Should Humanity expand to the Stars? II

[Equality of Nations]

I'm not sure how you get from 1 to "functionally infinite resources on earth", because as you say, that's not sufficient... but is the status quo here on Earth. Other than things we've shot into space and materials we've transmuted in fission reactors, everthing that started on Earth is still here. (Other than quibbles about natural fluxes involving incoming comets, etc.)

Nor are those the only choices, as you say. A colony could import materials to meet growth, which may or may not be regular, or to meet increased demand on the same basis.

Moreover, Earth's gravity well is the big one we worry about. Importing materials from the Moon is (on a potential energy basis) much easier. But that's not such a big deal, since one reason people are seriously considering expanding into the solar system is to import materials from elsewhere (asteroidal platinum-group elements, for example). So, in that sense, an O'Niell colony is no worse than living on the ground. "Close enough" recycling, plus imports to meet population growth and increasing material wealth may be good enough.

As you may notice, we are exhausting resources on earth. That is not an option in space. The moon has shit all resources of use. It's either Earth or Mars for most things.

We need to make use of our resources more efficiently. Because otherwise, we will devour our solar system and isolate ourselves in it. Even space can't have enough resources if we keep on wasting our resources and also overpopulate our planet.

[Trotskylvania]

I'm not sure how you get from 1 to "functionally infinite resources on earth", because as you say, that's not sufficient... but is the status quo here on Earth. Other than things we've shot into space and materials we've transmuted in fission reactors, everthing that started on Earth is still here. (Other than quibbles about natural fluxes involving incoming comets, etc.)

Nor are those the only choices, as you say. A colony could import materials to meet growth, which may or may not be regular, or to meet increased demand on the same basis.

Moreover, Earth's gravity well is the big one we worry about. Importing materials from the Moon is (on a potential energy basis) much easier. But that's not such a big deal, since one reason people are seriously considering expanding into the solar system is to import materials from elsewhere (asteroidal platinum-group elements, for example). So, in that sense, an O'Niell colony is no worse than living on the ground. "Close enough" recycling, plus imports to meet population growth and increasing material wealth may be good enough.

As you may notice, we are exhausting resources on earth. That is not an option in space. The moon has shit all resources of use. It's either Earth or Mars for most things.

I'm just going to put my entire response here. Because you seem to be arguing from a severe misunderstanding.

The Earth is a tiny percentage of the mass of the solar system. And in fact, for many elements the Earth is actually a pretty poor source. Your average asteroid has orders of magnitude higher percentage of most metals than the Earth's crust. The Lunar regolith is very rich in aluminum, iron, silicates, and potassium, and also offers one of the only non-gas giant means of harvesting significant quantities of Helium-3, which is highly attractive for its role in aneutronic fusion. Lunar craters hold significant water ice, as do many asteroids.

It can be found in space. And when you're dealing with low gravity, air-less moons and asteroids, transit costs are tiny compared to crawling out of the Earth's gravity well.

Living in space, and harvesting the resources, both in terms of minerals as well as volatiles necessary for sustaining organic biochemistry is feasible with current technology. The problem has always been getting to space.

[Salandriagado]

As you may notice, we are exhausting resources on earth. That is not an option in space. The moon has shit all resources of use. It's either Earth or Mars for most things.

I'm just going to put my entire response here. Because you seem to be arguing from a severe misunderstanding.

The Earth is a tiny percentage of the mass of the solar system. And in fact, for many elements the Earth is actually a pretty poor source. Your average asteroid has orders of magnitude higher percentage of most metals than the Earth's crust. The Lunar regolith is very rich in aluminum, iron, silicates, and potassium, and also offers one of the only non-gas giant means of harvesting significant quantities of Helium-3, which is highly attractive for its role in aneutronic fusion. Lunar craters hold significant water ice, as do many asteroids.

It can be found in space. And when you're dealing with low gravity, air-less moons and asteroids, transit costs are tiny compared to crawling out of the Earth's gravity well.

Living in space, and harvesting the resources, both in terms of minerals as well as volatiles necessary for sustaining organic biochemistry is feasible with current technology. The problem has always been getting to space.

I note how you listed literally zero of the resources that we discussed.

[Bluelight-R006]

Just heard that the US’ space agencies are going back to the Moon. So excited for what’s going to happen. I guess that’s one step to the future.

[Sovaal]

As you may notice, we are exhausting resources on earth. That is not an option in space. The moon has shit all resources of use. It's either Earth or Mars for most things.

We need to make use of our resources more efficiently. Because otherwise, we will devour our solar system and isolate ourselves in it. Even space can't have enough resources if we keep on wasting our resources and also overpopulate our planet.

