/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10364517
Because we've really fucked the sea up already.
Via, microplastics, warming, acidification, sewage, etc.

>>10364517
Real life Rapture would be cool desu

>>10364517
Because we're being run by a power structure that wants only to kill most of us off. We're not trying to go or do anything new, they're trying to contain, control, eliminate.

We haven't been trying for the last 60+ years.

>>10364517
You do know that pressure increases by one atmosphere per every 10 meters. Good luck colonizing deep sea!

>>10364517
It'd be more practical to make floating cities than underwater cities. Also, water is really heavy.

>>10364519
why do you get to decide what the optimal sea is

>>10364561
im not saying build a mile under, but if you build say a couple 100 feet under

>>10364586

ive heard those proposals seastedding

>>10364517
for what purpose should we live underwater? Why go through the expense of building underwater?

>>10364517
The oceans are going to become uninhabitable long before land will.

>>10364626
for what purpose should we live on Mars? Why go through the expense of building on Mars?

we could increase population without worrying about landmass
you could end up with another 7billion humans under the sea and it wouldnt break resources and barely scratch the surface in terms of density used, earth could probably end up being an Ecumenopolis or arcoloogy

rather than flying how many odd millions of miles to mars

>>10364517
Because it's easier to build something that only needs to survive <1 atmosphere then it is sixty gorillion atmospheres under the sea.

>>10364646
but why should we live UNDER the sea?

BECAUSE WE CANT LIVE IN THE SEA

>>10364671

wel you live under the sea as opposed to above it
you wont have to worry about sea swells and hurricanes.
also if you building out anything large enough for hundrends of millions it would end up blocking sunlight from oxygen producing sea lifeforms that need photosenthesis

we already spend 1billion dollars on a cruiseship that can hold 1000 people for entertainment.
and it would cost 1 trillion dollars to send that same amount to mars, where as if you had 1trillion dollars
would could have alot more bang for you buck

>>10364693
Ehh you still would need to care about major weather events...
Aside from that your buildings would need to withstand varrying atmospheers of preasure and stres on the building itself due to ocean currents
Oh and if something breaks youre quit likely to have a few dead people on your hands.
And the actual proscess of things breaking is a hell of a lot more likely under water than over water because you have a lot more points of failure that all would be more likely / or more dangerous eg a Fire.

>>10364712
>Oh and if something breaks youre quit likely to have a few dead people on your hands.
and... whats the difference between that and mars.

>>10364715
Ok lets take an example you have a hull breach on your hand ..... first of all in your situation water would come in and kill everybody quite quickly.
On Mars same situation you can only have a difference of 1 atmosphere so its a bit less bad in terms of structual damage off the bat.
Then your people inside will likely have the air in their lungs sucked out of them and well will likely die.
So what are the things you can do against that in both situations ?
Sea well you build a better wall bexause sealing it after there was a breach can be quite annoying if you are quite low(water jets with a few 100 psi can be used to cut things afterall)
Aside frim that you might have other problems and i dont want to go into detail here.
On Mars you would have quite a different situation as you could deploy a rapid sealing mechanism with some kind of quick hardening foam amd after that you can just pump new air into it.
And i dont really know the likelyhoods of either thing happening but i belive that quite a few more boats and uboats have gotten punctured then all space fairing vessels(in regards to the area that is meant for humans)

>>10364738
how would a hull breath happen?
ships cant get to it, too deep for ships
subs would see it a mile away
it wouldnt be built from from fiberglass anyway and likely would be double hull,with each section of the hull contained in its own little piece


only thing would be some terrorist action

>>10364757
Or i dont know preassure,animals,corrosion,internal damage,propably quite a lot of other things......

all of you are insane brainlets for even responding.

why do we go to mars? earthen recources are gettinh garder to harvest, climate is going the wrong way. an extinction event on earth would mean the end of us, so we want to ensure the continuuation of our species, and not put all our eggs in the same basket.

are ANY of these problems solved by going to insane lengths to build pressure resistant cities on the seabed?

doyou think all of those billions go to space exploration because some jackasses think SPACE CEWL LETS SHOOT BIG WHITE BENISES IN SKY.

fucking kys all of you

>>10364517
You're an idiot OP

>>10364769
Nah i dont think so but the examples given in this thread were mars and under water shit i do love my terran arcologys for a large populace

>>10364527
Speak for yourself, these few years I've been alive. I've been giving it a shot regardless.

