In theory, I think offworld human colonies are a great idea. In practice though, I think the hurdles are immense, and maybe insurmountable with current technology. <br /><br />For me, the litmus test for any colony should be self-sufficiency; it is only self-sufficient colonies that will ensure human survival off-world. A colony that has to get resupplied every six months to a year won't cut it, IMO. <br /><br />Getting self-sufficient colonies going was hard enough on Earth, where the air, water, soil and timber were free. None of those options will be open to off-world colonists; getting necessities such as water and oxygen will take energy, and soil will either have to be imported or mulched in-place. <br /><br />Then, there are practical concerns, such as resource management and manufacturing, along with (current) unknowns like the radiation hazard, the long-term human response to Lunar or Martian gravity, time adjustment (the Martian days might wreak havoc on our circadian rhythm), and the pyschological realities of living in a bubble of one kind or another 24-7. Figuring all this out will be a very long term project, and will require an extraordinary degree of public and political dedication.<br /><br />Last but not least, there is the issue of cost. The financial burden itself worries me less than the difficulty of convincing the government and its taxpayers that investing in off-world colonization is worth the decades, if not centuries it would take to bring it to fruition, and for the good of the species rather than just for national prestige. <br /><br />Recent history has shown people to be remarkably short-sighted; promises of the permanent survival of humanity might ring hollow with those worried most about bread and butter issues (which is just about everyone). For instance, the increasingly stark possibility of civilization-destroying impacts has not been matched by a dramatic increase in NEO-finding programs or asteroid missions; I can't imagine peop
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram