Where we came from and where we're going, together in the sky.

What a time to be alive. 🌓🌍

This weird looking object Orion is pointing at is an International Docking System Standard Centerline Docking Target (IDSS CDT), Rev E. It's not just cool looking, there is a lot of information embedded in the geometry that a pilot can use. Print your own here!

www.printables.com/model/143055...

The LROC Quickmap website exists, is free, and anyone can use it to make pretty much any map that you would want of any dataset covering any portion of the lunar surface.

quickmap.lroc.im-ldi.com

Star Trek Klingon Hamlet taH pagh taHbe' (To be or not to be) YouTube video by klingonhamlet

Yes, but only in their original language.

youtu.be/CiRMGYQfXrs?...

You are not going to like living under the kind of institutionalized power that would be required to convince ~200 nations and ~8 billion people to self immiserate.

Nobody would. Which is why that kind of power will not (and should not) ever exist.

Literally no energy production method is zero impact or zero pollution.

But we know which ones are *minimally* impacting/polluting, and thanks to the hard work of hundreds of thousands of people, they are now also the most economical to deploy, which is why the curve is finally bending.

Surprise (not a surprise) there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

But green energy + innovation is the tradeoff that actually makes measurable progress towards our climate goals (unlike degrowth, which even if we grant its efficacy, is not effective because it requires people to self immiserate)

Nothing is stopping you from living on WW2 sized rations right now.

But I'll bet anything that you don't. Which tells me that you understand "Equally miserable rationing for everybody!" isn't an effective way to reduce emissions. It's not effective on you, it won't be effective globally.

Energy and stuff aren't a problem. People are better off in countries with more abundance of energy and stuff.

*Emissions* are a problem. *Pollution* is a problem. *Ecological destruction* is a problem.

Well, we've figured out how to have more of the former and less of the latter: Innovation.

Nope. Even if we attribute *ALL* aviation and shipping emissions to high-income countries (which is a terrible assumption), high-income countries' consumption-based emissions would still be down ~1 Gt_eq from peak.

No matter how you slice it: Developed countries emit less as they grow more.

No, we won't be halving emissions by 2030, any more than someone can lose 50 lbs in 2 months.

But we will get a lot closer to that healthy target with exercise and Ozempic (e.g. innovation and technology) than with "I've a hack saw. What are your least favorite limbs?" (e.g. Degrowth).

Agreed. So what are you going to do about it?

You can be an Ehrlich: Complain that the problem is people, and waste your life lamenting how awful people are for being problems.

Or you can be a Borlaug: Embrace people as the solution to the problem, and work with people to invent/deploy solutions.

Agreed. And the only thing that has stopped any CO2 emissions from growing is *development*, not degrowth. People who think the solution to emissions is "do less" are just like Ehrlich, who thought the solution to famine was "eat less".

"Do more with better" is the only solution that works.

Nope. Good news! Those same developed nations' emissions are peaking/declining, even if we track consumption-based emissions rather than just territorial. China is TBD, but the trend is pretty clear: Once a nation develops, it can grow while emitting less CO2.

ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod...

Innovating towards renewable energy is *how* we reduce greenhouse gas levels. It's the only thing that has ever successfully allowed a large country to reduce its emissions or make any meaningful progress towards reaching carbon neutrality. It's done far more good than degrowth ever has.

Okay, now check this. Developed regions' emissions *have been declining for decades* (and China's probably peaked last year).

How did that happen? Just like with Ehrlich in the 70's, a 2nd green revolution came about and showed the answer isn't "do less with less", it's "Do more with better".

We don't really *need* to do any of those, but if we did, the thing that makes all of them uneconomical (cost of energy) is getting innovated away pretty effectively.

Sure, cheap energy can't do *everything*, but it can do pretty much everything we need to do.

The core mistake within Ehrlich's work was that he never fully understood just how responsive carrying capacity is to tech level. Modeling limits to future growth without a verified model of future innovation is useless.

Ehrlich apparently died without understanding this. Don't make his mistake.

Blue Origin: For the Benefit of Earth YouTube video by Blue Origin

1) There is a lot of overlap between expanding into space and caring for the Earth

2) We can and are doing both

youtu.be/XH8Dn_d5mIs?...

None. But thanks in part to this uncrewed lander's success, these 4 amazing people will be on the next spacecraft (launching in a ~few weeks).

youtu.be/lPyl6d2FJGw?...

Moon Landing - Blue Ghost Makes History YouTube video by Firefly Aerospace

Maybe *you* can't.

But we can.

youtu.be/NpHhEybJdxg?...

Opening Sequence - THE HIGH FRONTIER YouTube video by Erik Wernquist - Digital Artist

Planetary?

Found out a coworker has made it to his mid-20's without ever seeing or playing with a gyroscope. He doesn't know the meeting I scheduled with him tomorrow is to congratulate him on being one of today's lucky 10,000!

*xkcd.com/1053/

In theory? Yeah, there are limits to growth. In practice? These limits are so large as to not matter.

We have resources to support ~trillions of humans. Anyone who thinks we are anywhere close to our carrying capacity doesn't understand the historical interaction between technology and resources.

*Overpopulation is not a problem and never was.

Update: Paul Ehrlich no longer contributing to the overpopulation problem*

Not quite. He was criticizing space-based solar power satellites, which require *transmitting the power to Earth* (typically via microwaves) to offset ground-based solar power.

An orbital solar-powered datacenter uses the power where it is generated (in space). It doesn't need to beam it anywhere.

See you there!

You scoff at that amount of heat rejection as "physically impossible", but the Starlink constellation is rejecting enough heat to run an orbital data center already.

bsky.app/profile/maxf...

Many such Cases.