4 ms·

Seems like the best risk mitigation strategy is to become multi-planetary. We would eliminate the vast majority of existential risks.

gregjor 6y ago
That much is obvious, but can we get there before a catastrophe wipes us out or sets us back hundreds of years? Colonizing other planets is not going to happen in our lifetimes or in my grandchildren's lifetimes. We don't even have colonies under the oceans yet. Every new environment (planet) will have different risks, so colonizing is a hedge, not a guarantee. If you look at the history of colonizing the New World, Europeans had many failures, and they weren't even leaving the planet. We can expect similar high failure rates colonizing other planets.
- aeternum 6y ago
  It will be difficult but that didn't stop those colonizing the new world and it shouldn't stop us. The universe has near infinite resources, why continue to fight over the finite resources on earth?
  - gregjor 6y ago
    The resources are far away, we have no way to get to them right now. Will we reach those resources before we run out on this planet? Before a catastrophe wipes us out? Who knows. By comparison sailing across the oceans seems trivial.
    - aeternum 6y ago
      We have the technology even with chemical rockets to get to Mars in 30-100 days depending on deltaV and payload. That's on par with the time required to sail across the ocean. Our track record of humans surviving space journeys is also much better than the survival probability of those early ocean voyages. Sailing across the ocean seems trivial now because we did it often and perfected the technology. We can do the same with space travel.
      - gregjor 6y ago
        And then what? Supposing humans can survive a trip to Mars — far more dangerous than crossing an ocean — can we bring any resources back in meaningful quantities? Can we establish colonies and industry? Not now, not anytime soon. Like I already wrote, obviously we increase long-term survival chances as a species by spreading out. Mars is orders of magnitude less hospitable than Virginia or Mexico in the 15th century, though. Huge problems to overcome. In the meantime the odds of some catastrophe get worse.
        aeternum 6y ago
        We can manufacture rocket fuel on Mars. The low gravity may provide unique industrial opportunities and the weak gravity well allows Mars or the moon to be a great staging point for further exploration. Mars would benefit greatly from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere so eventually we can move the majority of carbon-heavy manufacturing there and make it a terraforming benefit rather than a problem.
        gregjor 6y ago
        No one alive will live to see that happen, so it’s a hard sell even if feasible. It’s not that no one has thought of this before, but it’s more science fiction than an imminent reality.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
We can't stop ourselves from trashing this planet. I don't know why people think we would be more succesful elsewhere.
- aeternum 6y ago
  One organism's trash is another's habitat. None of us would be around if the early cyanobacteria hadn't polluted the earth with oxygen.
  - glial 6y ago
    That might be the strangest apologetics for pollution that I’ve ever seen.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Seems like the best risk mitigation strategy is to become multi-planetary. No, scifi fanboi. That doesn't follow at all.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Since I agree, but you didn't bother to give a counter argument... Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today, I think it's entirely possible to establish colonies on other planets, that are maintained indefinitely, as long as the will to do it exists. However, I don't think in the foreseeable future, that these colonies could make an iota of difference to the probability of the human species surviving, until they can incorporate a completely independent supply chain of everything needed for human existence, and some kind of adequate ecosystem as well. Where do you get the nuts and bolts, the potting soil, the hypodermic needles, the aluminum and steel, the fertilizer...? Shipping everything from earth means you're no different from an Antarctic research station. I don't think people who believe in near term colonization of space have grappled with the necessity of earth and its billions of inhabitants to support the lifestyle of the most well off. Anything, again, in the foreseeable future is going to be like a bigger, better ISS. My guess is building up a sustainable colony from the ground up has to start with biotech and/or nanotech way beyond anything we have now. To live elsewhere, we'll have to become the indigenous aliens that don't already exist there. You have to have the ability to fall back to stone age tech, before your high tech is firmly rooted.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today With a limitless budget, you could send dozens of people to live on Mars. But they would likely die from a thousand little cuts (rocket failures, vitamin deficiencies, air leaks, primitive medical help, it's endless) since you're basically duplicating an earth environment. Or they could just sit around waiting for the next supply ship. We like to think that people are hardy pioneers, but most Americans stopped being tough farmers after WW2. (The press interviews with the Mars volunteers showed they were maladjusted on earth, and probably mentally ill.) I personally don't care if astronauts die on missions, because that's the risk they signed up for, but apparently other people do. And sending people on what is likely a one-way trip is something to be discussed beforehand. As an example, Shuttle engineers estimated the loss likelihood at 1/100 per mission, but managers 1/10,000 and couldn't justify manned flights with the engineers' estimate. The actual number was 1.6/100. The Biosphere project, the Space Shuttle, our lack of oceanic exploration all don't bode well for our readiness to colonize another planet. Reading scifi about going to Mars isn't the same as reality.