>>10364786
stfu with ypur useless ideas, youre wasting everyones time with your fucking pop sci thread.
fucking imbeciles get off my board REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

hey guise wai d0nt' w3 jus7 d0 wh4t th3 Du7ch d1d evryware

>>10364769
what resources are we running out of that requires spending trillions of dollars to setup a colony on mars but we cant spend the same trillions to fix earth

>watches aquaman once

>>10364517
We should do both. Doing both will help us explore the outer planet's moons, some of which have oceans larger than the Earth's.
>tfw you will never be a submarine pirate sailing the seven space seas

>>10364517
because andrew ryan wasn't born in this universe

>>10364646

Don't keep all your eggs in one cosmic basket, anon

>>10364520
only before the downfall

but i don't know why i find the game fucking comfy

>>10364822
>>10364818

im fine with this

>>10364808
>>10364808

nice, ignoring all of my other reasons, but sure ill bite. exploring space and establishing a outside presence is very expensicve indeed and will take a long time. one day the earthen resources will become rare and very expensive. when we have a martian/lunar presence we could start engaging in the act of asteroid mining. wich would grant humanity more recources than theyll need for hundreds of thousands of years.

its a long term goal.
btw mind the fact that you just isolated one of the lesser reasons from my argument and then acted as if i had that as a sole justification to spend 'all those billions'

nobody will ever take you seriously if you argue like that.

>>10364819
My last name is Ryan. I'll have to do.

Because containing less than an atmosphere is easier than trying to keep a gorillion atmospheres out.

Also you can't see or do shit at depth.

>>10365093
Radio signals don't work for shit underwater either.

>>10364561
Not permanently.

>>10364671
Because everythings better
Down where its wetter
Under da sea!

>>10364517
>colonize mars

JELLO BABIES!
JELLO BABIES!
JELLO BABIES!

>>10364594
It is one in which life can flourish, and if you don't think it is because of some contrarian reason, go and bathe in boiling acid.

Build underwater cities in Mars.

>>10364517
For as secluded as an underwater living enclosure would be, there is plenty of empty space to just build the thing on land.

>but mars

We’re not seriosuly colonizing mars any time soon either. The big thing you need to encourage colonization is cheap land where said land is actually improved by getting people to live there. That is not Mars. There is value in the research, because harsh condition survival ends up generating novel solutions to mundane problems, but right now a serious colonization effort exists only in Elon’s celebrity science.

>>10364517
>colonize
>>>/pol/

>>10364517
Deep Sea is actually a more hostile environment than Mars. Only real advantage is shorter supply lines.

>>10364646
Global extinction event insurance. Colonizing more parts of the same globe does not help with this.

THread theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=Fkusy4ylhiY

>>10365602
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity

The real insurance policy is access to space and the technology to colonize further worlds. Mars is important because:
1. Getting there and living there requires the very tech we need.
2. Lower gravity makes it easier for a Martian civilization to colonize further, even if their civilization would be more prone to catastrophic collapse.

>>10364693
>> end up blocking sunlight from oxygen producing sea lifeforms that need photosenthesis
just how fucking big a city are you making here? submarines cost billions of dollars and hold a lot less people than cruise ships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine
>>sea swells and hurricanes
and why would it be cheaper to build underwater than to make structures on the surface capable of resisting hurricanes or swells? Underwater structures have to contend with massive amounts of pressure. In addition, having large underwater living areas creates problems too, because these large underwater living areas are less dense than water one has to contend with HUGE BUOYANT FORCES! Not to mention just providing air is a lot more difficult than on the surface. When you have a fire, you're extra screwed.
>>10364517
>>imagine a clear glass road way tunnel from one underwater city to the next
not happening. It'd be hugely expensive to make a long clear underwater tunnel. Not to mention, just cleaning all the grime off of said tunnel would not be cheap.
>>growing cows under the water
would be very expensive. There's no reason to build underwater cities. At least the mars people can sort of claim that they won't be dead if something really bad happens on earth. The only reason underwater cities were considered was for underwater oil drilling, but then that was found to be impractical

