

[Michel Van]

Let's face it Elon Musk action let enter him into history books

TESLA revolutionised Electric Car market and soon Robots with AI.
SpaceX revolutionised Spaceflight with Falcon 9 and Starship.
Starlink provide Internet worldwide.
The Boring Company provide fast and low cost tunnelling.
Neurolink will one day help disable people.

Musk dosen't made this for charity, he made this for own Profit (and his footprint in History)
But also to shake up the World, who became after Apollo "lazy" for progress and exploration.
His plan for Mars colonisation will give new impulses and Dreams.

Even if this failed, it will left Orbital infrastructure and industry on Lunar surface

Jeff Bezos follow with Blue Origin similar plans, but focus on O'Niel Cylinder colony
and other will follow in China, India and every Nation get access to heavy Launcher service.

This will be Elon Musk legacy