I'd say take and share. Seems like people these days value pictures not as a snapshot for themselves (memory) but rather as a snapshot to show themselves to others (projection). Or at least there was some sort of shift.
frame of reference matters,
from the center of the sun or galactic core they all most certainly moved the same distance in the same amount of time and it was much further than the hill was tall.
Sure? What is the analog to this other frame of reference in the evolution case though? Or are you just stepping out of the analogy's applicability range to show that it can be pushed too far (which is of course true of an analogy)?
A Molecular clock would be gravity in your model, when ever you called stop
all your marbles would have experienced the same amount of gravitational force.
That is the intent of "experienced the same amount of evolution" and similar.
Where I see the model flounder is; the hill provides the fitness context. You implied distance "means" more evolved, but for life it is all about making it to the next round, in your marble game how many of those furthest marbles will ever be found for the next round?
With life big changes are dangerous,
you may find yourself improved out of options.
"What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them..."
I suggest re-framing the the question as the cost of preserving the objectively limited and to the best of our knowledge singularly unique in the Universe resource, which is the surface of Earth.
Acquiring resources that do not deplete or spoil the future of life on this planet should be in everyone's best interest.
Yeah no. Unless someone can answer basic questions like “what even comes close to net positive in energy expenditure to mine elsewhere,” then this is just a cover story.
The reality is that saving our environment will be a whole set of difficult and profoundly boring solutions to real, known problems.
Would be cool if we could solve it with badass rockets, explosions, big noises, and adventure, but the complete lack of even remotely convincing answers to first order questions on how this actually works belies the fact that it doesn’t. It makes no sense.
We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies.
> We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies
The reality is more people get passsionate about working on things that look cool in sci fi movies than developing plastics, proteins and pesticides for a mediocre paycheque. This lesson--that the path to groundbreaking technologies is through inspirational moonshots, not committees prescribing what is and isn't necessary--is so thoroughly repeated throughout history that it's a wonder we keep missing it.
Groundbreaking technologies are not created via moonshots. They’re created by decades of slog. Moonshots can launch from an unremarkable platform of slog, but the slog had to happen. You just cannot speedrun the vast majority of questions that need to be answered to power a breakthrough.
That’s why I’ll question glory-chasers who want to sit on the rocket but can’t take a few thousands of pay cut to stare for a few years at a true problem that needs solving.
Our species’ actual heroes are those who powered through the slog.
Yeah and usually the moonshot is a lot less circularly defined than “this moonshot is worth achieving because if we achieve it we will have built cool stuff to do it.”
I will again note that if Saber Tooth tigers had put things in the orbits we have, it would still be our problem.