>>10366087
>Lower gravity makes it easier for a Martian civilization to colonize further
There's literally no reason to ever get trapped in a gravity well ever again.

>>10366210
Rockets are expensive. Escape velocity could be practically impossible to acheive for alien civilizations on particularly dense super-earths.

>>10365942
Mars fags don't grasp how shitty Mars actually is.
Even if an Asteroid the size of Chicxulub were to crash on earth with all the death and destruction Earth would still be an infinitely more hospitable place for human life than Mars.

>>10364651
If that were the case, there would have been more astronauts than submariners. But the number of all submariners that ever lived is several orders of magnitude higher than the number of all astronauts that ever lived.

>>10364517
The point of space colonization is not lack of space on Earth, it's so that humanity will survive in case of a nuclear war

>>10366290
Just because life on other worlds will always be more tenuous doesn't mean extinction can't come to Earth.

>>10366297
Is this a joke post?

>>10366321
Extinction came to earth several times already. And Earth with these extinction events is still and always will be infinitely more hospitable than Mars.

>>10366328
Which part didn't you understand?

>>10366341
Forever is a long time.

>>10366304
remember reading all 7 billion of us could fit in the state of TX

Why not just live on Earth? The whole Mars colonization shit is such a fucking meme.

Even with artificial gravity, osteoclasts will break down your bone almost immediately, requiring high levels of physical exertion daily. We will also need to live primarily under the surface as the lack of atmosphere and magnetosphere allows dangerous radiation to penetrate several meters through most materials. Not to mention all the other health and living reasons Mars is not ideal for humans..

So now you're talking about an investment of trillions of dollars to create a somewhat suitable living space. Ok, maybe we could collect our resources and will power to get it done, but why? What's the advantage to living on Mars? There really is no logical answer. You would never get to talk a walk outside, or go hike a mountain, or lounge by the beach on a warm summer day ever again. Go off, elon fuck bois

>>10365598
EACH LITTLE SNAIL HERE KNOW HOW TO WAIL HERE THATS WHY ITS HOTTER UNDER THE WATER YA WE IN LUCK HERE DOWN IN THE MUCK HERE UNDER THE SEA

>>10364832
Not that anon but
>argues one of your points
>HAH, you forgot X and Y, even though you never clearly stated your position on the matter
>nothing personal kiddo
Calm down and spare us the blog ty

>>10364605
100 feet underwater
>a mile offshore drops like 1 mile down instantly

>>10364693
>underwater ocean current pushes against your underewater home
>1 gram per square cm X force
>destroys your home

with material sciences, renewable energy tech, and electric propulsion getting better shit like this is more cost effective and doable but still kinda of a glorified house boat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUr4Xqiopw

problem comes to, where do you park it, and how do you get it through rivers and channels and shit

>>10366350
It costs more to get stuff into space.

>>10366341
As said, habitability doesn't mean extinction is impossible.

>>10364517

Because we aren't mean to live underwater, and even if we managed to, it'd be way too expensive. No one knows about the long term effects of living underwater with all the added pressure. There's be too many things to compensate for. I'd do what the Danish are doing right now and invest in stable floating islands. That way we could move buildings wherever we pleased when needed.

>>10366744
Similarly, technical feasibility of colonization doesn't mean better chances of survival.
In fact, wasting resources on preventing a perceived threat with a ridiculously small probability could actually mean to lessen chances of survival as these resources lack elsewhere where they could be put to better use.

>>10366739
So we can conclude that the assertion that space is easier than submarine is wrong.

