3 ms·
Yes, and an obvious limit to the original article is that earth is only worth preserving for the human race until we have found interesting alternatives. If the
by guylhem 14y ago
Yes, and an obvious limit to the original article is that earth is only worth preserving for the human race until we have found interesting alternatives. If there are habitable other worlds within reach or ways to terraform planets, why bother with earth? At that point, suck it dry, release the arsenic - unless it can be kept as some kind of museum.
Real life example - the crusades where a valid strategy for the catholic church and the european powers until the new world was found. At that point, it made no sense to keep wasting resources. (did you even wondered if Constantinople and the Byzantine empire would have been given up so easily while Jerusalem was fought for centuries?)
- jchavannes 14y agoI think if we achieve the ability to be self-sufficient in space it's our responsibility to try to reduce our resource consumption on earth and preserve it, just as much as we preserve any part of our history. However, as we are currently dependent on our planet for survival and its fate is somewhat at stake, it is our first priority to insure against it. After that we have a couple billion years before our solar system poses a threat.