7 ms·

It's easy for me to end up existentially depressed if I go too far down this line of thinking. But, frankly, we are fucked here on Earth. We're consuming resou

It's easy for me to end up existentially depressed if I go too far down this line of thinking. But, frankly, we are fucked here on Earth. We're consuming resources at an exponential rate with a population way, way outside what the planet can support sustainably. And we won't fix it before it's too late, because our base human nature wants more, bigger, better at the expense of all else. I'm with Musk on this, the only way we survive is to get the hell off Earth. But the reasons why are more than just to have a "backup plan" for humanity. One of humanity's best traits is our adaptability. Put us under stressors and we inevitably adapt to any situation, no matter how dire. Now stick a group of humans in space (or Mars, no difference), task them with creating a self-sustaining technological society, give them a lot of time, and when you come back what you find will be a radically different culture than anything we could relate to on Earth. That group of humans will have been forced, for generations, to be ruthlessly efficient with their sustainability and use of resources. We are social creatures, and with that comes the social pressure to conform for the survival of the group. Because of these pressures, the base nature of individual greed we witness here on Earth won't have the space to thrive. Given even more time, we may even be lucky enough to see that trait bred out of us. If that were to happen, we may just have a shot at long-term survival as a species.

decafninja 6y ago
Reminds me of The Expanse. Or countless other science fiction stories involving Earth vs. the colonies (whether they be on Mars, the Moon, or orbitals). Not sure if it's a coincidence that such stories often involve Earth and her colonies ending up in war.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  That is an easy trope that follows history. For example, England is responsible for 63 national independence days. Colonies need support initially. But, once they get established and self sustaining it seems to be the natural progression to wonder why they still are subjects of a far away, likely exploitive, ruler.
  - decafninja 6y ago
    Another thing that seems common to this theme is that the space colonies are often depicted as having a better technology base than Earth. Again, unsure if this is coincidental, or if it's just the authors' way of depicting human space colonists in lieu of the "scary alien invaders from outer space" fighting Earth.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> I'm with Musk on this, the only way we survive is to get the hell off Earth And as a plan, I think that's basically completely stupid. Even our worst case climate change projections give us an Earth that is incredibly more habitable than any extraterrestrial environment. The worst conditions you can find on this entire planet today are more habitable than the best you can find elsewhere in our star system. Think of what it would take to have a self-sustaining Mars colony, for instance. If we have the ability to do that, then surely it would be a lot easier to do that same thing here on Earth at a fraction of the cost and risk. Why not just do that instead?
- mLuby 6y ago
  Why not both? Luddites always whine about the resources "wasted" on space exploration, science, and now the beginnings of industry, but they don't appreciate how in so many ways the fruits of our efforts in space end up benefiting all of us here on Earth. And since those people claim to be concerned with finite resources and a fragile biosphere, why constrain ourselves to the resources of our mother planet (which resource extraction and utilization demonstrably damages) instead of moving our industry to the dead vacuum of space and tapping the near-infinite mass and energy of the rest of the Universe?
  - davidhbolton 6y ago
    Much as I love Star Trek etc. It does appear that space travel is inherently bad for us planet dwellers what with the havoc it wreaks on the bodies of people who spend long periods in space. I'd love it not be so, but I do wonder if one possible future is exploration by autonomous robots establishing automated mining of asteroids and distant planets.
    - mLuby 6y ago
