Which is more viable for space colonization? (poll)

[doubtingmerle]

Yes to all points, except for the population control since that's just inherently... well, evil.

OK, I'll bite. Why is population control evil? If we ever came to the point where our only two options are population control or future mass starvation, why should we not put population control on the table as an option?

And I'm not going to take the writer of the posts you gave as the sole expert. Those are just the opinion, learned opinions I will grant, yes, but still the opinions.

It is a learned opinion backed up by calculations. Do the math. If his math is wrong, how do you correct his numbers to make space colonization feasible?

And saying that we should have an insurance policy in having either a Lunar or Martian colony is not a having a throwaway mentality. It's called having a back-up plan.

Spoken like an ultimate doomsday prepper. So how would this doomsday plan work? Would several rich doomsday preppers form a corporation and pay people to go to the moon and build a fully stocked doomsday shelter for them? And then if things go mammaries skyward down here, they could all hop in a waiting rocket at their expense, and fly off to the moon as their doomsday shelter?

Uh huh.

I tell you what. If people have the money and want to do that, I won't stop them. But would they be expecting my tax dollars to help pay for their doomsday shelter?

Are you willing to pay taxes to build a shelter in the moon for a few lucky people who could escape a doomed earth? How much would you be willing to pay a year of your own tax money for such a project?

 

[Oafman]

We still have a couple of billion years till the Sun starts to make life difficult.

I think it's more like 5 billion.

I doubt we'll live that long

We absolutely will not! Even in the unlikely event that a species which descended from us still exists then, we definitely cannot describe it as 'us', as it would be radically different to us. Think about how much life had evolved in the last 500m years; we're talking about a timescale 10 times as long!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Terraforming models usually include a significant increase in atmospheric density, as a product of the greenhouse effect (check out Venus if you don't believe them!). But none of this solves the radiation issue. Mars has no magnetosphere to speak of, and inhabitants would have to spend most of their time underground to avoid excessive doses of radiation.

So underground colonies, leading up to domed outposts protected from radiation.

 

[Oafman]

So underground colonies, leading up to domed outposts protected from radiation.

Unless materials science makes some impressive breakthroughs, I guess that's it

 

[doubtingmerle]

We still have a couple of billion years till the Sun starts to make life difficult. I doubt we'll live that long, but we really don't have any idea as to what our future holds.

Then I say lets make the next couple of billion years on earth a roaring success, filled with happy people living life to the fullest. And if a billion years from now they find earth's lifespan is coming to a close, they can solve the problem then. I can't understand why that should be my concern.

 

[Oafman]

I have some problems with the idea of interstellar colony ships.

The main one is, people always look at our neighbouring stars, and say 'cool, we only have to go 40 light years'. But this assumes that there is a suitable (terra formable?) planet orbiting one of those stars. What's much more likely is that such planets are very rare, and the closest one is much much further away.

And a journey of 40 light years would take us centuries to complete, never mind places further afield. We could, in theory, freeze people or something, so I suppose on that basis it's technically possible, but unless that becomes reality you can forget the idea that people would start their lives on earth and finish them orbiting a different star.

 

[Oafman]

Unless materials science makes some impressive breakthroughs, I guess that's it

Or maybe portable magnetic field generators!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, I'll bite. Why is population control evil? If we ever came to the point where our only two options are population control or future mass starvation, why should we not put population control on the table as an option?

Because you're essentially dictating what a person can do with their body, a dictatorship. Although if wars over resources happen, then we'd have a better form of population control right there.

It is a learned opinion backed up by calculations. Do the math. If his math is wrong, how do you correct his numbers to make space colonization feasible?

I can't since I'm not a mathematician. But here's the nub: we won't know that the math is unfeasible unless we try.

Spoken like an ultimate doomsday prepper. So how would this doomsday plan work? Would several rich doomsday preppers form a corporation and pay people to go to the moon and build a fully stocked doomsday shelter for them? And then if things go mammaries skyward down here, they could all hop in a waiting rocket at their expense, and fly off to the moon as their doomsday shelter?

Uh huh.

I tell you what. If people have the money and want to do that, I won't stop them. But would they be expecting my tax dollars to help pay for their doomsday shelter?

Are you willing to pay taxes to build a shelter in the moon for a few lucky people who could escape a doomed earth? How much would you be willing to pay a year of your own tax money for such a project?