>>10366753
>>Because we aren't mean to live underwater
you got it

>>10364517
Salt water is incredibly corrosive.

>>10364689
we cant live on mars either whats your point

>>10364519
the ocean has radioactive plumes dumping all sorts of isotopes and random stuff into it all along the divergent boundaries. You think far too much of mankind.

>>10367434
Bitch please.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGFGvDUSxy8
Oh, gosh, yeah, that's totally "normal".

>>10365953
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

>>10367437
>even divers have selfie sticks now

Fuck this world.

>>10367437
Are you fucking retarded? Did you even fact check the video before regurgitating it as truth?
http://www.interaksyon.com/breaking-news/2018/06/25/129370/what-the-award-winning-dead-whale-installation-art-says-about-the-philippines-pollution-problem/
It's a hippie art piece you manually breathing, soup brained invertebrate.

>>10367485
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_2NuK5O-E

>>10367485
>>10367499
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/20/indonesia-dead-whale-had-1000-pieces-of-plastic-in-stomach

>>10367485
As for that tiny part of that video, that was just to catch your attention. That amount of plastic pollution floating around isn't acceptable.
Why? Because it breaks down into microplastics:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCgA-n5wRw

>>10367437
>compact the trash
>flatten it
>smooth out the bottom
>put styrofoam on top (which fills 1/3 of all landfills)
>put mealworms in styrofoam (they can digest it)
>mealworm bodies decompose and make dirt
>mealworms attract birds
>birds carry seeds, and plants grow
>introduce animals
>wait a few years
>drop anchor
bam, within 20 years the worlds trash is now a floating island where people can live and infrastructure can be made

>>10367514
dont quote me on any of those numbers

>>10367514
Nope, because we need the precious metals, non-precious metals, rare earth metals, et cetera, that has piled up due to shitty recycling practices and over use of reachable resources (before you start yammering on about a ferrous core).
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_mining

>>10367520
>yoink the precious metals out then continue with the plan starting from step 1

ggnoreezpz

>>10367541
But we also need the rare earth metals, and it would be handy to have the aluminium, tin and whatnot.

>>10364517
Its legitimately harder. You basically need all the same new technology - life support, closed ecologies etc but you're in harsher conditions.
Larger relative pressures, harder to power, harder to build, harder to move around outside the habitat, more likely to die if you're suddenly exposed to the outside (byford dolphin was only 9atm of relative pressure). Hell, its even colder there for practical purposes - most of the places we'd colonize in the solar system are either warmer than the 0-3C that the deep ocean gets too or are vacuum/close to it and so provide insulation like a Dewar flask. Meanwhile water is a pretty good conductor of heat.
Tbh I'd love to see an underwater city one day, but if its Mars OR Atlantis and not both, Mars is the better option.

>>10364605
>>10364561
>>10364586
Average ocean depth is ~3500m. So ~350atm. Largest pressure I've ever seen humans survive and work under is 70 but idk if they can stay there indefinitely.
>>10366866
>>10366297
Getting to space is hard, getting to the water is easy. Surviving in space is easy, surviving underwater is hard (relatively)
When you're talking about visiting, the getting there is a far larger component of the total. When you're talking about colonization, there is a lot more surviving that there is getting there.

>>10364517
Because that is fucking stupid. If you want to spend lots of money and resources building housing, it's much easier to just build artificial islands or floating structures.

>>10364517

You're not safe from cataclysmic events in the sea.

Megatsunamis from any major cataclysmic event close by will fuck your structures up. And you're still not completely self-sufficient.

A colony on mars or anywhere not earth forces us to become 100% self-sufficient. Any establishments on earth are still relying on backup life-support which is the rest of the cvilization, and ultimately the earth's biosphere.

When the civilization dies due to either manmade or natural calamity, your ocean colonies will likely perish along with them due to not being 100% self-sufficient (because there's no real need or incentive to do so because you have the aforementioned ultimate backup systems).

>>10366864
Similarly, technical feasibility of colonization doesn't mean better chances of survival.
Yes it does. I don't understand why you don't believe so.