      1. Enough armor can reduce space radiation to Earth levels, or even lower. And protect against space junk. It's just currently expensive to launch. 2. Spinning habitats create artificial gravity (though astronauts on the ISS do okay in zero g for months or more). No new tech advances necessary. Humans are nothing if not adaptable and ingenious. Space is just next in a long line of "inhospitable" areas we've colonized.
pretendscholar 6y ago
If lack of resources would inevitably make a greater culture why not just wait until we run low on resources here on earth? Kind of sounds like a self solving problem. But if material success degenerates culture like you say then wouldn't the success of the space colony create its own future greedy culture? Hard Times --> Strong People --> Good Times --> Weak People --> Hard Times
mariusor 6y ago
> I'm with Musk on this, the only way we survive is to get the hell off Earth. The problem with this line of thinking is is that when people say "we" they don't really mean it in "the human kind" sense. Because that's either logistically impossible, or if it's not, you get to leave with the same people that want "bigger, better" and they'll ruin it for everyone else. So educating these people should come first no matter which scenario humanity pursues.
- generalizations 6y ago
  > The problem with this line of thinking is is that when people say "we" they don't really mean it in "the human kind" sense. I think they mean it in the 'species' sense: that there's another planet that serves as a redundant node in the network of the human species. If one node fails, another is on hand to keep the network going and rebuild the failing node. > So educating these people should come first People who talk about 'educating others' on some important thing often convey a deep sense of hubris. I hope that's not actually true of you, but please just be aware that your comment implies this.
  - mariusor 6y ago
    > often convey a deep sense of hubris I meant what I said as a reply to parent's assertion about resource consumption and unsustainability, so I don't know, maybe it is hubris. But I feel like it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people don't really think about how their behaviours in respect to consumption impacts the world as a whole. I'm probably not educated enough in this respect either, but I am pretty sure that following a philosophy where owning less things is better than owning more things is preferable. Yes, I know that in the big picture of the environmental issues the planet has it is not individual contributions that have the largest impact. However the companies that do, are the ones that hold the same "uneducated" people in decision making positions. So, that's why I concluded that better environmental education as a whole would mean less need for humans to flee to other planets. If I'm wrong and that's not the case, then it means the Wachowkis were right, humanity really is a virus. Coming to your other point: > I think they mean it in the 'species' sense: If parent meant it like you're suggesting, it's not by saving the whole species as it is now (ie, 7+ billions of people) but as descendants of the lucky few that get to leave Earth. That in my opinion is definitely not the same as saving the species.
mordymoop 6y ago
If you can build a viable Mars colony, to say nothing of a working O’Neil cylinder, then you can make domes habitats on Earth, and much more cheaply and easily than either of the prior two options, right?
blackrock 6y ago
Where will you go? Even if Earth is exhausted of all its resources, the two things that Earth will continue to have, is (1) gravity at 9.8 m/s^2, and (2) a magnetic field. It’s possible the magnetic field can be eliminated, if the planet’s core turns solid, in which case, we all need to go underground. But the planet will continue to get sunlight, and it will continue to have gravity. These 2 key things, are found nowhere else in this universe. Except for Venus, which has a similar gravity, but it’s so hot, the surface can melt lead. And we still don’t yet have a high probability of the closest extra-solar planet, that can sustain life with earth-like gravity and a magnetic field. Even an asteroid that eliminated the dinosaurs was still not able to eliminate life on Earth. Why? Because of this water world, its gravity, and its magnetic field. So the best solution to having a backup for humanity, is to probably (1) dig a hole deep in the ground, and establish a deep mine colony there. Or (2) build a deep ocean habitat, and establish a deep marine colony there. That way, if an asteroid hits land, then the deep ocean colony can survive. Or if the asteroid hits the ocean, then the deep mine colony can survive.