The asteroid belt has more resources then we could use in thousands of years. Space is a big place with a lot of stuff in it. Hell, a single asteroid would have more metals than we've ever mined on earth in hisotry.

[Trotskylvania]

I'm just going to put my entire response here. Because you seem to be arguing from a severe misunderstanding.

The Earth is a tiny percentage of the mass of the solar system. And in fact, for many elements the Earth is actually a pretty poor source. Your average asteroid has orders of magnitude higher percentage of most metals than the Earth's crust. The Lunar regolith is very rich in aluminum, iron, silicates, and potassium, and also offers one of the only non-gas giant means of harvesting significant quantities of Helium-3, which is highly attractive for its role in aneutronic fusion. Lunar craters hold significant water ice, as do many asteroids.

It can be found in space. And when you're dealing with low gravity, air-less moons and asteroids, transit costs are tiny compared to crawling out of the Earth's gravity well.

Living in space, and harvesting the resources, both in terms of minerals as well as volatiles necessary for sustaining organic biochemistry is feasible with current technology. The problem has always been getting to space.

I note how you listed literally zero of the resources that we discussed.

You never listed any resources. You just talked about "resources" from an unwarranted position of superiority. Any base element that can be found on Earth can be found on asteroids or the moon. From there, it's just a matter of chemistry to make what we need to support life in space.

[Salandriagado]

I note how you listed literally zero of the resources that we discussed.

You never listed any resources. You just talked about "resources" from an unwarranted position of superiority. Any base element that can be found on Earth can be found on asteroids or the moon. From there, it's just a matter of chemistry to make what we need to support life in space.

You did. And if we have a molecular assembler, then we are again already living in a science fiction utopia, so reality does not apply.

[Ashlak]

I very much think we should. I love the idea of humanity terraforming and colonizing barren planets.

[The Ides of March]

Humanity should expand its technological and scientific capabilities for the betterment of our societies. Does expanding to the stars seem like a way to solve humanity's problems at this moment? It does not. So, no.

[Equality of Nations]

We need to make use of our resources more efficiently. Because otherwise, we will devour our solar system and isolate ourselves in it. Even space can't have enough resources if we keep on wasting our resources and also overpopulate our planet.

The asteroid belt has more resources then we could use in thousands of years. Space is a big place with a lot of stuff in it. Hell, a single asteroid would have more metals than we've ever mined on earth in hisotry.

You may be right. But, to increase our chances of discovering a way for a rapid interstellar transportation, i think we still need to use our resources more efficiently.

[Sernarbia]

Humanity should expand its technological and scientific capabilities for the betterment of our societies. Does expanding to the stars seem like a way to solve humanity's problems at this moment? It does not. So, no.

Because humanity cant multitask.

[The Ides of March]

Humanity should expand its technological and scientific capabilities for the betterment of our societies. Does expanding to the stars seem like a way to solve humanity's problems at this moment? It does not. So, no.

Because humanity cant multitask.

I couldn't care less if it can multitask or not, if something is not beneficial in a great degree to the betterment of society and uses wealth and strength that could be used for that purpose then I think it is just a petty wet dream of a select few and not what truly has the interests of humanity at mind ...try first ending world hunger and then begin expanding to the stars.

[Balucistan]

It makes sense, earth won’t last forever. We just don’t have the tech yet.

[The Ides of March]

It makes sense, earth won’t last forever. We just don’t have the tech yet.

Earth will last longer than humanity. Besides, it's in our hands to sustain earth's habitability for as long as we want.

[Purpelia]

It makes sense, earth won’t last forever. We just don’t have the tech yet.

Earth will last longer than humanity. Besides, it's in our hands to sustain earth's habitability for as long as we want.

This is pretty much true. Especially if fusion power ever pans out. Still there is no good reason not to also expand into space if for no other reason than the abundance of resources up there that would allow us to turn Earth into a paradise where everyone is rich or, if you want to go all out, move the population into paradise like space habitats and turn the entire planet into a giant national park.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

We have to. Our resources will be stretched to the limit, or even over-stretched in the future. And not enough for everyone.

It makes sense, earth won’t last forever. We just don’t have the tech yet.

Well, I guess we need to make more funds for space agencies to calculate the nearest, most survivable planet and equipped the astronauts with the technologies necessary to make the planet survivable and hospitable for humanity. Considering we already have the tech to send astronauts and let them walk on the Moon, it's not far-fetched to assume we can have the same tech in the 2020s, but more advanced.

[The Ides of March]

Earth will last longer than humanity. Besides, it's in our hands to sustain earth's habitability for as long as we want.

