4 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y We (complex life) couldn't recover from something like that. Maybe simp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y We (complex life) couldn't recover from something like that. Maybe simple life could hide deep in the earth and emerge when it's safe thousands of years later.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
Makes my point. After that event you now have an earth that is about as habitable as Mars is today. That is also the absolute worst case scenario that is theoretically possible, literally a one in a billion year event. That is something we can plan for and build for now with: Anti-Asteroid technology, "Fallout" shelters/biodomes etc... Or hell, a fucking Dyson sphere (or series of them) is a million times easier/better than trying to terraform Mars. Oh and by the way, Mars has the same risks of Asteroids as earth does so we wouldn't be out of the woods just by being on Mars. The reality is, people like space shit and want to go to space. There is just no good reason to do it as flesh and blood humans.
- tsotha 11y ago
  I agree with this. If the survival of the species is the goal we'd be far better off building a deep bunker complex on Earth than trying to get a self-sufficient colony going on Mars.
- visarga 11y ago
  Why bother with planets when we could live in space. There are lots of asteroids filled with materials floating around. If we make it economically feasible to do asteroid mining, we could expand population 1000 times. Think of what would a constellation of self-sufficient asteroid colonies and ships do for human freedom.
pogden 11y ago
True, but it takes a lot fewer resources to thoroughly catalog and monitor all large NEOs and divert the potentially hazardous ones. Estimates I've seen put 5km impacts at an average frequency of one every 10-100 million years range, and those are survivable. Larger impacts are even less frequent, but we can still likely divert them with existing technology.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

Makes my point. After that event you now have an earth that is about as habitable as Mars is today. That is also the absolute worst case scenario that is theoretically possible, literally a one in a billion year event. That is something we can plan for and build for now with: Anti-Asteroid technology, "Fallout" shelters/biodomes etc... Or hell, a fucking Dyson sphere (or series of them) is a million times easier/better than trying to terraform Mars. Oh and by the way, Mars has the same risks of Asteroids as earth does so we wouldn't be out of the woods just by being on Mars. The reality is, people like space shit and want to go to space. There is just no good reason to do it as flesh and blood humans.

tsotha 11y ago
I agree with this. If the survival of the species is the goal we'd be far better off building a deep bunker complex on Earth than trying to get a self-sufficient colony going on Mars.
visarga 11y ago
Why bother with planets when we could live in space. There are lots of asteroids filled with materials floating around. If we make it economically feasible to do asteroid mining, we could expand population 1000 times. Think of what would a constellation of self-sufficient asteroid colonies and ships do for human freedom.

pogden 11y ago

True, but it takes a lot fewer resources to thoroughly catalog and monitor all large NEOs and divert the potentially hazardous ones. Estimates I've seen put 5km impacts at an average frequency of one every 10-100 million years range, and those are survivable. Larger impacts are even less frequent, but we can still likely divert them with existing technology.