decafninja 6y ago

Reminds me of The Expanse. Or countless other science fiction stories involving Earth vs. the colonies (whether they be on Mars, the Moon, or orbitals). Not sure if it's a coincidence that such stories often involve Earth and her colonies ending up in war.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
That is an easy trope that follows history. For example, England is responsible for 63 national independence days. Colonies need support initially. But, once they get established and self sustaining it seems to be the natural progression to wonder why they still are subjects of a far away, likely exploitive, ruler.
- decafninja 6y ago
  Another thing that seems common to this theme is that the space colonies are often depicted as having a better technology base than Earth. Again, unsure if this is coincidental, or if it's just the authors' way of depicting human space colonists in lieu of the "scary alien invaders from outer space" fighting Earth.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> I'm with Musk on this, the only way we survive is to get the hell off Earth And as a plan, I think that's basically completely stupid. Even our worst case climate change projections give us an Earth that is incredibly more habitable than any extraterrestrial environment. The worst conditions you can find on this entire planet today are more habitable than the best you can find elsewhere in our star system. Think of what it would take to have a self-sustaining Mars colony, for instance. If we have the ability to do that, then surely it would be a lot easier to do that same thing here on Earth at a fraction of the cost and risk. Why not just do that instead?

mLuby 6y ago
Why not both? Luddites always whine about the resources "wasted" on space exploration, science, and now the beginnings of industry, but they don't appreciate how in so many ways the fruits of our efforts in space end up benefiting all of us here on Earth. And since those people claim to be concerned with finite resources and a fragile biosphere, why constrain ourselves to the resources of our mother planet (which resource extraction and utilization demonstrably damages) instead of moving our industry to the dead vacuum of space and tapping the near-infinite mass and energy of the rest of the Universe?
- davidhbolton 6y ago
  Much as I love Star Trek etc. It does appear that space travel is inherently bad for us planet dwellers what with the havoc it wreaks on the bodies of people who spend long periods in space. I'd love it not be so, but I do wonder if one possible future is exploration by autonomous robots establishing automated mining of asteroids and distant planets.
  - mLuby 6y ago
    1. Enough armor can reduce space radiation to Earth levels, or even lower. And protect against space junk. It's just currently expensive to launch. 2. Spinning habitats create artificial gravity (though astronauts on the ISS do okay in zero g for months or more). No new tech advances necessary. Humans are nothing if not adaptable and ingenious. Space is just next in a long line of "inhospitable" areas we've colonized.

pretendscholar 6y ago

If lack of resources would inevitably make a greater culture why not just wait until we run low on resources here on earth? Kind of sounds like a self solving problem. But if material success degenerates culture like you say then wouldn't the success of the space colony create its own future greedy culture? Hard Times --> Strong People --> Good Times --> Weak People --> Hard Times

mariusor 6y ago

> I'm with Musk on this, the only way we survive is to get the hell off Earth. The problem with this line of thinking is is that when people say "we" they don't really mean it in "the human kind" sense. Because that's either logistically impossible, or if it's not, you get to leave with the same people that want "bigger, better" and they'll ruin it for everyone else. So educating these people should come first no matter which scenario humanity pursues.

generalizations 6y ago
> The problem with this line of thinking is is that when people say "we" they don't really mean it in "the human kind" sense. I think they mean it in the 'species' sense: that there's another planet that serves as a redundant node in the network of the human species. If one node fails, another is on hand to keep the network going and rebuild the failing node. > So educating these people should come first People who talk about 'educating others' on some important thing often convey a deep sense of hubris. I hope that's not actually true of you, but please just be aware that your comment implies this.
- mariusor 6y ago
  > often convey a deep sense of hubris I meant what I said as a reply to parent's assertion about resource consumption and unsustainability, so I don't know, maybe it is hubris. But I feel like it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people don't really think about how their behaviours in respect to consumption impacts the world as a whole. I'm probably not educated enough in this respect either, but I am pretty sure that following a philosophy where owning less things is better than owning more things is preferable. Yes, I know that in the big picture of the environmental issues the planet has it is not individual contributions that have the largest impact. However the companies that do, are the ones that hold the same "uneducated" people in decision making positions. So, that's why I concluded that better environmental education as a whole would mean less need for humans to flee to other planets. If I'm wrong and that's not the case, then it means the Wachowkis were right, humanity really is a virus. Coming to your other point: > I think they mean it in the 'species' sense: If parent meant it like you're suggesting, it's not by saving the whole species as it is now (ie, 7+ billions of people) but as descendants of the lucky few that get to leave Earth. That in my opinion is definitely not the same as saving the species.

mordymoop 6y ago

If you can build a viable Mars colony, to say nothing of a working O’Neil cylinder, then you can make domes habitats on Earth, and much more cheaply and easily than either of the prior two options, right?

blackrock 6y ago

Where will you go? Even if Earth is exhausted of all its resources, the two things that Earth will continue to have, is (1) gravity at 9.8 m/s^2, and (2) a magnetic field. It’s possible the magnetic field can be eliminated, if the planet’s core turns solid, in which case, we all need to go underground. But the planet will continue to get sunlight, and it will continue to have gravity. These 2 key things, are found nowhere else in this universe. Except for Venus, which has a similar gravity, but it’s so hot, the surface can melt lead. And we still don’t yet have a high probability of the closest extra-solar planet, that can sustain life with earth-like gravity and a magnetic field. Even an asteroid that eliminated the dinosaurs was still not able to eliminate life on Earth. Why? Because of this water world, its gravity, and its magnetic field. So the best solution to having a backup for humanity, is to probably (1) dig a hole deep in the ground, and establish a deep mine colony there. Or (2) build a deep ocean habitat, and establish a deep marine colony there. That way, if an asteroid hits land, then the deep ocean colony can survive. Or if the asteroid hits the ocean, then the deep mine colony can survive.