4 ms·
if we can't survive here, we can't survive anywhere. there is no urgency to colonize other planets.
by jaekwon 16y ago
if we can't survive here, we can't survive anywhere. there is no urgency to colonize other planets.
- martey 16y agoAs the article makes clear, the primary reason for extraterrestrial colonization is to increase the chances of human survival in case of a major catastrophe that would cause extinction on Earth - like an asteroid strike or nuclear war. The author acknowledges that other places in the solar system are not as suited to human life as Earth. It is clear that he sees space colonies as a backup plan for the species, as opposed to a way to escape this planet's problems.
- iwwr 16y agoA nuclear war won't end the human species, neither would a once-every-100M-year asteroid. Neither would a super-disease, super-volcano, super solar flare etc. Human beings live everywhere on Earth, in diverse environments; technology allows us to inhabit the oceans or the underground if need be. The worst environments on Earth are still more welcoming than the best of what outer space can provide.
- martey 16y agoThe idea behind nuclear wars, asteroid strikes, or super volcanoes isn't that the events would directly kill every human being, but that their associated effects would. In all three cases, throwing large amounts of dust into the atmosphere would rapidly cool the Earth, making it more difficult for farmers to grow crops, and creating large-scale starvation. I do not disagree with you that any location on Earth is more amenable to human habitation than outer space, but I do not think that there are facts to support your claims that an event that would drastic change the Earth's climate for the worse would not affect humanity.