[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Those are certainly good questions, but AFAICT they’re outside the realm of what I’ve been calling the “foreseeable future”.
Indeed, if we do someday transition to a Star Trek-like society based on abundant low-cost energy and universal automated production, so that the economy can amply supply the material needs of the populace with little or no labor and generate vast surpluses of resources besides, I could well imagine that the people of that future world might decide that the coolest thing to do with all that money and leisure is to pour it into the migration of substantial numbers of humans beyond the boundaries of earth.
However, I have no idea how we would get there from here in the near- to medium term. Remember that in particular, the OP was asking about whether such a scenario looked likely “in the 21st century”. Ten thousand years from now is certainly a whole other kettle of fish, but I don’t think of that as the “foreseeable future”.
“Beyond”, as I just remarked to Lobohan, is certainly an open question. The prospects for the next 100 years, though, are necessarily more limited. Sure, we can always let our imaginations roam and fantasize technological and economic miracle breakthroughs of various kinds. But what interests me about the prospect sketched by the OP is whether it’s realistically plausible, not simply whether we can imagine it somehow coming true in some as-yet-unexplained way.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but I took the OP’s “Will we ever…” comment to be more open ended. I’m fairly sure, barring a nanotech revolution or similar we probably won’t be living en mass in space stations at 2100. I do think we’ll get around to it eventually.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Indeed, if we do someday transition to a Star Trek-like society based on abundant low-cost energy and universal automated production, so that the economy can amply supply the material needs of the populace with little or no labor and generate vast surpluses of resources besides, I could well imagine that the people of that future world might decide that the coolest thing to do with all that money and leisure is to pour it into the migration of substantial numbers of humans beyond the boundaries of earth.
[/QUOTE]
And the point I keep making is that if we’ve got Star Trek style replicators or nanotech that can assemble anything you like, then there’s no need to stripmine Mercury for raw materials, because every Earthly economic problem will be solved. We’ll be living in a post-scarcity economy, and if we stripmine Mercury it will only be for some fun project, not because someone figures they could make a lot of money doing it.
Off topic: And this explains the austere sets of the Enterprise D. No one cares about fancy clothes or accumulating material goods any more in the 23rd century, since you can make anything you like with a replicator. No one gives a shit about having a bigger pile of stuff than the next guy, because that pile of stuff is now meaningless as a status symbol.
If we have the technology and power to keep a million people living comfortably on Mars there won’t be any economic incentive to colonize Mars anymore, because Earth will be a near utopia due to that same technology. People will colonize Mars for fun, not because it has lots of manganese.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Those technologies are pretty straightforward advancements on present science and technology. The surprise will be if such technology turns out to be impossible, not if they turn out to be possible.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I think a lot of technologies tend to level off after a while. I don’t think there have been that many serious leaps and bounds in airplane technology in the last 50 years, after all. And even with computer technology (which everyone will agree has been improving rapidly), there are hints of absolute limits on the horizons due to molecular size and the speed of electrons.
If enough of the right technologies level off or run into absolute limits then I can easily see us being unable to viably leave the planet and colonize another, especially since nothing else in the solar system even approaches “habitable”.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
If we have the technology and power to keep a million people living comfortably on Mars there won’t be any economic incentive to colonize Mars anymore, because Earth will be a near utopia due to that same technology. People will colonize Mars for fun, not because it has lots of manganese.
[/QUOTE]
Either way, doesn’t that still answer the OP’s question of will we ever colonize other planets as, well, yes?
“Beyond”, as I just remarked to Lobohan, is certainly an open question. The prospects for the next 100 years, though, are necessarily more limited. Sure, we can always let our imaginations roam and fantasize technological and economic miracle breakthroughs of various kinds. But what interests me about the prospect sketched by the OP is whether it’s realistically plausible, not simply whether we can imagine it somehow coming true in some as-yet-unexplained way.
[/QUOTE]
This is a very good point and maybe I wasn’t so clear in the OP as I could have been.
This debate has been alot more heated than I imagined it would. Thanks everyone for your input. It has been enlightening. I asked two questions in the OP essentially because you could say that colonies/permanent settlements on the moon or Mars are impossible or unlikely* this* century but also believe that at some later date they’ll become more feasible, desirable etc.
I agree. Which is why I said that I could see a future material-utopia society on Earth deciding to pour its near-unlimited resources into large-scale extraterrestrial migration just because they think it’s the coolest thing to do. Not because it’s a great economic opportunity: you’re quite right that in a material utopia, who will care about economic opportunities anymore?
