![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
asthfghlSome comments I recently came across on an article about Martian colonization and terraforming made me thinking. One said,
"We do need to save our planet, she is drowning."
See, the planet itself will be fine. We won't. Unless we learn to live in drastically different conditions to the ones we've been used to, and have evolved in. The planet has undergone multiple sets of conditions, some drastically differing from others. There've been mass extinctions leading to new eras. The planet will still be here no matter what we do, it'll have a different climate, and different life will evolve in those conditions. The question is not if we can "save the planet" (the term doesn't even make sense). The real question is, will we keep it survivable for humans. By extension, the question is also if we had the capability to increase our chances of long-term survival by spreading to more than one planet in case some cataclysm happens on this one, why shouldn't we take the opportunity.
Populating other parts of the cosmos isn't incompatible with keeping our planet habitable. It's not an either-or dichotomy. Besides, keeping all eggs in one basket is not a wise choice. Say we make our planet perfectly habitable and we stop climate change (hint: you can't stop climate from changing but nevermind). Then an asteroid or a comet slams into Earth. Game over. You'll wish you hadn't been so much of a "Remainer" when you had the chance.
I really don't get the rationale behind the "Remainer" camp. How does expanding to other parts of the Solar system negate the efforts of taking care of this planet? I constantly hear the "why go to space, we must fix our planet first" argument, and honestly I don't get it. Why should this be a choice between two options, either stay here and fix this place, or abandon it and leave to somewhere else? That's not the point of colonization at all. The point of colonization is development. In this case, it's even more than that - it's increasing our chances of survival.
As for Mars, sorry Elon Musk, but your idea does look like a pipe dream. I mean, why terraform the entire planet? It would take effort and resource that is by multiple orders of magnitude greater than creating domed areas that are more easily manageable. Creating a network of terraformed domes around Mars (especially underground) seems the more viable option. Like in The Expanse series.
"We do need to save our planet, she is drowning."
See, the planet itself will be fine. We won't. Unless we learn to live in drastically different conditions to the ones we've been used to, and have evolved in. The planet has undergone multiple sets of conditions, some drastically differing from others. There've been mass extinctions leading to new eras. The planet will still be here no matter what we do, it'll have a different climate, and different life will evolve in those conditions. The question is not if we can "save the planet" (the term doesn't even make sense). The real question is, will we keep it survivable for humans. By extension, the question is also if we had the capability to increase our chances of long-term survival by spreading to more than one planet in case some cataclysm happens on this one, why shouldn't we take the opportunity.
Populating other parts of the cosmos isn't incompatible with keeping our planet habitable. It's not an either-or dichotomy. Besides, keeping all eggs in one basket is not a wise choice. Say we make our planet perfectly habitable and we stop climate change (hint: you can't stop climate from changing but nevermind). Then an asteroid or a comet slams into Earth. Game over. You'll wish you hadn't been so much of a "Remainer" when you had the chance.
I really don't get the rationale behind the "Remainer" camp. How does expanding to other parts of the Solar system negate the efforts of taking care of this planet? I constantly hear the "why go to space, we must fix our planet first" argument, and honestly I don't get it. Why should this be a choice between two options, either stay here and fix this place, or abandon it and leave to somewhere else? That's not the point of colonization at all. The point of colonization is development. In this case, it's even more than that - it's increasing our chances of survival.
As for Mars, sorry Elon Musk, but your idea does look like a pipe dream. I mean, why terraform the entire planet? It would take effort and resource that is by multiple orders of magnitude greater than creating domed areas that are more easily manageable. Creating a network of terraformed domes around Mars (especially underground) seems the more viable option. Like in The Expanse series.
