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

[Astro-guy]

This is a moral question, which has been concerning me. I would like to know every ones opinions.

 

[Catastrophe]

If it is solely to support uncontrolled expansion of population, then no.

I suppose it does not really matter as long as we are not destroying other life forms (as we are doing on Earth) but the crux comes if or when we meet another 'civilisation' doing the same thing. If those were to be anything like us (look at history) then the likely result would be war and mutual extermination.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

This is a moral question, which has been concerning me. I would like to know every ones opinions.

Unless we try to exploit resources of a planet where there is life, i don't really care.

 

[Catastrophe]

Unless we try to exploit resources of a planet where there is life, i don't really care.

Is that any life at all? Or is there some distinction? Vegetable, microorganisms, reptiles?

 

[ThePatriotBeast]

I think we may have to colonize other planets if we want to save humans. If we don't make all the goals for 2050, then Earth is doomed and we would have to live on other planets. Hopefully, that doesn't happen. Just in case, though, we should colonize other planets.

 

[JeffenatorXI]

Absolutely we should colonize other planets when we find one suitable for colonization. There's a lot of discussion surrounding the colonization of Mars. Mars is close, has an atmosphere, and is roughly the same size as Earth. However, it's a horrible candidate for colonization. Until terraforming becomes possible, colonists would be stuck living in habitats only. Mars has plenty of troubles that must be overcome for humans to "colonize" the planet. But the biggest problem is not something we can overcome and that's gravity. At roughly 1/3 of the gravity of Earth, Mars's gravity is a big problem. Humans who colonize Mars will adapt to the lesser gravity and will quickly become trapped and unable to return to Earth due to physical limitations. We will essentially create a lessor class of humans trapped in locations with lesser gravity.
My point is to say that we should definitely consider colonization of other planets as one option. But colonization of other planets should only be considered when the planet offers something that space-based habitats are unable to offer. It's my belief that building space-based habitats will be easier than attempting to create colonies on the surface of a planet or moon. Finding a suitable celestial body to "colonize" will first require that we develop technologies that allow us to travel to other solar systems. Building habitats that perfectly match human physiological needs is a much easier proposition.

 

[reddtimes3]

Not at all! But if it is possible I want to make a weekend out of the earth.

 

[Helio]

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in

Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please
Don't fence me in

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies
On my cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise

I want to ride to the ridge where the West commences
And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
And I can't look at hobbles and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in

 

[Vincent Peri]

There are no planets (or moons) within reach that can support human life.

That's too bad, because I think we have about 10-20 years before the planet is destroyed.

The earth's population numbers are unsupportable. I read somewhere that within 10-20 years, we will need a second earth's resources to support present day consumption of natural resources. And I don't see any way earth's population will decide to take the extreme measures necessary to save the planet. And IMO, there are no possible measures we CAN take to save earth.

 

[Helio]

There are no planets (or moons) within reach that can support human life.

There was no interest in prior centuries in traveling to the Southern Hemisphere because it was impossible to live there.

Astronomers never cease to amaze me how they can tickle out great stories to share. They’ve made me hooked on photonics, I could say, but shouldn’t.

We should be fine in 20 years. Just look at the climate models , which fail to predict in such short time frames. The complexity required in such models are improving with better research, but we need to avoid being taken in by alarmists. Let science be science.

 

[IG2007]

Is that any life at all? Or is there some distinction? Vegetable, microorganisms, reptiles?

Any life.

We should be fine in 20 years. Just look at the climate models , which fail to predict in such short time frames. The complexity required in such models are improving with better research, but we need to avoid being taken in by alarmists. Let science be science.

The climate models say that the human society will collapse if we not do anything within 50 years.

 

[Helio]

The climate models say that the human society will collapse if we not do anything within 50 years.

Please show me the models and where that prediction "human society will collapse" is an absolute claim. They are assuming, and no doubt with some justifiable confidence, that their premises are all correct in order for them to draw dire conclusions, but I doubt any will claim all the research has been done to make any such claim an absolute. New, and important, research on the many variables that affect "climate sensitivity" -- the proper term to use regarding climate -- will improve those predictions. If not, why waste billions on model improvement research when we could use it to convert CO2 to O2? I support all such modeling efforts, of course, as I'm not a denier. But science is about constant scrutiny...

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it” -- Richard Feynman

He isn't saying scientists are ignorant but to emphasize the importance of seeking better answers even if it is against the mainstream. Prior knowledge is important to understand, but science shouldn't have any shackles placed upon it by mainstream. Einstein was great at this. Scientists must vaccinate one another in hopes to obtain herd immunity.

Extremely few would argue that the planet is not warming given the land where Chicago sits had a mile of ice over it not that many thousands of years ago. So the question now is what practical actions can we take that will offer some reasonable mitigation to the direction we seem to be going, and can we improve the model well-enough to be able to make predictions testable over shorter time frames (e.g. 10 years)?

GR is a model and it is readily available for all those who want to apply it the natural world. I'm confident there is at least one climate model full of equations and variables, but I suspect there are many models in use with the aim of producing something reliable. Yet, I've yet to see the equations. But, perhaps they are easier to find than I suggest, so if you have them, I would like to see them.

