Practical for a civilian to build a space suit?

[Ryan_m_b]

Space in the cities doesn't have to be limited after everyone else has died off. They can expand by digging and building

 

[onomatomanic]

Oh, true. I guess my mentally equating them with lifeboats wasn't really appropriate after all, because of that aspect. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[CCWilson]

I'm not sure exactly where the optimal age cutoff would be, but the older the citizenry, the more medical problems. Significant disabilities would also disqualify. Political correctness has to go out the door when the survival of mankind is at stake.

I myself would not make the cut. Glad it's just a story.

 

[onomatomanic]

What about later on? There could be measures like enforced abortion if a fetus is showing any signs of abnormal development, and no medical care for those too old to productively contribute any longer, and so on. If the agenda is survival at any cost, those decisions should be made solely on the basis of material benefit versus impact on morale, with no ethical considerations directly taken into account. Examining these issues gives the story depth, but at some point can make it too "dark and edgy" to provide enjoyable escapism any longer.

ps: This is not "political correctness", though. That's a fad, whereas these are real ethical issues.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm struggling with seeing this society to be honest. The majority of humans aren't purely rational and won't stand for what is essentially a totalitarian society in order for some abstract ideology of "continuing the species". I really don't see why people would dedicate the remaining time they have left when they know that there is a slim chance that their family is going to survive (hence my proposal earlier that the selection process needs to be made so that everyone knows at least one person who will be saved [ideally more] to make it personal and identifiable).

As for age and moderate disability I don't think it's too much of a problem. You're going to need very good social medicine anyway, it really isn't going to be much of an expenditure to keep the elderly and sick alive and aside from humanitarian considerations these people will likely have skills you need. Becoming an expert in a skilled field takes decades of training, you could try to include a cut off below retirement but especially for scientific fields you're going to be loosing a hell of a lot of tacit knowledge that your high tech survival cities are going to need.

Also political correctness is not a fad, though the term gets bandied about and abused quite a lot it will be an extremely important consideration in this scenario. Social tension in a closed environment will be something that is paramount to diffuse. A riot in a modern city IRL can lead to the death of hundreds, significant damage to infrastructure and cost a lot to repair. A riot in a city where the very ecosystem is in a tight balance and breaching the wall could kill thousands is not something you want. Standard cliche is to go overboard in the totalitarianism but that's just going to delay the problem and give you one heck of a revolution when the lid gets blown off the boiler.

 

[CCWilson]

The moral issues in this scenario are thorny, all right. Let's take the following individuals - a man in jail for assault, an undocumented worker, a mentally handicapped child, a thirty year old obese woman with diabetes and heart disease, a victim of cerebral palsy, and an eighty year old man. In our current politically correct society, we feel morally bound to help them all. We want to treat the first two fairly, at minimum, and the last four will be given all necessary government assistance. But if species survival is at stake, we must make difficult and repugnant decisions, and those six people should not become residents of the underground cities.

In order to limit public outrage, there will be a national referendum before the lottery in which the people will have a say as to how residents will be selected and what categories of individuals will be included in the drawing and how many political figures will get automatic selection to facilitate organizing life underground.

Of course every country will set its own rules and build its own shelters, and those with more autocratic regimes will not be concerned with fairness and therefore will be at huge risk of revolution by those with nothing to lose.

 

[onomatomanic]

The majority of humans aren't purely rational and won't stand for what is essentially a totalitarian society in order for some abstract ideology of "continuing the species".

I partly agree. If what people see is that an authoritarian government is murdering people they love and like, the impact on morale would be disastrous. However, if the situation is one in which people for the most part believe that such measures are necessary for their own survival, humans can also be remarkably callous.

t really isn't going to be much of an expenditure to keep the elderly and sick alive [...]

That depends entirely on what you mean by "keep alive". It's one thing to not letting an 80-year-old starve just because they can't work any longer, it's quite another to go to great lengths to try an cure them if they develop cancer.

Also political correctness is not a fad, though the term gets bandied about and abused quite a lot [...]

Maybe we're using the term differently. I understand "http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=politically+correct&allowed_in_frame=0" to be the fairly recent notion that anything that could possibly be perceived as offensive ought to be avoided at all costs. People don't riot because somebody offended them, they riot because they have concrete grievances.

