1. substantial new contributions to greenhouse emissions
2. diversion of attention and resources away from other things, that may make your (2) self-fulfilling
3. dilution of sentiment that we have an obligation to try to fix what we've done here.
7. The outcome of not getting new nests and fixing the rot is that we're much, much prepared to subsequently get new nests.
Life on say, Mars, would be kind of unpleasant after the novelty of "I'm on another planet!" wears off. The sky is yellowish-red most of the day, it's nothing but rocks and sand as far as the eye can see, there is no outdoors without a space suit, ... etc.
It's a freaking dead lifeless planet. You will never see a flowing stream ever again, squirrels running up trees, nor birds flying through the air.
P.S. Maybe it's the depression talking but I'm not completely sold on "humanity must survive at all cost" frankly ... I mean so what if all of us die? We all die eventually. The universe won't care. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct, we will just be another drop in that ocean.
* My thinking is that even orbital colonies are doable, hollowed out asteroids that are spun up, etc. Lots of ways to do this if the success criteria is self-sustaining but at smaller scale.
* It isn't the depression talking; I've asked myself the same thing. As for depression, if you need someone to chat with hit me up - I've been there and want to help.
A 1% change in overseas vacation habits has a much larger impact than this hypothetical space program.
Exactly. I'm not sure what motivates many people to push this argument against colonization but it definitely isn't grounded in what they say.
> Therefore, we absolutely must do both, but not relying on earth is both less expensive and higher priority.
I was very clear we must do both.
Thus:
* If we fail at fixing the rot, and we do not gain a new nest, we go extinct
* If we fail at fixing the rot, but gain a new nest, we avoid extinction
* If we fix the rot, but do not gain a new nest, we avoid extinction
* If we do both successfully, we avoid extinction
Out of four outcomes, two of the three successful scenarios all involve gaining a new nest.
Also, the assumption "we go extinct" is pretty strong, and IMO, unwarranted.
The premise of the argument that we must focus on the earth instead of space exploration is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the two are mutually exclusive.
If fixing the rot were genuinely an extinction-level imperative, I'd say we should devote zero resources to space exploration. However, I don't think there's an extinction-level event or period coming at any point in the foreseeable future, so I don't think we have to be that dogmatic about it. Even so, I'd far rather see us defer all fossil-fueled adventures until (if!) we get this place into better shape.
Think of it this way:
1. The tree trunk is rotting.
2. There is a very real chance we cannot fix the rot, no matter how much we try.
3. Fixing the rot will not consume 100% of our available resources (fixing our environment is costly but logically cannot consume all we have)
4. Moving some eggs to a new nest in a new tree will not consume even close to 1% of our available resources (assuming a small but self sustaining set of colonies off-world)
5. The outcome of not getting new nests and not fixing the rot is extinction
6. The outcome of getting new nests and not fixing the rot is successfully avoiding extinction
A friend of mine put it this way: what is the cost of being wrong? If the cost is extinction, then we must act. Self-sustaining space colonization is the only outcome that guarantees success.
Therefore, we absolutely must do both, but not relying on earth is both less expensive and higher priority.