/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7010172
I'm not so sure it is a matter of initial "setup cost". No matter what infrastructure you create initially, everything will eventually have to be recreated by the colonists. I'm skeptical of what kinds of technology could be recreated there. How many different types of resources would it take to create a wind turbine? Copper? Iron? Rare Earth metals? Aluminum? How would they mine it all?

More generally, I have the sickening foreboding that a lot of humanity's technological power is dependent on scale. Despite all our technology, if you reduce humanity to just a few thousand people then they may be no better off than our ancestors 100,000 years ago. Semiconductors, antibiotics, internal combustion engines, electric turbines, steam engines... They may not be able to recreate virtually ANY of the technology we feel so proud of today.

That said, Antarctica is particularly difficult to extract minerals from so I suppose the colonization of Mars (which is the topic that inspired me to start this discussion) is more amenable to your idea that self sustained colonies are simply a matter of how much initial infrastructure one leaves there. Mars is the harsher environment but it has more easily accessible resources. We simply would need to determine the types and quantities of resources necessary to live on and move about Mars, determine where those resources are on Mars, and set up colonies at each of those locations and viola. Humanity has a second basket to keep its eggs.

Multipane northward facing greenhouses would be necessary for growing construction material and food, but fuel costs for creating both the glass of the greenhouse and refining the metal used in glass production may be exorbitant. Abundant coal would make this problem trivial, but use of coal is a uniquely terrestrial solution that would not be available to space colonies and there is still remains the difficulty of extracting coal on a continent mostly covered by kilometers of ice.

The fuel for glass and metal production could be obtained from plants grown in the greenhouses, but between the needs of the people tending to the greenhouses and the needs of industry the caloric budget of these colonies would no doubt be tight and perhaps unsustainable. A R&D program might be necessary to eek out the most efficiency from every process using the least amount of resources possible before attempting the creation a truly self sufficient colony.

Beyond all of this is the possibility of creating colonies based around nuclear energy. The ability to utilize nuclear energy would solve all aforementioned problems to life on Antarctica and would allow a much more complex civilization to be sustained. However, it would require a much more costly initial R&D program to design the ideal nuclear reactors which are simultaneously safe, reliable, simple, and can be easily fabricated using the limited resources available on Antarctica.

Frankly, it might be just as difficult if not more to live in the middle of Antarctica as it is to live on parts of Mars. At least Martian minerals aren't covered by glaciers.

>>7006272
Actually, Mars and space colonization in general is at the heart of this thread. That's why I brought it up in the OP.

>Even in an optimal environment on Earth we can't have a self-sufficient "colony" that maintains above stone-age technology. Modern tech requires a global scale economy to support it.
I didn't mean to imply the "colony" would just be on one location on Antarctica. I meant that humans could be spread across the continent trading fish for metal ore and such between one another. The primary stipulation at the heart of this thought experiment is that there would be no contact with anything beyond Antarctica and its immediate waters.

>>7006175
>Arcology
An arcology? In a way, yes, but that term more pertains to implementing an ecological system in an already densely populated area. Using it in this context may constitute a broadening of what an arcology refers to. It gets at the essence of what I am curious about though.

What is the relation between the harshness of an environment and the technical complexity a population of humans can self-sufficiently sustain?

For example, could humans live and prosper in a closed system off of input of electrical power alone? Where might Martian colonists obtain such power? Would they be able to not just maintain that means of power generation using what is available to them but also expand upon their habitats? If we have the means of answering those questions then creating additional refuge for humanity means simply launching enough equipment to the Martian surface to get the ball rolling. If we can't answer those questions then in which technical fields must progress be made? Is the lofty task of any degree of terraformation necessary to make Mars hospitable by any definition of the word?

>>7006121
>In this case I would interpret "self-sufficient" as meaning "Able to export enough value to pay for their needs." No city is "self-sufficient" in the strict sense.
Actually, what I meant by self sufficient is utter self sufficiency, that is if shipments stopped coming from the beyond Antarctica the colonists would be able to fend for themselves. That question is of vital importance when talking about using Mars as another "basket" to put our "eggs" in because if we can't even survive on Antarcticca indefinitely then we will never be able use Mars as such a "basket".

