7 ms·

Enlighten a simpleton here please, why do "we" need to leave the planet. I am far from a space nerd but I do know that neither mars or any solar object other t

Enlighten a simpleton here please, why do "we" need to leave the planet. I am far from a space nerd but I do know that neither mars or any solar object other than other is known to contain climate that is better or would even come close to earth's climate even with no polar ice caps and extreme global warming. Wouldn't it be cheaper (more humane as well) to "colonize" earth? For the next 100 years,even with full on warming , coastal areas and certain eco systems will be lost but you will still no matter have most parts of the big continents in tact. The land there exists now can support humanity even with 10x the population (if made arable). I mean things like beef and single story housing would certainly be rare. How about building new cities by the rockies and great planes and build things like the hypertube (whatever it:s called) to make emmigration easier. Have friendly eco-immigration policies to avert a humanitarian and geopolitical crisis. Heck, even "colonize" the sahara,antarctica or ocean beds! Half your problem is solved on earth once you desalinate ,irrigate and build viable transport.

alex_young 6y ago
Mostly because it’s not a zero sum game. Yes it’s more achievable to build a pod on the antarctic (we’ve done that) or the ocean floor, but we should also see what we can do outside of our bubble. I personally think Venus cloud stations are a better target, but why not try them all? We learn great things and enable wonderful tech like the internet and GPS when we do huge projects like this, so why not?
- badrabbit 6y ago
  Why not? Because trillions and trillions of dollars. Even $2T is barely enough to feed america for a few months and it is barely afforded. My point also ws that it's not zero-sum. As in, "we" don't need to colonize mars,but I see no problem in doing so as long as it isn't done by sacrificing people's lives on earth.
  - wastedhours 6y ago
    But there's also a difference between $2T dollars invested over a long time horizon, dripping out of the collective budget of (hopefully) more than one country and spending it in one chunk across the whole of society. Again, a lot of it is forward planning - extra resources, hedging against future threats etc. I'd rather they start active planning in case we have to, rather than waiting until it's almost too late (like we have with some issues on Earth as it stands). Balancing investment at the expense of present day spending is a standard knife-edge for governments around the world. It's a sucky balance to have to strike though.
tjbiddle 6y ago
I just want an off-site backup for humanity. Sure, it's high latency and the restoration process takes forever - but it's something!
- 1bc29b36f623ba8 6y ago
  In a very long-term perspective, this is pretty much it. Off-site backup -- we don't have any redundancy when it comes to our own environment. There are also a bunch of other benefits but they pale in comparison to this one.
rnikander 6y ago
1. Adventure, exploration. 2. The earth will be destroyed by the changing Sun in a few 100 million years. :) 3. Better to not have 10x the human population here. Leave big open spaces for the other animals and national parks. I'm sure there are other reasons too...
- badrabbit 6y ago
  I mean I wasn't saying why you would want to. I was questioning why "we need to"
  - elboru 6y ago
    Why did Humans need to move out of Africa?
  - xcasperx 6y ago
    The main goal of any species is to survive/reproduce. We don't know if there's any other intelligent life in the universe, or how common it is. The one thing we do know is that we haven't found any. There could be many reasons for this, and one of those is the Fermi Paradox (great filter). Whether this is a real thing or not we don't know, but by establishing sustainable settlements in space, we hedge against the idea of us dying out via ourselves, asteroids, etc.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - justinator 6y ago
      As they say, "There is no Planet B".
    - VRay 6y ago
      If there are space aliens hanging around, they likely wouldn't contact us Just seeing them would give us a huge technological leg up. Right now we don't know that interstellar travel is readily feasible, but if we did know that then it would suddenly make sense to spend 100 times as much on space tech Considering what a bunch of jerks we are to each other, I don't think aliens would want us roaming around freely
inamberclad 6y ago
It's a long term investment in the future of the species. Much more space in the near-earth region than we will ever have on the planet itself. It also is a technology driver. Microchips, image sensors, advanced synthetic fabrics and super-alloys are all products of the space program in one way or another.
