Greta Thunberg

Yeah, this is one of those things where most people tell me it's not possible, and then I realize I'm probably thinking on a longer timescale than they are. How can anyone possibly say "no" when we have no idea what technologies might be developed in 100 years (which is not long). How can any intelligent human, looking at history, write off colonizing other planets like that? I'm not saying it's a "next step" move.

Mel, were we given one planet, or were we given a solar system? I watched a documentary called "21st century race for space" where someone points out just that. Once, we couldn't just boat and fly around to other land masses. Things change. Never say never.

@wooleeheron don't you think a lower population would give the planet a chance to recover?

 

About two billion people would ideal for our planet, but there is already enough inert plastic alone in the environment to kill us all within fifty years or so. We are killing the entire planet in just about every way imaginable, and discovering all the ways we are killing ourselves at the last moment. There's no sense in reducing our population, if we continue to kill every living thing on the planet. In fact, I doubt there will be a need to deliberately reduce our population, because fertility rates are already dropping as population growth slows, right along with IQs and life expectancy.

We needed a theory of everything half a century ago, but better late then never. My real concern is with helping our children to choose a different path, and encouraging those insisting on destroying the planet to die off that much faster, so their own children have a chance to live. Using self-organizing systems logics, it should be rather easy to do. I can't make people's choices for them, and sitting back and doing nothing and allowing things to continue as they are is not a viable option. My work can also be used to create a Woody Allan style "Orgasmitron" and the idiots can die younger, but happier, if that's all that matters to them.

I'm sure it will be a big hit with Fundamentalists and televangelists, as well as, academics. They can blame each other all they want for the world's problems, and help to fund cleaning up the mess, as they kill each other and themselves and reproduce less often. The progressives attempted to teach the southern farmers how to avoid soil erosion and the Great Dust Bowl, and they just laughed and insisted they knew what they were doing, while the academics are still insisting 300 million people voting for whichever clown argues the most, rigged elections, and a shredded constitution are still worth dying for, if you can get a good job with more pay. So, I want to encourage them to exercise their free will.

When is instant karma no longer just a joke? Whenever nobody is laughing and it just so happens to have practical applications. Anyway, its out of my hands, I'm just the hack that writes the analog logic exploring the metaethics and physics, while mother nature will ensure everybody gets what they deserve, including a chance to do things differently. My book will show millions of people with knowledge of the subject, how to wake people up to the reality of our situation, but the only way to do that is to give them a clear choice. The risk must be as great as the reward, otherwise, its not much of a choice.

 

I didnt say it was impossible, I just said we shouldnt. It isnt right that we destroy the planet because we fancy ourselves the captains of the ship, and then we abandon the ship. It isnt fair to light a match and watch it burn and then we just get to leave while everything else burns.
And if we have the capability to advance to the level of space colonization in 100 years we also have the capability to fix this planet.
And also what I said about humans leaving a trail of trash in space. We have no business colonizing any other place before we stop being such nasty little consumers

 

This isn't the only scenario though.
I did not imply trashing this planet and moving on.
I mean to see the solar system as one place, that we inhabit. We treasure and protect Earth, of course. Just like we expanded to populate other islands doesn't mean we don't remain and keep populating and loving the island we started out on.

 

The sad truth is, colonizing planets is still science fiction. All the evidence indicates even a few years in low gravity starts to significantly impact your health negatively, in a wide variety of ways nobody understands yet, and we've never even tested a rotating spaceship to see if that will suffice as a substitute for gravity. My own understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that we may require artificial gravity, which we still don't even know for sure is possible. Not on the scale that would be required. On Mars, for example, you would only weigh 38% of what you do on earth, which is not a tiny difference and could require an enormous amount of power to produce for all anyone knows. Venus is much closer to earth and much closer to earth gravity, but is hot enough to melt lead and has acid for rain.

People who know almost nothing about the reality of the situation, should stop making wild speculations, because we need more real answers and fewer distractions.

 

I wasnt implying that you were implying that lol.
Just giving my take on it.

I just dont really think you can say humanity has loved and treasured the earth while in the same breath suggest we leave it because we're destroying it

If you're suggesting space exploration for other reasons that's all fine and good, but as an escape because we're making our current planet inhabitable...I just cant get behind that

 

Aside from Mars, I've never even heard the idea of colonizing any other planets. From my understanding, the most likely candidates in our solar system that are potentially hospitable for life and we could possibly colonize would be moons, notably Titan, a moon of Saturn and a few others around Jupiter and Saturn to a lesser extent.

