Talk:Space colonization/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed Edit

Sir,

Would you find this relevant and acceptable?

Thanks

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Colonizing solar system The Chang’e lunar landed belonging to China touched down on the distant side of the moon in January 2, 2019 where no human being or robot ever tried to land in the past. The launching took place on December 8, 2018 from Xichang satellite launching station in Sichuan Province of Southern China. It entered into orbit on December 12 also on 2018. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/01/china-change-4-historic-landing-moon-far-side-explained/ Many consider the Chinese lander’s successful touchdown as a major accomplishment and vital step towards space colonization efforts of China in the future. Chang’e landed on the unknown South Pole-Aitken Basin specifically the Von Karman Crater based on the declaration of the China National Space Administration (CNSA). The Agency published a colored image of the moon’s flat surface and dark skyline beyond. However, the government withheld the mission details from the public. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/03/china-probe-change-4-land-far-side-moon-basin-crater No other nation touched down a lunar lander on the moon’s far side. The moon blocking direct communications with Earth made the mission more complicated. China utilized a relay satellite called Queqiao in sending transmissions to scientists. The Chang’e carried a 300-pund rover equipped with spectrometers and probes. It also carries German as well as Swedish research equipment. https://taskandpurpose.com/china-moon-landing The Swedish Institute of Space Physics released a press release on January 4, 2019 which detailed the historic event along with the Swedish instrumentation used. This is the Advanced Small Analyzer for Neutrals (ASAN) instrument developed by the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in Kiruna in partnership with the Chinese National Space Science Center (NSSC). The instrument determines the interaction of the solar wind (flow of charged particles from the Sun with the moon’s surface. The Analyzer is fitted on the top of the Chang’E-4 rover. It facilitates taking of measurements at various locations. The measurements can lead to processes for water formation on the Moon. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=53549 Martin Weiser, Swedish Institute of Space Physics researcher and senior scientist as well as ASAN primary investigator, is expecting the initial science data before February 11, 2019. http://www2.irf.se/~wieser/ The People’s Republic of China (PROC) 2017 budget for civilian and military space programs more than the Russian Federation and Japan. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the budget in 2017 was around $8.4 billion. However, it is much lower than the $48 billion budget of the United States. https://phys.org/news/2019-01-space-rival-china.html

One sentence edit

Greetings!

Can this be included under Robotic exploration?

Robotic exploration In July 10, 2017, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) revealed that it planned to draft a consistent architecture for the planet Mars in line with future robotic missions to the Red Planet.

Nasa Planning August release of Mars robotic explanation architecture=|Foust Jeff=spacenews.com/nasa-planning-august-release-of-mars-robotic-exploration-architecture/

Thank you.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with space colonisation. And it’s hopelessly out of date. Why are you wasting everyone’s time pasting half-baked and irrelevant suggestions into so many talk pages? Andyjsmith (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

I can't find any verifiable sources on this online, but I remember hearing that a big part of the desire to "explore space" in the 1980s (and especially today with the advent of SpaceX) is the fact that humans, particularly politicians, are disgusting and that it would be nice to re-start civilisation in a controlled, dignified way that doesn't allow for degeneracy. Would this be a valid inclusion under "Reasons?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squrk (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's never been a big part, though "spacesteading" is occasionally proposed by the same fringe libertarians who think seasteading is a good idea, e.g. [1] - that's the closest I could find to a non-fringe source, and it's not really taking the idea very seriously - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, since I believe in linguistic relativity, I think that it's better to have a word that people laugh at than to feel alone with no word at all, so I thank you. I was referring more to pop culture depictions of space travel than official ones admittedly. It seems to be a strong theme in a lot of David Bowie's music as well as shows like Star Wars and Star Trek and then again today. Do you think that spacesteading encompasses the concept of being a hermit, recluse, misanthropist, etc., in space or is just an anarchistic interpretation of space colonies? That is to say, when we refer to "spacesteading," are we referring to societies that are outside of the control of the government or are we referring to individuals going off-planet to avoid everyone including the government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squirk2.0 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This being Wikipedia, I suggest we stick to what the WP:RSes say - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Yellow dwarf colonization" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yellow dwarf colonization. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mention for the Risk of Spreading WAS via Space Colonization

Would anyone object to adding the following paragraph to the objections section of the article?

