Do you think human being is capable of colonizing other planets?
Or is that a dumb idea and we would be better off just improving the earth?
Or is that a dumb idea and we would be better off just improving the earth?
space tread (hi intellgence) -
- Thread starter spurger king
- Start date
-
Sustained Denial of Service attacks. Paid for botnet. Service will continue to be disrupted until I can contact other providers and arrange a fix.
Guts Gets Some
kiwifarms.net
- Highlight
- #2
We need to get our shit together on Earth first, before we can ever attempt to successfully branch out.
It depends. If another species took a few million of us to another planet to pick-space cotton, would that count as "colonization?"
The planet has finite resources, except for solar energy (and the occasional meteorite adding a few kilos of material). Limiting our resource use has limits, specifically, the limits of human population itself.
If we aren't willing to limit the human population, then our focus should be extraterrestrial colonization. There is no "fixing" the earth--you can't get around the fundamental resource scarcity. We're already running up against shortages of rare materials.
Interestingly, Star Trek's post-scarcity space utopia was based around (1) nearly infinite energy sources and (2) technology that converts energy into useful matter: food replicators, transporters, holodeck constructs, etc. If you think those two breakthroughs are feasible, then sure, you can stay on Earth and repair things. Otherwise, get out into the stars and find other resources to consume, both energy and materials.
(And if you think the energy problem is trivial, read Asimov's The Last Question. Or read the manga adaptation here or here. Given a long enough timeframe, entropy dictates humans choose between extinction or evacuation.)
If we aren't willing to limit the human population, then our focus should be extraterrestrial colonization. There is no "fixing" the earth--you can't get around the fundamental resource scarcity. We're already running up against shortages of rare materials.
Interestingly, Star Trek's post-scarcity space utopia was based around (1) nearly infinite energy sources and (2) technology that converts energy into useful matter: food replicators, transporters, holodeck constructs, etc. If you think those two breakthroughs are feasible, then sure, you can stay on Earth and repair things. Otherwise, get out into the stars and find other resources to consume, both energy and materials.
(And if you think the energy problem is trivial, read Asimov's The Last Question. Or read the manga adaptation here or here. Given a long enough timeframe, entropy dictates humans choose between extinction or evacuation.)
Why not both?
Improving the earth could be achieved through colonizing nearby planet in our solar system, and it's not entirely unrealistic either when you consider the abundance of resources that could be harnessed through doing so.
Colonizing the solar system shouldn't be our priority though since we don't want to lose everything there is on earth such as liquid water and life.
Improving the earth could be achieved through colonizing nearby planet in our solar system, and it's not entirely unrealistic either when you consider the abundance of resources that could be harnessed through doing so.
Colonizing the solar system shouldn't be our priority though since we don't want to lose everything there is on earth such as liquid water and life.
Time for another giant tread for mankind.
