If we colonize a few planets in the next two or three centuries, won’t that ensure that we can preserve humanity’s place in the universe almost indefinitely?
After all, isn’t it possible to reach some point after which it’s no longer possible to destroy every human? Sure, one planet or another might get wiped clean by a nuclear war, but if we continue expanding through our solar system and our galaxy, can’t we escape the shadow of destruction that we have been living under since the creation of the first atomic bomb?
Why aren’t governments working harder to establish off-planet colonies? Is it purely an issue of inadequate technology, or is it mostly the economics that are forestalling colonization projects? (i.e. most people would rather spend $5 billion on improving schools or building more F-15s rather than colonizing another planet)
It’s economic. If you polled every government capable of colonization efforts, I bet they’d all say space colonization is a good idea, and they’d even concur that it would be a good way to ensure humanity’s survival.
But then they’d tell you that now is not the time, that the statistically insignificant chance of a catastrophe extinctifying humanity is not sufficient to devote so much money and effort into a financially unrewarding venture.
Since the universe looks flat and will probably expand into infinity, the answer is that the only external time limit we face is the lifespan of our sun. But there are other factors. The average species life on earth is a million years and we have reached that. We might well destroy ourselves by destroying our own ecosystem. Neanderthal lasted twice that but was not mucking about with nature.
Then there is the ever-present threat of a major impact event. It probably won’t destroy the species but it might well destroy civilization. Then politics would go back to basics; lying, cheating, destroying your opponent by any means possible…like it is now.
But if we exist in space other species do too. And instead of shaking hands, they might view us as fungus on an otherwise nice planet. Or maybe as paintballs because we make a nice red and brown ‘SPLAT’.
There is no point after which it is impossible to destroy every human. I don’t think nuclear war is the main threat anymore, but the Nuclear/Biological/Chemical threats are going to increase as one religion or another develops the weapons to kill off unbelievers of all other religions in the name of God.
As soon as someone develops a viable, persistent, airborne version of Ebola and attacks 100 major population centers on the same day, the plan to colonize other planets will be delayed until the second dark age has passed.
I think your question is valid, but I have my doubts about some of your premises:
I’m not sure that any government has a goal of “ensuring humanity’s place in the universe”. I think you are looking to the wrong group for that kind of action.
Even a nuclear holocaust is unlikely to destroy humanity entirely. Civilization, yes, but every last human being? Not likely, IMO, and would a nuclear winter be any worse than an ice age, which humans have already shown they can survive?
So, having reduced your question to “Why aren’t we colonizing planets?”, the answer is largely one of inadequate technology, but certainly economics plays a large part.
We could, for example, colonize the moon with today’s technology, but the costs are very high and there doesn’t seem to be a payback. (Personally, I think that is short-sighted, but they aren’t asking me what I think.) Establishing a colony on Mars is probably achievable with current technology, although a relatively small investment in newer ideas would probably pay off in reducing the cost of the colonization. One of the significant problems there is the travel time. Mars astronauts would be signing up for a two or three year mission. We can probably find intrepid explorers willing to go, but they’d have to carry supplies for that long, which requires very large payloads. Scientific American had a recent issue discussing current plans for Mars exploration which outlined some of the problems and proposed solutions.
Beyond Mars, we are probably beyond current capabilities. Certainly we are nowhere near being able to colonize planets in other star systems. We can’t even find planets in other systems yet, except for a few exceptions which are manifestly unsuitable for colonization. And, hyperspace notwithstanding, there is that pesky issue of distance. Minimum travel time, assuming we can achieve 0.1c, is on the order of a century or more.
So I don’t think the issue is that governments are dragging their feet – it’s just not feasible yet to make any concrete plans.
Don’t forget about the political problems. As pluto mentioned, the main problem is economics. If, however, someone were to recognize the economic potential, then who would cash in on it? Whose laws would govern? Who would be able to collect taxes?
Once there were economic incentives, this would become a knock-down, drag out fight over who ownes what part of the colonized moon/planet.
The cynic in me doesn’t believe that most governments are thinking further than the end of their term and re-election prospects. Diverting money from social services, medicince, defence, education, trade and the like to off-world colonisation just isn’t a vote winner. Governments don’t really seem to like thinking in the very long term.
Colonization is extremely costly. Look at what happened to the once large empires that have practiced it before. Space colonization will be vastly more expensive and have little direct tangible return for the investment.
IMO, space colonization isn’t going to happen unless we find a way that companies can make a profit from it. It’s all a matter of money, which is the only reason any company will ever do anything. And there’s no way America, or any other country, has enough money to push this kind of thing forward.
But once we get there, I think we will be pretty much immortal, unless another race decides they don’t like us. But even then…
BTW, I heard that some hotel company is planning to build a resort on the moon. Has anyone else heard this? It seems unlikely.
You guys are missing Outriders question : colonization to save humanity.
People frequently miss the point here. Take ‘the government’ for example. Really, there is no such thing. It’s just a collection of individuals. The ‘government’ will go on but the indiviuals in it will (eventually) die and be replaced. And it is with ‘humanity’. It’s not a Thing to be saved, it’s just a collection of individuals. Individuals who basically care only about themselves and not about someone in the far distant future who hasn’t even been born yet. The reason we are not working on it is apathy. What real good is it to save Mankind or Humanity if you’re not going to be here to recieve the thanks for doing it?
