J. Alden Page
May 10, 2008
Technology
No Comments
Podclusters are an idea that Blake Riley and I came up with. As far as I know, this is an original idea. Although, it seems simple enough that it’s possible someone has already thought of it. If you’ve heard of something similar somewhere else, please let me know.
Private space travel has begun, and within a couple of generations it will probably be affordable. I think the first large colonies will be podclusters.
A podcluster is a community of small spaceships(pods) that can attach to each other. Once one pod attaches to another, a hallway is formed between the pods. This hallway is separated from living spaces, allowing the owner of the pod to choose to have their living space locked or open depending on what’s convenient. It would be a little like going through a hallway in a hotel. This would make also make it easy for someone to travel through a pod to get to the next pod.
If a pod wanted to leave a cluster, it could do so easily. First it would send a signal telling the adjacent pods to seal and detach. After the adjacent pods sealed, it would seal, detach, and leave.
Podclusters would result in people having more freedom than they’ve ever had before. People would be able to choose their community. Good communities would be encouraged, because few pods would choose to join communities with bad reputations. In addition to being able to choose their community, people would able to optimize their environment to their needs. Pods would naturally lend themselves to being optimized by residents, because they would be small, enclosed and mostly self sustaining.
Why do I think podclusters are likely?
Mass production of spaceships is inevitable, as soon as space travel becomes cheap. Living in space would be cheaper than living on any of the nearby planets. This is because getting on and off a planet would requires lots of time and resources. It would be much harder to create a cheap way of getting into space on another planet, then it would be to create such a system on earth.
Space stations will also exist, but I think podclusters will be more popular. Space stations would require more time and money to set up. More important, podclusters would be better at catering to peoples needs. It would be easier to join a podcluster, pods would tend to be more optimized for the individuals wants and needs than buying a room, and podclusters would give people more freedom and require less commitment.
Podclusters would also be more adaptable than space stations. It would be easier for them to relocate and restructure. There are many situations where this would be desirable. If there were a threat in the environment like a large asteroid, it would be less of a problem for a podcluster. The pods would just need to detach from eachother until the threat passed, and then they could reattach. Podclusters would have an easier time relocating to advantageous areas. If it was discovered that an area has a desirable resource or even just a better view, a few pods could detach and move there. This would start the beginning of a new community. A space station would have a much harder time making such a move. What if all of the space stations residents did not agree with the move?
Pod clusters seem especially likely since communication and robotics are going to keep improving. More and more work is not going to require a physical presence. Despite people not needing to be located near fellow employees, being in community would still be advantageous. It would be safer since their would be more eyes and nearby hands if something goes wrong. Large communities would also be much better off for trading purposes. Smaller communities would have to pay more, and importing goods would be the most expensive for loners. Large communities would have frequent and relatively cheap imports. While small podcludsters would have difficulties, they would still be better off than small space stations. Because of the reasons mentioned above, and because they could easy join up with a large cluster if it was ever needed. Podclusters would usually be the best at fitting the mold regardless of the communities size.
If it happens, remember that you heard it here!
J. Alden Page
May 7, 2008
Quotes
No Comments
If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.
Frank Herbert
J. Alden Page
May 2, 2008
Science, Technology
1 Comment
This blogger creates graphical programs that simulate cellular processes.
Have a look!
planetary gear
This is a startling example of the trend towards merging software and biology. It might be a ways off, but eventually we will be able to create entire organisms. If you created a sentient organism, would deleting it be murder?
Creating software based organisms could lead to incredible insights on evolution. If a method for reproduction was created that leads to diversity(like meiosis), then organisms could evolve. An environment could be created where only the most intelligent programs survive and have offspring. With the ability to create an environment that doesn’t need to abide by the same rules, evolution could be unimaginably faster.
Robotics, virtual reality, material construction, and medicine are a few of many additional areas that will benefit from this kind of research.
*update*
I emailed the images creator. Below is my email and his helpful reply.
“I wrote a post linking to your web page here: xxxx
I’m confused about how to describe the image. What would a planetary gear do? Are your designs generally for nanobots?
Any help will be appreciated 
thanks,”
———————-
“Hi,
Thanks for the link!
The gear was first designed by Eric Drexler and Ralph Merkle; I just did a computer simulation. You can think of it as a torque converter that changes the mechanical advantage from the input and out shafts. It is also a speed reducer. I try to focus on things that can be built in the laboratory now (DNA or carbon nanotube stuff) or this year, instead of way in the future, but of course I dig the far out nano-bots and stuff.
You could definitely use a torque converter in a nanorobot.
Tom”
Thanks for the informative reply!
J. Alden Page
April 30, 2008
Quotes
2 Comments
We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
Carl Sagan
J. Alden Page
April 25, 2008
Philosophy
2 Comments
When deciding what decisions should be made in the future, it’s important to analyze what aspects of a decision hold value.
Here is an interesting moral dilemma that was created by Philippa Foot.
“A runaway trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people who have been tied down in its path. If nothing happens, they will be killed. Fortunately, you have a switch which would divert the trolley to a different track. Unfortunately, the other track has one person tied down to it. Should you flip the switch?”
According to the results found in this study, about 77% of people will choose to pull the switch.
Here is a situation with the same consequences, where only 36% of the poll takers choose to sacrifice one in order to kill five.
“A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?”
Here is another popular ethical dilemma. This scenario leads to the same consequences, yet, only 2% of the population will choose to kill one person in order to save five.
“A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no-one would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor sacrifice the man to save his other patients?”
Here are the results from the link above.
Question Yes No
surgeon 2 98
fat man 30 70
Pull switch to save 5 77 23
Pull switch to save 10 82 18
Pull switch to save 15 83 17
Pull switch to save 20 83 17
% with this response triple:
——-flip switch? push fat man? sacrifice traveler for organs?
42.6 Y N N
29.8 Y Y N
20.6 N N N
5.0 Y Y Y
0.7 Y N Y
0.7 N Y Y
0.7 N Y N
It is obvious that means matters to most of the population. Granted, there are some inherent inaccuracies in this survey. It is a small population size, and it doesn’t proportionally represent people from all walks of life. Still, a difference of 2 percent and 77 percent indicates that importance is placed on means.
We’ve established that generally people take means into consideration when making a decision. Is it logical to place importance on means?
I think the answer to this is yes/no. Logically, consequence is all that matters. Consequence is the long-term affect that will permanently alter things. A means is temporary, so it is potentially infinitely less important. But, means inevitably leads to consequences. This is why I think if different means lead to the same consequence, the consequence is what should be considered.
However, different means will almost always lead to different consequences. If not directly, then indirectly.
The doctor scenario goes against beneficial societal thinking in many ways. It requires killing an innocent person in cold blood and taking out their organs. A doctor is viewed as someone you can trust with your life to do their best to heal you. And personally killing an innocent person is an act that only the outcasts of society commit.
These views are beneficial. If we didn’t trust our doctors, or thought that a normal person could kill an innocent, this would lead to huge problems. Granted, this scenario specifically says that no one will find out about it. But, that kind of certainty rarely exists in real life. This is why a willingness to commit such an atrocity would be detrimental.
In conclusion, I think consequence is what matters. However, the effects of crossing moral boundaries need to be considered. While consequence may be somewhat immortal, if ignoring means was a consistent practice, it would also have a kind of immortality. Thus, the reason means should not be ignored is because harmful means can often lead to harmful consequences.