Science requires that the predictions be testable. The failure of prior predictions has not helped the public's perception of climate modeling. I see it more difficult than weather modeling, which is clearly limited in predictions beyond several days.

Of course, we can do a thousand posts on this subject, but I will avoid doing so.

 

[ThePatriotBeast]

Okay, Helio has a very good point. But it is better safe than sorry!

 

[Helio]

Okay, Helio has a very good point. But it is better safe than sorry!

Yes, we must do all we can, but do it wisely. Once any big subject finds itself on a band wagon, it must be very careful just where others pull it.

 

[IG2007]

Please show me the models and where that prediction "human society will collapse" is an absolute claim.

Of course there can't be an absolute claim here. But the thing is, Climate Change will have a devastating effect on Human Society within half a century or so if we do not do anything right now. Imagine all the cities where a total of one-third of the world's total population lives, drowns in Oceans. That is so horrifying a thought and more devastating an effect.

 

[agent00seven]

Way too expensive and way too soon. Perhaps we'll survive a nuclear holocaust and continue to evolve to the point of being far more technologically advanced - perhaps to the point of being able to do all the physics-defying things UFO's appear to be doing.

The sun isn't likely to make this planet uninhabitable for over a billion years. Excluding a nuclear holocaust, I'd say our biggest threat is a massive asteroid strike.

 

[agent00seven]

Of course there can't be an absolute claim here. But the thing is, Climate Change will have a devastating effect on Human Society within half a century or so if we do not do anything right now. Imagine all the cities where a total of one-third of the world's total population lives, drowns in Oceans. That is so horrifying a thought and more devastating an effect.

I'm not buying the climate change hype and neither did Einstein back in 1917 when he explained why CO2 does not cause radiative global warming. CO2 is only a little over 0.04% of our atmosphere. Methane is a mere 0.00017% of our atmosphere with a lifespan of only a decade once released. Both will remain trace gases, no matter how much of these gases man, cattle, insects, and this leaky planet combined create.

 

[agent00seven]

Please show me the models and where that prediction "human society will collapse" is an absolute claim. They are assuming, and no doubt with some justifiable confidence, that their premises are all correct in order for them to draw dire conclusions, but I doubt any will claim all the research has been done to make any such claim an absolute. New, and important, research on the many variables that affect "climate sensitivity" -- the proper term to use regarding climate -- will improve those predictions. If not, why waste billions on model improvement research when we could use it to convert CO2 to O2? I support all such modeling efforts, of course, as I'm not a denier. But science is about constant scrutiny...

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it” -- Richard Feynman

He isn't saying scientists are ignorant but to emphasize the importance of seeking better answers even if it is against the mainstream. Prior knowledge is important to understand, but science shouldn't have any shackles placed upon it by mainstream. Einstein was great at this. Scientists must vaccinate one another in hopes to obtain herd immunity.

Extremely few would argue that the planet is not warming given the land where Chicago sits had a mile of ice over it not that many thousands of years ago. So the question now is what practical actions can we take that will offer some reasonable mitigation to the direction we seem to be going, and can we improve the model well-enough to be able to make predictions testable over shorter time frames (e.g. 10 years)?

GR is a model and it is readily available for all those who want to apply it the natural world. I'm confident there is at least one climate model full of equations and variables, but I suspect there are many models in use with the aim of producing something reliable. Yet, I've yet to see the equations. But, perhaps they are easier to find than I suggest, so if you have them, I would like to see them.

Science requires that the predictions be testable. The failure of prior predictions has not helped the public's perception of climate modeling. I see it more difficult than weather modeling, which is clearly limited in predictions beyond several days.

Of course, we can do a thousand posts on this subject, but I will avoid doing so.

I'm more in line with Einstein, who explained way back in 1917 why CO2 doesn't cause radiative global warming. I also read everything on NoTricksZone. On top of that, I realize CO2 is only a little over 0.04% of our atmosphere and methane is around 0.00017% of our atmosphere and has a lifespan of only a decade once released. They're both trace gases. Even if they could cause global warming, the effect would probably be insignificant in comparison to what the sun, water vapor, air currents, ocean currents, and the replacing of forest land with buildings and roads will do. We will see many more ice ages and many warming periods. The smartest thing we can do is adjust to these changes accordingly, not throw trillions of dollars at a climate change hoax while ignoring the air pollution problem created by China, India, Iran, and many other countries. The air in the U.S. is relatively clean in comparison. CO2 and methane are not among the 6 major air pollutants, by the way.

 

[Helio]

Of course there can't be an absolute claim here. But the thing is, Climate Change will have a devastating effect on Human Society within half a century or so if we do not do anything right now. Imagine all the cities where a total of one-third of the world's total population lives, drowns in Oceans. That is so horrifying a thought and more devastating an effect.

You're preaching, not teaching. But I am hopeful you can demonstrate more than handwaving on this dire claim. Science is objective-based, but you know this better than most., and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

What I've seen in climate model math makes my head spin. A recent paper on how clouds interact with climate demonstrates the complexity.