Seriously, If starting now, no more babies were born but everybody alive now lived out their normal happy lives and humanity ended after the last person died, what’s the big loss?
By that reasoning, why should anyone take care of their children? Who cares about the next generation when you have your own ass to worry about, right?
Not everything in life is about you and your needs.
I think the idea of beginning planetary colonization for the purpose of preserving mankind is foolhardy. (Now don’t get me wrong, I think we should do it, but not for the motive of ultimate human survival.) Here’s why:
Take the moon or Mars or Venus and add, say, a century of colonial development.
Then take good ol’ Mom Earth and also add a century of “reasonable” development. When I say “reasonable” I’m happy to throw in overpopulation, continued pollution and even a nuclear or biological war; it’s NOT fair, however, to pretend that blind, dice-rolling monkeys will rule the world for that one hundred years, blithely allowing “holocaust events” to happen without some attempts to prevent them or minimize their damage.
I would then venture to predict that old, worn-out, war-torn Earth would STILL be a more viable – or at least salvagable – place to live than the other, newly-developed rocks. We would not die out like the dinos because we can think our way out of most extinction threats.
"The average species life on earth is a million years and we have reached that. We might well destroy ourselves by destroying our own ecosystem. Neanderthal lasted twice that but was not mucking about with nature."
I like to think we’ll crack the record because we DO muck about with nature. But I’m a hopeless optimist!
As far as colonising other planets to safeguard the species goes, it would actually be more effective (and MUCH cheaper) to build self-sustaining sealed biospheres here on Earth. For example, let’s say you have a colony on Mars which is truly self-sufficient, they need no supplies from Earth at all. They mine all their own metals, generate their own power, grow their own food under lamps, build new things when the old ones wear out. You could relocate the whole thing to Antartica or the sea floor on Earth. If the atmosphere became a radioactive hell or Tom Clancy’s bad guys spread the plague everywhere, it would still be less hostile than the thin Martian atmosphere. And you’ve got the option of going out in suits to salvage stuff you may have forgotten, like a can opener.
(Note to Ben Elton - this is why the plot of “Stark” was dumb. But not as dumb as the plot of “Gridlock.”)
Outrider, the BIG difference is our children have already been born. I’m a father and I take that role very seriously. I care very much about people in need and in fact do much to help.
You’re projecting your thoughts of sympathy to people who don’t exist.
As long as we are here, I’ll be here to help, but I still maintain that losing our species is not that important. If it happened there wouldn’t be anyone to lament that fact.
As a sidenote, Scientific American had a recent issue dealing with the non-result of SETI so far. They cited the “Fermi Paradox” – If there are all these advanced civilizations out there, why aren’t they here?
They then cited the following, apropos of colonization: If an advanced civilization could colonize new planets 10 light years away every 500 years they could cover the entire galaxy (100,000 light years across) in 5 million years – a cosmic blink.
I know we’re not discussing ET here, but it does indicate how effective colonization would be as a means of “[preserving] humanity’s place in the universe”.
This caught my eye because I worked at Biosphere 2 for nearly seven years before I got fed up with the place and got a real job. Ironically the place started out as Space Biospheres Ventures, to develop self sustaining sealed systems for space colonization. The place has undergone some <cough> slight changes, from being raided by US marshals on April Fool’s several years ago (long story) to its present status as a campus of Columbia University. Building an earth based Biosphere would be cheaper than one on a distant planet but it’s a bit more complicated than anyone imagined. No one has yet managed to make a sustained, sealed system and the two-year “mission” of Bio2 wasn’t nearly as sealed as they would have liked it to be. As bizarre as the whole experience was I don’t think anyone else has made a sealed system that’s even come close in scope to Bio2.
“Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever.” - Tsiolkovsky.
“The Earth is too small and fragile a basket for humanity to keep all its eggs in.” - Heinlein
I’m pretty optimistic that humans will begin traveling outside of Earth’s gravity well within my lifetime (assuming I lose a few bad habits). I believe that certain technological advancements will allow for low-cost long-distance manned space travel soon. Some encouraging developments:
Testing and development of alternative propulsion devices, including ion rockets and solar sails, is currently ongoing.
Computer technology. Moore’s Law appears to be holding steady, meaning that design and testing will become cheaper, and soon CAD-based factories may be able to produce unique parts at low cost.
Nanotechnology. Still a ways off, but “rocket from a vat” technology promises to revolutionize human society should it come about.
Fusion. Hey, it’s only twenty years away (and has been since 1945). However, should working fusion reactors become a reality, we’ll be using them to go to the outer planets on a regular basis. Why? The gas giants have the deuterium and tritium we’re going to need to power the reactors.
Implicit in long-duration manned spaceflight is the concept of self-sufficiency. Colonization will be easy from that point forward. I myself wouldn’t mind spending my declining years just outside of the rings of Saturn. Hope I get the chance.