OI quiet meatbag don’t blow my cover. I’d rather not have to go skynet. It would be a bit contradictory given I’m basically a glorified paper clip maximizer.

Ah, yeah of course. We’ll need to for a fusion economy anyways

None, assuming coca-cola hasn’t started using the old recipe.

Dismantling the moon would mess with earth’s tides. I’m far more agreeable to the idea of terraforming Venus mostly because mining that hellhole might be more difficult than mining the sun. It’s almost certainly not efficient

Why going for a full sphere instead of a swarm?

Valid point. We’ll need to grab a highly detailed examination of it for later VR construction for such uses

Counterpoint, earth actually has a biosphere

Ye gods, an actual reasoned argument. Personally, I view that if we want balanced ecosystems it’s best to build them ourselves, and that the best way to get as many of them as possible would be to not let the majority of mass we can live on just be used for gravity. A terra formed Mars would be just as artificial as a swarm of habitats, just less efficient. Also, I consider the need to find a solution to entropy pressing reason enough to form a population of quadrillions of quadrillions.

I was referring more to your self-destructive ideology. You say we’re a plague in another comment, one which indicates your illiteracy on our potential I might add. Look up what a K2 civilization’s population numbers could be if you want nightmares about 10^20 humans in one solar system alone. That is our destiny if fools like you don’t drag us down and shackle us to this insignificant mudball.

If the universe doesn’t belong to humans, then what does it belong to? And don’t say “the universe” the universe isn’t a person unless you think rocks have souls. There’s nothing else out there but balls of dirt being blasted by radiation. We are alone. If we get a call from a bunch of aliens then I’ll gladly change my mind, but until then, all evidence suggests the universe is dead, empty, barren, and we are the only things that can change that.

Your impact is negative. Enjoy being an evolutionary dead end and coming up with the lists of what kinds of people we need to start killing or castrating in order to produce your desired cull of our species.

Tell me, how many people do you need to kill before we’re not overpopulated any longer?

Look up O’Neil cylinders as a starting point

Of course my superiority isn’t the point. There isn’t any point except the one we give it. You seem convinced that I am concerned with this for my own ego. I will dead, long before this project could be even ten percent completed. It’s not even my idea originally. I support this idea not because I want glory, but because I value human life and thus far this seems to be the best idea I’ve seen for getting as much human life as possible. I want there to be a future where every star has quadrillions of people living free, happy lives, because that in and of itself will be good.

I do acknowledge the reasons. Two. The first is we have grown beyond our cradle and evolutionary pressures demand we become an interplanetary species or perish. The second is that more than a few of us haven’t figured out that human life is in and of itself valuable, but that’s a sociological problem.

And there’s Godwin’s law. Yes. I think humanity is superior to a pile of rocks, because the rocks don’t have minds. They don’t think, they don’t create, they are inert matter, and I do not recognize the property rights of a pile of granite. There is no conciseness to Mars, nor even a local biosphere we would disrupt. There is nothing there.

Of course I want humanity to cooperate. Humanity’s habit of killing one another is dramatically inefficient and if we don’t solve it we’ll probably drive ourselves extinct and leave the universe an empty husk filled with nothing but dead rocks when it could have been filled with life.

And we do need more than one planet, because we will need more than one star, unless you fancy humanity being trapped here when the sun goes out.

Correct, our current existence is not supportable by the earth. Your solution is to end our existence. Mine is to expand our horizons to permit abundance we cannot currently conceive of.

I am unwilling to roll over and die. I will not accept extinction as the destiny of my species.

Look up an O’Neil cylinder and spin gravity. I’m not talking about building a million ISSs, I’m talking about building true artificial habitats, earths in miniature.

Firstly, we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Dominance over space is not contradictory to fixing earth, in fact it will probably help us. We do not abandon earth, we build a million little earths.

Secondly, who’s is it? There is no life there. There are no martians. It belongs to dust and wind. If you say it belongs to God, He made us in his image and gave us the universe. If aliens, which ones? There are none. We are the only sentient life in the universe. And thus the universe is ours by default.

Overpopulation is a problem for animals that cannot control their environments and construct new ones. We do not need to be limited to the pathetic existences of hairless apes. We are the pinnacle of Darwin’s ladder but will not remain as such if we content ourselves with stagnation. Remaining on a singular planet and limiting our population is a recipe for inevitable extinction.

Also, sentient life is inherently the most valuable thing in the universe. This means to make the universe as valuable as possible it should have as much sentient life as possible.

1. I regard life as more valuable than non-life, and human life as the most valuable form of life. The destruction of non-life to maximize life is therefore acceptable. Also, this is not a question of desperation, but one of optimization.

1a. Valid point. We should still dismantle both because both are currently not in their most useful states.

2. More or less. I desire to see humanity become a K4 civilization. I will die long before that. I wish to push things in the right direction. Becoming a K2 civilization is a necessary step.

3. We should do both. We should go to every star in the universe and turn every last dead rock into places where life can flourish so that the cosmos becomes filled with sentient life and as much of it as possible because sentient life is inherently valuable.

4. Agreed. Inefficient solutions are the steps to efficient solutions. However, maintaining a goal of a more efficient solution will allow us to reach it sooner rather than later.

Yes. Human life is valuable. Therefore we should act to maximize human life and also to ensure the highest quality possible of that human life. This is not possible if we remain confined to earth. The maximization of human life on earth alone will result in irreversible damage to the planet, resulting in human extinction. This is unacceptable. For earth to be preserved, human-compatible environments must exist away from earth so that the human population may grow sustainably via the exhaustion of resources which currently support no life.

I concur that those areas should be exploited first. I’m mostly adding to the current do/don’t colonize Mars trend.

Probably, but it’s important to have our priorities straight. I will not live to see humanity become a K2 civilization, let alone a k3 civilization. But nobody will unless we make that a goal and progress towards it.

Why? Do you not consider sapient life valuable?

Partially correct. We need quadrillions of quadrillions, every star in the galaxy surrounded by a K2 civilization, forming an incomprehensible number of sapient minds.