Accelerating Future

Stanford Torus Monday, May 12 2008 

images Michael Anissimov 6:26 am

Trackback URI

6 Responses to “Stanford Torus”

1. Mark Plus Says:
   May 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

   This image really belongs on something like the Paleo-future website. The Stanford torus comes from the 1970’s view of the early 21st Century, along with predictions that we would have become “immortal” by now. For example, read F.M. Esfandiary’s vision (published back in 1981) of life in that far-off, future year 2010:
   “Up-Wing Priorities”
   http://www.box.net/shared/static/ay9lub60ha.pdf

2. Ryan Says:
   May 12th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

   Man, who has to mow those lawns?

   I wonder how space colonization will affect a person’s long-term psychological and physical health. We see a higher rate of suicide in places that don’t experience as much sun and poor weather. There is also SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) and a dozen other conditions in which environment effects health and behavior.

   A person taken away from the natural routine of weather and planetary cycles might experience some negative side-affects (Of course, Earth-like routines can be simulated.)

   Another interesting question: will those that are born in a place like Stanford Torus be susceptible to these conditions? Maybe spacer children will have a hard time adjusting to earth like conditions.

3. Michael Anissimov Says:
   May 12th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

   Mark, I know. As I’ve said earlier, I doubt that there will even be much of a need/desire to move into space, but in the context of most worldviews, a toroidal space colony is interesting, feasible, and desirable in this century. So why not post an image of it? 95% of readers of this blog will be unfamiliar with 1970s futurism anyway. Yes, I know you are, along with other older cryonicists. I also know you are disappointed with the incongruities between the vision then of what would happen now, etc.

   But, because they predicted it back then, and it isn’t reality now, that means it is now insignificant, retro, or will never happen? Paleo-Future is for stuff that looks silly today, and the Stanford Torus, well, doesn’t. Except, building it from material launched from the surface would bankrupt the global economy many times over, so this is a “far future” vision.

   Other things that took a significant amount of time between when they were conceived and created:

   computers
   cryonics
   Internet
   airplanes
   skyscrapers
   etc.

   Note that I often just post interesting artwork and am not trying to make it fit in with any overarching message or using it to make a statement. Nor am I making a statement saying it will happen in 30 years, etc.

   From reading your blog I see that paleo-futurism is a pet issue of yours, so I guess you’re entitled to make a comment, though. Anyway, I read your mailing list posts as a teenager and thought all about it then. I decided that many of the old futurists were overenthusiastic, but not all, and by thinking carefully, we can avoid their mistakes.

   One of the ways I avoid it is that I don’t really care how soon “The Future” (dun dun dun) arrives. I like my current life, with our current technological base, and am not an escapist. I am in no hurry. I view technologies on an individual basis and not as part of some “grand vision” that will come together where everything will be great. (Pretty non-Kurzweilian, huh?)

4. Javan Says:
   May 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

   I hardly believe that this (as the one about AGI etc…) really was a seriuos, scientific prediction, and not just propagated by the media or some drunken students. Does anyone know?

   I think you have to differentiate between the technological and the political feasability.
   We may be able to do that now, as we could have moon bases and flying cars (except AGI - that’s still a bit complicated) and so on, so the technology is out there. But if the society says: “We don’t want no flying cars” or the holy idol MONEY instructs us to say “The moon is too expensive if you can’t demonstrate your domination over Russia and the rest of America…pardon, world” then, well, we have to wait for the next century to see a new / the first application of those technologies available for years. (Yes it’s too simple, but you get the point. I could mention the more rational arguments against it, but it is now time for a commercial break - *censored*)

   Just because we don’t broadly use technology or develop it further doesn’t necessarily mean we are technically unable to do it. You can say that often enough when people start to wonder about no cars flying anywhere.

5. Michael Allen Says:
   May 13th, 2008 at 2:53 am

   I still think space colonization a genuine concept that we should take seriously. It is also something that I still think will happen, regardless of whether or not the futurists of the ’70s were off on their predictions.

   Even with all of the wonderful virtual worlds we will create in the next few decades right here on Earth, throughout all of human history, people have been fascinated with the stars, planets etc, and have dreamed about visiting them since time began. That dream will not just simply vanish because of new worlds we can create ourselves. I still think humans will want to go out into space anyway, if for no other reason than plain old curiosity.

   There are plenty of advantages to space colonization, particularly orbital colonies. I read somewhere on the lifeboat foundations website, in Al Globus’ profile I believe, that a single asteroid, Ceres, can house human numbers approaching 1 trillion, if all of the mass were turned into colonies. This idea alone makes space colonization attractive, at least to me, because it will provide sentient beings with more than ample living space in the solar system, away from good ol’ Earth.

   Cost will be a problem, sure, but I think this is worth it. Space colonization can provde a great “backup drive” for civilization if nothing else. So if something happens to Earth in the future and it becomes inhabitable (war, climate change etc.) we still have the colonies to help continue civilization. It might even be easier to adapt to orbital colonies than it would for planets like Mars and our own Moon.

   Therefore, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to sell space colonization short. It just might save us one day. Also, just because a technology didn’t arrive by the magical year 2000, doesn’t mean it won’t ever arrive. I still have hope for those flying cars, too!

6. Ike Says:
   May 13th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

   Well I doubt human beings as we see them today will be in Orbital Colonies. Maybe some transhumanist augments or posthumans. Orbital Colonies or any other large construct would be a good stepping stone to other parts of the solar system or at least a good experiment in large scale construction prior to solar expansion from earth. I still like O’neill 3 cylinders more. Too bad Dr. O’neill isn’t still alive

Leave a Reply