[coldtea]

There's no "fate" and no contract we've signed that guaranteers we're an interplanetary species.

It's just that we wish we could be in the stars, but wishing doesn't always make it so. And in some cases, wishing never makes it so.

Especially without installed bases, big haul ability, etc, it takes trillions and has zero to no returns (except the glory, curiosity, and scientific value) for companies to go to the planets, even more so to the nearest stars (which also can take decades).

So while satellites lunches can make a profit, there's not much financial incentive to go beyond (real, tangible, the kind somebody will invest in, not future prospects which might take 2-3 generations to even pan out), absent state funding them (Space-X style, paid by NASA/the government).

And contrary to popular belief, climate change problems will make it even more difficult to secure such space spending, not less (e.g. people will demand urgent Earth supports, states will go each to fight on its own survival, there will resource and trade wars, and so on).

[varjag]

This is absolutely not what the article was about.

"If we are staring out into a giant graveyard, it does not augur well for our own future. But if we were to detect advanced life forms elsewhere, it would give us hope that we can find a way out of our own crises."

[pfdietz]

Actually, detecting intelligent life out there would be the most horrible news we've ever received. It would mean the Great Filter that prevents colonization of the galaxy is before us, not behind us, and that we're almost certainly doomed to fall to it.

[Razengan]

If we die out here on our home (as far as we know) planet, then we didn’t “deserve” to colonize other planets anyway.

Isn’t that the point of natural selection after all?

[coldtea]

I don't think natural selection has a point, or the universe cares for us anymore than it cares for bacteria or inanimate matter.

[monkeynotes]

Although, natural selection does have a bias toward propagating and persisting information. Since the information is part of the universe I would say some of the universe exhibits intent. Bacteria is part of the life, inanimate matter became life, life is a vehicle of transmitting and persisting information.

To think about 'us' as something other than the universe is a folly. If we care, then part of the universe cares because we are part of the whole.

[TeMPOraL]

Propagating, yes. Persisting? Not necessarily - it depends on selection pressures.

[monkeynotes]

Any selection pressure is there to trial the data and persist the useful data. What is considered 'useful'? Well, that's an existential question that is synonymous to `what's the point to life`. I don't have the answer but there does seem to be an intent in the process.

[TeMPOraL]

I disagree. The process viewed at this level is closed over itself - the only criteria for what's useful is "whatever survives". There's no intent here - natural selection only amplifies the structure of the environment in which it happens.

[trevyn]

I think certain things feel pre-ordained for some, and like an unfolding of human destiny for others, because they are a tangible expression of common, shared human desires.

You’re right that economic and other concerns influence the specific timing, but I think the core human drives of growth and exploration are enough to drive us to the stars again in time, even without direct economic incentives.

[coldtea]

I think a lot of people get too hyped up by farfetched sci-fi ideas, than actually study the logistics.

Some still take the logistics of sending a small crew for a visit at the moon (which are still over the top, and we've still haven't managed to repeat in 50+ years) and wish them away through handwaving to "colonies on Mars" and "colonizing the stars".

(Meanwhile we have the far more human friendly oceans, right here on Earth, which we haven't colonized yet -- a common theme in the 70s --, and we seriously discuss man kind living on foreign planets and what have you, with 1000x the difficulties).

[TeMPOraL]

And then some tackle the logistics problems directly. There's plenty of scientific and semi-scientific literature considering the logistical issues in full; even hard sci-fi pays attention to it. Still, let's not begrudge people from getting inspired by science fiction too much; if people limited themselves to only ever considering the economic gains, the life would be much sadder.

> Meanwhile we have the far more human friendly oceans, right here on Earth, which we haven't colonized yet

Why not both?

Also, I'm not sure the difficulties are 1000x - some of the needs, especially those around closed-loop habitation, are essentially the same; simultaneously, the ocean is a PITA to explore, in a bunch of different but similarly problematic way as space. I'd buy a 10x factor. Ocean exploitation is also hindered by politics and justified fear of environmental damage. In space, there isn't much to damage.

[antisemiotic]

An Orion Drive spacecraft could easily carry an entire city block to orbit in one go, but the environmentalist killjoys don't want to hear about it.

[pfdietz]

I think it's just people projecting their personal desires into some kind of imagined property of humanity in general. It's a way to make those personal desires seem less selfish and frivolous.

[tomp]

Wishes make profit. What is the use of an iPhone beyond satisfying people's wishes? Yet Apple is a $1bn company.

[coldtea]

Products that fulfill wishes make profit.

Wishes by themselves don't make anything.

In other words, wishing it so doesn't make it so. It takes a lot of further action on top of the wishing.

[PeterisP]

Many people are willing to pay $1000 to satisfy their iPhone wishes. Not many people are willing to pay $1000 so that "we" (i.e. someone else) could be in the stars.

[idlewords]

And yet the iPhone doesn't work on the Moon. Explain that!

[TeMPOraL]

[citation needed]

I think there's a good chance it would boot, especially while still within the crew compartment of the lander.