| It is generally considered impossible to prove a negative. Even if you can prove that something is not now the case, it is usually not possible to prove that it will never happen. Therefore, the burden of proof is usually assigned, fairly objectively, to the argument that makes a positive claim, e.g., that something will happen or something is true, etc. In this case, the claims are: 1) I believe space faring technology will advance enough to the point that humans will be able to leave our planet permanently, and 2) I am skeptical of 1. Two is like the null hypothesis. This cannot be proven; it is the default until #1 is proven. Therefore, #1 should objectively have the burden of proof. Kind of like how financial disclaimers will include something like "past performance is not proof of future results". It's not that the claim that "technology will continue to progress forward" is wrong. I think it's a reasonable belief. But that is not itself proof that it will continue on. Reasonableness of a claim is not proof of its truth. Intuition is not very good evidence. Even if we assume that technological progress will be effectively infinite, that doesn't mean that any specific technology will come to exist. |