this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
81 points (96.6% liked)

Asklemmy

49815 readers
927 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] superkret@feddit.org 71 points 9 months ago (1 children)

C) keep the planet we have habitable

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 23 points 9 months ago (9 children)

our planet could easily be wiped by a number of things. if we dont plan for a planetary catastrophe out of our control, our species is doomed.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)

a planetary catastrophe out of our control

You're still describing climate change. Science fiction ideas are fun to think about but our own inability to live harmoniously with nature is going to kill us off before any of those problems become relevant.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

youre still not thinking astronomically. you need to think bigger. i like to at least pretend out technology advances.

[–] variants@possumpat.io 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I was kind of surprised that comet that's been visible at night was only discovered like a year ago. Crazy to think that would be the warning time of anything coming to hit us

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.kya.moe 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Humanity can easily survive a KT extinction event. Sure, 99.999% of us will die, but tens of thousands will still survive.

[–] DrinkMonkey@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If I use your math of 99.999% dying, only ~80,000 people will survive, not millions…

[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.kya.moe 3 points 9 months ago

Thanks, updated comment

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If we can't manage to keep Earth's ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won't be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there's no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.

Without some serious (currently impossible) terraforming, Mars colonies are limited to deep caves or heavily shielded buildings, no outside to relax, nowhere else to go. Have a look at the list of crimes in Antarctica, a similar situation where people are stuck together, that's not a good environment for mental health, and it will be worse farther away. A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?

[–] KevinFromSpace@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we can’t manage to keep Earth’s ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won’t be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there’s no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.

I'm unconvinced that pulling back from space programs will make Earth's ecosystem thrive.

A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?

Agreed. That would be a super-weird concept, like a country owned by a private corporation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Launch Billionaires into deep space without supplies

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 13 points 9 months ago

Men will do anything other than go to therapy.

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

D) Move manufacturing and other dirty processes off planet and live here.

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes.

Seriously, we should be doing both as long term space habitats can serve as a way to reduce the cost of moving cargo around.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 11 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If we can do B, A doesn't provide many benefits.

A 1km diameter, 30km cylinder would provide enough area to feed ~140k people. 95km^2 of space.

That is assuming no imported food etc, based on 7000m^2 per person which is almost 2 acres each.

140k people is a small city.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Habitats are risky and not as good as planets imo. It would be trivially simply to sabotage one and kill everyone inside. Just vent atmo into space, poison the air/water, and even a accidental fire could kill everyone who doesnt manage to flee.. Planets not so easy. Some of the same attacks work but u can just walk elsewhere.

plus in a habitat your not really thinking of psychological effects. Its been shown for example that humans needs to see big bodies of water regularly to not get stressed out. So youd need to devote significant space onboard to just that. Plus imagine never seeing the mountains again, or a sunset, or the ocean. The earth is intrinsically linked to our evolution and many of its features are far too big to have on a habitat. I mean not to mention all the microbiomes we interact with unknowingly on earth all the time.

While habitats might be an ok solution for some people there are definitely things we will always need a planet for and imo a planet will always be superior in quality of life.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

We should be exploring both options, exploration can often lead to unexpected discoveries and technological advancement.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why not both?

I'm guessing B will happen first, just because we have so much more control of the environment, but we're still so far away from either one... Maybe I'll get to see the early stages sometime in my life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gabadabs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why? Nice planet we've got here, we could focus on preventing it becoming inhabitable due to climate change instead.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No matter what you do the Earth won't stay habitable forever. So we either learn to expand out into space as a species or face extinction eventually. Not to mention putting all our eggs in one basket is a terrible idea. Any cosmological event could wipe out the Earth at any time. The question is are you okay with our entire species going with it?

There needs to be a backup, ideally multiple.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Space colonies. That way they can be dropped to earth to start colony independence wars.

[–] AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Europa tea party!!!!!!!

[–] mosscap@slrpnk.net 8 points 9 months ago

How about we focus our efforts on unshittifying Earth first, eh?

[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 9 months ago

Porque no los dos?

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

All of the above. But start with cleaning up this planet. Build better / more sustainable and more diverse communities and energy production. Build arcologies in the arctic, deserts, oceans. Those are good β€œpractice” for building the same off planet.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

Fix our own planet first

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 9 months ago

A quote attributed to a few people, Heinlein and Pournelle for two, "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." Both space and planets have shared and their separate problems to solve. In my head I prefer the image of most populations moving into habitats in space, customized to their preferences, with smaller settlements on various bodies for their own purposes. In my realistic view I don't see us getting that far before we get bogged down with all the problems we've created on this planet. The window to a permanent space civilization might have already shut. A sad thing, as a 70s kid I grew up convinced we were full speed into some version of what scifi had sold to me.

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Actually, both.

[–] RandomStickman@fedia.io 4 points 9 months ago

After reading A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith I think a O'Neill Cylinder spinning spaceship for artificial gravity type is more achievable than planarity colonisation.

But the main point of the book, and I am fairly convinced of the more I think about it, is that it is a lot of effort and risk for not a lot of gain and we are entirely unprepared for space colonisation.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 4 points 9 months ago

Neither. There's plenty of room and resources here on Earth. I think it's fine to do space exploration and even have research bases on moons and other planets, but I just don't see the imperative for colonization.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago
[–] muzzle@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Genetically modify ourselves so that we can live both in zero gravity (and maybe survive short exposure to vacuum) and on other planets.

[–] Raffster@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

How to survive in space: Develop ways to survive in space only first. Once you manage that all the other problems are trivial compared and you don't have a single point of failure (aka our planet) anymore. Isn't that obvious?

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don’t think space habitats any significant distance from Earth will be possible. Mitigating the increased radiation will be tough enough just trying to get to Mars, much less trying to stay in space out that far. At least on Mars we can hang out in old lava tubes or something.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.kya.moe 2 points 9 months ago

If we are capable of doing one, then we can do both.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Both! All three!

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί