[TeMPOraL]

> 1) We're not getting off this planet for centuries, if ever. Don't hold your breath. Doing this is MUCH harder than solving immortality, which probably is about as difficult as patching some stem cells.

It's not harder, it's much easier. Hell, it's somewhat within our current technological capabilities. It's just expensive and we have zero economic incentive to do it.

[astazangasta]

Sure, we can blast off and die in space of cold and asphyxiation. I assumed this meant 'move to inhabit another planet indefinitely in a manner that does not suck'.

[TeMPOraL]

I meant exactly that. We are technologically advanced enough to blast off to Mars and build a permanent settlement there. We just don't have the will (as measured in money - the unit of caring). Would the colony suck? Initially, probably yes. But hey, if we were to suddenly hit immortality tomorrow, we have enough space in deserts and oceans to inhabit before going to Mars that we'll be experts in self-contained settlements by the time colony ship reaches red planet's surface.

[eropple]

There is the "does not suck" part to consider, though. I have a hard time thinking of any parameters in which a current or nearish-future self-contained settlement would not, across many parameters, suck. Maybe it's a failure of imagination, but...I dunno.

[Vraxx]

I'm inclined to believe that the "sucking" part of it is a consequence of new technology and capabilities. It's rarely the case that something that is done for the first time is even remotely comparable in quality to the mass marketed refined implementation of that thing.

No matter what our technological capabilities are at the time of doing so, I believe the first colonies on other planets will "suck" by the standards of living of that era.