Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

strvgglecity t1_j2ntsq9 wrote

Reply to comment by IamSorryiilol in Pulling together different technologies to make interstellar colonization possible by matthewgdick

Sorry, idk what you're talking about. Earth is the only habitable planet ever discovered. Any human being who leaves Earth's atmosphere has zero other survivable habitats in the known universe.

Planetary geoengineering would take millennia, and require truly enormous resources and investments for something that wouldn't be realized for 1000s of years, light years away, with no opportunity for communication.

I used to get excited about space exploration and these types of far out topics, but our societies can barely feed their people. In the end idk what's so meaningful about spreading humans to other planets if we can't keep this planet sustainable and we can't end human suffering.

4

UniversalMomentum t1_j2p6ya9 wrote

Nah, we will have nearly unlimited production in 100-200 years as robots can start to make robots. It won't take anywhere near thousands of years. Look at how fast humans have progressed just in the last 200 years from like steam power to modern day computing and nanoengineering. In another 200 years we will look like an alien super civilization compared to what we are now at this rate.

1

strvgglecity t1_j2pd60u wrote

What does production have to do with geoengineering a whole planet? Yes, it will take thousands of years, at least, to create a habitable planet for humans and other earth life. Changing an entire planet is not something that happens quickly. The only reason we are able to have such an effect on our planet is because there's 8 billion of us and there are fossil fuels to burn and turn into chemicals. Other planets do not have either of those. Getting the necessary machinery to another planet might not even be possible. Geoengineering other planets is a far-off pipe dream idea at this point.

The whole enterprise is questionable. It would take multiple human lifetimes just to get there, and people and government are hesitant to invest large sums in super long term projects that have no return for the people funding it (taxpayers). Likewise, a business wouldn't take the risk because the cost is very high and the chance of success provides no value to earth or the company.

3

IamSorryiilol t1_j2nxfnk wrote

I really think you're greatly underestimating the speed at which science advances.

−2

strvgglecity t1_j2ny82a wrote

Dude you said there are many habitable planets, and then you referenced Mars, and I have no idea why. Mars is not habitable. Any human exposed to Mars would be dead in under one minute from numerous fatal effects. I think you're greatly overestimating your own knowledge about space, physics and science in general. We went to the moon 50 years ago, and we can barely even get back.

Going to another star is not realistic for human beings. We can send machines.

2

IamSorryiilol t1_j2nzb65 wrote

You're really really being pedantic here to try and brute force some sense of being right.

You know fine well I meant potentially habitable. We will have humans living on mars by 2040 at the latest. Co-HABITATING there as a group of HUMANS living on MARS.

Take your nonsense elsewhere. Humans will be living on other planets long before the end of the millennium, including those in far-off star systems you seem to think, is unachievable. It is a necessity, a requirement for survival.

Enjoy your bubble

−5

strvgglecity t1_j2o2mbf wrote

Lol being right is right. Not pednatic. Being accurate has meaning.

You didn't say "potentially habitable", you said habitable. Literally any planet anywhere is "potentially habitable". Even asteroids. Maybe we'll design a Venus or Uranus habitat one day. That phrase is functionally meaningless.

NASA isn't projecting the first manned flight until at least 2035 (super likely to be delayed). I suspect you think space works like it does in the movies.

1

IamSorryiilol t1_j2o5w2x wrote

I mean it isn't.. potentially habitable has meaning and it is not an asteroid or gas giant.

Lol.

Hmm no think you're incorrect on that one.

I suspect you do Mr 'Faster than light travel'.

This is what's called a tangent anyway. No we do not need new physics for interstellar travel, end of discussion.

1