Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is important to understand differences: The future of humanity is not only on earth. Too much risk, too limited resources. HOWEVER the future of humanity in space is NOT "tomorrow we lift off a giant spaceship with everyone on it." If we survive a few hundred years we might see some amount of human civilization outside of earth, but for many hundreds of years after more practical space tech comes about mos…
>The future of humanity is not only on earth. Where are you going to go? Outside of Earth, there is no place for us in the entire Solar System. Sure we may build some research stations here and there, just as we did in inhospitable places on Earth (like Antarctica), but there's no long-term option anywhere. Interstellar travel is science fiction, but even if it wasn't, there is no place for us to go as well.
It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
131–140 of 325 posts
Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#132I don't know, I can't help but feel like nearly all of our solutions to contemporary problems involve space travel, specifically self-contained space travel (i.e., when spaceships become within an order of magnitude as affordable as houses or automobiles.) The universe is essentially limitless from a human point of view, so to be perpetually stuck on Earth seems like a failure of perspective. - Oppressive government…
Yeah in a perfect world maybe. The problem is that we're facing issues on a relatively short term here and if we don't manage to solve them there will be no way out. If stopping the current destruction of our home planet is 1/100 difficulty, terraforming Mars would be 90/100, leaving the solar system for an already hospitable planet would be 101/100. We're much better are polluting and creating useless gadgets than w…
In other words, forcing the entire world to address some contemporary issues (like overpopulation, for example) might be more difficult than just accelerating the production process that makes space colonization possible (thus solving the problem).
> Migrants can't pay for proper boats to cross the Mediterranean but they'll pay for interplanetary travel ?
I had in mind more the early settlers to America, and early frontier America itself really. When "leaving Earth civilization" becomes conceivably affordable/doable for a small group of people and/or with investment, it will happen.
Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#133Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that great advancements have cost. The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. If people start to think that space exploration could yield a solution to an increasingly uninhabitable climate on Earth, it could create a scenario where we spend even more on space exploration and less on addressing Earth's climate.
If Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk (while Elon isn't posting moronic nonsense on Twitter) would take all the money they've invested in their pet projects trying to colonize Mars and the like and directly invested it in local programs to get some of the worst areas in the USA affected by homelessness fixed, it would likely have a greater impact on more peoples lives than what they're doing now IMO.
Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a powerful argument for 'we must be alone', because it's an equally powerful argument for 'space colonization is nearly impossible.' You're saying things are "certainly possible" but you don't have a shred of evidence to support that belief. It's more likely that you're vastly underestimating the cost of maintaining a life-supporting ecosystem independent of the benefits of a billions of years of evolutionar…
That thinking is about a decade out of date. The number of expolanets that are in the habitable zone grows geometrically. Some think every star has some planets. Simple chance makes it possible to find agreeable destinations nearly everywhere. And 'evolutionary adaptation' is irrelevant. We can change ourselves (are changing ourselves) genetically already. That will only increase. The result will be a species more ad…
All of the resiliency that you've seen in life is due to the fact that the environments to which we're adapted are uniform. Oceans everywhere are nontoxic and water. Air everywhere is mostly clean and breathable. There is no example of life being resilient under conditions as varied as other planets. We are only able to adapt within the confines of our clean-room Earth. We can't even adapt to the bottom of the ocean or Antarctica.
Optimism isn't going to overcome 6 orders of magnitude of error.
Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#136Earth is a graveyard of species. Looking at the geological record, more than 99% of species that ever existed here have gone extinct [1]. Overwhelming majority of them long before we showed up. And in any case, this planet will not support life forever [2]. Believing we have no destiny outside Earth is believing we have no destiny at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#137Unfortunately it looks like when we finally make it as a space-borne species, we won't be going as humans or Earthlings but as Americans or Chinese or Russians or... and carry our conflicts out into the solar system as well.
Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#138> Indeed, the idea that technological developments will solve all of our problems —eventually allowing us to leave Earth — is instrumental to political mobilization on behalf of the powers that be. It helps to perpetuate the current socio-economic system that is designed for the one percent to stay in power and the working class to stay working. Sorry to say, but almost EVERYTHING big that happens on this planet help…
I agree that they made some big leaps when turning this into a narrative, but I think there's truth to the basic premise that focusing too much on a hypothetical future amongst the stars - which at best would be harsh, difficult, and miserable - serves as a distraction against the very real and very urgent and very solvable problems facing our species and habitat as it exists right now. Even if we managed interstella…
"Nothing human makes it out of the near future."
Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#139Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth
#140One way to look at the dream of escaping the planet and colonizing space is in mythological terms. One comparison in particular is good and this is the idea of the afterlife or heaven which for centuries were as real and attainable as a Mars colony to you and I.
For advanced technocultural civilizations and the religious institutions that hold them together it seems that an imaginary place of escape automatically becomes normalized into existence.
The illusion grows proportionally to the sense of futility that individuals feel as a social structure calcifies around the protection of class hierarchy. The consequent protective buffer against meaningful experience of complex ecology and culture that results is the proverbial bottle which constrains the human spirit, until it is ready to explode in unrealistic directions.
So the suffering and anxiety of individuals trapped in a top-heavy social structure lends energy and reality to unrealistic visions.
Thus we dream of terraforming mars while in the midst of terrastroying earth into an unlivable nightmare, mass extinction, unbalanced population growth, global chemistry change, etc.
Like, we can't even prevent our rainforests from being raised, losing countless complex organic systems forever, yet we imagine ourselves spawning new life on distant planets.
And the destruction of our own planet is made possible with only the tiny drops of energy we can dig out of the ground. What will become of our planet surface when we have tapped the energy of the sun in earnest?
That said, if we do survive the current paradigm, and do manage to protect our surface biofilm or otherwise survive the next few hundred years, nothing will prevent us from colonizing the solar system and beyond. But we are ahead of ourselves, and that's the result of poor social/cultural order.
There's some irony there. The engine of malcontent that destroys us also propels is forward.
However it's safe to say that most of the energy and excitement we feel for terraforming planets and exploring space right now ought to be redirected towards building a conservationist earth culture that can support slow technological accretion and a long-term template for extra planetary adventures. Heaven is real but it takes real work to get there.