Do you think humans should colonize other planets and exploit their resources, too?

[Ken Fabian]

Yet without an enduring healthy, wealthy Earth economy the exploitation of other planets won't be possible. I think only a global economy of large scale and extensive interconnected capabilities can make and sustain the kinds of technology such colonies would require. I don't see how that could happen in sufficient time to provide any escape route from looming problems that threaten the health, wealth and durability of Earth's global economy.

I think asteroid resources for Earth's use offer some potential for economically self supporting (ie profitable, by trade) enterprise in space - and self supporting enterprise is an essential foundation to having something that will grow. Moon or Mars have no means to be economically self supporting during the establishment of a large, diversely capable independent economy. Even so I suspect any asteroid mining will be remote and robotic - going all out to avoid having to rely on astronauts, because nothing adds to the difficulties and costs of doing things in space more than using people. Possibly there will be something for astronauts in the near Earth operations to support more distant asteroid mining - like repackaging asteroid commodities for deliver to Earth. But even there the commercial imperative will be to avoid relying on humans in space.

 

[Challenger007]

I suppose people want to colonize other planets exactly for this reason — to have a place to escape from the Earth.

It is not for nothing that dozens of science fiction films have been made about the development of other planets, the creation of colonies, etc. Such dreams have long settled in the minds of people. Therefore, maybe in 100 years, or maybe sooner, space travel will be more accessible, technologies will be developed to create settlements on other planets.

 

[CCooper96]

It is not for nothing that dozens of science fiction films have been made about the development of other planets, the creation of colonies, etc. Such dreams have long settled in the minds of people. Therefore, maybe in 100 years, or maybe sooner, space travel will be more accessible, technologies will be developed to create settlements on other planets.

Yeah, space travel is something that can be achieved in near future, but what about colonization, I can't even suppose when it becomes a reality.

 

[Misha Marchuk]

It seems to me that in the future, humanity will 100 percent colonize other planets in order to use their resources, but this question does not bother me much in terms of morality, because, I think that it will be after I die.

 

[Trithinium]

It's wrong to land on another planet without permission first. Never ever put in writing or speak or think about exploiting Aliens. They will destroy us. Join the Planetary Alliance. Contact the Martians'.

 

[12526sw09]

I believe that colonizing other planets is a necessary step to move on to more advanced technologies. We should be more careful with them than what we are with Earth, or we might as well use up all the habitable planets or at least have to keep moving from planet to planet, which probably would become very tiring. If we are going to make a new home, at least make it a good one that will last a while.

 

[Catastrophe]

Colonising other planets (as I have pointed out elsewhere) is going to take a long time - and much of that will be getting there (wherever 'where' is). Planet Earth still has a good time to run - if we treat her with respect. Remember average wealth = total wealth / population. Planet Earth does not need an enormous population of impoverished humans. With a reasonable population we can colonise Antarctica as the ice melts. There is also a large area under the ice on Greenland and, of course, there is Canada and Siberia.

Survive covid mutations and go with the planet, and we can survive long enough - with care.

Cat

 

[TheSchnitz]

No. We screwed this planet up, we should not be allowed to screw up another. Maybe if humans were ethical but we are not. We have proof of this multiple times on a daily basis.

 

[neverforget010621]

No. We screwed this planet up, we should not be allowed to screw up another. Maybe if humans were ethical but we are not. We have proof of this multiple times on a daily basis.

well even though i agree to this up to a point, you are missing the forest for the trees with that outlook. Every generation gets more progressive, more protective of the environment and become better human beings all together. If we dont end ourselves within the next few generations, climate change will have totally changed the way humans think about our planet, and most will willingly choose to be better and those that dont will be forced to by circumstance.. that being said, it would be far more efficient to build orbital megastructures for the quadrillions of humans, and leave other planets alone which would need to be terraformed, which is a hypothetical technology at best. Harvest the asteroid belts and mercury, thats plenty.

 

[Catastrophe]

Best not have "quadrillions of humans,"

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"No. We screwed this planet up, we should not be allowed to screw up another. "

I agree.

Cat

 

[Lariliss]

An ocean of information about what we already know about the Earth in detailed investigations, simulations and forecasts. History. Technology.
I would add Earth human bearing capacity.

National agencies, World agencies, research institutions. Improvement plans and on-going work.

Certainly, going to any other planet missions are essential. At least several humans would try it first.
Learn living there.
Moving 7 billion forecasts wouldn’t be near imagined possible. If magically so, all humanity changes mentality instantly.

“Our business is to uproot the roots of evil in the fields that are known to us in order to pass on to the heirs a pure land, ready for sowing. What kind of weather they will have is not for us to decide.”

Now we judge by today's activities of space exploration vs Earth preservation.
Obviously, for Earth we should go faster and proactive to bring stabilization as soon as possible. This is a process of years.

Going to Venus, Mars, the Moon, I believe brings technology push. Ability to do it now pushes the occasions.
Earth vs Space is not like that. I believe Earth together with space. Technology, Space and Earth agencies cooperation are win-win if balanced.

For both branches of the same survival aim they work.

 

[Catastrophe]

I really believe that we are all underestimating the difficulties in colonising another planet (or moon).

And terraforming - forget it for the next 100,000 years.

Cat

 

[Terra Australis]

This is such a long thread I hesitate to add to it. Just a few thoughts:

Expenditure on Space Programs (I’m thinking about the US) has become unpopular. Whoever holds the purse strings will have the final say and if Space exploration becomes political, assuming it isn’t already, it’s dead in the water.

We need to save mankind? I think salvation belongs to some one who is higher than I.

I wouldn’t trust humankind to be let loose on another planet as has already been mentioned.

An experiment set up here on Earth in an inhospitable climate and environment with willing volunteers dedicated to staying the distance, where some of the conditions on Mars can be simulated would test some of the unknowns yet have the luxury of Earth’s atmosphere and quick intervention if needed. Needless to say, far less expenditure.

In order for a manned mission to Mars to succeed, there would need to be advancements in rockets to carry such a heavy payload over such a large distance.

If anything I have mentioned has already been said I apologise.

 

[Lariliss]

This is such a long thread I hesitate to add to it. Just a few thoughts:

Expenditure on Space Programs (I’m thinking about the US) has become unpopular. Whoever holds the purse strings will have the final say and if Space exploration becomes political, assuming it isn’t already, it’s dead in the water.

We need to save mankind? I think salvation belongs to some one who is higher than I.

I wouldn’t trust humankind to be let loose on another planet as has already been mentioned.

An experiment set up here on Earth in an inhospitable climate and environment with willing volunteers dedicated to staying the distance, where some of the conditions on Mars can be simulated would test some of the unknowns yet have the luxury of Earth’s atmosphere and quick intervention if needed. Needless to say, far less expenditure.

In order for a manned mission to Mars to succeed, there would need to be advancements in rockets to carry such a heavy payload over such a large distance.

If anything I have mentioned has already been said I apologise.

Just like a movie. Even the experiment here on Earth hardly passes psychological test of several prepared persons.

 

[Terra Australis]

Just like a movie. Even the experiment here on Earth hardly passes psychological test of several prepared persons.

Absolutely true the problem in hand.

 

[Catastrophe]

Nothing to add to my post #63.

Cat

 

[Lariliss]

Same here, nothing to add, yet)

 

[Catastrophe]

Yet??? Will you settle for no colonies more than 500 people in the next 500 years?

Cat

 

[Terra Australis]

Nothing to add to my post #63.

Cat

Yeah I agree, see your point I do.

 

[Lariliss]

Yet??? Will you settle for no colonies more than 500 people in the next 500 years?

Cat

Yet Muse to come with appropriate piece of information to share. Maybe, maybe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Sorry, I don't think 'maybe' is any match for the very real difficulties existing in the real world. Getting stuff to a colony and following up with Earth support will limit size, and expansion will only compound difficulties.

Cat

 

[Lariliss]

Sorry, I don't think 'maybe' is any match for the very real difficulties existing in the real world. Getting stuff to a colony and following up with Earth support will limit size, and expansion will only compound difficulties.

Cat

That's the point

 

[Catastrophe]

There is plenty of room for 'colonisation' of Earth, even without population reduction.

As ice melts, land is freed up on Greenland and Antarctica. Even just with warming, northern Canada and Siberia could become more habitable.

Don't forget, only melting on ice on land increases sea level. Floating ice does not, since Archimedes Principle has already taken care of that. Well, not entirely true, since ice consists of water without salt and contacting seawater contains salt, but the differential is only about 3%.

Cat

 

[Lariliss]

'Climate change' has enough confirmation, satellite surveillance gives more and more. And urbanization issue is also there to play it’s a role.

Stay aware and put all sources of information into trial) and act.

There are some good examples for using new areas to build cities (e.g. Cairo is designing a new city nearby).

My thinking is that we should increase reclaimed areas and inhabit them. There are many thousands of kilometres killed and deserted.

Why not 'colonize' them, right.

Nature has its processes, we should THINK before and ACT on Earth, truly. Here is not zero done, but lots and lots more to do.