AlanSE 6y ago
Your ideas for the Earth would play out in a catastrophic manner in practice. Every bit of it requires violation of a basic economic principle - we build out based on the lowest marginal cost. Before we go to the Rockies, we will saturate more fertile and coastal areas. Easier to use what nature provides than to supply those things artificially. Humans will eventually switch over to artificial options, but only after collapse of the parallel natural system is in terminal collapse. Examples start with fishing, and then never end. In these macroeconomic terms, there is 1 viable way to save life from destruction - open up new frontiers that have characteristics which are MORE attractive to humans than counterparts on Earth. In practice, that means the moon. The moon is smaller than Earth, but the accessible area is possibly greater because of lack of oceans and lack of existing use. It doesn't end there. Lower pressure and temperature gradients mean that you can dig MUCH deeper. With similar original compositions, industrial mineral availability (in terms of raw elements) from the moon vastly outstrips the Earth. Some asteroids can be cherry picked, but depth of the resource is more shallow. Much high-tech lithography requires vacuum, which is produced artificially on Earth. Space gives you that for free. We don't even really know what's possible industrially with diffusion and surface tension effects, because gravity cannot be eliminated on Earth for factory-type work, at all. Combined with the mineral abundance, you have what you need for a self-sustaining super advanced and practically limitless robotic industrial society. That is the draw. Other things that fleshy humans need are a cost, which the other benefits have to offset. Materials from the moon can be delivered to low-Earth orbit at extremely low physical effort compared to delivery from Earth's surface. Rockets are improving such that human trips to space stations from Earth could be economical, but a cislunar robotic presence must be able to sustain activities beyond there. This is the only option for saving the planet, and we are lucky that the richest person on the planet shares the view that Earth should be light industrial and residential... but ultimately, narrowly specialized in environmental tourism. All we have to do is move the primary economic engine into orbit.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > lowest marginal cost > moon The energy economics alone doesn't work out. We might be able to make a robot economy in space, but we can't have a significant human economy in space.
barkingcat 6y ago
Because there's no money in that. If the space colonization works out, private companies can charge a lot of money for each passenger and that's what's really driving the "need" to leave the planet, so rich people can continue making money.
gfosco 6y ago
The way I see it, it's not about you and me, but humanity. Humanity needs to step forth from Earth, to avoid future destruction. Until humanity is space-faring and multi-planetary, it is vulnerable to total erasure.
herbstein 6y ago
Robert Zubrin has what I consider a great, comprehensive answer to why we should go to Mars. But ultimately it generally applies to all space exploration. https://youtu.be/j2Mu8qfVb5I https://youtu.be/j2Mu8qfVb5I
steve76 6y ago
Think of the reverse. Will Mars be enough? Just one planet limits technology due to risk, for instance atmospheric nuclear testing. Is a year of space travel enough room for safety? Both planets orbit the same star. Satellites made out of chemicals, or better yet, just one molecule have unknown risks. A really thin ring orbits Earth. Shoot a beam at it, transfer data. Instead of a ring, the easiest path could be: - sheets of lightening in orbit - going through the Earth - orbiting the Sun and we get a faint image of the Earth one molecule lagging that we now have to push against The most off the wall idea I have is to put a matter wave up in orbit that looks like star. I travel there and walk on planets and start life and then travel back. I get there faster by projecting that matter wave larger towards me, changing my internal properties and leaving that matter wave and the Earth alone. Because of what I did, the sun now has a bit of gravitational singularity to it and we all live in a different universe. Maybe that's a better model of the universe. Matter waves emitted from a planet, and space travel as precise interface to nearby material instead of being lost in some great ocean. Another planet will be immune. So I think of planets as thresholds of orbit application opportunity, like a tuning into a radio station, instead of a distant shore. Bell's theorem is fun. Interact with solar probe inside the sun and a interstellar probe just the right way. Something in between, like an asteroid, yells out "PHOTON!" and blows up because the Sun think's it's now there.

