# (2/3) The eugenics of a Mars Colony.

(1/3) “Man fears time…”

(2/3) The eugenics of a Mars Colony.

It hurt me to write this. And I promise it will hurt to read this. I’ve been putting this off for several months, and I’m not sure I should have written it. Please consider this carefully before you continue.

## The plan, the engineering and the form of the problem.

Elon Musk is planning on establishing a colony on the planet Mars (announcement video). He will attempt to send 1 million people.

There are many problems that have to be solved to make this possible. Many of them are technical: Access to clean water, power generation, and growing food. As difficult as they are, these problems are well-defined and well scoped.

In effect, he seems to be claiming that he and SpaceX will be able to construct an entirely new civilization from nothing but fine red dust. Even this, as absurd as it sounds, I would be willing to grant. Not just because of his track record, but because if the laws of physics don’t forbid it, we should assume that it can be engineered. Musk himself has talked about how some limits result from a lack of imagination about what’s possible. The trouble is knowing what limits are actually implied by physical principles.

There are other problems though, that aren’t as well defined. Who’s labor will make all of this possible? Elon hasn’t been able to shield the workers in his own factories from the weight of his ambitions. The value and the labor must come from somewhere, and the problems of power and exploitation have never been solved by anyone, anywhere, at any time in human history since agriculture.

So who will go to do the work of building this civilization out of the dust? It will fail without the presence of an underclass, like many of the first colonies in America before they began importing slaves like Baldwin’s nigger[1].

You don’t have to watch the entire video if you’re already familiar with Baldwin. It will help to understand my perspective here.

## The socioeconomic pyramid, and its thermodynamic mode.

I need an aside here to clarify something. In the writing that follows I will treat phenomena at the city, country, and international scale interchangeably. This is deliberate, and I think order for this to make sense I have to assume the global economic system has a special property. Notice if we think of it as a kind of ecological energy pyramid, we can zoom in on parts of it and still have a pyramid – essential properties hold at any scale. For me to freely swap observations about behavior at different scales, though, I don’t think it’s strictly required to be a pyramid. It may only be required that the global economic system have scale invariance. This is part of why I think some methods from statistical physics that rely on that symmetry may be useful in understanding it, but that’s another subject. And there’s another thing which is very important: collective behaviors are not necessarily the linear sum, or average of individual behaviors. Normal human intuition totally fails at this. A community may have some kind emergent ‘intent’ all its own that grows out of individual behaviors in subtle and unpredictable ways.

I don’t think Musk being entirely open about his motivations for going to Mars. He says he worries about asteroids, and other “eventual” extinction events, but his main concern is clearly human originated scenarios. Those other more astronomical events belong to some longer timescale that wouldn’t put his attempt to leave on such a short timetable.

Make careful note of the omissions:

Musk 1/21/2014: I think demographics is a real issue where people are not having kids in a lot of countries. Very often they say well we’ll solve it with immigration. Well immigration from where? If many parts of Europe have an average of 50 or 60% of what’s needed for replacement – or China for that matter – they’re at half replacement rate. Where exactly are we going to find 6 million people to replace the ones that were never born? I think people are gong to have to regard, to some degree, the notion of having kids as almost a social duty – within reason. If you can, if you’re so inclined, you should. Otherwise civilization will just die, literally.

The birthrate is inversely correlated to wealth, inversely correlated to education, and correlated to religion. So the more religious you are, the less educated, and the poorer you are the more kids you will have. And this is true between countries and within countries. In the U.S. the highest birthrate is in Utah, with the Mormons.

I think if you say what are the threats to civilization, the lack of people is obviously a threat to civilization. We are going to face in the mid part of this century – and particularly the latter part of the century – a demographic implosion the likes of which we haven’t seen including the Black plague. The math is obvious. When did China ever experience a 50% reduction in its population? Never. Basically pre-writing, because no one’s ever written of such a thing. Even the Black Plague – I think they might have [lost?] like a quarter, but never a half, yet Spain – birthrate of 50%. It’s as if someone went through and killed half of the population – or at least of the future population. There’s something better happen to turn this around. Otherwise, you have an inverted demographic pyramid and it’s going to – [gestures falling over] at this rate the only thing that will be left will be robots.

