

Ask HN: What super projects could unite humanity? - mathgladiator

For context, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1742606<p>What kind of world changing super project could humanity solve that would unite us towards a common goal?
======
jsn
I refuse to be united with humanity. And it's not just me.

Differences are good, disagreements are good, and diversity is good. Including
differences in goals, values, priorities and everything else.

If you have some serious differences and if you want to avoid conflicts, you
probably shouldn't keep pushing to unite. You probably should separate. Like,
you know, if a family can't agree on some important set of issues, they
probably shouldn't always try to find a compromise (which might as well be bad
for all sides), or apply force to silence the weakest side. They would
probably be much better off if they get divorced, and let each side to form a
family with someone who shares their views.

I think the same logic applies to countries, and to disagreements about any
serious issue -- like, i don't know, taxes, global warming, foreign affairs,
gay marriage, controlled substances, etc etc.

So, tldr: I'd rather look for something to separate humanity, it tries too
hard to get united.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I generally agree with you, but concerning an issue like global warming
specifically, you are wrong.

For issues like global warming/pollution, it doesn't help to separate. If the
US pollutes less and China picks up the slack, the earth will be just as warm
(including the US). Separation is a great solution to some problems, but it
doesn't solve the problem of how to pay for _global_ public goods (it deals
with local ones nicely, however).

~~~
jsn
There are people who will refuse to care about global warming (or asteroid, or
anything else), no matter what arguments you are going to provide. From here,
you have to choices: A) suck it up, and B) force them.

I refuse to choose B, and I'm going to fight back if anyone chooses B wrt me.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The point is this - if my locality wishes to criminalize drugs and yours
doesn't, we both get what we want. My locality has a bunch of drug users
getting raped in prison, yours doesn't. We all get what we want.

This doesn't work for a few narrow issues. If you dump oil into your oceans,
it floats into my oceans and you are forcing me to deal with polluted waters.
If you allow piracy (the "arrr, matey" kind), the pirates rob everyone rather
than just people in your locality. In cases like this, force will be used no
matter what. There is no getting around it.

Look, I'm almost as libertarian as they come. I'm not even making a pro-AGW
argument, since I'm unconvinced of AGW myself. I'm just pointing out that you
need to fully think through your position - it's a great proposal, but doesn't
solve every problem.

~~~
jsn
Well, if you are a libertarian, you probably know about all kinds of solutions
for those issues, as outlined by Rothbard et ol. Do you find them all less
realistic than e.g. "unite" plan?

~~~
yummyfajitas
For some issues they tend to work well. For others they don't. Rothbard was a
fantastic intellectual, but he suffered the same problem that many specialists
do - he carried a hammer, and thought every problem was a nail. I don't see
any plausible mechanism by which spontaneous order will form to address
environmental issues. Additionally, it has not tended to occur historically.

(Note: I don't even intend that as a harsh criticism. Rothbard's intellectual
contributions are fantastic, and his hammer worked quite well for many things.
Just not everything.)

------
zacharypinter
Not exactly inspiring, but an alien enemy would be a pretty good way of
uniting the planet towards a common goal.

~~~
arethuza
If we have to invent an enemy alien civilization can I suggest we decide to go
to war with the Culture?

Think of it: godless, drug-using communists in space!!!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture>

[NB I've always suspected that Iain M. Banks is a Special Circumstances agent
- installing an author to write "fiction" about themselves is exactly the kind
of sneaky thing the Culture would do]. ;-)

~~~
arethuza
And if they do exist, which of course they don't, quite a lot of people might
just decide they rather like the idea of the Culture and immediately
defect/surrender.

I know what I would do given the choice!

~~~
Aetius
Traitor!

~~~
arethuza
If it means I get to belong to the Culture, yes!

------
HeyLaughingBoy
How much of humanity? 10%? 40? 99?

I doubt you will get much more than about 20% of humanity to agree to anything
at any given time. Extraterrestrial invasion? Nope, a bunch will just see them
as gods and their own death as a journey to heaven? Another bunch will try to
negotiate, another bunch will try to blast them into nonexistence?

Global catastrophe? See above.

And then there's the problem of who you're talking about. You can't e.g.,
reach everyone in every little town in India, Central Africa and South
America. So if their "leaders" agree, does that mean that _they_ agree? Look
at all the disagreement that happens with people and their elected officials
in the US all the time.

Sorry dude, we're doomed to all die alone.

------
Vargas
ITER

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER>

~~~
iuguy
Maybe not ITER (or even DEMO), but specifically nuclear fusion becoming a
viable practical energy source.

I went to JET last year, which was amazing to see, but I couldn't help but get
the nagging feeling that we won't see tritium/deuterium fusion hit mainstream
within our lifetimes.

