Habitable planets are the ultimate scarce resource. Once the earth is full we’ll have to find a way to move and there’s less than 5 good options in this solar system. In time they’ll be full too.
Not at all, first our population will never exceed 11 billion, and most developed countries are in a demographic crisis. There is no sign of this trend reversing anywhere.
Second, what does 'earth is full' even mean? We have vast swaths of 'useless' land, like arctic and desert. Cities/towns/anything cover like
1% of the world. It is easier to desalinate water / build cities and greenhouses in deserts than it is to move people to another planet. We could host a lot more people if we adopted some serious geoengineering and built greenhouses /ate less meat.
Thirdly, travel to another star system requires insane amounts of energy, and could only be done by civilisations that already have enormous space infrastructure and industry. In which case you build habitats like we build skyscrapers, you can terraform, etc. In that case you don't need or want to ship billions of people to another star system.
> Habitable planets are the ultimate scarce resource.
Are they? That was once a common belief, but recent results in extrasolar planet searching would tend to contradict it, or at least cast it into serious doubt.
> Once the earth is full we’ll have to find a way to move
Will we? It's quite possible we'll see humanity's maximum population within the next century. Malthusianism didn't really survive contact with modernity; it turns out that most people don't particularly _want_ to have fifteen children, and as countries develop their population tends to become self-limiting. Wholesale emigration off earth feels like a very unlikely solution to population pressure, especially given that society seems to be automatically solving it.
And if we have the energy to lift billions of people off earth, we also have the energy to massively increase population density. Food, in particular, is ultimately largely a question of energy; we typically grow it in fields today, but given super-cheap energy there are other options.
If we've got the technology to travel between stars, we've probably also got the tech to leave planets behind entirely, or to terraform, or to adapt ourselves to conditions.
The only logical path is to download our brains onto computers, which will happen before that point. Once that technology exists, that's the only form of life that will dominate. Robots, nano-machines and hyper-intelligences will blow easily damaged flesh with finite lifespans. Habitable regions would be massively expanded.
I understand the criticism but I think that moment will come LONG before we start effectively colonizing or terraforming the other planets. Id bet a LOT of money on that.
I've never forgotten the scene in the OSC short story "Fat Farm", in which the protagonist's mind has been copied to his clone, which clone has left the facility to "continue" to enjoy his fine life, and the protagonist realizes he hasn't thought about what comes next. The answer is grim.
A consciousness might awake in the machine, but it won't be my consciousness.
I think about this a lot. The answer, I think, is No, the distinction does not matter.
The consciousness in the machine will think "Wow this worked!" and go on with life in the machine. The original consciousness (you) will say "well that was dull - look at that machine consciousness having all the fun inside the machine."
But now extend the metaphor. Is there really any difference - in your perspective as the original consciousness - between the consciousness in the machine (your copy) and the consciousness next to you? (Your wife, husband, friend, brother, or sister). Or the consiousness across the street? Or any other consciousness that's not you? Each has its own set of memories that gives it a sense of self. Each sees the world outward from its own perspective.
So really, is there any difference at all? Either they're all totally different...or maybe they're all the same......
Second, what does 'earth is full' even mean? We have vast swaths of 'useless' land, like arctic and desert. Cities/towns/anything cover like 1% of the world. It is easier to desalinate water / build cities and greenhouses in deserts than it is to move people to another planet. We could host a lot more people if we adopted some serious geoengineering and built greenhouses /ate less meat.
Thirdly, travel to another star system requires insane amounts of energy, and could only be done by civilisations that already have enormous space infrastructure and industry. In which case you build habitats like we build skyscrapers, you can terraform, etc. In that case you don't need or want to ship billions of people to another star system.