This is pretty much true. Especially if fusion power ever pans out. Still there is no good reason not to also expand into space if for no other reason than the abundance of resources up there that would allow us to turn Earth into a paradise where everyone is rich or, if you want to go all out, move the population into paradise like space habitats and turn the entire planet into a giant national park.

And I'm wholeheartedly in favour of that endeavour ..perhaps even turning our nice moon into a gigantic industrial area and keeping our Earth a pure agrarian world. But these endeavors are far ahead of us and not what we should strive for at the moment.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

This is pretty much true. Especially if fusion power ever pans out. Still there is no good reason not to also expand into space if for no other reason than the abundance of resources up there that would allow us to turn Earth into a paradise where everyone is rich or, if you want to go all out, move the population into paradise like space habitats and turn the entire planet into a giant national park.

And I'm wholeheartedly in favour of that endeavour ..perhaps even turning our nice moon into a gigantic industrial area and keeping our Earth a pure agrarian world. But these endeavors are far ahead of us and not what we should strive for at the moment.

What we should strive on, then?

Also, great flag. Kaiserreich replaced it, though.

[Dooom35796821595]

Because humanity cant multitask.

I couldn't care less if it can multitask or not, if something is not beneficial in a great degree to the betterment of society and uses wealth and strength that could be used for that purpose then I think it is just a petty wet dream of a select few and not what truly has the interests of humanity at mind ...try first ending world hunger and then begin expanding to the stars.

It advances a variety of technology in a variety of ways, and has a net economic benefit to the nation operating the space program. So yes, space programs are beneficial.

And solving world hunger is a meme.

[The Ides of March]

And I'm wholeheartedly in favour of that endeavour ..perhaps even turning our nice moon into a gigantic industrial area and keeping our Earth a pure agrarian world. But these endeavors are far ahead of us and not what we should strive for at the moment.

What we should strive on, then?

Also, great flag. Kaiserreich replaced it, though.

Creating an energy source that could be shared by the people like Tesla intended? Ending world hunger perhaps? Now these are something science could help solve instead of dreaming about the stars and spending millions on.

[The Ides of March]

I couldn't care less if it can multitask or not, if something is not beneficial in a great degree to the betterment of society and uses wealth and strength that could be used for that purpose then I think it is just a petty wet dream of a select few and not what truly has the interests of humanity at mind ...try first ending world hunger and then begin expanding to the stars.

It advances a variety of technology in a variety of ways, and has a net economic benefit to the nation operating the space program. So yes, space programs are beneficial.

And solving world hunger is a meme.

I do not really care about the nations operating those space programmes as I do not consider them responsible guides of our societies.

To someone who has never experienced it perhaps it is.

[Dooom35796821595]

It advances a variety of technology in a variety of ways, and has a net economic benefit to the nation operating the space program. So yes, space programs are beneficial.

And solving world hunger is a meme.

I do not really care about the nations operating those space programmes as I do not consider them responsible guides of our societies.

To someone who has never experienced it perhaps it is.

You know every significant nation on earth has a space program, right? So who do you consider as "responsible guides"?

And you've experienced it, right?

Solving world hunger is the meme, like curing cancer.

[Sovaal]

The asteroid belt has more resources then we could use in thousands of years. Space is a big place with a lot of stuff in it. Hell, a single asteroid would have more metals than we've ever mined on earth in hisotry.

You may be right. But, to increase our chances of discovering a way for a rapid interstellar transportation, i think we still need to use our resources more efficiently.

And how do you do that if you have no idea as to what the hell youre doing?

[The Ides of March]

I do not really care about the nations operating those space programmes as I do not consider them responsible guides of our societies.

To someone who has never experienced it perhaps it is.

You know every significant nation on earth has a space program, right? So who do you consider as "responsible guides"?

And you've experienced it, right?

Solving world hunger is the meme, like curing cancer.

The people themselves free of nations and corporations. That's who I consider a responsible guide. You might say that we live in democracies ..but do you really think you're in control of what your government does? These are fake democracies all of them aimed to manipulate the people.

Coming from a poor family I have experienced times that food was rather scarce, of course living in a semi-western nation I never experienced what millions do.
Also, Unlike cancer, world hunger is merely a matter of how the wealth and production of Earth is shared ..hundreds of tons of food are thrown away everyday in the Western World, whereas people cannot have proper diets in many parts of the undeveloped world. If we shared, it could be solved, unlike cancer, which is a medical problem involving scientific research.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Just heard that the US’ space agencies are going back to the Moon. So excited for what’s going to happen. I guess that’s one step to the future.

Where did you hear that? If it's true, that is probably one of the coolest things that could happen in my lifetime.