• MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Terraforming other planets would be astronomically more challenging than fixing our own planet and we don’t seem to be able to get our shit together to do that. Even if we are capable of terraforming other planets, it would take many centuries at minimum. O’Neal cylinders are far more likely to work once we start industrializing the moon.

  • Eugenia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Huge sci-fi lover here. But at the same time, colonization of space for humans is possibly impossible without avatars. The human body evolved here, and it’s a vessel that works here the best. To colonize other worlds, it’s more economically viable to send machines, create biologically synthesized new species (taking dna from local species there), and then transfer consciousness to them. Similar with Avatar, but without having to have the spaceships arrive in the planet full of humans. Humans remain on earth, and they project their consciousness somewhere else, in an instant due to entanglement.

  • witx@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Is this sub-populated mostly by Facebook people? Some of the answers really feel like it.

    • airbussy@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      All these answers are so killjoy and boring. Like yeah we should strive to make our own planet better, but why not also do this? Building habitats on other worlds doesn’t prevent us from caring for this one.

      Plus maybe trying to make a liveable environment in space can give us new insights in preserving the one at home. Like how solar panels have come from space exploration.

  • muzzle@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Genetically modify ourselves so that we can live both in zero gravity (and maybe survive short exposure to vacuum) and on other planets.

  • Gabadabs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Why? Nice planet we’ve got here, we could focus on preventing it becoming inhabitable due to climate change instead.

  • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 hours ago

    If we can do B, A doesn’t provide many benefits.

    A 1km diameter, 30km cylinder would provide enough area to feed ~140k people. 95km^2 of space.

    That is assuming no imported food etc, based on 7000m^2 per person which is almost 2 acres each.

    140k people is a small city.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      140k people is about the amount of people living in a 1km radius around you, if you live in some inner city area.

      • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You could have most people in a relatively small area with the rest for farming.

        There would be little need for the equivalent of roads, almost all travel would be walk or bike. The longest distance between two points is less than 34km. If the main settlement is in a ring around the middle of the cylinder, it is less than 17km to any point.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        our planet could easily be wiped by a number of things.

        Most likely by us, while we waste our limited resources on useless things like spaceships

        if we dont plan for a planetary catastrophe out of our control, our species is doomed.

        Oh no, how will the universe ever recover from this tragedy?

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          Oh no, how will the universe ever recover from this tragedy?

          yep, this is what people resort to when they dont have a real point. ‘so what?!’ pfft

      • subignition@fedia.io
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        a planetary catastrophe out of our control

        You’re still describing climate change. Science fiction ideas are fun to think about but our own inability to live harmoniously with nature is going to kill us off before any of those problems become relevant.

          • variants@possumpat.io
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I was kind of surprised that comet that’s been visible at night was only discovered like a year ago. Crazy to think that would be the warning time of anything coming to hit us

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          huh? why do people have this innate ability to underestimate what we might be capable of? why do you think its impossible for us to become masters of our own genome?

          not getting off this rock means our species is doomed regardless of how ‘perfect’ we keep earth.

          • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            why do people have this innate ability to underestimate what we might be capable of?

            Because we can see what we’re currently capable of in terms of climate change, and the outlook is pretty bleak

            why do you think its impossible for us to become masters of our own genome?

            Because even in the best case scenario, this is dangerously close to eugenics

            not getting off this rock means our species is doomed regardless of how ‘perfect’ we keep earth.

            If we can’t keep earth livable, an entire self-regulating planet that’s been livable for hundreds of millions or billions of years, what are our chances of keeping anywhere else livable?

  • SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If we can’t manage to keep Earth’s ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won’t be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there’s no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.

    Without some serious (currently impossible) terraforming, Mars colonies are limited to deep caves or heavily shielded buildings, no outside to relax, nowhere else to go. Have a look at the list of crimes in Antarctica, a similar situation where people are stuck together, that’s not a good environment for mental health, and it will be worse farther away. A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?

    • KevinFromSpace@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If we can’t manage to keep Earth’s ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won’t be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there’s no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.

      I’m unconvinced that pulling back from space programs will make Earth’s ecosystem thrive.

      A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?

      Agreed. That would be a super-weird concept, like a country owned by a private corporation.