 

[onomatomanic]

[...] an undocumented worker [...]

Why is an undocumented worker less likely to contribute to the survival of the species than a documented worker?

[...] those six people should not become residents of the underground cities.

What's the timeframe covered by your plot? I was assuming that it continues well into the future of the cataclysm, but you keep only talking about the initial stages, so maybe that's another unfounded assumption of mine?

 

[CCWilson]

Why is an undocumented worker less likely to contribute to the survival of the species than a documented worker?j

No country is going to include in its limited survival population someone who's in the country illegally. Certainly the US wouldn't, even aside from the practical fact that you've got to be on the books in order to be in the lottery.

What's the timeframe covered by your plot? I was assuming that it continues well into the future of the cataclysm, but you keep only talking about the initial stages, so maybe that's another unfounded assumption of mine?

Oh, it's long term, as in permanent. The Sun is gone forever. Of course anyone born in the bunker with a disability or reaching a ripe old age would be treated compassionately, but common sense says you stock your city initially with able-bodied, productive, healthy, good citizen types.

 

[onomatomanic]

No country is going to include in its limited survival population someone who's in the country illegally.

Pragmatically, that makes sense, but it makes the moral high-ground of any subsequent "the survival of the species requires it" justifications rather shaky, don't you think? That would be my perspective in such a situation, anyway.

 

[sshai45]

I'm not sure exactly where the optimal age cutoff would be, but the older the citizenry, the more medical problems. Significant disabilities would also disqualify. Political correctness has to go out the door when the survival of mankind is at stake.

I myself would not make the cut. Glad it's just a story.

So is it for some kind of "eugenics"-like "improve the gene pool while we're at it" kind of thing (pseudoscientific garbage), or more like "we just don't have the resources to care for the disabled & old, and crooks would be an obvious threat to the integrity of the society"? I.e. you want your society to *work* first of all, and with things this tight, there just isn't any way to be *able* to do the caring without jeopardizing that. E.g. medicine is going to be limited, so then you don't want to bring along medical liabilities.

And what else is required for them to "make the cut", beyond being not too old, not disabled, and not a crook or illegal immigrant?

 

[CCWilson]

That should be obvious; the only consideration is what gives us the best shot at keeping homo sapiens alive for long enough that the new generations can work out the kinks in closed ecological systems. As I said above, around half the population would be technicians - doctors, dentists, veterinarians, engineers, electricians, plumbers, scientists, medical technicians, computer and electronics guys, hydroponic farmers, manufacturing experts, and so on. Once those essential positions are filled, a lottery will be held among able bodied citizens of good mental and physical health and at least decent moral character between say 15 years and 45 years of age. In order to motivate those who work to design and build the underground cities, they will be given extra tickets to increase their likelihood of having their numbers drawn. Those selected would probably be allowed to bring in their family members who meet the criteria. There will be a national referendum where the public can choose the standards to be included in the lottery, and until that vote I can't say for sure what the final criteria will be.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't think this lottery system will be that viable. You're going to need an optimum amount of every kind of skilled worker (as well as unskilled) to keep a technogivally advanced society going. Leaving it to chance won't be good enough.

As for medicine being limited I really don't see why. Just think of the scale of the industry this society is going to possess. You are proposing that they build closed underground cities for millions in a handful of years (something I think your readers will find unbelievable). Any society with that kind of industry isn't going to be short on medical devices or medicines.

 

[CCWilson]

If my scenario came to pass - if tomorrow we were told that a black hole or neutron star was approaching and would throw us out of orbit - what would we - specifically, our governments - do? I suspect it would be something like what I'm suggesting, since there would be no alternative. I will admit that I grossly misstated the lottery odds earlier. I envision building underground cities to house somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people in perhaps 20 sites in the US, but that figure is still being worked out by my crack team of architects, biospheric scientists, engineers, climatologists, and psychiatrists.

The concept of a lottery is to give all Americans at least a chance at surviving. Seems only fair. The last thing you'd want is for the public to think that the resources of the country are going to the benefit of a privileged elite.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If my scenario came to pass - if tomorrow we were told that a black hole or neutron star was approaching and would throw us out of orbit - what would we - specifically, our governments - do?