Another potential risk is that space colonization eventually may spread wild-animal suffering to other planets, before the problem has a chance to be addressed on Earth.

Below I question the revert done on the almost identical mention that had been added recently.

The reason for the revert was "WP:UNDUE weight on fringe view".

If "fringe view" refers to the concern for suffering of non-human animals in wild nature (WAS) in general, then I don’t think the reason applies. One reason is that WAS has been recognized to the extent that at least two charities - Wild Animal Initiative and Animal Ethics - are fully dedicated to the problem of WAS. (Wild Animal Initiative is on the Top Charities list of Animal Charity Evaluators.) Then, several other organizations (including the Center on Long-Term Risk, Sentience Institute, 80,000 Hours, Rethink Priorities, the Centre for Effective Altruism, Sentience Politics, the Center for Reducing Suffering, and the Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering) have dedicated some amount of their work to the problem. And several authors and academics have published on the topic.

Another reason for not rejecting WAS as a “fringe view” is that it can be argued that WAS is just an extension of the established and widely recognized field of animal welfare.

If "fringe view" refers more specifically to spreading WAS beyond Earth, then, as I cite in the proposed mention, the risk has been discussed both in academia and researchers from several non-profit organizations. One can also independently argue that if WAS and space colonization are legitimate topics warranting their own Wikipedia articles, then the risk of Earth-originated extraterrestrial WAS is justified to have at least a mention in the space colonization article.

Based on the above reasons, my current view is that at least a brief mention of the risk of spreading WAS beyond Earth is justified.

The only counter-argument for adding the mention that I can think of is that the risk of (Earth-originated) extraterrestrial WAS may sound like a science fiction. But so arguably is space colonization, which has the extensive article nonetheless. And if colonizing other planets is discussed on Wikipedia as a future prospect, then, one can argue, the risk of extraterrestrial WAS is similarly real.

What do others think?

ObjectiveSubjectivity (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

As I indicated in my edit summary I think it's a clear fringe position. You've cited a great many sources above that are not about space colonization at all. And maybe it has been written about by some non-profits, but if these are all fringe orgs themselves (like a lot of the orgs under the Effective altruism umbrella or fringe animal rights advocates) that's not of much help. If this is a mainstream concern, I would expect to see it in mainstream sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You've cited a great many sources above that are not about space colonization at all.

As per my post above, it wasn’t obvious to me whether “fringe view” referred to spreading wild-animals suffering (WAS) beyond Earth or to WAS in general. (In hindsight it is clear to me now that I should have assumed that your concern referred to the more specific issue.)

Anyway, showing that concern for WAS not as fringe as one might imagine on first hearing about it may be important, as, again, if we assume space colonization, extraterrestrial WAS is a real (even if remote) risk. (I haven’t seen any sources w/ counter-arguments to the plausibility of the risk, although one can argue that there hasn't been enough time for this view to reach its critics.) And also the concern for the risk is an extension of WAS and the field of animal welfare more generally.

… maybe it has been written about by some non-profits, but if these are all fringe orgs themselves ...

I don't think this applies to these sources. (It’s fully my fault that one can miss it among all the sources on WAS in general.)

I would like to solicit other editors' perspectives on the proposed addition, as I still think that a one-sentence mention of the concern is justified.

ObjectiveSubjectivity (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

ObjectiveSubjectivity, O'Brien is writing about Directed panspermia, not colonization. We already have an objections section on that article that deals with animal suffering. MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, the risk - spreading WAS to other planets - is the same, and the paths toward it share the same logic, as far as I can tell. At the same time, since both space colonization and directed panspermia pose that risk, I think it is warranted to mention it in both articles. (Thank you for bringing the DP article to my attention BTW.)

ObjectiveSubjectivity (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, if you don't object, I'm going to ask for a third opinion to assist in resolving the dispute.