Think of it this way. A world with life is an organism. It can live and it can die. It can also reproduce. It can either be fertile or sterile. A world is fertile if it has intelligent life with the technology political structure to colonize and civilize other worlds. Currently Earth is alive but not demonstrably fertile. Earth may become fertile but then cease to be indefinite due to cataclysm and technical regression. Mars may become alive and be fertile early (long before any terraforming) thanks to is low gravity and the necessity of having the technology for space colonization simply to survive on Mars. Mars may be fertile during a period when Earth is not, and the me possibility of that proves that colonizing Mars improves the survivability of both humanity and terragen life in general.

>>10364642
Redpilled.

>>10364757
Good thing terrorist action never occurs

>>10369258
>>10364642
How so? They aren't even habitable now, what with most of the oceans being deserts and humans having a tent to down.

>>10364769

I am a brainlet, but I'm assuming various minerals we are after which are getting scarcer underneath the land are bound to exist underneath the ocean floor, too. Unless there's a geologic reason why a rare earth mineral might show up under the surface of some Congoese mountain but not under the surface of some oceanic sea floor.

>>10366210
Using trucks to get materials is a lot more effective than sending rockets.
Gravity well argument only works if you assume you're importing everything no matter which you choose.

>>10369351
The Bajau would like a word with your retarded ass:
Inside a Malaysian village cut off from the world:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW8INuxKmTs
At Home Under The Water, Philippines on BBC Ocean Planet:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDspP4BhlTw
Some people have evolved bigger spleens to hunt underwater:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3fOf5YZI-Q
Sama-Bajau:
>Sama-Bajau have sometimes been called the "Sea Gypsies" or "Sea Nomads", terms that have also been used for non-related ethnic groups with similar traditional lifestyles, such as the Moken of the Burmese-Thai Mergui Archipelago and the Orang Laut of southeastern Sumatra and the Riau Islands of Indonesia. The modern outward spread of the Sama-Bajau from older inhabited areas seems to have been associated with the development of sea trade in sea cucumber (trepang).
Boat-dwelling:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sama-Bajau#Boat-dwelling

>>10364517
Why not both? Why do people assume that mankind can only be doing one thing at a time?

>>10370025
Why are you mad about finding someone who didn't know some barely relevant and little know facts about some literally who's at the ass end of the world?

>>10370048
Point being, you're wrong.
If you want to browse /sci/, brush up on your trivia.
Although, to be fair, you could've just Googled:
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sea+dwelling+people
Like any smart person would've, to make sure they weren't just about to get BTFO.

>>10367437
>>10367506
Why don't the stupid fucking whales just look at what they're eating first?

>>10370053
It's not even relevant. They don't literally live on the middle of the ocean not does that have anything to do with the middle of the ocean becoming less habitable. You are toxicly dumb despite your obnoxious condescension.

>>10368417
>Its legitimately harder.
I disagree, I think supplies and logistics would be the number one thing in such an endeavour and getting shit under the sea is a hell of a lot cheaper and quicker than getting shit to Mars

>>10364594
>>10367434
Regardless of who did it, it's literally worse than crawling in municipal sewage because of mercury, radioactive particles, and shit from every life form on the planet. There's huge dead zones in it with absolutely nothing of value.

>>10370062
I dunno? Why don't we? Stupid humans. Almost like they're fucking everywhere!
Section:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics#Humans
Summary:
>A 2018 study conducted on eight individuals from Europe and Japan found microplastics in human feces for the first time. All participants were found positive for at least one type of microplastics after all of them had consumed plastic-wrapped food and drunk water from plastic bottles while six had also eaten seafood. It was noted though that the study was small-sized, preliminary and unable to reveal the true origin of the plastic particles.[70][71]
Sources:
>Picheta, Rob (October 23, 2018). "Microplastics found in human stools, research finds"
>Parker, Laura (October 22, 2018). "In a first, microplastics found in human poop". National Geographic

>>10370053
I wonder what the incidence of cancer is in their society and the levels of heavy metal poisoning in their blood are from being near China.