Panic. Then spend years organising international conventions where they bring many of the worlds top experts in all fields. Honestly it's going to take a long time just to decide where to start. This isn't something that one country is going to pull off, even an economic giant like the US, China etc. Reason being that the world economy is going to have to be significantly put into this endeavour: think of all the factories in the far east, mines in Africa etc etc.

A really tricky thing to handle will be getting countries to agree on what method to take versus how they want to contribute their resources. That and deciding how much goes to what country. Imagine a scenario where smaller nations with less resources have nothing to contribute and aren't chosen as a site for a city. What are the people going to do? Probably hike to a neighbouring country as refugees (good luck building that city with hundreds of thousands of occupiers, you could turn the military on them but that could spark an international incident. Humans en mass aren't coldly logical, even if their lives are at stake).

I imagine that different cities would be built with different methods in an effort to appease this political problem and ensure a chance that some survive.

I suspect it would be something like what I'm suggesting, since there would be no alternative. I will admit that I grossly misstated the lottery odds earlier. I envision building underground cities to house somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people in perhaps 20 sites in the US, but that figure is still being worked out by my crack team of architects, biospheric scientists, engineers, climatologists, and psychiatrists.

I'd revise that number up to at least a million, though realistically it's likely to be more than ten million.

The concept of a lottery is to give all Americans at least a chance at surviving. Seems only fair. The last thing you'd want is for the public to think that the resources of the country are going to the benefit of a privileged elite.

I advise you start thinking of this internationally, one nation isn't going to do this alone. Certainly not if you're sticking to this 5-year-plan. Whilst a lifeboat lottery is a common trope it really doesn't seem likely to work. Are tickets going to go to families and close friends? If not you're not it doesn't sound like a system people will vote for but if so it limits who can win. My advice would be as I posted above. Think outside the box and chose a system designed so that everyone personally knows one or two people selected to survive, by making it personal most people have a very concrete reason to work and sacrifice: for whoever that friend is, rather than the abstract chance that they might win a ticket that will separate them from their friends and loved ones.

 

[CCWilson]

I liken this to what happened in World War II. Each country would, I think, get off their butts and go to work with all due haste trying to save some of their own people. Closed ecological system research would be shared, in a spirit of brotherhood, but each country would start building right away. Certainly there would be international conferences and think tanks, but any country with the resources to do so would mobilize and begin construction without waiting for the science to catch up. Countries without the wherewithal to build shelters and power them would, I'm afraid, be out of luck. And obviously that would cause huge social upheaval, wars, riots, and all kinds of nastiness.

Even some developed countries would be in big trouble. Great Britain and Israel, for example, have no geothermal power plants and unless they could drill some they would have to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear for energy, which would have a limited life span.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I liken this to what happened in World War II. Each country would, I think, get off their butts and go to work with all due haste trying to save some of their own people. Closed ecological system research would be shared, in a spirit of brotherhood, but each country would start building right away. Certainly there would be international conferences and think tanks, but any country with the resources to do so would mobilize and begin construction without waiting for the science to catch up. Countries without the wherewithal to build shelters and power them would, I'm afraid, be out of luck. And obviously that would cause huge social upheaval, wars, riots, and all kinds of nastiness.

Even some developed countries would be in big trouble. Great Britain and Israel, for example, have no geothermal power plants and unless they could drill some they would have to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear for energy, which would have a limited life span.

World war two is very different to what you are considering. Building thousands of tanks, planes etc is nothing like building entire underground cities sustainable without a biosphere whilst also containing all the industry they will ever need (not to mention the nightmarishly difficult task of determining the optimum number, skill, organisation and socioeconomic model for the population of an enclosed technological society). Countries aren't going to be able to do this by themselves, they are going to have to trade. If you like world war 2 analogies think of how Great Britain nearly starved due to German blockades. For a more modern understanding think of how much around you comes from another country from the rare Earth metals in your smartphone to the food on your table. The pace of change over the 20th century was for countries to become more interdependent as society became more complex.

That's not to say there won't be countries who will be in trouble because they don't contribute enough to the world economy or have enough resources to contribute to the city construction. But the problem will be far greater than you seem to think, what are you going to do when said countries band together and threaten to invade nearby nations and halt the construction effort unless they are taken in?

