5 ms·

If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. Whether via asteroid, plague, grey goo, etc. We're keeping all our eggs in one basket and our number

If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. Whether via asteroid, plague, grey goo, etc. We're keeping all our eggs in one basket and our number of eggs is shrinking. Planets like Mars are empty and waiting to be filled with life, as far as we can tell. I see no good reason why we should give up as a species and die. If other species have a right to exist, so does ours. If nobody is currently living on Mars, why don't we?

Dylan16807 5y ago
The criticism isn't about the idea of spreading over multiple planets, it's at the idea that we need so many billions of people. If we go back down to 5 billion [per planet], the same number of people we had in 1985, that's not a bad thing. Edit: Okay, do people disagree with the first sentence or the second one?
JetAlone 5y ago
Many people do actively want to end their family lines, and they have a right to decide to do that. I don't know about colonizing other planets, but hey, it's also a choice to try to go do that. I was born on the earth, and I'd prefer to have children, and myself die on this earth. Maybe if I have some descendents, some of them will end up living on other planets or in outer space. I don't know. It's hard to overstate how gargantuan of a move leaving the planet we started on is, the emotional impact of it plus the immense challenges it will bring.
- bendbro 5y ago
  Soft
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Soft because I prefer not to go to space and deal with the hardships? Soft because I decide to allow other people to choose extinction instead of hoping to impose my own pro-natalism on them?
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      You didn't answer, so be it. On reconsideration I admit I was wrong and "soft" to use the word "right" - it's not their "right" because I don't actually think rights even really exist. It's their choice made with free will. I'd like it if they became pro-natalist like me, but it would be absurd to try and force them to. Best I can do is make an appeal: you'd be happier if you go live real, natural life. If that's on mars (which I doubt), so be it.
- kortilla 5y ago
  People did the same thing leaving Europe for the Americas. For many it was a one-way trip with a high likelihood of death.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. I don't feel that it's the risk I'm meant to take on, I've chosen other risks and challenges. But maybe it's someone else's?
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. Unlikely. As a society we’re not nearly as tolerant of knowingly sending people to their death as they were in the 1500s. A safe job of simply working a coal mine in the 1800s even would be more risky than what we end up subjecting the first mars explorers to.
      - JetAlone 5y ago
        Right now, we're not. I am firmly convinced that will eventually change. EDIT: I missed out on something. "Knowingly" is a strong word for this case. Nobody knew for 100% certain if an early American colonist was going to die or achieve prosperity. Nobody knows the same about a hypothetical martian colonist. We've become more culturally sensitive about risk in this exact way, thinking we "know" the outcome based on scrutinized likelihoods. We didn't suddenly become rational in the face of nigh certain death, where before we were just being silly about it. We're not necessarily silly in either case to most heavily consider the risk or the benefit, I'd say it all really depends on what's called for at that time.
        kortilla 5y ago
        No, it was very well known that there were high risks of death just because of weather, food, disease, etc and people did it in the face of that. The only people who went were doing under the promises of vast riches or having literally no other options. There was no welfare to keep them alive in Europe so a 1/4 chance of dying on the journey as a deck hand with only a 1/100 chance of ever coming back was still appealing. We know way more about what a Martian colonist will experience even now than the people in Europe did about the various risks even after a smattering of successful journeys. Modern society is very intolerant of unknown risks like that. An aircraft worthy of passenger travel in the 1950s is considered barbaric by todays standards. The risks incurred by astronauts on the international space station are lower than the passengers that took flights in the 1930s.
mrpopo 5y ago
Our "number of eggs" is not shrinking. It's actually expanded by a factor of 4 in the span of 100 years, and by a factor of 400 in the span of 2000 years. Only once for a decade during the 14th century has the population actually decreased, during the Black Plague. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-po...
- adrianN 5y ago
  The number of planets with humans on them has remained steady though.
lm28469 5y ago
> If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. The thing is we have an almost unlimited numbers of issues to solve right here and right now instead of anticipating the death of the sun or a on in a trillion chance asteroid collision. Problems which are easier and cheaper to solve and would have a direct measurable impact on billions of people.

Dylan16807 5y ago

The criticism isn't about the idea of spreading over multiple planets, it's at the idea that we need so many billions of people. If we go back down to 5 billion [per planet], the same number of people we had in 1985, that's not a bad thing. Edit: Okay, do people disagree with the first sentence or the second one?

JetAlone 5y ago

Many people do actively want to end their family lines, and they have a right to decide to do that. I don't know about colonizing other planets, but hey, it's also a choice to try to go do that. I was born on the earth, and I'd prefer to have children, and myself die on this earth. Maybe if I have some descendents, some of them will end up living on other planets or in outer space. I don't know. It's hard to overstate how gargantuan of a move leaving the planet we started on is, the emotional impact of it plus the immense challenges it will bring.

bendbro 5y ago
Soft
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Soft because I prefer not to go to space and deal with the hardships? Soft because I decide to allow other people to choose extinction instead of hoping to impose my own pro-natalism on them?
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    You didn't answer, so be it. On reconsideration I admit I was wrong and "soft" to use the word "right" - it's not their "right" because I don't actually think rights even really exist. It's their choice made with free will. I'd like it if they became pro-natalist like me, but it would be absurd to try and force them to. Best I can do is make an appeal: you'd be happier if you go live real, natural life. If that's on mars (which I doubt), so be it.
kortilla 5y ago
People did the same thing leaving Europe for the Americas. For many it was a one-way trip with a high likelihood of death.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. I don't feel that it's the risk I'm meant to take on, I've chosen other risks and challenges. But maybe it's someone else's?
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. Unlikely. As a society we’re not nearly as tolerant of knowingly sending people to their death as they were in the 1500s. A safe job of simply working a coal mine in the 1800s even would be more risky than what we end up subjecting the first mars explorers to.
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      Right now, we're not. I am firmly convinced that will eventually change. EDIT: I missed out on something. "Knowingly" is a strong word for this case. Nobody knew for 100% certain if an early American colonist was going to die or achieve prosperity. Nobody knows the same about a hypothetical martian colonist. We've become more culturally sensitive about risk in this exact way, thinking we "know" the outcome based on scrutinized likelihoods. We didn't suddenly become rational in the face of nigh certain death, where before we were just being silly about it. We're not necessarily silly in either case to most heavily consider the risk or the benefit, I'd say it all really depends on what's called for at that time.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        No, it was very well known that there were high risks of death just because of weather, food, disease, etc and people did it in the face of that. The only people who went were doing under the promises of vast riches or having literally no other options. There was no welfare to keep them alive in Europe so a 1/4 chance of dying on the journey as a deck hand with only a 1/100 chance of ever coming back was still appealing. We know way more about what a Martian colonist will experience even now than the people in Europe did about the various risks even after a smattering of successful journeys. Modern society is very intolerant of unknown risks like that. An aircraft worthy of passenger travel in the 1950s is considered barbaric by todays standards. The risks incurred by astronauts on the international space station are lower than the passengers that took flights in the 1930s.

mrpopo 5y ago

Our "number of eggs" is not shrinking. It's actually expanded by a factor of 4 in the span of 100 years, and by a factor of 400 in the span of 2000 years. Only once for a decade during the 14th century has the population actually decreased, during the Black Plague. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-po...

adrianN 5y ago
The number of planets with humans on them has remained steady though.

lm28469 5y ago

> If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. The thing is we have an almost unlimited numbers of issues to solve right here and right now instead of anticipating the death of the sun or a on in a trillion chance asteroid collision. Problems which are easier and cheaper to solve and would have a direct measurable impact on billions of people.