Even if everybody eats twice as many animals as they do now and moves further away from their workplaces, Earth will remain a more livable place than Titan. Maybe that isn't true if we kick off a nuclear war, but it probably still is.

Global warming? Titan's atmosphere is literally not breathable, and the outside temperature is colder than any place on Earth.

Food scarcity? Nothing grows on Titan. If you're growing it indoors you might as well grow it in your underground bunker on Earth.

The only way in which a colony on Titan could be less dangerous than Earth is from other humans trying to kill you -- the argument basically turns into "Let's escape the assholes trying to kill us." Even then, it'd be easier to make an Atlantis underwater (or any number of less far-fetched ideas) than to get to Titan.

Never mind how elitist and utopian and short-sighted the "get to Titan to escape stupid people" argument is...

You are only focusing on the drawbacks of titan, and not on its significant benefits.

Titan has practically limitless amounts of fuel in the form of oceans of flowing hydrocarbons.

Titan should be though of as a resource, not necessarily as a sprawling multi-billion person supporting planet.

> You are only focusing on the drawbacks of titan, and not on its significant benefits.

I only talked about the (meagre) utility of Titan as a life-raft in the foreseeable future because that's what this thread is about. I didn't argue against visiting or colonising it because that would have been off-topic.

Hydrocarbons are useless without an oxydant.

> Even if everybody eats twice as many animals as they do now and moves further away from their workplaces, Earth will remain a more livable place than Titan. Maybe that isn't true if we kick off a nuclear war, but it probably still is.

Sure, but colonizing Titan will ensure that we develop the technologies we need to sustain the species under those conditions, rather than having to "do it live" when a nuclear war / asteroid impact / what have you happens.

Of course they are the easier to solve, however your comparison is unfair. One one hand we're trying to solve for the entire human race, on the other hand we're solving for a handful of colonists. Now try expanding your colony for a significant proportion of the planet's population.

The colonists have no interest in solving problems for the rest of humanity

Indeed. In which case no one should be surprised when the "rest of humanity" doesn't get behind the colonisation effort as enthusiastically as some.

Even though they would by developing new technology, as with the space race.

>Do you seriously think that any of the following global political challenges: > > - convince everyone on Earth to implement changes that are bad for them, like not eating animal-based foods, with only the promise of "maybe in 200 years your descendants, should your line not be extinct by then, will benefit" as compensation

Even if we assume that people are as self-centered as you portray them, eating meat is not necessarily good for you:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/world-health-organization-...

> - reorganise every single human settlement and/or social structure on Earth to put people closer to their workplaces

Most of the world actually already lives like this. Yes, the urban sprawl of many American cities will have to go, but it can (and will) be done.

> - implement a global wealth redistribution scheme that doesn't start with North Korea conquering the planet through nuclear war

Such a system was implemented after WW2 (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan). Worked out pretty well.

> - successfully convince every NWS to destroy their nukes and institute a worldwide ban on nuclear weaponry

If we elect politicians who are more interested in cooperation than in sabre-rattling, and more interested in the problems of the people they represent than in the needs of the military-industrial complex, they will have few incentives for maintaining anything even remotely the size of the current stockpile. Great though it may be, we do not need an all-out ban on nuclear weapons to ensure our continued survival, only a (large) reduction in the size of the stockpiles. That not only makes sense from a survival perspective, but also economically.

> Are easier than the engineering challenge of building a colony on Titan? If yes, please let me into whatever politics-free, single world government utopia you're living in.

My lack of cynicism may be due to the fact that I live in Europe, where I can see more progress than stagnation in all of the areas you mention above. Given how close it was that a politician who advocated all of the above policies was elected as president of the USA, I think there is reason to be optimistic there as well.

I'm european and while I share your attitudes your policy prescriptions come off as shallow and naive. It'd be hard to find a forum where people are more aware of things like the upsides of renewable energy than they are on HN, for example. You think the answers are simple, we think your answers are well-intentioned but simplistic.

One of the main issues with the current societal debate is that simple issues are being presented as complex. This makes us incorrectly expect complex solutions to our issues.

Getting millions of people to change their utility calculus is in fact a complex problem. You remind me of a beauty contestant mentioning support for world peace, an abolition of hunger and so on....goals which virtually everyone agrees to be worthy, and yet which have proved strangely difficult to implement despite their apparent 'simplicity.'

The Marshall Plan was not a global wealth redistribution scheme. It was one government forcing its citizens to subsidise other countries. Not only is getting all governments to adopt this policy impractical, even id were practical it would be highly problematic because it has major human rights implications. Forcible redistribution violates people's privacy and private property rights.

Maybe the best argument for creating an off world colony is to give people somewhere to escape to from authoritarian ideologies like yours.

Yes.

It's not that Earth is a political utopia. It's that Titan is simply uninhabitable. Not just very difficult to colonize. Impossible.

I intend within 50 years to build that politics free, single world government utopia....bur it won't be on this world it will be on Mars or Titan!

The two argument against colonization ia that we shouldn't colonize until we know how to avoid destroying it. Don't burn our lifeboat.

> convince everyone on Earth to implement changes that are bad for them, like not eating animal-based foods, with only the promise of "maybe in 200 years your descendants, should your line not be extinct by then, will benefit" as compensation

There are millions of people who chose not to eat animals for different reasons (ethical, health, environmental). And this number is growing faster than ever before, as people become more educated about the issues with animal agriculture.

I don't know why you would classify it as "bad for you". It looks like you are projecting your opinions.

On a purely democratic basis, most humans believe meat it good for them, and will eat it when given the choice. The vegetarian movements are small, and outside religious communities, miniscule.

In absolute numbers we are talking about 500 million people[1]. A minority, yes, but hardy miniscule. And with higher percentages in the richer countries, so lack of access to meat doesn't seem to be the reason.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#Demog...

Well ok, let's just pretend everything's fine and carry on exactly as we are.