Every man for himself isn't a philosophy that's going to help when you're embarking on the greatest R&D and construction project of all time that is going to require the greatest amount of cooperation.

EDIT: Final point responding to this;

begin construction without waiting for the science to catch up

What are they going to build if they have no clue what they are meant to be building that's like suggesting that the US could have started the Apollo program in 1930. Ask any engineer involved in a big project (and for perspective the biggest projects we've ever embarked on are akin to flatpack furniture construction compared to this) and they'll tell you that you can't just start building and work it out later.

 

[Evo]

Aside from panic causing a break out of world wide wars most likely preventing the ability to carry out any projects of this sort, how are they going to get water after an initial supply?

 

[CCWilson]

Recycling plus access to the surface to harvest ice plus geothermal water.

 

[Evo]

Recycling plus access to the surface to harvest ice plus geothermal water.

Naturally occurring sources of geothermal water would not necessarily occur where one could build underground. Harvesting surface ice will become more and more dificult as nearby sources are used. Basically, rivers aren't going to be flowing on a frozen earth. Recycling water would be very critical, but this would be quite an undertaking and limits on water would limit population.

Also, what effect would the loss of the gravitational pull of the sun and moon have on the earth? One large concern would be ocean levels, I would think.

Another concern would be air pollution.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Naturally occurring sources of geothermal water would not necessarily occur where one could build underground. Harvesting surface ice will become more and more dificult as nearby sources are used. Basically, rivers aren't going to be flowing on a frozen earth. Recycling water would be very critical, but this would be quite an undertaking and limits on water would limit population.

Adequate recycling of all waste (industrial and organic) is going to have to be included with our proposed handwavium powered closed ecosystem.

Also, what effect would the loss of the gravitational pull of the sun and moon have on the earth? One large concern would be ocean levels, I would think.

Another concern would be air pollution.

I'd be interested to see some numbers on how cold the Earth would get and how long it would take to cool. The oceans are a massive heat sink, without the sun they'll freeze eventually but how long I wonder?

 

[onomatomanic]

^ I tried a rough estimate here a while ago.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

^ I tried a rough estimate here a while ago.

Lol I forgot we had two threads on this and seemed to have merged them in my memory.

 

[CCWilson]

Naturally occurring sources of geothermal water would not necessarily occur where one could build underground. Harvesting surface ice will become more and more dificult as nearby sources are used. Basically, rivers aren't going to be flowing on a frozen earth. Recycling water would be very critical, but this would be quite an undertaking and limits on water would limit population.

The underground cities would be concentrated where existing geothermal plants are - and the biggest complex anywhere is in the Geysers area north of San Francisco, so a number of cities would be built there. It's an unavoidable fact that the places best suited for geothermal development are where the tectonic plates come together and the magma is closest to the surface, so there's increased danger of earthquakes, but energy needs override everything for long term survival, and earthquakes aren't that common at anyone site, really.

I don't see water needs as a major stumbling block. As long as most of the water is recycled, which would be relatively easy in a sealed chamber - where's it going to go? - the need for additional water wouldn't be too great.

Also, what effect would the loss of the gravitational pull of the sun and moon have on the earth? One large concern would be ocean levels, I would think.

Another concern would be air pollution.

The only effect of losing the moon (which isn't a sure thing; it could also crash into the Earth or have its orbit changed) is that the seas would be calmer.

Certainly air quality inside the chamber would have to be controlled. There wouldn't be too many internal combustion engines - no cars or airplanes - but the air would have to monitored closely.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The underground cities would be concentrated where existing geothermal plants are - and the biggest complex anywhere is in the Geysers area north of San Francisco, so a number of cities would be built there. It's an unavoidable fact that the places best suited for geothermal development are where the tectonic plates come together and the magma is closest to the surface, so there's increased danger of earthquakes, but energy needs override everything for long term survival, and earthquakes aren't that common at anyone site, really.

Why risk earthquake exactly? Why not use nuclear? Or space based solar power beamed from closer to the Sun? The former might be good to use whilst the latter is under construction.

