Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fitzroy95 t1_j20fvot wrote

Reply to comment by Half-Borg in Planetary Colonization by lodoslomo

Colonizing anywhere off Earth is a step to ensuring the long-term survivability of humanity. There are several things that can destroy human civilization that we can't stop. Probably won't kill humanity as a whole, but could send the survivors back to the stone age and they'd never recover

e.g. a "dinosaur-killer" asteroid. the eruption of any of the world's dozen or so Super-volcanos (several of which are over-due), etc

Taking humanity into space gives us a second chance, where right now, all our eggs are in 1 basket. and that basket is extremely fragile

1

s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20h4fn wrote

If something destroys the Earth we are dead because any Colony requires the Earth to send supplies to function.

Stop believing sci-fi. It's not real.

1

fitzroy95 t1_j20jy1c wrote

Any colony that is built off world is going to need to slowly become self-sufficient, growing their own food, mining and manufacturing. and Yes, that takes time.

and Yes, there will be a period where they are totally dependent on Earth, which is likely to last decades, but is certainly unlikely to last centuries.

Technology changes at a massive rate, and the minerals and resources available in space far outstrip anything available on Earth. Getting access to them is going to be hard, but far from impossible.

1

s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20kr6g wrote

No it won't because other planets lack the necessary resources and required supplies form Earth.

You are believing sci-fi and need to stop.

1

fitzroy95 t1_j20m3h2 wrote

No, I believe in science, technology, and humanity's rate of development.

Apparently you believe that we've reached our peak technology and will never improve.

I believe that the term for that is "Luddite"

1

s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20mexz wrote

No you believe in sci-fi because you don't have a strong foundation in technical areas. Colonizing other planets is sci-fi and not real and won't be probably ever.

It is that hard...

1

Half-Borg t1_j20jsrh wrote

First, a self sustaining colony is not automatically the same as a colony. Second, disregarding unlikely extinction events, and focusing on likely extinction events, it would make much more sense to finally do something about climate change.

1

fitzroy95 t1_j20kmrr wrote

> disregarding unlikely extinction events

"unlikely" ?

Most of the world's super-volcanos are overdue for an eruption, those are guaranteed to happen, the only question is whether the next one is next year, or in 1000 years.

The same applies to dinosaur killers. We've been hit by multiples of those over the millennia, we're almost guaranteed to be hit by another. That one is more on the range of millions of years statistically, but could still be tomorrow (but probably won't be).

1

Half-Borg t1_j20lnsp wrote

What makes the moon more habitable, than earth after an super volcano eruption?

1

fitzroy95 t1_j20n0o5 wrote

Humanity will still (probably) survive after a super-volcano eruption, but current technology and civilization is much less likely to. And once those are gone, they can never be rebuilt, because all of the necessary resources (minerals etc) needed to rebuild have already been used up, and those remaining are impossible to access without already possessing those technologies.

Having self-sustaining colonies off-planet means that technology and civilization can still survive, and be reintroduced afterwards. Getting them to the point of being self-sustaining, and having their own space-based manufacturing isn't a trivial task, but is very achievable within a century or so.

1

Half-Borg t1_j20ndy6 wrote

So far life has survived asteroid impacts and super volcano eruptions on earth. It hasn't on Mars. So why not build the self sustaining colony in Australia?

1