For a while I thought Musk intended to run away from the planet, like he ran away from South Africa. That he planned on leaving all of the human dross behind and remaking a world with what he believes are more worthy people. But his actual sentiments must be more complicated than that, and I can’t pretend to be able to read his mind.

When white Americans and Europeans make prognostications about the future, it is their habit not to take into account the agency of Africans, and other people of the global south. Their predictions usually reveal an implicit assumption that non-whites are some kind of mud people with no capacity for conscious thought or planning of their own [2]. Often these countries are forgotten completely. But Elon Musk was born and raised under apartheid South Africa, a rapacious reader and fully aware of the world around him. He shouldn’t have this problem. This is why I think the omission was deliberate.

From the U.N. a few years ago (link):

The current world population of 7.2 billion is projected to increase by 1 billion over the next 12 years and reach 9.6 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations report launched today, which points out that growth will be mainly in developing countries, with more than half in Africa.

Musk omitted mention of Africa, and the years between now and this projected peak near 2050 because these years are the most dangerous. Before we have to deal with underpopulation, we will have to ask if the planet can support 10 billion people. I do not believe overpopulation itself is a problem – the problem has always been over-consumption. Birthrates are greater, as he says, for countries low in social development. But no country has ever advanced itself without a growth in externalities. For example in Brazil, the first among the emerging economies, deforestation of the Amazon burdens indigenous people with the costs of development, and overuse of water resources by industry and agriculture have created a dangerous situation for city-dwellers. Brazil’s birthrate has plummeted as it developed, and the education of women improved. But this was attended by a increase in externalities, which may actually be a form of dissipation, required by the second law of thermodynamics, that richer communities and countries are privileged to be able to shove off onto poorer ones [3].

Eventually this process must end or transition to another regime – and not because the planet has an absolute carrying capacity. That is, not due to the population alone, but the product of population and per capita energy and resource consumption. The latter grows at a rate larger than the decay of the former as a country develops, so that what is gained by a drop in fertility is more than lost through modernization. The most developed countries are therefore the greatest burden, and their externalities eventually consume the whole globe. The people at the lowest tiers of the pyramid, assuming this notion of dissipation is correct, do not have a “heat sink.” At the bottom there isn’t anything unload costs on except the planet itself. Ruin, mainly through climate change follows.

And now in a bid to reach a higher position, people in many developing countries are immigrating to the wealthier countries that exploit their home lands. This effect, combined with the radical shift in the world population due to the wild incongruence in birthrates result in the present global racial tension, as racism is at the center of the process people use to create a moral pretense for systems of plunder. It is how privileged classes can maintain the absurd ideology that the poor owe the rich and not the other way around.

It is my view that the racism and nationalism of human beings virtually guarantees that they cannot withstand a such a rapid shift in the racial make-up of their countries without violence on a large scale. When you ask an American about over population, they are prone to say something that implies they think there are too many Chinese people alive, or that Hispanics have too many kids (offering no such concerns about Mormons). If I were to ask an Indian, I assume they’re liable to make some reference to people of lower caste, or Muslims. People who believe all human lives are of equal worth should recognize they are in the minority, or more likely be honest with themselves about what they are.