 

That's only a billion miles away, while it would take 3 months and untold billions of dollars just to reach Mars with current technology, which is a mere 33 million miles away. They would have to surround the ship with a plasma electromagnetic field to deflect most of the radiation, and have a radiation proof shelter in the middle of ship for them to use during solar flares, just to get to Mars. You can't make the entire ship out of thicker metal to shield from the radiation, because it would just become radioactive that much faster.

There is a reason nobody has gone to Mars yet. India just sent up their first lunar probe, which crashed on the surface. The US makes these things look easy, but only because we spend enormous amounts of money on them and don't attempt anything insane. Evil Kenevil wouldn't last a day in space.

 

I realize these are probes and not comparable to a human spaceship but still assuming technology progresses and stuff...

 

NASA has been soliciting suggestions from around the world for next gen propulsions systems for over a decade and is even working on a warp drive and, assuming someone produces a theory of everything tomorrow, it will still require half a century to develop all the rest of the technology to get there. Its not a freaking tin can you shoot out of a water gun. Going to the moon and into orbit was the equivalent of inventing the first diving bell to explore the oceans.

 

You're still misunderstanding me...

I don't mean as a second go, or an escape.. I mean we should love it, keep living on it, and just ease the pressure by moving to the moon as well. Of course I take on board all Woo's points about how hard it would be, etc. Maybe it is too hard, I don't know. But I don't mean it as a concept anything le hpw you seem to be taking it.. They're in the same breath because loving this planet, and moving out into the solar system are both things we are not doing which we should. You say you weren't implying I'd implied what I denied implying... Then continued as if I was still saying that.. The idea you can't get behind is far from what I'm implying.

If the entire human race was on one land mass and was getting crowded and running out of resources, I'd be saying let's spread out to other land masses.. Not meaning, let's ALL escape from this place we've ruined to this new place.

 

As Woolie already hinted at, 'we' can't easily shrink global population as it are other countries that are grossly overpopulated. I think technological innovation opens up more possibilities.

Ok, it is already expanded on but I also wanna emphasize it IS an option on the long term. Only if it is invested in now though. And it will not be in terms of terraforming other planets, but colonies where people live inside like the ISS (except with some kind of gravity i expect ). Colonizing parts of our solar system should be pictured more like living in a moonbase, not like living on earth.
It should also be considered as an option for heavy industry (already seriously thought of and worked on since there's a lot of resources like metals and stuff to be mined), and it's better to have heavy polluting industry on some space colony than on earth

Uhm, there's unlikely to be any life near us in space. Nothing suffers by exploiting, and even polluting, the crap out of the rest of our solar system. We should not go into space because we fucked up Earth beyond repair, we should get into space, partly, to avoid it! But also because it offers a lot of opportunities. It's pretty much stupid not to invest in space exploration and exploitation. Exploitation may have a negative connotation but really, most of space is deadly cold and literally lifeless.

 

You said there were only two solutions, to reduce population control or leave the earth. So if I've misunderstood you it's because you did initially bring this up as a solution to the climate crisis, you specifically said solution

It isnt important though, my bad for misunderstanding

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's just that my thoughts specific to treating space exploration as a solution to climate change and finite resources is, we just shouldnt.
If you're talking about space exploration in other terms then I'm there for it
Well not me personally, I wouldnt want to live in space. But I'm here for other people doing it

 

Sorry, it's me not being clear.
I do mean it as a solution.. But as in, make our home larger, not abandon it.
How would it solve anything if we ALL left? : )

 

You're joking right? You cant seriously be arguing that humans are fine to pollute and exploit other planets
Yikes asmo

Anyways as far as the rest of your post, again I'm not arguing against space exploration in general.

 

I'm not against it if humans figure out a way of doing it without leaving a trail of trash and pollution behind them in space

 

They're dead objects. As long as it doesn't get to any living creature or effects them indirectly what's the problem? Seriously. Tell me what's the issue.

 

I'm legit dumbfounded you're taking this position

Human activity always has unintended consequences. We didnt know carbon emissions were bad either because we couldnt see it.
Humans are short sighted, stupid creatures sometimes
And you know debris from space can enter the earth's atmosphere, it isnt always just lost in infinite space.
The ocean seemed big too until we filled it with our trash

 

I'm not onboard with the pollution idea but exploiting other planets is essentially a necessary step in technological advancement for a stellar civilization.

 

Oceans are on earth, carbon emissions are in earths atmosphere. Asteroids surf by and the nearest planet can be seriously fucked up without any consequence for anybody. I know it sounds bad; fucking another planet up, but if its totally void of any life what's the freaking issue? This is THE advantage of a lot of exploitation in space: no consequence for any living being, intelligent or microscopic.