Mind you, once it does reach mainstream that will change everything. Hopefully
there won't be a race to mine helium 3 from the moon.

------
suprgeek
A Killer Asteroid (one that is big enough to wipe out all humanity) on a
guaranteed course to collide with Earth within the next 10 years unless we do
something about it. If basic self preservation against a visible and
quantifiable threat will not unite humanity - I have very little hope for
anything else.

~~~
arethuza
The problem with a Killer Asteroid for the purposes of this discussion is that
the solution would have to be extremely high tech (presumably large H-bombs on
large rockets). Apart from paying larger taxes I'm not sure what most of us
could do to contribute to such a project, so as far as "uniting humanity" goes
I suspect we would see fracturing along lines of:

\- It's a government plot to get us to pay more taxes and remove personal
freedoms

\- It is God's will and trying to do anything to stop it is evil

\- I'll be OK if I dig a deep enough hole and take enough food, guns and ammo

\- Who cares, I'm going to make sure I enjoy the next ten years

~~~
zeemonkee
> extremely high tech (presumably large H-bombs on large rockets)

How is 40s/50s technology high tech ?

~~~
arethuza
You don't think designing a system that can deliver bombs deep into space is
high tech?

It's not like we could get a Saturn-5 out of storage, fuel it up, stick a Tsar
Bomba on the top and hope for the best.

~~~
borism
H-bombs are sitting on tops of 30-year old space rockets right now.

Sending them to defeat asteroid might be even more devastating than not
sending them though.

~~~
arethuza
ICBMs don't even make it to orbit - if you wait till an asteroid is close
enough that an ICBM could hit it then you might as well not bother.

[NB I do know that the SS-25 could do fractional orbits.]

~~~
zeemonkee
No, but we've had rockets capable of delivering space probes across
interplanetary distances for decades. Replace payload with nuclear warhead. Is
that hard ? Maybe, but the manned Moon landings were hard, and we did those
decades ago. Hard, but not "high tech".

Now whether or not such a solution would actually work is another matter. The
original comment however was "extremely high tech such as H-Bombs on rockets".
Both are examples of tech that's decades old.

~~~
arethuza
But that argument also applies to stored program electronic computers - which
are also 40s/50s tech.

So we have the technology to get a large enough device far enough out into the
solar system quickly enough for it to make a difference and to engineer all of
this within a limited timescale? I don't know about that....

------
lookACamel
Zombie apocalypse, for obvious reasons. The number of people considered a part
of humanity is greatly reduced, making unification easier, and the goal is
clear and simple - survival.

So keep up the work on that zombie-creating parasite!

------
slater
Making _all_ data collected by gov't agencies, institutes, universities etc.
available, for free, in a standardized format.

~~~
noverloop
this would make a big difference in the fight against rare diseases, I know
someone who has an illness that is not adequately researched because it is too
rare.

------
rblion
Universal Consciousness --- Realizing we are all made of the same atoms,
cells, and revolve the same star. Also, seeing that we are all looking for the
same things: Freedom, Wealth, and Love. The meaning of each is subjective but,
we have biochemical need for all three to reach universal consoiousness.

------
scrrr
The Internet will provided it stays free and open. Through freely available
information eventually we will resolve our petty differences, overcome
destructive behavior and start fixing big problems like illness and space
flight. Perhaps.

~~~
retube
Ha. I get the feeling your comment is a little tongue in cheek. I have a pet
theory that precisely the opposite will happen. That the internet will give
rise to increased differences and destructive behaviour. Why? Because the
internet allows people to be exposed to widely opposing views, to trolling by
groups with opposing views, allows people to "meet" and argue, allows even the
most extreme of viewpoints to build an audience, and allows disparate groups
to rally together. E.g just look at Atheism vs Religion. I could see that
coming to blows at some point.

~~~
scrrr
So you say less/more difficult communication and perhaps even censorship is
better in order to prevent conflict?

~~~
retube
I don't know what the solution is, or if there is one, or even if I'm right.
But as an example, look at the Pastor who was going to burn the Koran. 30
years ago before cable and internet news this guy would have never been heard
of. But today, thanks to cable TV and the internet a huge amount of animosity
has been generated, there's been demonstrations, reinforcement of cultural
biases etc etc. Is this a good thing?

~~~
scrrr
I don't share the view of the world that now somehow things are worse. This
seems to be the view of a conservative person.

The opposite is true. The world is now the safest it's ever been. It's also
the wealthiest and offers the most opportunities.

------
z92
As history is witness, "united towards" doesn't work in large scale. It should
be "united against". Human need an enemy to get united against. Alien
invasion, asteroid collusion might be such thing. Otherwise no matter what,
humanity will find one reason or another to form groups to fight one another.

Therefore humans are unlikely to get united to colonize a new planet few light
years away. That's not in human nature.

