There is also the fact that the new nests ... kind of suck. We humans have evolved to live on Earth - with its 1g gravity, an ozone layer and magnetic field to protect us from the worst of the sun, relatively oxygen rich air, ... etc.

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.

* Yes, the new nest do kind of suck from our perspective. Our evolution for Earth is a problem for sure, but humans are resilient - we'd probably adapt fairly well over time (but not without some hurdles)

* 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.

Pretty much all sci-fi set more than 100 years into the future features some sort of intergalactic space travel (Elysium is a rare counter-example). I think ultimately we lack a collective imagination for just how stuck we are here for at least the next few thousand years.

I think everyone will be a lot more motivated to go into space once we figure out how to make living in space comfortable and healthy.

I would argue that the "new contributions to greenhouse emissions" are not substantial, but rather insignificant enough to simply not discuss them. A current SpaceX launch has the fuel consumption and GEG emissions equivalent to a single airliner flying across the Atlantic - but space launches are rare events, but such airliners fly hundreds of times each day.

A 1% change in overseas vacation habits has a much larger impact than this hypothetical space program.

> 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.

You missed:

> 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.

This "model" assumes that the probabilities of "fix the rot" and "find new nest" are independent. I'm not entirely sure of the relationship, but I'm very sure they are not independent.

Also, the assumption "we go extinct" is pretty strong, and IMO, unwarranted.

Yes, I am oversimplifying. It is not a model. Even if the two courses of action are not independent it is highly unlikely that success in one requires not investing in the other.

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.

Resources for doing anything are limited (by will, as well as for other reasons). It necessarily follows that putting resources into space exploration reduces those available for "fixing the rot" (although sure, not necessarily by equal amounts).

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.