3 ms·
It is more a necessity than "romantic". Living on a single planet is a single point of failure for humanity. A nuclear war, an asteroid impact or a super vulca
by _Microft 6y ago
It is more a necessity than "romantic".
Living on a single planet is a single point of failure for humanity. A nuclear war, an asteroid impact or a super vulcano eruption and we are done.
(Living in a single solar system is still dangerous, as a gamma ray burst directed at the solar system would still wipe us all out. Leaving the solar system is a lot further out than (trying to) colonize other locations in the solar system.)
- gambiting 6y agoAnd like I said in the other comment - colony at the bottom of the ocean would protect us from nearly anything, while simultaniously giving us opportunity to develop, test and perfect habitats for harsh environments. If it could become truly independent then that's your goal fully achieved and many technologies would transplant directly into space colonization. It's truly incredible what 10km of water can protect you from. The entire surface of Earth could be destroyed be it by nuclear war or an asteroid strike, and a colony on the bottom of the ocean would barely notice.
- vvillena 6y agoBoth types of colonies could (and should) be pursued, but for self-sustaining colonies, the isolation that spaces colonies provide is an actual advantage. There's no incentive for self-sustainability with ocean colonies, because they can easily obtain what they need from the surface. Space colonies have clear incentives, because help would always be 6-12 months away (for Mars colonies).
- Veen 6y agoA colony on the bottom of the ocean won't protect us from overpopulation or from exhausting the Earth's resources. On a long enough timescale, we'll have to stop the population from growing or find somewhere else to live.