The only effect of losing the moon (which isn't a sure thing; it could also crash into the Earth or have its orbit changed) is that the seas would be calmer.

If the Moon's orbit is changed drastically (i.e. becomes quite eccentric) the effect on Earth's crust could be pronounced.

Certainly air quality inside the chamber would have to be controlled. There wouldn't be too many internal combustion engines - no cars or airplanes - but the air would have to monitored closely.

Actually you may want to burn things at some point to get the carbon for your ecosystem.

 

[CCWilson]

I'd be interested to see some numbers on how cold the Earth would get and how long it would take to cool. The oceans are a massive heat sink, without the sun they'll freeze eventually but how long I wonder?

I've been trying to figure that one out myself. Onomatomanic did have an estimate but I've had conflicting opinions on this. My current guess is that it would get cold enough - below -185 centigrade - for oxygen and nitrogen to liquify after about a year. I suspect the surface of the oceans would freeze fairly early but liquid water might remain at the bottom permanently. But I'm doing a lot of guesswork here, and if anyone has a suggestion of an expert in any of these fields - biospherics, terraforming, climatology, astrophysics - who might be willing to talk with me, I'd be deeply appreciative. The gurus I've contacted so far haven't jumped at the opportunity.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I've been trying to figure that one out myself. Onomatomanic did have an estimate but I've had conflicting opinions on this. My current guess is that it would get cold enough - below -185 centigrade - for oxygen and nitrogen to liquify after about a year.

I think pressure has to be taken into account as well. As some of the atmosphere freezes the rest will have a lower freezing temperature.

I suspect the surface of the oceans would freeze fairly early but liquid water might remain at the bottom permanently. But I'm doing a lot of guesswork here, and if anyone has a suggestion of an expert in any of these fields - biospherics, terraforming, climatology, astrophysics - who might be willing to talk with me, I'd be deeply appreciative. The gurus I've contacted so far haven't jumped at the opportunity.

There are no experts on terraforming and closed biospheres we know very little about (the few experiments done were failures). You're not going to find an expert in your specific field but the members of this site do have great knowledge in a wide variety of areas and IMO they've done a pretty good job so far.

 

[CCWilson]

Why risk earthquake exactly? Why not use nuclear? Or space based solar power beamed from closer to the Sun?

Nuclear and fossil fuel power would require constant replenishment of fuel and a lot more maintenance than geothermal, which requires no fuel. Clearly geothermal is the best long term option. If you had no geothermal capacity, you'd have to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels, but upkeeping those would be a massive project. Nuclear plants have lifespans of under 50 years, by the way.

The sun would quickly become a distant memory, the stuff of legend. I can't imagine that there's any technology that would allow you to use it for power.

 

[onomatomanic]

Onomatomanic did have an estimate but I've had conflicting opinions on this.

How different was the other estimate? I'd like to know for my own worldbuilding.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Nuclear and fossil fuel power would require constant replenishment of fuel and a lot more maintenance than geothermal, which requires no fuel. Clearly geothermal is the best long term option. If you had no geothermal capacity, you'd have to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels, but upkeeping those would be a massive project. Nuclear plants have lifespans of under 50 years, by the way.

You've just invented and built multiple entirely self sufficient, closed ecosystem cities underground and you're worried about upkeep of a few reactors? Also IIRC there is thousands of years worth of fuel for nuclear reactors on Earth. More than enough to last and eventually perhaps fusion will take over. This seems much better than trying to go the geothermal route which has the dangers of an earthquake (if it disrupts your ecosystem or the geothermal plants you've got no time to rebuild before you die).

The sun would quickly become a distant memory, the stuff of legend. I can't imagine that there's any technology that would allow you to use it for power.

Out of curiosity have you worked out if it is possible/likely for the Earth just to wander off into interstellar space? I have a suspicion that an event of that much energy would devastate Earth even more. It seems more likely that Earth's orbit would become quite eccentric before leaving. I'm not sure of that though. The escape velocity for the solar system from Earth orbit is something like 40kmps, whatever it is that disturbs Earth's orbit has to impart that in the right direction (and it's still going to take many years to get anywhere).

