4 ms·

> ...second habitable home for humanity [...] or exploration for its own sake. None of these are particularly compelling given the economics behind them. So th

by avz 12y ago

> ...second habitable home for humanity [...] or exploration for its own sake. None of these are particularly compelling given the economics behind them. So this is what economics has done to "going boldly"? No wonder it's called dismal science ;-) But seriously, diversification of our real estate beyond a single small planet seems like a necessity given the scale of the potential losses in case (X) happens. Exploration for its own sake seems like a perfectly valid reason too whether done for touristic or scientific purposes. As for ROI on space exploration, I wouldn't say it's terrible. It's just that we're short lived creatures and we like our returns fast. Space exploration is a very long term investment with potentially huge returns in far future.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
>So this is what economics has done to "going boldly"? No wonder it's called dismal science ;-) Yes the economist is typically the buzzkill. To your other point, I think it is silly to think that it would take fewer resources and time to terraform another planet^, than it would be to harden ourselves from disaster. Strike that it's not silly, it's wasteful. ^there are no known planets that are habitable to humans and getting out of our solar system is not feasible for humans given that it is 27,000 ly across
- eloff 12y ago
  Not sure where you get that figure, the nearest star is only 4.24 light years away.
- avz 12y ago
  You don't need to terraform a planet in order to inhabit it. Also, not all disasters are easily managed or predicted. Hypothetical virus with long incubation period that spreads quietly to almost every human on Earth before giving any symptoms could pose a huge danger. There are other scenarios where survival of civilization is doubtful or reconstruction is very difficult without off-world help. Given high stakes directing 1% of human energy into the long term goal of expanding our habitat beyond a single planet seems like a reasonable hedge. Not sure where the figure of 27kly comes from. Depending on how you measure it our solar system is ~200 AU or ~28 light hours across (for comparison 1 ly is ~63241 AU). Our galaxy is ~100kly across and it contains hundreds of billions of stars.

by avz 12y ago

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

>So this is what economics has done to "going boldly"? No wonder it's called dismal science ;-) Yes the economist is typically the buzzkill. To your other point, I think it is silly to think that it would take fewer resources and time to terraform another planet^, than it would be to harden ourselves from disaster. Strike that it's not silly, it's wasteful. ^there are no known planets that are habitable to humans and getting out of our solar system is not feasible for humans given that it is 27,000 ly across

eloff 12y ago
Not sure where you get that figure, the nearest star is only 4.24 light years away.
avz 12y ago
You don't need to terraform a planet in order to inhabit it. Also, not all disasters are easily managed or predicted. Hypothetical virus with long incubation period that spreads quietly to almost every human on Earth before giving any symptoms could pose a huge danger. There are other scenarios where survival of civilization is doubtful or reconstruction is very difficult without off-world help. Given high stakes directing 1% of human energy into the long term goal of expanding our habitat beyond a single planet seems like a reasonable hedge. Not sure where the figure of 27kly comes from. Depending on how you measure it our solar system is ~200 AU or ~28 light hours across (for comparison 1 ly is ~63241 AU). Our galaxy is ~100kly across and it contains hundreds of billions of stars.