Also check Monkey Sphere: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number>

~~~
jcroberts

      > asteroid collusion
    

I mean no offense, but that was one of the most hilariously accurate typos
I've ever seen.

------
skowmunk
Would like to add in another factor into this question -

How long do you want that unity to last? the moment the question of
commercialising the output of the project comes up, the competition will come
out in the open and the unity will break.

Also, is it really required for the whole humanity to unite to take up a
project that can affect humanity? Most of technologies and resources that can
enable such a project are in the hands of a very few nations.

------
zoomzoom
The space elevator is the most game-changing investment we can make. The cost
of getting into and out of orbit is the main barrier to any grand space scheme
like mars, moon bases, or asteroid mining. It would also become a target of
extremist anger and ignite divisions about tech. Runner-up might be a serious
global scale geothermal plant for renewable power.

------
transphenomenal
Changing everyones genes so we are all a lot more tolerant of each other and
so bigotry is wiped out.

Also we need much, much faster transportation, like trains that can travel
around the world in 3-4 hours. This way we can see our "neighbors" much more
often and no longer have a sub-concious fear of the unknown.

------
seltzered
Redesign more of the things we use to meet cradle-to-cradle standards (this
includes changing laws/restrictions).

Granted, there's many things that can't be made this way, but it's also an
approach that doesn't lead us down a malthusian path of wanting nothing
either.

------
rrc
I thought about immortality, but I suspect you'd fail to enlist the (massive)
religious populations of Earth since you'd be competing directly with their
existing power structure and investment.

It's odd to think that it's already a saturated market.

~~~
mathgladiator
It's not just odd, its kinda depressing

------
bsaunder
Fully automated food production, shelter construction, power production, and
transportation.

------
khafra
Divinely delivered message of abandonment and invasion from hell?

[http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=118769&high...](http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=118769&highlight)

------
retube
Manned trip to Mars

Moon base

Space Elevator

~~~
zeemonkee
More likely to lead to increased competition between nations/corporations (see
the dash for colonization in 19c, leading up to WW1).

~~~
retube
Possibly. My reasoning is that, unlike colonization, these projects are so big
as to be impossible by one nation. They can only be attempted through co-
operation by many.

~~~
cryptoz
A manned trip to Mars is estimated at ~$50 billion. Assume that NASA goes
twice over budget and it costs $100 billion.

That's cheap! Any modern developed country could send a crew to Mars in 10
years. However, nobody has done it because nobody has devoted the resources to
that cause.

The bank bailouts were around $700 billion, for comparison.

 _Space travel is cheap_ compared to the rest of what we do.

~~~
retube
I think that's a low-ball cost. I've seen some estimates at $1 tr. But still
yes, the US (and the US alone) could conceivably afford that (compare to cost
of Iraq for example), so I take your point. However, even so, i don't think
even the US would (or should) attempt this alone. (It's not just cash, but
expertise too).

Re the bailout figure: this is slightly misleading. This isn't money that's
just been "spent". It's been invested - in purchasing assets and equity from
the bailed out institutions. These institutions are largely expected to buy
back these investments at a later date netting the US govt a profit (some
already have). Additionally of course, the cost of NOT bailing out the banks
may have been much, much more. So I don't think it's a comparable number.

~~~
cryptoz
Your $1 trillion figure to Mars is absurd. The Mars Direct plan is about $55
billion. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct>

Could you cite where you heard $1 trillion? Nobody in the last 50 years has
suggested it would cost anywhere near that much.

Sure, the bank bailouts were a bad example. But you gave an even better one!
The Iraq War cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.

------
Tichy
Has there ever in history been an example of a super project uniting people?

~~~
cturner
I thought of many attempts. They grow rapidly into mass slaugher. Forcing a
particular religion onto people, forcing people to fund great mausoleums to
the glory of their leaders, autocracy done in the name of socialism, "super-
races" states from Sparta forward.

In fairness, I did think of one that could qualify, the vaccination of Polio.

~~~
icegreentea
If Polio counts, then small pox MUST count. We did an even better job with
small pox than polio.

~~~
cturner
Thanks for your polite response. I said the wrong thing, small pox is what I
was thinking of.

------
djcjr
Tesla Wardenclyffe Project

------
126
Define: humanity?

------
zdw
Selfishness.

Oh wait, we recently achieved that...

------
michaelhalligan
Very clear and indisputable impending global destruction with a short window
before the event. (Think Asteroids or Aliens). Also, children who fall into
wells or survive airliner crashes. Nothing else will work.

------
sleepingbot
Libertarian accountability for all. Individual democracies of 1 person. All
human beings becoming literate craft-tech-open-source-hardwate tech people.
Pantheism. Gaia.

------
zuggywugg
what a stupid topic...

