No extinction event could render Earth less habitable than Mars or other places in the solar system.So even if one believes the doomsday cultists (which I don't, I think they're all bonkers), it's no argument for colonizing the solar system.
Actually Siberia is better than Mars because it is warmer and ACTUALLY HAS OXYGEN. I read some of the comments in the WP article. Best comment was (paraphrased): why attempt to create a whole new world so very far away... just clean up what you've got. Can't take this article any further than just trying to sell a newspaper for a day.
why attempt to create a whole new world so very far away... just clean up what you've got.
a reasonably common Sci-Fi theme
Less habitable is irrelevant as long they are self-sufficient. This isn't about the ability to host microbial life or having an atmosphere, it's about maintaining knowledge and capability.
Quote from: mme on 05/08/2017 04:56 pmLess habitable is irrelevant as long they are self-sufficient. This isn't about the ability to host microbial life or having an atmosphere, it's about maintaining knowledge and capability.That makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to maintain "knowledge and capability", build bunkers and data vaults here on Earth, it's infinitely cheaper.
but it would still leave Earth infinitely more habitable than Mars.
@QuantumG: you have to see the movie "They Live". Best line in the entire history of Hollywood.... "I've come here to chew bubblegum, and kick buttocks. And I'm all out of bubblegum". People could see aliens with the right pair of glasses.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to maintain "knowledge and capability", build bunkers and data vaults here on Earth, it's infinitely cheaper.
The official score is: Earth surviving an apocalypse: 5 Species visiting Earth seeking refuge from their own apocalypse: 0
Quote from: Oli on 05/08/2017 06:21 pmThat makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to maintain "knowledge and capability", build bunkers and data vaults here on Earth, it's infinitely cheaper.We're not doing that either.
Large scale manufacturing in space is pure fantasy. There are red herrings such as the supercollider and bridges to nowhere. Total buttered unicorn fantasy. The funding to do this is better spent on Earth. Think about it from an economic perspective. A venture capitalist puts their largess down on a facility with an expectation of a return on inestment near 7x the original investment. Net present value is buried below zero. It's a no go.For taxpayers to fund this is immoral. The worlds economy is standardized off of oil, not precious metals such as gold/silver.
Where'd you get that idea?
Quote from: tdperk on 05/10/2017 12:17 amWhere'd you get that idea?It's not the 1950's anymore?
I believe the leading contender for explaining the Fermi Paradox is that something/someones are very quiet, careful, deadly, and jealous--and they go around stomping on emerging civilizations prophylactically.
I believe the leading contender for explaining the Fermi Paradox is that something/someones are very quiet, careful, deadly, and jealous--and they go around stomping on emerging civilizations prophylactically.The next leading contender is that in our ability to observe space, we happen locally to be first.Next leading explanation is that the fraction of a technological civilization's lifespan that is spent caring about such things and being observable to us is so short, that many have "ascended" and watch us no more interestedly than most people do fungi.I do kind of hope it's that second one.Anyone else feel impressed by "The Toolmaker Koan" by McLoughlin or "Star Child" by Hogan?