The people who voted for Brexit, Trump, and Le Pen know what they are, and they know what they don’t like. What they don’t like is this feeling that their countries are being taken over by people with colored skin. The basic process that is occurring now I have been anticipating for the last fifteen years, though my reasoning back then drew on personal biases from my own experience with people. I can’t express how heartbreaking it has been to realize the person I was ten years ago would have better anticipated the choice whites made in electing Trump, and I have felt myself a fool for having grown out of the slightest amount of cynicism. I used to joke about how easy it would be to Nazify the United States, and that when World War 3 began the U.S. would be the aggressor and its motivations would make the conflict indistinguishable from a race war [4]. Americans have no armor against this, and repeating “this is not normal” won’t help: before the election Americans lived in a country with 20% of the world’s prison population, disproportionately black and brown (The New Jim Crow, Last Days of Solitary) and they were living with that like it was normal. It is a part of human adaptability to become accustomed (or willfully blind) to things that are horrifying.

Hans Rosling [5] suggested nothing short of a nuclear war would stop this population growth among the poorest billion, and we may yet have that. Even if apocalyptic maniacs like Steven Bannon and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are removed from power, the forces that put them in place are so much greater. But I am still a fool, and it makes me happy to be wrong about these things.

## The eugenics of a Mars Colony.

Now, what does Musk really believe about the future, given that he’s not saying everything? He isn’t hiding any white supremacist style racism. Musk is either

unaware of how profound a problem racism and nationalism are in the futures he’s talking about,

trying very hard to ignore and feign ignorance of them. Or

believes these problems are more easily solved than those he is working on.

He seems to be like a Trekkie in that he believes the magic of science fiction should be able to solve this problem, without the intervention of any actual science. I find it hard to believe that he could be as daft as the rest of his class; all of the evidence he’s left indicate he’s accepted the privilege of not having to deal with the issue. I believe most whites genuinely don’t understand it, but I believe he does understand it and has chosen silence.

Now it is a feature of systemic racism and class structure, being dependent global properties, that their effects are robust to many kinds of individual behavior. By that I mean the system’s organization alone reproduces a proximate cause, and that there’s some large class of individual motivations that all correspond to the same macroscopic behavior. It may be our curse to participate in systems whose emergent malice lies beyond the reach of our intentions. Though this is not to excuse the feedback loops that appear between leaders and constituents (The Color of Law, still need to read this one).

And this is how the escape to Mars will reproduce a kind of eugenics, which selects on the correlates of socioeconomic status. And I dare to say Musk has already made this observation. He knows that like Tesla’s cars, access to Mars will have to be rich people first. His claim of making it so everybody can go means everybody in the developed world who is not poor, especially white Americans (who have on average 16 times the wealth of black Americans). He may believe it is unavoidable that if we want to go to Mars at all, it will have to be done like this.

There is a dread implication here I hope you’ll be spared noticing. It may be the worst thought that has ever stained my mind. It is nearly unspeakable. I will not reference this implication further.

If he believes the wealthiest people can just leave Earth behind he is wrong. His actions seem to indicate that he does believe that. This is why it was necessary to write the pyramid post first. Because it directly attacks the core vanity that causes Americans to misapprehend their relationship to the rest of the world, and wealthy people of all countries to the working class(Coates). Their success is not independent of class stratification, it requires it. No society has yet been able to function in any other way, and without an alternative the colony will fail like our civilization here is failing.

Again, the Mars colony has as much chance of success as American colonies did before they started importing slaves. For the Mars colony to function, they would have to bring not just people who can afford to go, but also enough labor as is made necessary by the exploitative thermodynamic mode of our societies.

We don’t get to run away from our problems. We face them and fix them, or else carry them with us wherever we go. Something fundamental about how humans live and relate to each other, our relationships as defined by flows of energy and resources have to be altered. And no one will escape without finally answering James Baldwin’s question, “Why was it necessary to have a nigger in the first place?” That the ruling class is terrified of this question and evaded it is the reason we are in this situation.

Most of us will remain on Earth, to deal with these problems and evolve as a species, if the laws of physics even allow it. To transcend the conditions of our lives or die. We are hurtling toward a singularity and flailing desperately for some guarantee of survival. This is humanity, in extremis.

