I know you read lots of fiction about people that live in under ground bunkers for decades and what not. The problem is that as far as I know generally people don't live this way, and generally haven't been much successful at it. I would refrain at the point of austere monks that have by way having volunteered themselves for the sake of their own religious practices and observance in more extreme conditions of environmental deprivations, but even then one could neither describe their conditions as completely closed in the environmental sense, or that others would supplement their environment in some way so that their own existence should be feasible. Prisoners require this as would generally most human beings one could imagine. Practically speaking, while at any given time, one could see more so the self evident nature of human existence so adapted to the ecological habitats of this planet while, however, diverse these should be, placing some practical limit on the nature of one's existence elsewhere. If one were to attribute the successive generations of crop growths having produced any manner of vital nutrients in sustaining life here, while it could be assumed in the short term could be related to any number of basic nutrients, one could argue as to the nature of any number of micro nutrients, micro organisms and problems that could arise therein in simplified closed systems which could effect biological engineering projects, or at least it could also be problematic given limitation of space and only that much greater dependency on the productivity of that space for one's physical livelihood that less room given for problems given the lack of biological evolution typified for the same productive use of such organisms in a context
And then contrary to movie and fiction, I'd challenge someone to produce evidence that underground fish farms really do work and last for decades. Or challenge someone to grow sustainable crops for food stuff agricultural productions for decades in artificial environments without so much interactivity from an outside source. Yes there may be underground hydroponic farms for illicit drug trade, but I would offer even here systems are not completely closed.
Most likely first colonists would have to engage in re supply logistics, and might use in a limited context self produced goods that they could in part live off of, but likely even here, cramped space and quarters, and sterile white looking interior environments could be problematic to one's psychology over a length of time. While you might be able to go outside with the assistance of any life supporting mechanism, unless materials technologies were advanced at the moment, bulky, cumbersome and unseemly gear generally limiting physical movement with respect to long term living circumstances could present yet added difficulties to living. What should seem small trivial issues here in the terrestrial sense, could be problematic over time in handling from a psychological standpoint. I'd suggest for those interested to read any number of real life longer term expeditions and voyages, that weren't so successful or even if having been successful what experiences might be typified where environmental conditions were limiting to the degree of one's existence or where psychological stresses could be likely found. Unfortunately, if in the terrestrial sense one should find a given environmental extreme, Mars at best in the thermal sense comes closest to freezing a few inches in elevation off its surface while elsewhere in its atmosphere in their 'summer', thermal extremes abound relatively speaking which should make our polar climates look like the tropics, or if you considered the major differences in atmospheric pressure, your life is generally consigned to specially designed habitats that are foreign to mars itself. Sure NASA sent people up into the Arctic extremes to study in a limited context habitation possibilities or in the case of to test robotic equipment, for example, or maybe one could apply studies from known research outposts, but entire colonies of people living elsewhere for life? Most outposts aren't constructed on the premise of making a colony a place of habitation for life when it weren't conducive to life one could imagine for a number of reasons. Cost and feasibility just to name a few. Living where breathable air shouldn't exist may have greater associated cost mechanisms. The more complex machinery adds something in principle: that much more that could go wrong, and the more complex the assistance of mechanisms aiding life that couldn't be reproduced given the differences in native ecology and environments only add to these problems.
Sure people want to be inspired by the next generation race to something, or live on a dream, but there are many steps involved in the actuation of dreams like this. If you had a litany of studies and research touting proof of your claims, that you could do something and practically do it successful, I'd give you a pat on the back and blessing to go with it, but otherwise... .I'd say you'd better sticking some of these colonist wannabes up in the Arctic for years and see how well things go in their little life capsules up there?
Challenging lifelines in impractical and highly untested ways could be likened to thrill seeking, a form of gambling, or yet another example of ignorance or arrogance otherwise for much that could be taken for granted. One thing lacking in human civilisations at times that one at times might sense, outside of the branches of sciences which more readily could appreciate the longitudinal sense and scale of endeavours, the use of 'colony' in times historically has been marked with much tragedy with respect to any number of ill prepared groups of humans arriving and being highly interdependent for their given life lines actually on their respective host environment. Then I have thought often personally in some respect to desire when it has been impractical, and it seems more likely an immaturity born in our own condition, if only we have spent little time challenging and knowing the ramifications of challenging our own biological life lines, we should likely have little practical experience doing so, and often times practical in experience more so relates to the nature of what un forseen that should happen. A connection to this problem of practical experience versus theory in mind of possibilities are that often times, while our minds especially in the collective sense are powerful to imagine all sorts of contingencies respecting problems to survival in extreme and harsh environments, practical experience ranks the highest. This mean being armed with empirical sets of data and studies, and having the practical wisdom and experience of having lived in conditions that provide use and merit of the practices that have been developed for living in such environments. Imagination only goes so far with respect to our extremely complex biology and the complexity of our physical universe as a whole, and the same can be said of intelligence, and dreams likewise.
