3 ms·

Which is a very short amount of time for a species to be in existence. Alligators have been around for 2000x that amount of time. If you take a max speed of 0

Which is a very short amount of time for a species to be in existence. Alligators have been around for 2000x that amount of time. If you take a max speed of 0.01c which is possible with technology that we will probably have in the next 100 years (fusion power) that means the galaxy could be colonized in 10 million years. If 200 million years ago humans had evolved instead of alligators (can’t see any reason this is not possible on some alternate earth) then we could have colonized the galaxy 20 times over by now.

Razengan 8y ago
"Unrestrained colonization just because we can" relies upon a lot of assumptions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17829840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17829840 For example, we could have begun building a base on the Moon by now if we wanted to, but we have decided not to.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  My point was in response to WilliamEdward above so really only dealing with showing that travel time is not a constraint. That said, your points are good, but knowing humans I think "Unrestrained colonization just because we can" is probable if not certain, for anywhere that a self sustaining society can exist. It certainly holds for Earth. The moon is not a great example because it isn't habitable. Same as Antarctica. We have sent a few expeditions and have a few bases but have not colonized it. If the moon was earthlike then I would bet that colonization would have started shortly after the Apollo program. Right now there are no habitable planets we can get to. If we ever develop interstellar travel, finding habitable planets we can reach is a near certainty. More likely we first develop technology that allows terraforming and a self sustaining colony on Mars. And at that time I would bet that it happens.
  - Razengan 8y ago
    > The moon is not a great example because it isn't habitable. It could actually serve well as a strategic and logistic launchpad for subsequent missions. But still, you highlighted a key point yourself: That it's not always going to be possible (or desirable) to continue expanding through the galaxy because we may run into a "dead end" with no stepping stones (i.e. habitable planets) within our range of travel.
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  Another related example: We don't have the abundance of resources to do so. Whether or not the universe is infinite, while it does mean there can be infinite resources, our direct radius of galaxies is finite and it gets harder to travel as the distance gets further so the infinite planets are not all the same distance from earth.

Razengan 8y ago

"Unrestrained colonization just because we can" relies upon a lot of assumptions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17829840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17829840 For example, we could have begun building a base on the Moon by now if we wanted to, but we have decided not to.

travisoneill1 8y ago
My point was in response to WilliamEdward above so really only dealing with showing that travel time is not a constraint. That said, your points are good, but knowing humans I think "Unrestrained colonization just because we can" is probable if not certain, for anywhere that a self sustaining society can exist. It certainly holds for Earth. The moon is not a great example because it isn't habitable. Same as Antarctica. We have sent a few expeditions and have a few bases but have not colonized it. If the moon was earthlike then I would bet that colonization would have started shortly after the Apollo program. Right now there are no habitable planets we can get to. If we ever develop interstellar travel, finding habitable planets we can reach is a near certainty. More likely we first develop technology that allows terraforming and a self sustaining colony on Mars. And at that time I would bet that it happens.
- Razengan 8y ago
  > The moon is not a great example because it isn't habitable. It could actually serve well as a strategic and logistic launchpad for subsequent missions. But still, you highlighted a key point yourself: That it's not always going to be possible (or desirable) to continue expanding through the galaxy because we may run into a "dead end" with no stepping stones (i.e. habitable planets) within our range of travel.
WilliamEdward 8y ago
Another related example: We don't have the abundance of resources to do so. Whether or not the universe is infinite, while it does mean there can be infinite resources, our direct radius of galaxies is finite and it gets harder to travel as the distance gets further so the infinite planets are not all the same distance from earth.