5 ms·

I don't see any value in humanity leaving the earth (except for fun, which is a good reason). Our children (the robots) are doing a much better job than we are

• hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  Humans don't adapt to their environment, we adapt the environment to us.
  • Tagbert 4y ago
    In the longer term case of galactic expansion, humans are likely to need to adapt ourselves to other environments.
• TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  You are downvoted, but there is some wisdom here. We are perfectly evolved for the conditions of earth, even an earth whose temperature raises a few degrees Celsius. Unless we can terraform another world to our needs, permanent life on another planet will be very difficult life. Temporary visits? Sure, count me in. Just like I don’t want to live in the Antarctic for more than a few months.
  • m4rtink 4y ago
    We are perfectly adapted for a part of Africa and that's pretty much it. Without technology (which goes from igloos to central heating) we would pretty much freeze to death anywhere else.
    • inkyoto 4y ago
      > We are perfectly adapted for a part of Africa and that's pretty much it. Not the British or the Irish. These particular designs have not been contrived to withstand ambient temperatures exceeding +20C, with a very low degree of heat tolerance built-in. The two designs are very prone to inadvertent self-ignition and burning up in flames when exposed to the direct sunlight with almost no leeway available to them whilst being generally a reliable and pretty sturdy design otherwise. For that reason, both specimens usually come off the factory equipped with a fire extinguisher that nearly immediately either gets lost or drunk away (usually the latter).
    • TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      I wonder how man 3000 years ago survived in North America and Northern Europe without technology.
• 14u2c 4y ago
  You are not thinking in a sufficient timescale. Human civilization is less than 10,000 years old. Barring some type of great filter event, it seems likely that human civilization will saturate the galaxy, or at least the local group, within the 400m years the OP mentioned.
  • schiffern 4y ago
    Depends on how much competing interest is out there. A Petri dish might dream of taking over North America, but the humans might have other plans (for instance, the autoclave across the room). Maybe they'd reason that North America is entirely lifeless, since nobody has yet tried to communicate the secrets of the Universe to them in a (bacterially) intelligible language. Honestly the Petri dish has better chances. The bacteria that inhabit one already have the demonstrated ability to persistently survive outside of it. >the galaxy, or at least the local group The local group is bigger than the galaxy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group
    • 14u2c 4y ago
      Fair enough, however the Fermi Paradox and the consequently postulated Great Filter are a thing precisely because the evidence of this competition should be present but is not. > The local group is bigger than the galaxy. You are certainly correct, I misremembered the terms. Substitute for the local regions of our galaxy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion-Cygnus_Arm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion-Cygnus_Arm
      • schiffern 4y ago
        Thanks! I hadn't heard of the Local Bubble before.
  • teaearlgraycold 4y ago
    Not sure I like the idea of humans taking over the galaxy unless we can evolve to be more caring.
• scythe 4y ago
  He said life, not humans. Taking a life-cycle analysis, biological entities are dramatically more efficient than existing robots. Designed a nanobot that gathers energy and resources from the natural environment to reproduce itself? Congratulations, you just invented the cell. It's also worth noting that our robots are far from perfectly adapted to space. Usually, they get to the destination by jettisoning all manner of fuel tanks, landing gear, etc, and then they die in a few years. They're adapted to being put together in factories on Earth. Much like we don't have isolated livable environments on Earth, we don't have self-maintaining robot factories, either, and both problems seem pretty hard. I think a compromise solution might be developed over the next fifty million years or so. No idea what it's going to look like.
  • gumby 4y ago
    No reason we couldn't build sentient robots that also have some of the benefits of being made out of meat -- we have the time. I don't see any reason why robots shouldn't evolve over the useful timescales we are discussing. Shedding gear can be a useful strategy; some animals even use it in extremis.
    • dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
      >sentient robots that also have some of the benefits of being made out of meat -- we have the time. Meat is a highly evolved 'robot' structural material if you wish...