>>10370065
>Moving my goalposts.
Interesting, I knew you were going to be a disingenuous nob-cheese wheel.

>>10370076
I suppose you could try and find some studies in Google scholar?

>>10370062
>>10370075
And when I mean:
>... they're fucking everywhere!
I'm not even really being that hyperbolic in dietary terms.

>>10370062
I don't know why don't we just look what we're inhaling before being exposed to NOX, SOX, and particulates?

>>10370082
Are you seriously claiming that just opening your mouth and swallowing whatever the fuck happens to go into it isn't biologically stupid?

>>10370081
>>10370075
And let me guess, I should be worried because it causes cancer right? Like every single other fucking thing invented since 3000 BC, it causes cancer.

How scary oh no I'll add it to the 10000 page list of shit that causes cancer.

>>10370090
>>10370093
Imagine actually being this much in denial.
You're one of those people who goes:
>Look at all of these rates of low-functioning autistic spectrum disorders because of modern toxins! Vaccines too, Alex Jones told me!
But then, when actual environmentalists point out your cognitive dissonance you go:
>Pfft, fear-mongering!
Pick a stance, and be consistent, you moron.

>>10370093
>>10370099
By the way, plastics contain xenoestrogenic compounds, and you don't want to turn gay like those frogs Mister Jones told you about too, do you?!
You guys are a fucking joke.

>>10370099
You're the one comparing microplastics to whales swallowing literally 1000 pounds of solid material waste.

>>10370105
They're one of the same, you idiotic ignoramus.
The sea breaks down the plastics, like it does with rocks, into microplastics. So the more "macroplastic" you have, the more microplastics you're going to have in the not-too-distant future!
Duh, dumb dumb.

>>10370110
>... idiotic ignoramus...
And no, that isn't a tautology, before you pretend like you know jack shit.
Whilst both idiotic, and ignoramus can mean "stupid", ignoramus is "nearer" to ignorant.
So what I'm saying is:
>You're stupid, and don't know what you're going on about.

>>10370110
>They're one of the same, you idiotic ignoramus.
>one of the same
>of

>calls someone else an ignoramus

>>10370117
>a typo is symbolic of intelligence
Lmao, nice way to make it a semantic argument, you're going to lose, see: >>10370116
Stop trying, you aren't going to win, and you don't belong on this board.

>>10370093
>How scary oh no I'll add it to the 10000 page list...
Should be:
>How scary, oh no, I'll add it to the 10000 page list...
Oops, looks like by your own metric you're stupid too, because of a typo.

>>10370122
So whales are in fact, stupid?

>>10370077
You either are schizophrenic or believe Anonymous is one person.

>>10370133
Groups tend to have in-group beliefs that are semi-consistent, duh.

>>10370132
By that logic, we are too.
Although, the real issue is maladaptation. They didn't adapt to deal with macro- or microplastics, because they didn't exist until we invented them. Whilst there would have been other insolubles, they probably didn't pose the same kind of biological risk and thus such a mutation was neither beneficial nor harmful, and as such, wasn't selected for.

>>10370142
>By that logic, we are too.
Can't argue with that, you're clearly stupid and I'm no Robert Einstone

>>10370146
So stupid that I trounced you at every turn. I guess that means you're some kind of amoeba, or stromatolite.

>>10370156
Are you autistic? Genuinely asking. You're taking arguing on the internet very seriously.

>>10370163
I have Asperger's syndrome, but I enjoy a good acerbic diatribe.
I don't actually mean anything by it, and would happily get along with you in person.
However, I must do my civic duty as a true 4chan patriot.
I mean, what is 4chan without the 4chan aesthetic? Just another boring imageboard.

>>10364517
Because humans can do neither.

>>10364517
why not in ground super caves?

>>10370070
Either needs to become quickly self sufficient, no matter what justification is used for their founding. Its a lot harder to do that underwater.

>>10364594
Same reason I dont heat my house via combustion engine with all the doors and windows sealed.
Actually kys retard