4 ms·

Why do we even need to colonize space anyways? It's not like overpopulation is going to be a problem anymore, and someday in the future, we'll be able to solve

Why do we even need to colonize space anyways? It's not like overpopulation is going to be a problem anymore, and someday in the future, we'll be able to solve problems like environmental degredation and climate change. There's just not any benefit to exploring space. Besides asteroid mining (which can be done with robots), there's not much up there worth our time, except scientific research.

lostinroutine 5y ago
Could you explain why overpopulation will not be a problem?
- busterarm 5y ago
  Especially if we start expecting everyone to live to 150...
- mLuby 5y ago
  The oceans are big. Think how many floating (or submerged) apartment could exist, each a pressure vessel with links to air, power and heat, fresh water, and a personal shuttle to visit other modules. Of course, that's all the same tech that space habitats would use too, so why not do both?
- ebruchez 5y ago
  Maybe because the world's total fertility rate has been consistently coming down and might soon get lower than the replacement rate. [1] If this continues, the world population, while still growing due to people living longer, [2] will not grow due to more births anymore. All things being equal, after a while, population would start decreasing. None of this is necessarily cast in stone: people could start having more children again, or life expectancy could massively drop. But as things are trending right now, population will stabilize relatively soon and then decrease (it's already happening in some countries). How crowded the Earth needs to be to be considered overpopulated is debatable and a separate question. But if the population does not keep growing there is a path to getting there, assuming the peak population is considered too high. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN [2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN
aero-glide2 5y ago
Non-zero chance that an astronomical event could wipe out earth's human population. We can study effects of low-g environment on human body. Because its hard. And when doing a project which is hard, we could discover technology which helps others on Earth.
austinkhale 5y ago
We are one large asteroid hitting earth or nuclear war from an extinction event. Being multi planetary is a hedge for the continuation of the species.
beckingz 5y ago
Because we can?
Aperocky 5y ago
It's not about overpopulation. People used to live in caves in a static way of life that persisted for generations. Hunter gatherer societies still exist. While I can't speak for them I'm very happy that I live in modern society as compared to theirs. > There's just not any benefit to exploring space. I strongly disagree, what are the benefits of living? Benefits are relative and arbitrary, there are no universal definition of 'benefits'. Access to more resources and potential to leave solar system would count as benefit to me. The simple experience of just not being stuck on Earth would be another one for me.
mLuby 5y ago
What about innate human curiosity, and our drive to explore? What about all the technology that, while developed for spaceflight, provides huge benefits to the earthbound masses? What about meeting other civilizations if they exist, or else learning why they don't?
vimacs2 5y ago
Well, first of all I do not consider colonising a place a synonymous with living there. Space offers revolutionary technology that can tangibly affect what happens on Earth. Planets that are substantially smaller than Earth (which is pretty much all the rocky planets in our solar system bar Venus) are far less painful to mine even without getting into the fact that there is (or so we hope) no ecosystem to destroy from our mining practices so it's not just asteroids that are attractive targets for resources. It's not just the lower gravity, it's that smaller bodies tend to have less stratification of geological layers so instead of having nearly all metals concentrated underneath gigapascals of pressure at the core (like on Earth), smaller bodies will have such valuable booty more evenly distributed across the crust. That's not even getting into the abundance of gases like hydrogen and helium that can be scooped from gas giants that are often quite expensive on Earth. Most heavy industrial processes and power generation have substantial ecological consequences so I envision nearly all of this being taken off world into orbital factories and power collectors. Microwave wireless energy transfer has achieved greater than 80% efficiencies in the lab and solar power collectors in space can achieve a 24/7 operation and park themselves in geosynchronous orbits so a mini dyson swarm around Earth could power the world's economy comfortably and be far more distributed and safe against shutdowns. Manufacturing in microgravity offers unique opportunities and advantages for many processes in industry and the advantages of floating in vacuum cannot be understate for bulk transportation of goods. There is a trick that exploits the conservation of momentum that allows for very cheap transfer of cargo and people from and to Earth without having to rely on the magically strong materials of space elevators: by having a ring of ferromagnetic material around the Earth that rotates and greater than orbital velocity, you can then have an outer shell around it that is either at rest or moving in the opposite direction (preferably at the rotational speed of the Earth that can be kept suspended from the inner coil via a magnetic field. As long as the net momentum of the inner and outer ring is zero, it will remain stable and now you have a platform that is at rest relative to the ground and from which you can have cable cars running to the ground from without requiring fictional materials. One thing to note is that with these largely stationary (save for counterbalancing against the rotation of the earth) platforms is that you are still experiencing most of the earth's gravity when standing on them. This makes it a good option for long term habitats for baseline humans. Of course, because it has a coil that winds around the entire circumference of the Earth, you can use it to propel one hell of a mass driver for cargo to the point where you could just not bother with chemical rockets altogether and rely on magnetic trains to do most of the heavy lifting into LEO with ion drives or solar sails are for long term maintenance. This formula works for every planet but it makes the most sense to target Earth because of the highly challenging escape velocity it imposes on our current launch capabilities. This allows you to skip the rocket equation and as a consequence make travel to space genuinely affordable with potentially less than a dollar per kg costs. Once you get to space, travel is actually incredibly easy since you have mostly empty space between you and your target and there is no air resistance to slow you down. We can also protect the Earth from coronal mass ejections and asteroid strikes and even counteract global warming by dimming the sunlight received from earth by a percent or two. This won't magically turn the clock back on climate change but it would be one hell of a slowdown to allow for other changes in our manufacturing and energy generation processes. Besides that, extrapolating from very recent trends in population dynamics in "developed" (which is such a relative term anyway) countries that overpopulation is not going to be a problem anymore is absurd. People do on average want to have kids and the real reason why some countries are beginning to go below replacement rates of growth has more to do with the collapse of the middle class and the uncertain economic future of many young adults. Once we have radical life extension technology (something I consider largely inevitable) and people in their late 80's are still as sexually virulent as if they were in their 20's, we are likely to see another population boom within this century. While we could probably continue to house more people past a trillion within Earth, you are going to have to start either living more frugally or damage the ecosystem or at least reduce it's priority. An Ecumenopolis (planet-wide city) could actually be a very comfortable place to live and house many trillions but it's a process that is inherently destructive to the landscape and life as it is now. You are essentially turning the entire surface (and ideally some or all of the interior) of a planet into a machine - and a lot of that would be necessary once we are talking multiple trillions because at that scale, we have a very different heating problem from the comparatively measly effects of greenhouse gases that are already wrecking havoc on our ecosystems. When you have that much waste heat being generated on a planet, you need to start constructing giant radiators that extend out of the atmosphere on space towers. Once you have such numbers, even if less than a percent of the population have any wish of colonising other worlds, you will have billions of colonists and our entire solar system will be colonised. There is also the undeniable appeals of claiming territory over a truly virgin land without the evil of colonialism over past natives. That land might be hostile as it is but the opportunity to transform it into an oasis of life is going to become a more and more attractive proposition once have a truly abundant and clean source of energy because matter then becomes the real bottleneck. Land prices on Earth will continue to rise to the point where suburbs in the form of O' Neil Cylinder habitats will become the suburbs and rural area of humanity. Or if we switch to a form of land allocation that does not involve money, we would still commission the construction of rotating habitats to keep the population density of Earth below a amount (what amount that is depends both on your values as a civilisation and the degree of verticality of your settlements.