I honestly see this whole thing as character attack. You're trying to make me out as a person who is a loon (as most doomsday preppers are) and also an elitist.
It is very likely that corporations will try and send missions, either manned or unmanned, in to space for the possibility of colonizing space. I wouldn't trust the government to do jack. They'd be the ones who would want to only reserve space for a select group of people. It's tax funded, then it would probably be around the same level of money that government's take from tax-income for green energy plans.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So underground colonies, leading up to domed outposts protected from radiation.

If I needed an undergound shelter leading up to domed outposts protected from radiation to survive doomsday, I would build my shelter on earth. Feel free to build your bugout shelter on Mars if you prefer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have some problems with the idea of interstellar colony ships.

The main one is, people always look at our neighbouring stars, and say 'cool, we only have to go 40 light years'. But this assumes that there is a suitable (terra formable?) planet orbiting one of those stars. What's much more likely is that such planets are very rare, and the closest one is much much further away.

And a journey of 40 light years would take us centuries to complete, never mind places further afield. We could, in theory, freeze people or something, so I suppose on that basis it's technically possible, but unless that becomes reality you can forget the idea that people would start their lives on earth and finish them orbiting a different star.

I think that freezing people is something that is inherently flawed, but off the top of my head, I can't remember why. But many ideas I've seen for colony ships is a craft that can hold an actual population of people on it, which would then flux with natural growth and death rates until a suitable planet is reached. I'm sure there's a term for it, but I can't remember it right now.

 

[Oafman]

If I needed an undergound shelter leading up to domed outposts protected from radiation to survive doomsday, I would build my shelter on earth. Feel free to build your bugout shelter on Mars if you prefer.

I more or less agree with you about the challenges outweighing the benefits.

But the question is, do the risks of remaining a single planetary species outweigh the challenges?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I needed an undergound shelter leading up to domed outposts protected from radiation to survive doomsday, I would build my shelter on earth. Feel free to build your bugout shelter on Mars if you prefer.

I don't think I've ever met anyone who has as much negativity as you do.

 

[Oafman]

I think that freezing people is something that is inherently flawed, but off the top of my head, I can't remember why. But many ideas I've seen for colony ships is a craft that can hold an actual population of people on it, which would then flux with natural growth and death rates until a suitable planet is reached. I'm sure there's a term for it, but I can't remember it right now.

So, generations who will be born, live their whole lives, and die, aboard a space ship? I'm not sure we, as a species, will want to do that. We're too individualistic.

I reckon it's more likely we'll load up a ship with a bunch of embryos. Then it can delay fertilising them until it reaches a suitable system, or even until after 1000 years of terraforming. Then create the humans, raise them, and start populating the planet!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, generations who will be born, live their whole lives, and die, aboard a space ship? I'm not sure we, as a species, will want to do that. We're too individualistic.

I reckon it's more likely we'll load up a ship with a bunch of embryos. Then it can delay fertilising them until it reaches a suitable system, or even until after 1000 years of terraforming. Then create the humans, raise them, and start populating the planet!

If the ship's big enough, the former could work.

The latter though is probably the more feasible, although you'd have to create a cadre of robot caretakers, teachers, etc, then load the entire ship with all of the things needed to do the whole thing, along with making sure they're protected from anything they could come across. But I do agree that that idea has some merit.

 

[Oafman]

If the ship's big enough, the former could work.

Yeah, but you have to accelerate it as close to light speed as you realistically can. The bigger it is, the harder that is to achieve.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah, but you have to accelerate it as close to light speed as you realistically can. The bigger it is, the harder that is to achieve.

That is true. Although we do obviously need to figure out how to get an engine to get to or past light speed of course.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I honestly see this whole thing as character attack. You're trying to make me out as a person who is a loon (as most doomsday preppers are) and also an elitist.

Sorry, I wasn't intending to use "doomsday prepper" as a character attack. I enjoy watching the show Doomsday Preppers, and can understand why somebody might want to have a bugout shelter. I have nothing against people preparing for doomsday.

Personally, my doomsday plans consist of a few cans of nuts, some bottled water and a first aid kit. I think sometimes I should be doing more.

It is hard to see how a person who wants to build a doomsday shelter on Mars would object to being compared to doomsday preppers.

It is very likely that corporations will try and send missions, either manned or unmanned, in to space for the possibility of colonizing space.