And then contrary to movie and fiction, I'd challenge someone to produce evidence that underground fish farms really do work and last for decades. Or challenge someone to grow sustainable crops for food stuff agricultural productions for decades in artificial environments without so much interactivity from an outside source. Yes there may be underground hydroponic farms for illicit drug trade, but I would offer even here systems are not completely closed.
Most likely first colonists would have to engage in re supply logistics, and might use in a limited context self produced goods that they could in part live off of, but likely even here, cramped space and quarters, and sterile white looking interior environments could be problematic to one's psychology over a length of time. While you might be able to go outside with the assistance of any life supporting mechanism, unless materials technologies were advanced at the moment, bulky, cumbersome and unseemly gear generally limiting physical movement with respect to long term living circumstances could present yet added difficulties to living. What should seem small trivial issues here in the terrestrial sense, could be problematic over time in handling from a psychological standpoint. I'd suggest for those interested to read any number of real life longer term expeditions and voyages, that weren't so successful or even if having been successful what experiences might be typified where environmental conditions were limiting to the degree of one's existence or where psychological stresses could be likely found. Unfortunately, if in the terrestrial sense one should find a given environmental extreme, Mars at best in the thermal sense comes closest to freezing a few inches in elevation off its surface while elsewhere in its atmosphere in their 'summer', thermal extremes abound relatively speaking which should make our polar climates look like the tropics, or if you considered the major differences in atmospheric pressure, your life is generally consigned to specially designed habitats that are foreign to mars itself. Sure NASA sent people up into the Arctic extremes to study in a limited context habitation possibilities or in the case of to test robotic equipment, for example, or maybe one could apply studies from known research outposts, but entire colonies of people living elsewhere for life? Most outposts aren't constructed on the premise of making a colony a place of habitation for life when it weren't conducive to life one could imagine for a number of reasons. Cost and feasibility just to name a few. Living where breathable air shouldn't exist may have greater associated cost mechanisms. The more complex machinery adds something in principle: that much more that could go wrong, and the more complex the assistance of mechanisms aiding life that couldn't be reproduced given the differences in native ecology and environments only add to these problems.
Sure people want to be inspired by the next generation race to something, or live on a dream, but there are many steps involved in the actuation of dreams like this. If you had a litany of studies and research touting proof of your claims, that you could do something and practically do it successful, I'd give you a pat on the back and blessing to go with it, but otherwise... .I'd say you'd better sticking some of these colonist wannabes up in the Arctic for years and see how well things go in their little life capsules up there?
Challenging lifelines in impractical and highly untested ways could be likened to thrill seeking, a form of gambling, or yet another example of ignorance or arrogance otherwise for much that could be taken for granted. One thing lacking in human civilisations at times that one at times might sense, outside of the branches of sciences which more readily could appreciate the longitudinal sense and scale of endeavours, the use of 'colony' in times historically has been marked with much tragedy with respect to any number of ill prepared groups of humans arriving and being highly interdependent for their given life lines actually on their respective host environment. Then I have thought often personally in some respect to desire when it has been impractical, and it seems more likely an immaturity born in our own condition, if only we have spent little time challenging and knowing the ramifications of challenging our own biological life lines, we should likely have little practical experience doing so, and often times practical in experience more so relates to the nature of what un forseen that should happen. A connection to this problem of practical experience versus theory in mind of possibilities are that often times, while our minds especially in the collective sense are powerful to imagine all sorts of contingencies respecting problems to survival in extreme and harsh environments, practical experience ranks the highest. This mean being armed with empirical sets of data and studies, and having the practical wisdom and experience of having lived in conditions that provide use and merit of the practices that have been developed for living in such environments. Imagination only goes so far with respect to our extremely complex biology and the complexity of our physical universe as a whole, and the same can be said of intelligence, and dreams likewise.
No comments:
Post a Comment