lostinroutine 5y ago

Could you explain why overpopulation will not be a problem?

busterarm 5y ago
Especially if we start expecting everyone to live to 150...
mLuby 5y ago
The oceans are big. Think how many floating (or submerged) apartment could exist, each a pressure vessel with links to air, power and heat, fresh water, and a personal shuttle to visit other modules. Of course, that's all the same tech that space habitats would use too, so why not do both?
ebruchez 5y ago
Maybe because the world's total fertility rate has been consistently coming down and might soon get lower than the replacement rate. [1] If this continues, the world population, while still growing due to people living longer, [2] will not grow due to more births anymore. All things being equal, after a while, population would start decreasing. None of this is necessarily cast in stone: people could start having more children again, or life expectancy could massively drop. But as things are trending right now, population will stabilize relatively soon and then decrease (it's already happening in some countries). How crowded the Earth needs to be to be considered overpopulated is debatable and a separate question. But if the population does not keep growing there is a path to getting there, assuming the peak population is considered too high. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN [2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN

aero-glide2 5y ago

Non-zero chance that an astronomical event could wipe out earth's human population. We can study effects of low-g environment on human body. Because its hard. And when doing a project which is hard, we could discover technology which helps others on Earth.

austinkhale 5y ago

We are one large asteroid hitting earth or nuclear war from an extinction event. Being multi planetary is a hedge for the continuation of the species.

beckingz 5y ago

Because we can?

Aperocky 5y ago

It's not about overpopulation. People used to live in caves in a static way of life that persisted for generations. Hunter gatherer societies still exist. While I can't speak for them I'm very happy that I live in modern society as compared to theirs. > There's just not any benefit to exploring space. I strongly disagree, what are the benefits of living? Benefits are relative and arbitrary, there are no universal definition of 'benefits'. Access to more resources and potential to leave solar system would count as benefit to me. The simple experience of just not being stuck on Earth would be another one for me.

mLuby 5y ago

What about innate human curiosity, and our drive to explore? What about all the technology that, while developed for spaceflight, provides huge benefits to the earthbound masses? What about meeting other civilizations if they exist, or else learning why they don't?