(3/3) In Extremis. (soon)

1. I was considering posting a review of I Am Not Your Negro, but it seems unnecessary (Dagmawi Woubshet, Cassie da CostaHolly Genovese). I notice the movie has been called prescient and even ‘prophetic’, but those folks misunderstand. Baldwin was talking about his world and his time. It only sounds like prophesy because so little has changed. And really black folks have very little to learn from it, as beautifully as it elucidates and corroborates their testimony. White folks are having their worldview shaken (A.O. Scott) only because they’re so profoundly ignorant.(return)

2. Or to take Steven Bannon and his favorite book as an example, these assumptions are just as often explicit and openly racist.(return)

3. This may be easier to understand with an example at the city scale. It is necessary (to externalize costs) to have power plants and factories spew pollution into the air. Will the rich neighborhood tolerate this? Of course not – put the black folks downwind and let their children pay the price. This sort of thing happens in nearly every city in America. In this case, because some chemical process is occurring that brings matter from an organized state to a more disorganized one, namely that pollutants diffuse, it is clear that the avoided cost is a kind of dissipation. It is a separate claim, and harder to justify, that many of the social problems in poor communities(The Poisoned Generation) are also a kind of system state that takes in entropy produced by wealthier communities. I cannot justify the claim that this “dissipation” may be required by thermodynamics, and I don’t know how to predict a theoretical limit on it if it is required.(return)

4. It doesn’t seem to be required that most Americans become racist for this to happen. There is a violent ethnonationalist core in the Republican party, and it is only required that they be allowed to act freely. These people are prepared to use violence to get what they want, but white moderates are not prepared to withstand violence on their own bodies to stop them. The lives of people of color just don’t matter enough. So white nationalists may escalate without response. The reaction to Black Lives Matter made it clear from whom most Americans will tolerate violence.(return)

5. Has Rosling gave an incredibly simple breakdown of things seven years ago, if you need that. It is critical to remember the caveats he had to offer in that talk, which many cornucopians prefer to ignore. He said population might hold at 9 billion; the most recent projections are closer to 10 billion. We will never reach this number. Because consumption (in this ‘mode’) grows exponentially, and I find it hard to imagine an energy source that can grow at that rate.(return)

6. I’m not going to entertain the suggestion that the plan may be to use AI and construct robots for labor and resource extraction. Although I consider it plausible Musk intends this, it’s better saved for a later post.
7. There is going to be a major sex ratio problem that Musk doesn’t seem to have anticipated at all. And it seems his companies may have a sexism problem that the American media is trying to keep quiet about (the Gaurdian isn’t). Sometime soon one of the geniuses at SpaceX is likely to have an “Astonishingly good idea.”

# Living in Avalon

…If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality….given that we’re on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality and those games could be played on a set up box or a pc or whatever, and there would probably billions of such computers or set top boxes…it would seem to follow that the odds that we’re in base reality is one in billions…tell me what’s wrong with that argument.

When I saw him answer the simulation question, I was immediately reminded of  the 2001 film, Avalon.

The simulation question has been talked about extensively in the last month or so, but I still haven’t seen any physicists chime in and it seems an argument from this perspective would be most appropriate for Musk (1). There was a response from a cognitive scientist and a philosopher here, but they seem to have missed the mark a bit, and they don’t seem to have understood what Musk may have meant by indistinguishable. I’m going to focus on this word, because it makes specific demands on the physics of the possible technologies involved.

Questions:

1. Is it possible to build a simulation “indistinguishable from reality?” Indistinguishable is critical here.
2. I expect the trajectory Musk describes will change. Where is the asymptote? I will have no chance of answering this one.
3. If it is possible to build such a simulation, does it matter?

Re: Question 1: Is it possible to build a simulation “indistinguishable from reality?”

[All Equivalent] I am going to assume, as Musk seems to, that by “reality” he means a world that operates with the same rules as ours appears to; that it has the same laws of physics. The distinction he is making is between “base” reality and simulated reality. They both behave exactly the same but one is an original. His argument seems to require all of the simulated realities operate under the same rules, so that our experiences here can carry implications about what’s possible in realities that simulate other realities.