Perhaps it's my age, or my experience with machinery. In recent years, some products offer greater benefits and features due to their high level of sophistication. Some asphalt pavers, for instance, includes up to 11 ECMs (microprocessors). Sophistication is their strength, but guess what their weakness is? A contractor will almost always prefer a much simpler model given that with sophistication comes very expensive downtime. Construction equipment just isn't as bulletproof as, say, an iPhone.

I once asked a salesman if his old roller he was selling me was in good shape. He responded with, "It's jam-up, jelly-tight, armor platted and bullitproof!" He knew I would know he was only wildly guessing and it brought the laughter it deserved.

How can we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the model today is close to anything bullitproof? Consensus science? A model or theory requires the testing of all its predictions. If the only predictions are 50 years away, then how accurate is the model to begin with? Look how many short-term "predictions" (e.g. hurricane claims) have failed.

The drowning drama claim, per your post, is problematic when a former US President recently purchased a very expensive home on beach-front property. That sends a clear message to many.

I'm not arguing that you are wrong, but interested in knowing a reasonable level of probability of a dire future in 50 years. I have kids and grandkids, after all.

I once calculated how much radiation would be rejected from the Sun if all the roofs in California were painted white. A year or so later, a director offered-up that idea. The response by the media, however, was to show people laughing. How sad.

 

[Helio]

I'm not buying the climate change hype and neither did Einstein back in 1917 when he explained why CO2 does not cause radiative global warming. CO2 is only a little over 0.04% of our atmosphere. Methane is a mere 0.00017% of our atmosphere with a lifespan of only a decade once released. Both will remain trace gases, no matter how much of these gases man, cattle, insects, and this leaky planet combined create.

That sounds good, but the problem goes to the main point of climate modeling -- climate sensitivity. If the oceans become saturated and can't take in new productions of CO2, then we may, or may not, be faced with something serious. [We do have the technology to split C and O2, but not without major cost. I just heard the rover on Mars does this.]

 

[agent00seven]

There are no planets (or moons) within reach that can support human life.

That's too bad, because I think we have about 10-20 years before the planet is destroyed.

The earth's population numbers are unsupportable. I read somewhere that within 10-20 years, we will need a second earth's resources to support present day consumption of natural resources. And I don't see any way earth's population will decide to take the extreme measures necessary to save the planet. And IMO, there are no possible measures we CAN take to save earth.

What you read is the typical rubbish global warming alarmists and other alarmists have been spewing for a century. If you Google up "wrong again: 50 years of failed eco-apocalyptic predictions" you can see for yourself and make a far more accurate prediction than any one of them, including today's Nostradamus wannabes. That prediction is this: They will all be proven to be way off the mark on the day their prediction expires.

On human life-supporting planets: I'm guessing the closest one is a good 50 light-years away. We're probably millions of years away from being able to defy what we believe to be the laws of physics. UFO experts are saying the UFO's being recorded are doing just that.

 

[Catastrophe]

Don't forget the change of CO2 solubility in water with temperature change.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

I'm not buying the climate change hype and neither did Einstein back in 1917 when he explained why CO2 does not cause radiative global warming. CO2 is only a little over 0.04% of our atmosphere. Methane is a mere 0.00017% of our atmosphere with a lifespan of only a decade once released. Both will remain trace gases, no matter how much of these gases man, cattle, insects, and this leaky planet combined create.

Where did radiation come here? Climate Change is all about the Greenhouse effect and the degradation of the Ozone layer.

You're preaching, not teaching. But I am hopeful you can demonstrate more than handwaving on this dire claim. Science is objective-based, but you know this better than most., and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I am not preaching, nor even teaching, I am stating. And I am stating the models of climate change and its impact on Earth. Read this:

Antarctica's ice is melting, but the scariest prediction for the future may be on hold

New analysis of Antarctica's melting glaciers refines our understanding of climate change, while risks of global impacts remain significant.

www.nationalgeographic.com

And also, look at this horrifying map of Earth that would be a reality if all the ice on Antarctica melted:

What the World Would Look Like if All the Ice Melted

If we keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, global warming will eventually melt all the ice at the poles and on mountaintops, raising sea level by 216 feet. Explore what the world’s new coastlines would look like.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Epiphany]

Getting back to the original question, I see nothing wrong with colonizing the solar system. Unless some radical new physics appears, we aren’t traveling to the stars in our or our children’s lifetimes, so that question is moot to me. If the ethos is “all life is sacred”, then which would cause more destruction of life, resource extraction on earth or resource extraction in the rest of the solar system? With the exception of potential bacteria-level life on Mars, the rest of the solar system appears lifeless.

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes, I had thought to mention the possibilities of life in some moons of the outer Solar System. Not intelligent life - just microorganisms. Where heating comes from other than sunlight (e.g., friction). But then It seems very unlikely that any technology could develop in oceanic life forms.
And I don't believe that humans will be around long enough to need to colonise beyond Mars (if anywhere).

Cat