[palata]

> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies.

I think this is a very naive take.

* We can't really live on another planet in the solar system. * Look at how far the next star is and realise that we won't get there anytime soon (probably at all). * What's the point of surviving on another planet, without any other species? * Without considering the risk of nuclear war, we are in the process of destroying life on Earth.

The resources we put on that project are mostly wasted. We should try to live on Earth, I hear it's a nice place.

[seabass-labrax]

I don't personally believe we should colonize other heavenly bodies because of a potential nuclear apocalypse, but the negation of that is no reason to abandon space travel either. Every time we have launched a mission into deep space we have learnt more as a species about what makes Earth 'tick'. We can also do a lot without actual space travel - maybe if more people had heeded the observations of the greenhouse effect on Venus in the 60s, for instance, we would have less of an issue cleaning up our own atmosphere now.

I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go.

[palata]

> maybe if more people had heeded the observations of the greenhouse effect on Venus in the 60s

We know pretty well what's happening on Earth and we have for decades. It's not like we just realised 5 years ago that we have a problem. We have not done anything (and we still aren't), but we knew, that's for sure.

> I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go.

In terms of survival as a species, anything that's not about solving our biodiversity and climate problems is a loss of time. I'm fine if some people work on it (just like it's good to have people working in art), but a lot of those researchers and engineers working on space exploration may actually be more useful to the species if they worked on the actual problems we have.

[nyc_data_geek1]

This precisely. We're in fact nowhere close to a sustainable off world human habitat, with all the inputs/outputs such requires, not to mention the ecosystem needed to sustain such in perpetuity.

If people are really interested in perpetuating "the light of consciousness" among the stars, they'd be working themselves to death to make life sustainable here on Earth, where we're from, which still presents far more hospitable conditions relative to anywhere else in the Universe we've so far identified. Say you're a billionaire with such an interest - wouldn't your funds be somewhat better directed ensuring we don't annihilate ourselves in a mad max hellscape locally, before we suffocate in the void when the O2 machine breaks down and we can't source replacement parts because Earth is now a wasteland?

The Great Filter is us, and so far, doesn't look like we're making it past.

[cynicalpeace]

I think this is a very naive take.

We could live on Mars. Just a matter of time. Let engineers iterate.

We would obviously bring species here at home with us to Mars. And then new species would flourish too.

[Manuel_D]

I don't think people understand just how un-feasible life on Mars would be. It's got 1% of the atmospheric pressure as Earth. It's -65 degrees Celsius. It'd be more feasible to try colonizing the Moon or Antarctica.

[cynicalpeace]

We have permanent presence in Antarctica. Depends on your exact definition of "colony", but a narrow definition of it is barred by international treaty, I think.

Moon is definitely a great first step. I originally said "other heavenly bodies".

You sound like someone in 1900 saying "We can't fly, we're too heavy" or "We can't be in space it's got 0% atmospheric pressure".

[Manuel_D]

Antartctica has a permanent presence that's totally dependent on regular supplies delivered from other continents. They don't grow their own crops, have their own industry.

We couldn't fly until the early 1900s, primarily because we didn't have engines with power to weight ratios sufficient for heavier-than-air flight. The concept of flight via the Bernoulli principle was known for a long time, and when engines improved people did start flying.

The lack of atmosphere on Mars largely prohibits any self sufficient colony. Colonies could be limited to pressurized habitats. But again, at that point we might as well focus on colonizing the moon which is much closer. I guess if we have a mechanism to somehow pump mars full of air, colonization would become more feasible. But it's a lot harder to work around the law of conservation of mass, than it is to improve internal combustion engines. No, it's not like people doubting the feasibilityy of heavier-than-air flight.

[porbelm]

We have an atmosphere.

[layer8]

Don’t forget the radiation.

[palata]

> It'd be more feasible to try colonizing the Moon

And just as useless.