[Computable] I think I have to assume further, also like Musk, that “reality” is computable. That all of the rules can be reduced to logically rigorous statements, also that there is nothing that doesn’t follow the rules, and therefore classical or quantum computations are sufficient to simulate reality (2).

It happens that our experiences here operate under quantum mechanical principles at the most fundamental level. We live in a universe that obeys Heisenberg Uncertainty, and there is a fundamental scale set by a constant of nature:

$\Delta x \Delta p\ge \dfrac{\hbar} {2}$

Any object we observe has a momentum ‘$p$‘ we associate with what Newton called a “quantity of motion”, and a position ‘$x$‘. This inequality is an assertion about the distributions of position and momentum. Roughly speaking, the uncertainty principle sets an absolute, fundamental limit on how well it is possible to know $x$ and $p$. This limit comes from the quantity $h$ – it is Planck’s constant. It is an incredibly small number measured in units of space and time we’re familiar with, but it is not zero, meaning it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of an object perfectly.

The less obvious consequence for our purpose: the uncertainty principle represents the limits in nature’s own detail. Once you know as much as uncertainty principle permits, there really is nothing else to know: nature itself carries no more information (3).

It shouldn’t seem plausible that a full fidelity (“indistinguishable”) simulation of a physical space could be housed in any volume less than or equal to that space, but I don’t know how to prove this. My intuition says the most parsimonious way to simulate a  physical space is to have that volume time evolve on its own. As Einstein put it, “God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.” There shouldn’t be any shortcuts, I think.

Some work on the limits of computation using uncertainty principle, general relativity  (GR) (and/or?)  the second law of thermodynamics has been done, producing theoretical limits regarding computation. This work is bit out of my depth but it seems GR is required for its limits on energy density (4). Anyway, these details should not interfere with reaching this implication: Because there are fundamental limits on computational power, and by [All Equivalent] these limits apply to a simulating reality, it is not possible to embed, as a subsystem, an indistinguishable simulation of a region within that region. There can’t physically be any substitute for proper reality.

Now, what about the plug-in Matrix kind, aka the dream or the video game? Maybe it is only necessary to fully simulate observed, or observable regions of space and time? And even then only to the limits of observational powers of the individual. I have been assuming that our “reality” fully obeys all the known laws of physics, even when we don’t directly test or observe them. I should just be able to say this kind can be rejected because it is solipsism – we are trying to use physics here and this would take all the bets off. But I think I can do better, especially since it was this kind Musk directly proposed, though I will have to offer inductive arguments.

1. This world is too shitty for too many people. Unless Musk somehow thinks this reality is his very own oyster and none of the rest of us are real, what reason would we have to simulate a reality like this with so much suffering?
2. All software has bugs. “Indistinguishable” is too strong a demand for any software to meet with, no matter how advanced its developer. Honestly I think bug-free software cannot exist. There would be dejavu’s and glitches.
3. This reality is definitely not a video game in its lack of lucidity. Why don’t we know it’s a simulation?
4. If we had this kind of computational power, we could do a lot better for a video game than this. It would literally make gods out of everyone. Just ask: are you living in the world you wish existed?

If an indistinguishable reality were possible, it would not be desirable. The truth is too hard. If people had unlimited power to create their own realities they would hide from base “reality” in ways that are more robust and complete than religion and technology  allow them currently.

I have one remaining physical argument. We know that some physical systems are described by models whose equations lead to algorithms that are “hard” in this sense: That the computation time needed to predict observables scales so greatly that the computer would effectively require the lifetime of a universe in base reality to integrate, violating our [computable] assumption (5). This argument is not without a certain subtle problem.

Re: Question 2: I expect the trajectory Musk describes will change. Where is the asymptote?