ObjectiveSubjectivity (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey all, here from 3rd opinion. I see lots of references, I haven't review them since they are too many, but I would like to see just a couple of them, discussing the WAS problem in relation to space colonization. Is there one? If there is even one published work (from an academic paper or published at a RS like NYT, BBC, Reuters and the likes. Also, I am not sure if this is a fringe theory, since for a theory to be fringe, it has to depart from the mainstream opinion. In this case, there is no mainstream opinion. Unless there is published work though, it could give undue weight to an insignificant opinion or constitute RS. Anywayz, if there is a published article (not an article by activists on the matter) I am for inclusion (attributed ofcourse).Cinadon36 06:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, This is a very bizarre way to apply policy If there is only one published work that supports a view, including it in the article would seem to be the very definition of WP:UNDUE. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is a peer reviewed article claiming A while there are no articles claiming not-A. As I understand Undue, it applies in cases where there are lots of different opinions for the same matter ie opinion A, opinion B and opinion C. If A and B are the most prominent by far, while C gets little coverege, then inserting it at an article. Only the most significant should be covered. See WP:WEIGHT, it talks about minority opinions. Our discussion is theoretical, since no relevant article has been cited, so far.Cinadon36 15:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, An example: I can cite a peer reviewed source (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611420731) that says that if you lean to the left, the Eiffel Tower appears to be smaller. No one has published a paper disputing this. Do you think that should be added to Eiffel Tower? - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This example fits perfectly to illustrate WP:PRIMARY. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan: PRIMARY is about (not) doing primary research at WP. Users can cite primary research published at peer reviewed journals. @MrOllie:, interesting article, but I wouldnt insert it the article on Eiffel Tower, but to an article discussing the biological way we perceive things, why not? More so if the article is not too long. Cinadon36 06:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:PRIMARY. Yes they can be cited, but as a further clarification of info cited from secondary sources. A text cannot be based only on primary sources. As for peer-reviewed journals, ROTFLMAO, you cannot believe how much nonsense is published in reviewed journals. But no blame on them: A reviewer cannot possibly vouch for the truth of published results (unless it is math), because it would amount to reproducing the research. All the reveiwers do is verifying it is a plausible nontrivial research with usable findings (and point out the typos :-). Lembit Staan (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion on the dispute, Cinadon36!

If there is even one published work (from an academic paper or published at a RS like NYT, BBC, Reuters and the likes.

lists WAS as one risk of space colonization. The article is on several risks of space colonization though, not only on the risk in question.

Then is primarily about Earth-originated extraterrestrial WAS, although one caused specifically by directed panspermia.

I'm not aware of any academic paper published in an academic journal or an article in a RS that is primarily dedicated to that one risk in question.

ObjectiveSubjectivity (talk)

References

You're welcome, @ObjectiveSubjectivity:. As I see it, Kovac 2021 could be included but all of his points should be addressed, not just WAS. And that has to be done in one or two sentences. The article on Direct Panspermia (DP) shouldn't be taken into account, since DP is not a form of colonization. But while I lean towards inclusion, I understand that other wikipedians object, so I would advice you to seek broader consensus before adding the material you want. Cinadon36 05:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Object. I find it premature to include here a content-free blurb with a burst of refbombing. Keeping in mind WP:PRIMARY, it is nearly impossible to judge the importance and weight of the subject. I would strongly suggest to write a normal section "Space colonization" in article Wild animal suffering, which is far closer subject and the page has editors interested in the subject. If there will be a decent content, it may be listed in "See also" here. As it stands now, the subject is highly speculative of distant future and is of less than fringe concern for "spacefarers". Lembit Staan (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a good advice. (that is more related to article Wild animal suffering) Cinadon36 06:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing your view, Lembit Staan.

Could you clarify why you think the proposed mention is “content-free”? Introducing the risk, in a sentence, is what I would say the content is. As for references, the proposed mention could include only these two mentioned above. Finally, you wrote that “as it stands now, the subject is highly speculative of distant future and is of less than fringe concern for "spacefarers". I don’t think that in the context of space colonization the risk is “speculative”, or any more so than the context itself. ObjectiveSubjectivity (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)