5 ms·

1. One day we will need to leave Earth. Maybe sooner than later. Would you rather have a spacecraft or not when that becomes a need? 2. Many rare materials are

1. One day we will need to leave Earth. Maybe sooner than later. Would you rather have a spacecraft or not when that becomes a need? 2. Many rare materials are common in space. Even if we do not leave Earth, being able to bring those to us would do a great deal. 3. What if we discover life through exploring the cosmos? 4. Nobody settled new lands the first time they sailed the ocean (at least not very successfully). Give it a couple hundred years, maybe less, who knows? 5. Do you really not want to explore the universe? In the literal sense of the word?

bmitc 6y ago
> 1. One day we will need to leave Earth. Maybe sooner than later. Would you rather have a spacecraft or not when that becomes a need? I don’t equate visiting another planet or planets with saving the human species. We have vast existential problems, mostly imposed by ourselves, right now on Earth. Let’s say we had a copy of Earth that we could travel to right now in a safe solar system with a healthy star. Is the human species saved? Are our problems solved? If we simply spread our cancerous way of life throughout the cosmos, I’m not sure I find that exciting. It would be much more exciting if we learn to be a sustainable acting and net positive species (in all the ways) while spreading in the cosmos. Getting to another planet is a very small part of all that. It’s exciting of course, but not the solve everything solution the parent and downvoters apparently think it is. > 3. What if we discover life through exploring the cosmos? That isn’t under discussion. How does that solve humanity’s problems? I am sure we will find life or evidence of it elsewhere. > 5. Do you really not want to explore the universe? In the literal sense of the word? That wasn’t a question I responded to or has anything to do with what I said.
- dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
  > If we simply spread our cancerous way of life throughout the cosmos, I’m not sure I find that exciting. Unlike you, I do not have much confidence that we will change our ways. Humanity consumes and exploits all that it has met, and will likely continue to do so successfully, or die out. Unless we find more to exploit, the latter seems more likely. Ergo the need for spaceships eventually. Re: the last two points, they appeal to emotion more so than reason.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  > I don’t equivocate visiting another planet or planets with saving the human species. All it takes is one big, unlucky rock hurlting through space hitting this singular planet of ours, and we're gone like the dinosaurs. Eggs in one basket, and all that.
  - bmitc 6y ago
    That is a threat, but the time when humans can survive away from a destroyed Earth is so long away that I don’t understand how a fail fast attitude helps.
    - the_duke 6y ago
      It wouldn't be that far off if we had the money and motivation. We could probably have a mostly self sustaining colony in caves on Mars within ten years , if we really wanted to. It would just take an absurd amount of money and singular focus and dedication by governments and companies.
      - jfk13 6y ago
        > We could probably have a mostly self sustaining colony in caves on Mars within ten years Even if that's true (which I highly doubt), a "mostly" self-sustaining colony won't last long if a catastrophe cripples human life on Earth.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      > so long away Even if it'll take 500 years to achieve, which seems longer than realistic, that's still the blink of an eye on a cosmic timescale. A comet or asteroid could hit us at any moment and cause our extinction. That's one example of a planet-specific existential risk. Diversifying life across multiple planets would make it much more likely that we'd survive as a species if something like this happened.
- moab 6y ago
  Just FYI you probably meant equate instead of equivocate. Two other reasons to add on to the GP's post: (i) improving our species fault-tolerance to astroids, and other existential risk is a good thing (ii) efforts like SpaceX make science "cool again" in a way that it has not been since the Apollo program, and generally since the end of WWII
  - bmitc 6y ago
    Indeed I did. Thanks for catching that.

bmitc 6y ago

> 1. One day we will need to leave Earth. Maybe sooner than later. Would you rather have a spacecraft or not when that becomes a need? I don’t equate visiting another planet or planets with saving the human species. We have vast existential problems, mostly imposed by ourselves, right now on Earth. Let’s say we had a copy of Earth that we could travel to right now in a safe solar system with a healthy star. Is the human species saved? Are our problems solved? If we simply spread our cancerous way of life throughout the cosmos, I’m not sure I find that exciting. It would be much more exciting if we learn to be a sustainable acting and net positive species (in all the ways) while spreading in the cosmos. Getting to another planet is a very small part of all that. It’s exciting of course, but not the solve everything solution the parent and downvoters apparently think it is. > 3. What if we discover life through exploring the cosmos? That isn’t under discussion. How does that solve humanity’s problems? I am sure we will find life or evidence of it elsewhere. > 5. Do you really not want to explore the universe? In the literal sense of the word? That wasn’t a question I responded to or has anything to do with what I said.

dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
> If we simply spread our cancerous way of life throughout the cosmos, I’m not sure I find that exciting. Unlike you, I do not have much confidence that we will change our ways. Humanity consumes and exploits all that it has met, and will likely continue to do so successfully, or die out. Unless we find more to exploit, the latter seems more likely. Ergo the need for spaceships eventually. Re: the last two points, they appeal to emotion more so than reason.
hypertele-Xii 6y ago
> I don’t equivocate visiting another planet or planets with saving the human species. All it takes is one big, unlucky rock hurlting through space hitting this singular planet of ours, and we're gone like the dinosaurs. Eggs in one basket, and all that.
- bmitc 6y ago
  That is a threat, but the time when humans can survive away from a destroyed Earth is so long away that I don’t understand how a fail fast attitude helps.
  - the_duke 6y ago
    It wouldn't be that far off if we had the money and motivation. We could probably have a mostly self sustaining colony in caves on Mars within ten years , if we really wanted to. It would just take an absurd amount of money and singular focus and dedication by governments and companies.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      > We could probably have a mostly self sustaining colony in caves on Mars within ten years Even if that's true (which I highly doubt), a "mostly" self-sustaining colony won't last long if a catastrophe cripples human life on Earth.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    > so long away Even if it'll take 500 years to achieve, which seems longer than realistic, that's still the blink of an eye on a cosmic timescale. A comet or asteroid could hit us at any moment and cause our extinction. That's one example of a planet-specific existential risk. Diversifying life across multiple planets would make it much more likely that we'd survive as a species if something like this happened.
moab 6y ago
Just FYI you probably meant equate instead of equivocate. Two other reasons to add on to the GP's post: (i) improving our species fault-tolerance to astroids, and other existential risk is a good thing (ii) efforts like SpaceX make science "cool again" in a way that it has not been since the Apollo program, and generally since the end of WWII
- bmitc 6y ago
  Indeed I did. Thanks for catching that.