I should just give up on this one for now…I suspect the bound found by Seth Lloyd is too generous but I don’t know how to improve it:

$\text{Max Operations Per Second}$ $\sim \dfrac{mc^2}{h}$

The numerator is the most recognized formula in physics: the rest energy of Lloyd’s “ultimate laptop” from relativity. Planck’s constant has appeared again because this is a quantum computer, and the computation speed is limited by how quickly one state can “rotate” into another state that is sufficiently …distinguishable, again determined by Heisenberg uncertainty(6).

Re: Question 3: If it is possible to build such a simulation, does it matter?

When we ask for indistinguishability we are asking, by definition, for a reality that will never fail to satisfy any demand we might make of it. It is impossible to devise an experiment that would reveal that it is a simulation. I don’t know why Musk is unsatisfied with this (7). Again by definition, these doubts would persist for anyone living in base “reality.”

I think a minimal plea for sanity requires us to take our reality as it presents itself. Further, that we take it as simply as it presents itself, and imagine no hidden variables, mechanisms, Wizards of Oz, Dungeon Masters, Cartesian Demons, or code beyond nature’s capacity for information, i.e. its ability to distinguish.

It is a hardcore, base reality that what can’t be observed really isn’t there. A simulated reality and a base reality if indistinguishable must be one and the same. Nature itself can brook no hypotheses about the unobservable. We cannot allow ourselves superstition, or even agnosticism if we are going to move past barriers of imagination. We’ll have to be atheist. Nature is just too creative and extends too far beyond our ken to allow us any less.

Maybe we should be hopeful that we are living in a simulation…either we develop simulations that are indistinguishable from reality or civilization ceases to exist.

Avalon, the legendary land
The isle of apple-trees and mist
Avalon is the land of elves
Where the hero comes today

Avalon, the legendary land
The hero set out there

Avalon is the land of elves
Avalon is the heavenly isle of shadows
Enchanted isle
The ship set out to an unknown voyage
Avalon…

1. There are reasons for a good physicist (not me) to stay out of this discussion. The primary one I’m thinking of being that this notion is, at least at face, untestable. Please take all of the physics presented here with a grain of salt.
2. One thing I’m definitely not sure of: would this reality simulation require a theory of everything, so that all of the physical laws would have to be known?
3. It might be argued that nature does know more, but simply behaves in a way that prevents us from knowing or observing any more. I think all hypotheses of this kind can be equated to a “hidden variables” description of quantum mechanics, and I believe all such theories have been excluded by Bell’s Theorem and its experimental verification(here, and here).
4. There’s a whole literature on this that I won’t be able to go into. I neglect distinctions  made between limits on memory capacity, the longevity of a record, and what research in this area may imply about time itself, and any relationships between gravity and thermodynamics. In due time, I think the research on quantum computing will reveal much more about these questions.
5. Most of the research in this area is for Classical computation – where the states of computer are strictly binary, 1 or 0. The situation for quantum complexity is less clear, as this field is still fairly new and many quantum algorithms are still being developed.
6. There is an energy and time relation analogous to the one for momentum and position, though its interpretation is a bit more subtle.
7. Really I think he didn’t mean the full quantum mechanical notion of indistinguishable, but I needed an excuse to write this post.

# Strong A.I. and the growth of conciousness

I lay out a general design for the kind of process that I suspect may be necessary for the development of strong artificial intelligence.

Some problems in complexity are NP Hard. There are no shortcuts: there exists no polynomial time algorithm that would allow you to see the future of the system before that future actually comes in its own good ‘time’ so to speak. The only way to see is for the full system to walk through the entirety of its history with full fidelity to the details of its interactions and structure. It has occurred to me that perhaps the development of any strong AI would require a process of development similar to this, even if it were done in silico. And therefore the development of a strong AI requires that the AI have its own full history and evolutionary path, in which it would pass through a series of stages in the same way as the human brain has passed through its own.

