You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

polymathwannabe comments on Open thread, Sept. 29 - Oct.5, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: polymathwannabe 29 September 2014 01:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (339)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 30 September 2014 01:18:10PM 1 point [-]

successful attempt to establish a colony will most likely create society that blames Earth for their misery

That reveals a lot about where you stand on politics.

Sometimes, people mature and stop blaming others for their own shortsightedness. I don't recall the US ever blaming the UK for 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or Jersey Shore.

On a more serious note, the Spanish colonies did fight a war against the Spanish Empire, but it was fought this side of the Atlantic, and it ended when the Spanish left. No Mexican warship has ever bombed the Iberian coastline, nor do they have a reason to do it.

Besides, there is more than one way to settle and run a colony. You can become a neglected corner of the Third World, like Spanish America, or a world superpower able to threaten and bully the rest of the world combined, like English America, or an ascending exemplar of soft power, like Portuguese America, or more or less good friends with the mother country, like French America, or never even become independent, like Dutch America. So motives for resentment are not easily predictable.

They will have both motive and means to nuke Earth for good

Having nuclear capability for self-sustenance does not equal having capability to build nuclear bombs. Also, you don't know whether the conditions on the planet will be favorable to a nuclear infrastructure: it's very different to settle a territory abundant in hydrothermal energy that doesn't even need nuclear plants (like Iceland), a territory prone to earthquakes where it should be obvious it's stupid to build a nuclear plant (like Japan), or a stable territory where nothing geologically notable ever happens (like Dubai).

The risk of pushing our colonies to nuke us out of spite vs. the risk of destroying ourselves at home before we've even reached the stars weighs strongly in favor of launching as many rockets as we physically can.

Comment author: gjm 30 September 2014 04:23:27PM 2 points [-]

That reveals a lot about where you stand on politics.

I'm curious. What does it reveal about Lalartu's politics, and what (if anything) is revealed about my politics by the fact that I don't share Lalartu's expectations and also don't think it's immediately obvious what Lalartu's political position is?