alex_young 6y ago

Mostly because it’s not a zero sum game. Yes it’s more achievable to build a pod on the antarctic (we’ve done that) or the ocean floor, but we should also see what we can do outside of our bubble. I personally think Venus cloud stations are a better target, but why not try them all? We learn great things and enable wonderful tech like the internet and GPS when we do huge projects like this, so why not?

badrabbit 6y ago
Why not? Because trillions and trillions of dollars. Even $2T is barely enough to feed america for a few months and it is barely afforded. My point also ws that it's not zero-sum. As in, "we" don't need to colonize mars,but I see no problem in doing so as long as it isn't done by sacrificing people's lives on earth.
- wastedhours 6y ago
  But there's also a difference between $2T dollars invested over a long time horizon, dripping out of the collective budget of (hopefully) more than one country and spending it in one chunk across the whole of society. Again, a lot of it is forward planning - extra resources, hedging against future threats etc. I'd rather they start active planning in case we have to, rather than waiting until it's almost too late (like we have with some issues on Earth as it stands). Balancing investment at the expense of present day spending is a standard knife-edge for governments around the world. It's a sucky balance to have to strike though.

tjbiddle 6y ago

I just want an off-site backup for humanity. Sure, it's high latency and the restoration process takes forever - but it's something!

1bc29b36f623ba8 6y ago
In a very long-term perspective, this is pretty much it. Off-site backup -- we don't have any redundancy when it comes to our own environment. There are also a bunch of other benefits but they pale in comparison to this one.

rnikander 6y ago

1. Adventure, exploration. 2. The earth will be destroyed by the changing Sun in a few 100 million years. :) 3. Better to not have 10x the human population here. Leave big open spaces for the other animals and national parks. I'm sure there are other reasons too...

badrabbit 6y ago
I mean I wasn't saying why you would want to. I was questioning why "we need to"
- elboru 6y ago
  Why did Humans need to move out of Africa?
- xcasperx 6y ago
  The main goal of any species is to survive/reproduce. We don't know if there's any other intelligent life in the universe, or how common it is. The one thing we do know is that we haven't found any. There could be many reasons for this, and one of those is the Fermi Paradox (great filter). Whether this is a real thing or not we don't know, but by establishing sustainable settlements in space, we hedge against the idea of us dying out via ourselves, asteroids, etc.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - justinator 6y ago
    As they say, "There is no Planet B".
  - VRay 6y ago
    If there are space aliens hanging around, they likely wouldn't contact us Just seeing them would give us a huge technological leg up. Right now we don't know that interstellar travel is readily feasible, but if we did know that then it would suddenly make sense to spend 100 times as much on space tech Considering what a bunch of jerks we are to each other, I don't think aliens would want us roaming around freely

inamberclad 6y ago

It's a long term investment in the future of the species. Much more space in the near-earth region than we will ever have on the planet itself. It also is a technology driver. Microchips, image sensors, advanced synthetic fabrics and super-alloys are all products of the space program in one way or another.

AlanSE 6y ago

Your ideas for the Earth would play out in a catastrophic manner in practice. Every bit of it requires violation of a basic economic principle - we build out based on the lowest marginal cost. Before we go to the Rockies, we will saturate more fertile and coastal areas. Easier to use what nature provides than to supply those things artificially. Humans will eventually switch over to artificial options, but only after collapse of the parallel natural system is in terminal collapse. Examples start with fishing, and then never end. In these macroeconomic terms, there is 1 viable way to save life from destruction - open up new frontiers that have characteristics which are MORE attractive to humans than counterparts on Earth. In practice, that means the moon. The moon is smaller than Earth, but the accessible area is possibly greater because of lack of oceans and lack of existing use. It doesn't end there. Lower pressure and temperature gradients mean that you can dig MUCH deeper. With similar original compositions, industrial mineral availability (in terms of raw elements) from the moon vastly outstrips the Earth. Some asteroids can be cherry picked, but depth of the resource is more shallow. Much high-tech lithography requires vacuum, which is produced artificially on Earth. Space gives you that for free. We don't even really know what's possible industrially with diffusion and surface tension effects, because gravity cannot be eliminated on Earth for factory-type work, at all. Combined with the mineral abundance, you have what you need for a self-sustaining super advanced and practically limitless robotic industrial society. That is the draw. Other things that fleshy humans need are a cost, which the other benefits have to offset. Materials from the moon can be delivered to low-Earth orbit at extremely low physical effort compared to delivery from Earth's surface. Rockets are improving such that human trips to space stations from Earth could be economical, but a cislunar robotic presence must be able to sustain activities beyond there. This is the only option for saving the planet, and we are lucky that the richest person on the planet shares the view that Earth should be light industrial and residential... but ultimately, narrowly specialized in environmental tourism. All we have to do is move the primary economic engine into orbit.

pjc50 6y ago
> lowest marginal cost > moon The energy economics alone doesn't work out. We might be able to make a robot economy in space, but we can't have a significant human economy in space.

barkingcat 6y ago

Because there's no money in that. If the space colonization works out, private companies can charge a lot of money for each passenger and that's what's really driving the "need" to leave the planet, so rich people can continue making money.

gfosco 6y ago

The way I see it, it's not about you and me, but humanity. Humanity needs to step forth from Earth, to avoid future destruction. Until humanity is space-faring and multi-planetary, it is vulnerable to total erasure.

herbstein 6y ago

Robert Zubrin has what I consider a great, comprehensive answer to why we should go to Mars. But ultimately it generally applies to all space exploration. https://youtu.be/j2Mu8qfVb5I https://youtu.be/j2Mu8qfVb5I

steve76 6y ago

Think of the reverse. Will Mars be enough? Just one planet limits technology due to risk, for instance atmospheric nuclear testing. Is a year of space travel enough room for safety? Both planets orbit the same star. Satellites made out of chemicals, or better yet, just one molecule have unknown risks. A really thin ring orbits Earth. Shoot a beam at it, transfer data. Instead of a ring, the easiest path could be: - sheets of lightening in orbit - going through the Earth - orbiting the Sun and we get a faint image of the Earth one molecule lagging that we now have to push against The most off the wall idea I have is to put a matter wave up in orbit that looks like star. I travel there and walk on planets and start life and then travel back. I get there faster by projecting that matter wave larger towards me, changing my internal properties and leaving that matter wave and the Earth alone. Because of what I did, the sun now has a bit of gravitational singularity to it and we all live in a different universe. Maybe that's a better model of the universe. Matter waves emitted from a planet, and space travel as precise interface to nearby material instead of being lost in some great ocean. Another planet will be immune. So I think of planets as thresholds of orbit application opportunity, like a tuning into a radio station, instead of a distant shore. Bell's theorem is fun. Interact with solar probe inside the sun and a interstellar probe just the right way. Something in between, like an asteroid, yells out "PHOTON!" and blows up because the Sun think's it's now there.