3 ms·

> Space migration: As far as we know, Earth is home to the only life in the universe. It seems likely that microbial life is abundant, but as yet we lack proof

> Space migration: As far as we know, Earth is home to the only life in the universe. It seems likely that microbial life is abundant, but as yet we lack proof. Animal life may be incredibly rare. Intelligent life, rarer still. A lack of such life is a compelling answer to the Fermi paradox. You seem to have some undefined idea of the purpose of humanity. I am not sure what that purpose would be if not to spread life into a cold, empty universe. From a more practical point of view, we can't screw up the biosphere or atmosphere of the moon. We probably can't screw up Mars too badly, either, in the short term. Both these places can spare Earth further environmental damage as our demand for resources continues to grow. And what we learn constructing and maintaining artificial biospheres will probably provide new insights into protecting, rehabilitating, and maintaining the Earth.

xherberta 10y ago
I am not sure what that purpose would be if not to spread life into a cold, empty universe. In my view, sending our physical bodies elsewhere is irresponsible unless they are a container for a store of meaning and magnanimity that we've not yet expressed here on earth. It's as irresponsible as the US sending forces to Iraq with nothing to offer except carnage and art lessons about Marcel DuChamp's Toilet. (See Adam Curtis' amazing docu, Bitter Lake.) We acted as envoys of freedom and democracy, but it turned out we lacked the substance. I'm reminded of Cpt. Adama's speech in which he essentially asked "Who are we? Why do we deserve to survive?"
- cgriswald 10y ago
  Your view seems rather undefined from my point of view. I don't know what meaning and magnanimity you would like us to possess before reaching for the stars, but I'm going to suggest two reasons why we should still reach: 1. If you agree that we have the capacity to reach the whatever threshold you're requiring, wouldn't it be irresponsible to let ourselves perish (along with that potential) on Earth? 2. Perhaps becoming a multi-world species is a prerequisite for humans to reach that threshold.

xherberta 10y ago

I am not sure what that purpose would be if not to spread life into a cold, empty universe. In my view, sending our physical bodies elsewhere is irresponsible unless they are a container for a store of meaning and magnanimity that we've not yet expressed here on earth. It's as irresponsible as the US sending forces to Iraq with nothing to offer except carnage and art lessons about Marcel DuChamp's Toilet. (See Adam Curtis' amazing docu, Bitter Lake.) We acted as envoys of freedom and democracy, but it turned out we lacked the substance. I'm reminded of Cpt. Adama's speech in which he essentially asked "Who are we? Why do we deserve to survive?"

cgriswald 10y ago
Your view seems rather undefined from my point of view. I don't know what meaning and magnanimity you would like us to possess before reaching for the stars, but I'm going to suggest two reasons why we should still reach: 1. If you agree that we have the capacity to reach the whatever threshold you're requiring, wouldn't it be irresponsible to let ourselves perish (along with that potential) on Earth? 2. Perhaps becoming a multi-world species is a prerequisite for humans to reach that threshold.