As for technology of course there is. Look up proposals for space based solar power and beamed interstellar transport. Once the cities are up and running production could switch to nuclear rockets (no atmosphere to worry about contaminating) for delivery of solar arrays with highly focused masers into orbit around the sun. Perhaps at some point machines could be sent to asteroids to mine and refine resources to manufacture more arrays. The idea being that these arrays beam the energy to Earth.

EDIT: I mentioned earlier in thread a short story that might help but I got the name wrong. It's called Minla's Flowers by Alastair Reynolds (though it's only available in anthologies). I read it again today thanks to this thread and whilst it doesn't deal with a lot of detail it is very good at giving an insight into what a culture that has decades left will look like and what challenges they will face. Despite being given detailed, step-by-step plans of how to develop their technology and industry by a traveller from a more advanced civilisation they still find themselves set back by problems getting resources, war with those who don't want to help or want to try different options (and are hoarding resources in the mean time) etc etc.

 

[Evo]

The only effect of losing the moon (which isn't a sure thing; it could also crash into the Earth or have its orbit changed) is that the seas would be calmer.

Not according to this.

If you would take away the Moon suddenly, it would change the global altitude of the ocean. Right now there is a distortion which is elongated around the equator, so if we didn’t have this effect, suddenly a lot of water would be redistributed toward the polar regions

http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507

 

[Evo]

The underground cities would be concentrated where existing geothermal plants are - and the biggest complex anywhere is in the Geysers area north of San Francisco, so a number of cities would be built there. It's an unavoidable fact that the places best suited for geothermal development are where the tectonic plates come together and the magma is closest to the surface, so there's increased danger of earthquakes, but energy needs override everything for long term survival, and earthquakes aren't that common at anyone site, really.

You need to take the type of geology into consideration, those areas might not be stable enough to allow an "underground' city" to be possible. You don't want to start digging and have the thing cave in because it can't support it.

I don't see water needs as a major stumbling block. As long as most of the water is recycled, which would be relatively easy in a sealed chamber - where's it going to go? - the need for additional water wouldn't be too great.

Room needed for storage? Room for the water recycling plants?

Populations would have to be controlled, as well as for agriculture and animals. The amount of artificial light needed would be enormous.

All of the technology means that you will need to be selective about the people that can live in your "cities", you will need people that can handle the scientific, as well as engineering, construction, maintenance, etc... Perhaps a lottery for the few slots that may be left over.

Or you could handwave it all away. On Star trek TNG, they had small communities in biodomes, etc... of course placing events way into the future makes it easier to get away with a lot.

 

[sshai45]

As for technology of course there is. Look up proposals for space based solar power and beamed interstellar transport. Once the cities are up and running production could switch to nuclear rockets (no atmosphere to worry about contaminating) for delivery of solar arrays with highly focused masers into orbit around the sun. Perhaps at some point machines could be sent to asteroids to mine and refine resources to manufacture more arrays. The idea being that these arrays beam the energy to Earth.

But the Earth has fled from the Sun, so it'd be a long, long ways off, I'd imagine, by the time -- if ever -- they were in any shape to do that at all.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But the Earth has fled from the Sun, so it'd be a long, long ways off, I'd imagine, by the time -- if ever -- they were in any shape to do that at all.

Key point: Space is big, really really big.

If the cities aren't mostly complete by the time the atmosphere has frozen then they're all dead anyway. The way I see it long before the Earth leaves the solar system there will be time to deploy these stations en mass. Bear in mind how huge the solar system is, it's taken the Voyager probes decades to get to the edge and given the technology we're talking about having the precision to beam said energy to Earth doesn't seem like too much of a deal.

 

[sshai45]

Key point: Space is big, really really big.

If the cities aren't mostly complete by the time the atmosphere has frozen then they're all dead anyway. The way I see it long before the Earth leaves the solar system there will be time to deploy these stations en mass. Bear in mind how huge the solar system is, it's taken the Voyager probes decades to get to the edge and given the technology we're talking about having the precision to beam said energy to Earth doesn't seem like too much of a deal.

Yes, but I was thinking they'd need some time to develop the technology needed to launch with the VERY limited resources they'd now have, if they could ever do so. The space program we have now depends on having a large economy with free resources, no? (Note that the countries with big space programs also have big economies.)