4 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoMuch 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 ago1. 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.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoYou misunderstand. I'm not against space exploration or colonizing Mars at all. I'm saying that considering "Mars colony" our only hope for survival with a fucked Earth is not a reasonable idea.
- mLuby 6y agoAh, then we agree.