Comment on is this copium or hopium or schizophrenia?
AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I believe the first paragraph except colonizing space, at least not without hundreds of years of new technology at the human pace of invention.
We humans cannot even minimally adequately care for one another or this habitat, the one we evolved from, the most accommodating, self-correcting(to a point), resilient habitat that humanity will EVER know by far, and we’ve been fucking it up like breathing. .
Everything else in non-multigenerational reach will be completely and totally unforgiving. Even in the best circumstances, one person going stir crazy if we’re talking about sending real people can literally get everyone else killed, one major failure everybody dead, one major accident everybody dead. Sorry, I know most of us are deluded into believing salvation comes from reckless attempts at growth, but if we don’t get this world fully squared away from the consequences of our reckless actions, find homeostasis AND successfully meet the needs of the humans here on easy mode Earth, the idea that we can make colonies of hundreds or thousands on our Moon/Titan/Mars is a bad joke.
We can send 5-20 HIGHLY TRAINED perfect specimens to Mars to plant a flag and grow potatoes for a few years, and I’m all for that as a human rallying achievement, we really need one of those, but that isn’t the same thing as developing a true, sustainable presence on another world.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
I believe none except colonising space… The others are so far off that we don’t even know for sure if they’re even possible, what’s going to go wrong or whether we’re looking in the complete wrong direction, meanwhile you’re dismissing the only realistic one because we’re close enough that we actually know how hard it is.
There’s something to be said about chasing after things that are impossible as the possible seems too hard, but I’m not enough of a philosopher for that.
hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 6 months ago
Knowing how hard something is can be a larger barrier than not knowing. But the main barrier preventing space colonies is the same thing preventing ocean colonies — “Why?”. What motivation is there to settle space? Exploration and experimentation can be done for motivation of seeing if we can, but settling needs known payoff both for the settlers and the funders.
Asteroid mining is the only current suggested motivation for such a thing. And it’s very possible that by the time we figure out asteroid capture, we won’t need humans present for that work.
TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 6 months ago
You don't need to "capture" asteroids. You mine them in place and build heavy industry and everything you need in-situ. It's a hell of a lot easier to launch a new vessel off an asteroid than Earth. For some reason, people always think we'll be bringing these resources back to the surface of the Earth. That's wasteful, why do we want to throw them back into a gravity well?
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
Asteroid mining and space industry is a huge reason, and it’s the next logical step for humanity, especially since it means we can put dirty industry where nature and life doesn’t exist.
There are absurd amounts of resources in space, a lot of which are difficult to access or rare on earth. In addition, space can give opportunities for new forms of manufacturing, from being able to control the level of gravity due to weightlessness, to being surrounded by vacuum. Two things which are either very difficult or impossible to recreate on earth.