gregjor 6y ago

That much is obvious, but can we get there before a catastrophe wipes us out or sets us back hundreds of years? Colonizing other planets is not going to happen in our lifetimes or in my grandchildren's lifetimes. We don't even have colonies under the oceans yet. Every new environment (planet) will have different risks, so colonizing is a hedge, not a guarantee. If you look at the history of colonizing the New World, Europeans had many failures, and they weren't even leaving the planet. We can expect similar high failure rates colonizing other planets.

aeternum 6y ago
It will be difficult but that didn't stop those colonizing the new world and it shouldn't stop us. The universe has near infinite resources, why continue to fight over the finite resources on earth?
- gregjor 6y ago
  The resources are far away, we have no way to get to them right now. Will we reach those resources before we run out on this planet? Before a catastrophe wipes us out? Who knows. By comparison sailing across the oceans seems trivial.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    We have the technology even with chemical rockets to get to Mars in 30-100 days depending on deltaV and payload. That's on par with the time required to sail across the ocean. Our track record of humans surviving space journeys is also much better than the survival probability of those early ocean voyages. Sailing across the ocean seems trivial now because we did it often and perfected the technology. We can do the same with space travel.
    - gregjor 6y ago
      And then what? Supposing humans can survive a trip to Mars — far more dangerous than crossing an ocean — can we bring any resources back in meaningful quantities? Can we establish colonies and industry? Not now, not anytime soon. Like I already wrote, obviously we increase long-term survival chances as a species by spreading out. Mars is orders of magnitude less hospitable than Virginia or Mexico in the 15th century, though. Huge problems to overcome. In the meantime the odds of some catastrophe get worse.
      - aeternum 6y ago
        We can manufacture rocket fuel on Mars. The low gravity may provide unique industrial opportunities and the weak gravity well allows Mars or the moon to be a great staging point for further exploration. Mars would benefit greatly from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere so eventually we can move the majority of carbon-heavy manufacturing there and make it a terraforming benefit rather than a problem.
        gregjor 6y ago
        No one alive will live to see that happen, so it’s a hard sell even if feasible. It’s not that no one has thought of this before, but it’s more science fiction than an imminent reality.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

We can't stop ourselves from trashing this planet. I don't know why people think we would be more succesful elsewhere.

aeternum 6y ago
One organism's trash is another's habitat. None of us would be around if the early cyanobacteria hadn't polluted the earth with oxygen.
- glial 6y ago
  That might be the strangest apologetics for pollution that I’ve ever seen.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Seems like the best risk mitigation strategy is to become multi-planetary. No, scifi fanboi. That doesn't follow at all.

perl4ever 6y ago
Since I agree, but you didn't bother to give a counter argument... Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today, I think it's entirely possible to establish colonies on other planets, that are maintained indefinitely, as long as the will to do it exists. However, I don't think in the foreseeable future, that these colonies could make an iota of difference to the probability of the human species surviving, until they can incorporate a completely independent supply chain of everything needed for human existence, and some kind of adequate ecosystem as well. Where do you get the nuts and bolts, the potting soil, the hypodermic needles, the aluminum and steel, the fertilizer...? Shipping everything from earth means you're no different from an Antarctic research station. I don't think people who believe in near term colonization of space have grappled with the necessity of earth and its billions of inhabitants to support the lifestyle of the most well off. Anything, again, in the foreseeable future is going to be like a bigger, better ISS. My guess is building up a sustainable colony from the ground up has to start with biotech and/or nanotech way beyond anything we have now. To live elsewhere, we'll have to become the indigenous aliens that don't already exist there. You have to have the ability to fall back to stone age tech, before your high tech is firmly rooted.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today With a limitless budget, you could send dozens of people to live on Mars. But they would likely die from a thousand little cuts (rocket failures, vitamin deficiencies, air leaks, primitive medical help, it's endless) since you're basically duplicating an earth environment. Or they could just sit around waiting for the next supply ship. We like to think that people are hardy pioneers, but most Americans stopped being tough farmers after WW2. (The press interviews with the Mars volunteers showed they were maladjusted on earth, and probably mentally ill.) I personally don't care if astronauts die on missions, because that's the risk they signed up for, but apparently other people do. And sending people on what is likely a one-way trip is something to be discussed beforehand. As an example, Shuttle engineers estimated the loss likelihood at 1/100 per mission, but managers 1/10,000 and couldn't justify manned flights with the engineers' estimate. The actual number was 1.6/100. The Biosphere project, the Space Shuttle, our lack of oceanic exploration all don't bode well for our readiness to colonize another planet. Reading scifi about going to Mars isn't the same as reality.