50 years after a self-improving AI is released into the wild, I don’t expect Venus and Mars to be in their present orbits. I expect that they would be gradually moving towards being in the same orbit that the Earth is moving towards (or is already established in) 120 degrees apart, propelled by a rocket which uses large reflectors in space to heat portion of the surface of the planet, which is then forced to jet in the desired vector at escape velocity. ETA: That would mean the removal of three objects from the list of planets of Sol.
I think it will only be a few hundred years after FAI before interplanetary travel requires routine ‘take your shoes off’ type of screening.
IMHO you’re being provincial. Your intuitions for interplanetary travel come directly from flying in the US; if you were used to saner policies you’d make different predictions. (If you’re not from North America, I am very confused.)
Your idea of provincialism is provincial. The idea of shipping tinned apes around the solar system is the true failure of vision here, nevermind the bag check procedures.
If the AI is Friendly? The enhancement of humanity’s utility/happiness/wealth—I assume terraforming is a lot easier if planets are near the middle of the water zone.
We don’t know what it takes to terraform a world—it’s easy to go “well, it needs more water and air for starters,” but that conceals an awful lot of complexity. Humans, talking populations thereof, can’t live just anywhere. We don’t even have a really good, working definition of what the “habitability” of a planet is, in a way that’s more specific than “I knows it when I sees it.” Most of the Earth requires direct cultural adaptation to be truly livable. There’s no such thing as humans who don’t use culture and technology to cope with the challenges posed by their environment.
Anyway, my point is more that your prediction suggests some cached premises: why should FAI do that particular thing? Why is that a more likely outcome than any of the myriad other possibilities?
I specifically mentioned that Earth’s orbit would also be optimized- although the solar-powered jet engine concept has bigger downsides when used on an inhabited planet.
Ah! I had read the wiki article on planets, which said “and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals,” and didn’t bother to look up primary sources. I should know better. Thanks!
50 years after a self-improving AI is released into the wild, I don’t expect Venus and Mars to be in their present orbits. I expect that they would be gradually moving towards being in the same orbit that the Earth is moving towards (or is already established in) 120 degrees apart, propelled by a rocket which uses large reflectors in space to heat portion of the surface of the planet, which is then forced to jet in the desired vector at escape velocity. ETA: That would mean the removal of three objects from the list of planets of Sol.
I think it will only be a few hundred years after FAI before interplanetary travel requires routine ‘take your shoes off’ type of screening.
We’ll still have shoes? And terrorists? I’m disappointed in advance.
And even the right and ability (if we currently have it) to make choices, and some privacy!
IMHO you’re being provincial. Your intuitions for interplanetary travel come directly from flying in the US; if you were used to saner policies you’d make different predictions. (If you’re not from North America, I am very confused.)
Your idea of provincialism is provincial. The idea of shipping tinned apes around the solar system is the true failure of vision here, nevermind the bag check procedures.
How quickly do you think humans will give up commuting?
Why would you put them into an inherently dynamically-unstable configuration, position-corrected by a massive kludge? I mean, what’s in it for the AI?
How about a dynamically stable one?
Oh, and roughly ten to twenty times the total available living space for humans, at an order-of-magnitude guess.
If the AI is Friendly? The enhancement of humanity’s utility/happiness/wealth—I assume terraforming is a lot easier if planets are near the middle of the water zone.
We don’t know what it takes to terraform a world—it’s easy to go “well, it needs more water and air for starters,” but that conceals an awful lot of complexity. Humans, talking populations thereof, can’t live just anywhere. We don’t even have a really good, working definition of what the “habitability” of a planet is, in a way that’s more specific than “I knows it when I sees it.” Most of the Earth requires direct cultural adaptation to be truly livable. There’s no such thing as humans who don’t use culture and technology to cope with the challenges posed by their environment.
Anyway, my point is more that your prediction suggests some cached premises: why should FAI do that particular thing? Why is that a more likely outcome than any of the myriad other possibilities?
I specifically mentioned that Earth’s orbit would also be optimized- although the solar-powered jet engine concept has bigger downsides when used on an inhabited planet.
Do distinct planets necessarily have distinct orbits?
According to the modern definition, yes.
Ah! I had read the wiki article on planets, which said “and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals,” and didn’t bother to look up primary sources. I should know better. Thanks!
Not thinking very ambitious I see.
That’s on the five-millennium plan.