Maybe this does not entail that the process take 500 million years the way the brain has, but it may require that some computational runtime or informational/entropic kind of equivalence to substitute for the years must be followed through in the process. There should be some kind of energy and dissipation cost associated with generating it.

Some modern development processes have made use of fitness functions and an iterative/evolutionary process for producing new technologies. Assuming the reader is familiar with some of these methods, the immediate analogue to natural selection is obvious. What may be less clear from what I mentioned above is that to develop something very complicated, with an exceptionally long history like the brain, it might be necessary to first select not for typically human brain properties like language, abstraction, theory of mind, etc. but to, in the course of this evolution-like simulation, first select for more basic things.

For example, we may begin with some kind of smaller neural network on the order of 100 components (like a worm), and subject to a fitness function for mobility like light seeking. Later on more sophisticated behaviors would be required, using a more complex set of constraints. In each subsequent stage the process selects for more complex tasks and augments the network, building from the prior one. I imagine that something like this; a living system evolved through a virtual ecosystem could at some point, generate a very advanced piece of artificial intelligence and perhaps even necessarily would do so (1) .

————————————————————

1. The U.S. military had the stealth technology used in the F-117A for more than a decade before it was revealed to the public. Sometimes I wonder what sorts of things they have in their possession today that we won’t know about for another 10 years, a technology that seems so improbable and fantastic and on the boundary of science fiction you would have trouble convincing anyone they could have possibly done such a thing. This is one of those kinds of things.

# An artificial, modular planetoid.

I had an idea several months ago about a kind of spaceship…

I have been thinking for some time about how it might be possible to build a vessel that adequately reproduces the facilities provided by the planet Earth. That is, that the Earth is itself a space ship, which just happens to be gravitationally bound to the Sun, and which provides the living organisms on it everything they need for life, using only the energy of the Sun to do so. If we ever intend to leave this vessel permanently, we are going to have to find a way to reproduce all of its vital functions. This would include answering questions (perhaps among others) such as:

1. How do we build a spaceship or station which has the necessary redundancy and durability to persist by itself in space?

2. How can the energy of the Sun be fed through an artificial, cyclical system to generate clean water?

3. How can the energy of the Sun be fed through an artificial, cyclical system to generate food?

4. Will fusion energy be necessary for any vessel to escape into deep space, where the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases?

5. To what extent is it possible for an organism which has evolved dynamically in response to and within a particular ecological framework, to escape that ecological framework through the use of the substitute systems implied by (2) and (3), without those systems having been subject to the same evolutionary/adaptive processes? (Can we live only on the Earth, by virtue of our having evolved here and being therefore inescapably dependent on its natural systems?)

The suggestion here only attempts to answer the first question:

The solution is an artificial planet, constructed from a collection of identical, or nearly identical modular components, each brought together by their mutual gravitational attraction, and locked in place to form a kind of human-made cellular structure. In space, I imagine that these pieces would move together and coalesce like a flock of birds, or like the rocks that form planetary rings. In this way, it would be possible to have a vessel large enough to support a large community, but at the same time have the kind of redundancy needed for a permanent interstellar presence. At any given time some percentage of the whole collective may under repair, or flown off to orbit some other body; pieces may come and go, but the integrity of entire structure would be unaffected. There would be no centralized, critical components and no risk of systemic failure from such components. Systemic risks may appear though in a kind of viral form, associated with the kinds of connectivity or interdependence that may exist in the system.

1. How massive will the entire structure be? Will it have gravity on par with that of the moon or a large asteroid?

2. How large will each individual ‘pod’ be? Its mass?

3. Will each ‘pod’ be self-sufficient, or will it be more beneficial to adapt some to particular purposes, as cells are specialized in the bodies of multicellular organisms?

4. Will people inhabit the surface of this thing or will they be free to move through the whole structure? Will it be spherical? Are there other shapes which might be preferred for some reason?

5. Interesting n-body questions may arise when trying to describe the formation and dispersal of the structure.

6. .. etc, etc.