Obviously the exploitation of both Antarctic and Martian mineral wealth in order to create a greater intercontinental or interplanetary civilization respectively would be preferable to handful of self-sufficient colonies keeping to themselves, but the fact remains that humanity needs multiple potentially self-sufficient populations if it is to survive for thousand of years and beyond.

>>7006121
Colonization of Antarctica would be a good trial for colonizing beyond Earth, but that's where the value of colonizing Antarctica ends. Colonizing beyond Earth's gravitational well such that further space infrastructure can be constructed in space as opposed to being lifted up from Earth's surface would be very beneficial to humanity and would lead to the exploration, exploitation, and colonization of the entire solar system and beyond. The potential is nearly infinite. Colonization of Antarctica therefore only makes sense so far as it aids the colonization of space.

If the priority is oil and mineral wealth on Earth then the frontier to push is probably the bottom of the ocean instead of Antarctica.

>>7006001
Any work for a physics BS and a failed attempt at an EE Masters? I've been contemplating making a big change in my life after calling it quits on furthering my education, admittedly Antarctica is a bit more of a change than I had previously been considering, lol. Antarctica sounds more interesting than part timing as a substitute teacher and if they are in dire need of an extra pair of hands...

>>7005994
I would imagine cabin fever would only be a significant issue with generation zero colonists. Humans that are born into and grow up in a world where being indoors means warmth and being outside means biting cold would be conditioned to not want to be outside for extended periods of time.

>>7005945
You bring up a good point. Perhaps an utterly self-sufficient colony with its own greenhouses, fishing fleets, and mines could be maintained using everyday technology that could be sufficiently duplicated by said colony. Perhaps we will never be able to test the hypothesis because there is no pressure motivating humans to eak out such a life when much comfortable living exists one plane ride away.

I would imagine low birth rates and high suicide rates would be less of a problem if the humans living there had no comfy alternative to be jealous of. If self sufficient colonization of Antarctica is indeed possible and if for some absurd reason Antarctica was the last refuge of humanity (other continents bathed in radiation or zombies or [insert crazy science fiction here]) then I strongly doubt humans would grumble "I miss my comfy chair and internet" straight to extinction. In such a scenario a society would evolve that motivates individuals to value their contributions to the community and humanity.

It brings up an interesting thought about space colonization though. Despite Mars One having thousands of applicants for a one way trip to Mars, might an actually substantial attempt at space colonization be hampered by a lack of people willing to give up their land and wealth on Earth in order to live a harder life in a distant place? Such a diaspora would be a first in human history.

>>7005926
The initial R&D for developing technologies that could be sustained indefinitely might be expensive (e.g. designing wind farms that can survive the cold and can be built using nothing but bamboo, iron, copper wiring, and whale fat for lubricant). The more money initially put in the more complex machinery can be built and maintained after the "colony" tries being self-sufficient.

An interesting article about greenhouses in the Arctic that I am currently reading.
> http://modernfarmer.com/2013/10/arctic-farming/

Could humans live self-sufficiently in Antarctica?

The coast would be preferable due to the abundance of fish, and perhaps greenhouses could allow for the growing of bamboo and wood for construction of boats and buildings. But could life be sustained inland using greenhouses for food alone? Could geothermal activity be utilized for habitats above or below the ice?

These questions seem very relevant to the prospect of humans creating permanent colonies beyond Earth.

bump?

bump

>>6935082
Someone once told me a lot of physics grads end up going into such fields, but honestly I'm not sure if I'd excel at it. I have a tough time absorbing a lot of disparate information. That's why I went into physics. Learn 4 equations and poof, you understand electricity and magnetism. Everything beyond that is just smooth stream of derivation.

Maybe though. I probably have more theoretical knowledge of computers than 98% of the population if not much innate practical skill, and I have to take what I can get.

