> If you people want to eat soylent and live in free-floating space habitats, that's cool. I find that idea revolting. How do you get from free floating habita

> If you people want to eat soylent and live in free-floating space habitats, that's cool. I find that idea revolting. How do you get from free floating habitat to soylent green pray tell? A field inside a free floating habitat grows the same wheat that a field on a planet does. The air and water you breathe and drink on Earth has gone through many a dinosaur and you breathe molecules that Dschingis Khan breathed in with every breath you take here on Earth. Just because you don't realise that everything you eat, drink and breathe on planets is recycled as well (I guess that's what you're referencing when talking about "soylent green"), doesn't make it any less true. > Either are just fantasies at this point, but one of them is timid, the other is bold. I'll go with bold. Bold or bust. While it's true that both aren't achievable with current technology, one isn't any less bold than the other. Given the same amount of effort, one can create living space equivalent to hundreds of Earths, while the other yields a fraction at best. Simple economics suggests that one is more efficient than the other. "Boldness" is very subjective and thus not something I'd choose as a basis for my argument. But YMMV. IMO Planets are for research and recreation. Space is for living, working, and expanding into - why try so hard to escape one gravity well and its consequences, only to go back down into another?