vimacs2 5y ago

Well, first of all I do not consider colonising a place a synonymous with living there. Space offers revolutionary technology that can tangibly affect what happens on Earth. Planets that are substantially smaller than Earth (which is pretty much all the rocky planets in our solar system bar Venus) are far less painful to mine even without getting into the fact that there is (or so we hope) no ecosystem to destroy from our mining practices so it's not just asteroids that are attractive targets for resources. It's not just the lower gravity, it's that smaller bodies tend to have less stratification of geological layers so instead of having nearly all metals concentrated underneath gigapascals of pressure at the core (like on Earth), smaller bodies will have such valuable booty more evenly distributed across the crust. That's not even getting into the abundance of gases like hydrogen and helium that can be scooped from gas giants that are often quite expensive on Earth. Most heavy industrial processes and power generation have substantial ecological consequences so I envision nearly all of this being taken off world into orbital factories and power collectors. Microwave wireless energy transfer has achieved greater than 80% efficiencies in the lab and solar power collectors in space can achieve a 24/7 operation and park themselves in geosynchronous orbits so a mini dyson swarm around Earth could power the world's economy comfortably and be far more distributed and safe against shutdowns. Manufacturing in microgravity offers unique opportunities and advantages for many processes in industry and the advantages of floating in vacuum cannot be understate for bulk transportation of goods. There is a trick that exploits the conservation of momentum that allows for very cheap transfer of cargo and people from and to Earth without having to rely on the magically strong materials of space elevators: by having a ring of ferromagnetic material around the Earth that rotates and greater than orbital velocity, you can then have an outer shell around it that is either at rest or moving in the opposite direction (preferably at the rotational speed of the Earth that can be kept suspended from the inner coil via a magnetic field. As long as the net momentum of the inner and outer ring is zero, it will remain stable and now you have a platform that is at rest relative to the ground and from which you can have cable cars running to the ground from without requiring fictional materials. One thing to note is that with these largely stationary (save for counterbalancing against the rotation of the earth) platforms is that you are still experiencing most of the earth's gravity when standing on them. This makes it a good option for long term habitats for baseline humans. Of course, because it has a coil that winds around the entire circumference of the Earth, you can use it to propel one hell of a mass driver for cargo to the point where you could just not bother with chemical rockets altogether and rely on magnetic trains to do most of the heavy lifting into LEO with ion drives or solar sails are for long term maintenance. This formula works for every planet but it makes the most sense to target Earth because of the highly challenging escape velocity it imposes on our current launch capabilities. This allows you to skip the rocket equation and as a consequence make travel to space genuinely affordable with potentially less than a dollar per kg costs. Once you get to space, travel is actually incredibly easy since you have mostly empty space between you and your target and there is no air resistance to slow you down. We can also protect the Earth from coronal mass ejections and asteroid strikes and even counteract global warming by dimming the sunlight received from earth by a percent or two. This won't magically turn the clock back on climate change but it would be one hell of a slowdown to allow for other changes in our manufacturing and energy generation processes. Besides that, extrapolating from very recent trends in population dynamics in "developed" (which is such a relative term anyway) countries that overpopulation is not going to be a problem anymore is absurd. People do on average want to have kids and the real reason why some countries are beginning to go below replacement rates of growth has more to do with the collapse of the middle class and the uncertain economic future of many young adults. Once we have radical life extension technology (something I consider largely inevitable) and people in their late 80's are still as sexually virulent as if they were in their 20's, we are likely to see another population boom within this century. While we could probably continue to house more people past a trillion within Earth, you are going to have to start either living more frugally or damage the ecosystem or at least reduce it's priority. An Ecumenopolis (planet-wide city) could actually be a very comfortable place to live and house many trillions but it's a process that is inherently destructive to the landscape and life as it is now. You are essentially turning the entire surface (and ideally some or all of the interior) of a planet into a machine - and a lot of that would be necessary once we are talking multiple trillions because at that scale, we have a very different heating problem from the comparatively measly effects of greenhouse gases that are already wrecking havoc on our ecosystems. When you have that much waste heat being generated on a planet, you need to start constructing giant radiators that extend out of the atmosphere on space towers. Once you have such numbers, even if less than a percent of the population have any wish of colonising other worlds, you will have billions of colonists and our entire solar system will be colonised. There is also the undeniable appeals of claiming territory over a truly virgin land without the evil of colonialism over past natives. That land might be hostile as it is but the opportunity to transform it into an oasis of life is going to become a more and more attractive proposition once have a truly abundant and clean source of energy because matter then becomes the real bottleneck. Land prices on Earth will continue to rise to the point where suburbs in the form of O' Neil Cylinder habitats will become the suburbs and rural area of humanity. Or if we switch to a form of land allocation that does not involve money, we would still commission the construction of rotating habitats to keep the population density of Earth below a amount (what amount that is depends both on your values as a civilisation and the degree of verticality of your settlements.