4 ms·

Keep dreaming. If we cannot even understand or live in accordance with the life support systems of what is literally the most habitable and human-friendly plan

Keep dreaming. If we cannot even understand or live in accordance with the life support systems of what is literally the most habitable and human-friendly planet in the Universe then there's no way in hell that we will be able to successfully colonize a lifeless planet. Stop thinking about outer space when we are in the middle of an anthropogenic mass extinction here on planet Earth.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> literally the most habitable and human-friendly planet in the Universe Well, we don't know that it's the most habitable; it's just the most habitable we know of. And huge sections of it are completely unsuited for human life. 2/3rds of it will kill a human being in a matter of hours. Anything above or below, let's call it 50 degrees latitude is inhospitable without technology, and the equator isn't a great place to live, either.
- matroosberg 10y ago
  It almost certainly is the most habitable planet for life as we know it today because we and our environment co-evolved to match the conditions. Just because 2/3 of the planet (not sure how you arrived at the number / what parts are in the denominator) doesn't meant it is meaningless to what allows us to live here (e.g., oxygen and food supply from the oceans). OTOH I disagree with the notion that we have to have a full grasp on how to sustain us on this planet before we can make other planets inhabitable for us. I think there are things we will only learn if we try. I am not saying that trying right now is feasible, though.
  - echelon 10y ago
    I agree that we have an extremely low probability of finding a planet that could host our biology as well as Earth's given that we evolved here, but I refute your absolute claim. Invasive species don't co-evolve to exploit the ecosystems they stumble upon. They happen upon a ecological space where there are incredibly low hanging fruit that they are better equipped at taking advantage of. Imagine space-faring humans stumbling upon a world where the oceans resemble that of the Earth's as they once existed in the 1500's--a world densely populated with an abundance of marine life, ripe for harvesting. While there is some probability that biochemistry is not 100% universal (ie. alien metabolites could be toxic to humans or cause an immune response), I imagine there are scenarios where the same set of molecules and polymers are used. The principles of biochemistry are going to be similar in a lot of places in terms of how energy is exploited and harnessed. I think it's incredibly more likely that humans will never be interstellar travelers en masse than to say that Earth is the optimal naturally occurring human habitat in the universe. As far as we know there is an infinite space full of limitless planets. Plenty of biological solution space with which to theoretically work / exploit.
Rhapso 10y ago
This opinion really bothers me. The absolute best way to maximize chances of humanity's survival is expand off this rock. Improving survival chance here is of little consequence compared to essentially ORing the likelihood of survival over the independent existential threats.
gwright 10y ago
I'm going to assume this is a serious comment and that you are attributing global warming as the cause of the feared extinction. In that case I think you should dial it back a bit. Humans are pretty adaptable. Even assuming the changes in temperature and sea-level are on the high end of predictions, we will adapt. People will move, infrastructure will be built, and so on. Mass extinction certainly isn't going to happen from global warming as we understand it today. You might argue there there will be mass casualties, but that is also uncertain, difficult to quantify, and is quite a different thing than 'mass extinctions'. Of course, mass casualties due to weather has and is already a problem -- it isn't something that is uniquely associated with global warming.
- chriswarbo 10y ago
  > Mass extinction certainly isn't going to happen from global warming as we understand it today. I assume the parent is referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction which is certainly happening, and has been for thousands of years. Climate change is a rather recent contributor, albeit a very serious one of which we've only glimpsed the beginning.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

pavel_lishin 10y ago

> literally the most habitable and human-friendly planet in the Universe Well, we don't know that it's the most habitable; it's just the most habitable we know of. And huge sections of it are completely unsuited for human life. 2/3rds of it will kill a human being in a matter of hours. Anything above or below, let's call it 50 degrees latitude is inhospitable without technology, and the equator isn't a great place to live, either.

matroosberg 10y ago
It almost certainly is the most habitable planet for life as we know it today because we and our environment co-evolved to match the conditions. Just because 2/3 of the planet (not sure how you arrived at the number / what parts are in the denominator) doesn't meant it is meaningless to what allows us to live here (e.g., oxygen and food supply from the oceans). OTOH I disagree with the notion that we have to have a full grasp on how to sustain us on this planet before we can make other planets inhabitable for us. I think there are things we will only learn if we try. I am not saying that trying right now is feasible, though.
- echelon 10y ago
  I agree that we have an extremely low probability of finding a planet that could host our biology as well as Earth's given that we evolved here, but I refute your absolute claim. Invasive species don't co-evolve to exploit the ecosystems they stumble upon. They happen upon a ecological space where there are incredibly low hanging fruit that they are better equipped at taking advantage of. Imagine space-faring humans stumbling upon a world where the oceans resemble that of the Earth's as they once existed in the 1500's--a world densely populated with an abundance of marine life, ripe for harvesting. While there is some probability that biochemistry is not 100% universal (ie. alien metabolites could be toxic to humans or cause an immune response), I imagine there are scenarios where the same set of molecules and polymers are used. The principles of biochemistry are going to be similar in a lot of places in terms of how energy is exploited and harnessed. I think it's incredibly more likely that humans will never be interstellar travelers en masse than to say that Earth is the optimal naturally occurring human habitat in the universe. As far as we know there is an infinite space full of limitless planets. Plenty of biological solution space with which to theoretically work / exploit.

Rhapso 10y ago

This opinion really bothers me. The absolute best way to maximize chances of humanity's survival is expand off this rock. Improving survival chance here is of little consequence compared to essentially ORing the likelihood of survival over the independent existential threats.

gwright 10y ago

I'm going to assume this is a serious comment and that you are attributing global warming as the cause of the feared extinction. In that case I think you should dial it back a bit. Humans are pretty adaptable. Even assuming the changes in temperature and sea-level are on the high end of predictions, we will adapt. People will move, infrastructure will be built, and so on. Mass extinction certainly isn't going to happen from global warming as we understand it today. You might argue there there will be mass casualties, but that is also uncertain, difficult to quantify, and is quite a different thing than 'mass extinctions'. Of course, mass casualties due to weather has and is already a problem -- it isn't something that is uniquely associated with global warming.

chriswarbo 10y ago
> Mass extinction certainly isn't going to happen from global warming as we understand it today. I assume the parent is referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction which is certainly happening, and has been for thousands of years. Climate change is a rather recent contributor, albeit a very serious one of which we've only glimpsed the beginning.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]