>>6935080
Actually that was my original plan:
3 years physics + 2 years engineering = 2 degrees

But the informal 3-2 program between my school and another dried up the year I applied (everyone who applied all previous years got in and no one got in my year).

After graduation I spent a year as a bum, first taking some pointless community college courses I was simply interested in over the fall semester and then working a job over the spring. I originally applied to an undergrad program, but I didn't do well during that single semester of community college courses, and because that was the last college I attended that was the only GPA that mattered to the Undergrad Department. They wouldn't even accept me after I made my argument face to face.The grad department was lest bound by retarded rules, so here I am.

I wouldn't mind taking your advice and sticking it out for a BS, but once I'm out I'm out. They didn't accept me into the undergrad program originally and I doubt they will do it now. I spent the last few years taking undergrad courses and I wasn't doing phenomenal. I'm smart, but I'm a poor student. I can't control what I focus on, and it's been getting worse recently. I think senioritis is setting in. I'll have no problem focusing in a work environment. I just need a job.

bump

>>6934954
Time to break out this old chestnut.
>One day, Earth will be a pale shadow of its former self and humanity will number in the trillions; most of which will live in confined, utilitarian space habitats. That will be the state of humanity from that point on. We will live on the foreign shores of alien worlds longer than we were hunter gatherers in Africa. And all the while humans will search the sky for a blue dot and wonder what it must have been like living on the world you evolved on, the world you were born for; to be able to walk through fields of grass that share your genetic code, grass that you are related to; to live on a world that doesn’t require constant supervision to maintain habitability, a world that takes care of you…

>Don’t get me wrong, I’d love nothing more than to walk across the surface of Mars. I’d jump at the chance to take a one way trip to the red planet if it was offered to me. I love space! However, just because space is amazing and just because humans are not exploring it doesn’t mean the age we live in isn’t just as amazing.

I got a Physics BS and then went directly into an Electrical Engineering grad program. Long story short, I couldn't coax the necessary effort/focus out of myself and now I'm going to be academically dismissed.

I was trying not to aim too low when I decided to go for a grad degree, but at this point I just want to get a job. What are my options? I certainly am more capable as an engineer thanks to the courses I took but a physics major is a tough sell as it is and I would imagine employers may take my EE grades as proof that I can't be an engineer.

I assume I can get certified as a high school physics teacher, but I'd rather be in industry.

Basically any infection of the brain scares the living shit out of me.

bump

>>6447365
Larry Niven's novel Destiny's Road about a human generation ship arriving at a world to colonize only to discover that the food is inedible because it has an opposing chirality. They end up using the atmospheric transport ship's engines to sterilize an entire peninsula to grow their own food. Later, native seafood becomes a popular diet food among the descendants of the colonists because they don't get any calories from it.
>the twist is that the planet's biosphere finds potassium poisonous and native marine species over the last billion years used it as a poisonous defense mechanism and have thus concentrated most of the planet's potassium at the deepest reaches of the ocean in their dead bodies. The majority of colonists end up with serious brain damage due to the lack of potassium before a usable source of potassium is discovered.

In the Mass Effect series, "levo" and "dextro" species live side by side by neither can eat the others food because it causes horrible stomach cramps, allergic reactions, and sometimes death.

>>6447323
Most dismiss the topic of the chirality of life as a matter of chance, but some theorize that either one chirality may have an advantage over the other or that the polarization of light may have played a roll in the handedness of amino acids on early Earth. One theory is that the polarization of light scattering within Earth's oceans and then reflecting back off the water's surface may have been the cause. Another theory is that amino acids came from space and that the polarization of light due to the particles of the interstellar medium aligning themselves with the galactic magnetic field led to amino acids of a given chirality being more common than the other.

Interesting stuff.

>>6447365
I did some searching on the subject of biological chirality yesterday and I came across a wikipedia page of chirality in popular fiction. I read a the background synopsis of a few science fiction novels on the page, but it seems like that particular novel isn't mentioned. We should probably add it.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_chirality_in_popular_fiction