OK, but if Mars needs to be terraformed, then what? Do we get a private corporation to buy Mars and begin terraforming? Making Mars livable is a huge undertaking. A corporation who owns the entire planet would be immensely powerful over anybody living on Mars, with complete control over whether the people ever leave Mars. I wouldn't go there under those terms. If a corporation were to rebuild Mars and fly me there, they would be expecting a huge return from my being there. It is hard to see how that would differ from slavery.

Only if Mars was owned by a democracy that controlled the whole planet would I ever consider going to a terraformed Mars.

I wouldn't trust the government to do jack. They'd be the ones who would want to only reserve space for a select group of people. It's tax funded, then it would probably be around the same level of money that government's take from tax-income for green energy plans.

And you would trust a corporation that owns a private dome on the moon to be looking out for your best interests if you went there?

 

[timewerx]

Experts think it should plateau below 10 billion: http://www.geek.com/science/the-education-effect-global-population-to-plateau-by-2070-1607645/

It's a scary concept based on what I read in that link that women give birth to more children the less educated they are....

Well... Muslim women generally don't get proper education.... This only means, they'll keep having a lot more Children than anyone else due lack of proper education.

So based on their theory, Muslims will have the most numbers of adherents and Christianity will probably become a minority religion in most countries in couple of decades due to much higher number of births to Muslim parents.

9.4 billion is still an ugly number and based on that link, we might wait 'til the year 2070. NO, we must begin now with active intervention.

This knowledge is not something to look at with indifference. I think we're headed for big trouble!

 

[Oafman]

The real problem with discussions like this, is that we can have no idea what major, game-changing discoveries we'll make in the years ahead.

For example, if some form of quantum communications were to be developed (note - it almost certainly won't be, this is just an example), which meant we had faster than light comms, then it changes things drastically. As it stands, communication between interstellar colonies would be, to all intents and purposes, completely impossible. It would take decades to send and receive messages. Each colony would be on their own. But if they could communicate on workable timescales, and share info and ideas, then things become very different.

Even more important, is the possibility that we might find a way to travel faster than light. Now, it won't ever be possible to travel faster than light, but there are possible workarounds. Pretty unlikely to come off, I admit, but there is still much about the fundamentals of the universe that we are yet to work out. If something along these lines is possible, then all bets are off, and we can colonise the galaxy in no time (literally!).

Problem is, if such things are at all possible, then why hasn't our galaxy already been colonised by a civilisation using them? It doesn't look promising.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to use "doomsday prepper" as a character attack. I enjoy watching the show Doomsday Preppers, and can understand why somebody might want to have a bugout shelter. I have nothing against people preparing for doomsday.

Personally, my doomsday plans consist of a few cans of nuts, some bottled water and a first aid kit. I think sometimes I should be doing more.

Buy a large knife or a machete. It's a versatile tool to use. Also make sure you have rope.

It is hard to see how a person who wants to build a doomsday shelter on Mars would object to being compared to doomsday preppers.

But I'm not saying it has to be for a doomsday scenario. Although to be fair, the only scenarios we have been discussing have been doomsday-esque scenarios so I can kind of see why you went down that route. Although I still don't appreciate it.

OK, but if Mars needs to be terraformed, then what? Do we get a private corporation to buy Mars and begin terraforming? Making Mars livable is a huge undertaking. A corporation who owns the entire planet would be immensely powerful over anybody living on Mars, with complete control over whether the people ever leave Mars. I wouldn't go there under those terms. If a corporation were to rebuild Mars and fly me there, they would be expecting a huge return from my being there. It is hard to see how that would differ from slavery.

I will agree that one corporation going to Mars could essentially result in a sort of East India Trading company style situation, but that's if only one company goes there. (The plot of Doom readily comes to mind with your suggestion, which... well, if it happened in real life would be so, so, SO strange) But then of course if more than one company goes, or one from another country goes, then you'd run the risk of some form of conflict coming up along ethnic or ideological lines cropping up. Human nature being what it is.

Only if Mars was owned by a democracy that controlled the whole planet would I ever consider going to a terraformed Mars.

I do kind of agree with you on that bit. Although science fiction does have a lot of examples of that going wrong, especially if the idea that people feel that Mars should be controlled by a government on Earth crops up against an idea that Mars should only be controlled by people on Mars.

And you would trust a corporation that owns a private dome on the moon to be looking out for your best interests if you went there?

Trusting a company to get use there and a trusting a company to be looking or our best interests are two inherently different things. Although I can easily imagine that any company that does value having a happy workforce would readily try to relocate their workers families with their workers