# Human survival depends on space exploration



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 23, 2011)

Don't know if this is the right place for it, but saw an interesting article. Apparently, Stephen Hawking believes that expanding outside of our world is the only way humanity can survive in the long run.



> Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million.
> 
> Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space.



The article can be read here.


----------



## Huttman (Nov 24, 2011)

No, I don't believe that. We would just take the problems we have here and take them out there. If anything, it would just delay the inevitable. Plus, there are no habitable planets within our current technological capabilities we could reach, so any 'colonization' would have to be small scale 'bios-spheres'. Cramped quarters are not good for the human condition for long periods of time. The problems need to be fixed here, first, on this planet before we can move on. I do believe it's our destiny, if you will, to colonize the universe. There is a crippling problem with the human race right now, and either we will deal with it or it will be dealt with for us, it cannot continue this way much longer.


----------



## Nik (Nov 24, 2011)

There's the other side of argument which says that space-flight will necessarily force development of recycling and compact food-growing tech. This may allow many cities to free themselves from their 'three meals from collapse' due 'just in time' distribution issues...


----------



## TheTomG (Nov 24, 2011)

There are stories in this debate somewhere


----------



## Boneman (Nov 24, 2011)

Sadly, I can't open the link, DA. Anyone else having problems with it? Says winnipeg free press in my browser before it crashes...


----------



## natalienoo (Nov 24, 2011)

I suppose this sort of relates to a discussion I had with a friend a little while ago.
Our biggest issue as humans at the moment is the fact that we are smart, but really narrow-minded and short-sighted at the same time.  We're a complete hypocrisy.

Since we started venturing out of caves we've been altering the Earth.  Other species haven't managed to adapt to us in time, so we keep wiping them out.  Since the Industrial Revolution, we have changed the world immensely.  But that's also been our downfall.  We are a species and we haven't given ourselves enough time to evolve and adapt to these changes.  Take where I'm living now.  Everyone has the newest Blackberry money can buy, yet it's still socially acceptable to throw rubbish out of the window once you're finished with it.  Forget recycling - that's far too complicated for here.  

We've got piles and piles of waste building up and although many countries are focusing their efforts on efficient waste disposal, there are many more countries that aren't.  If you make space exploration a possibility then people will forget about the waste here, or just dump it on a neighboring planet.  We'll ignore the problem here and go screw somewhere else up.  The most frustrating thing is that we do have the capabilities to turn around these detrimental impacts, but as far as those with sway are concerned it's too much money.  And we're already in enough debt as it is.  I think we're never going to pay off the debt so why not focus a little more money on doing the right thing?  Debt won't matter if we ruin the planet beyond repair.

Also, hypothetically - who gets the chance to live 'in space' and who has to stay on the rotting planet?  You'll have rich toffs buying a planet each.  "Do you have a flaaag?"


----------



## Snowdog (Nov 24, 2011)

Huttman said:


> No, I don't believe that. We would just take the problems we have here and take them out there. If anything, it would just delay the inevitable. Plus, there are no habitable planets within our current technological capabilities we could reach, so any 'colonization' would have to be small scale 'bios-spheres'. Cramped quarters are not good for the human condition for long periods of time. The problems need to be fixed here, first, on this planet before we can move on. I do believe it's our destiny, if you will, to colonize the universe. There is a crippling problem with the human race right now, and either we will deal with it or it will be dealt with for us, it cannot continue this way much longer.



Problems on Earth will never be fixed by politicians who are only concerned with the next election. First steps into space will inevitably be difficult and small-scale, pioneering first steps always are. But if you don't take that first step, there will never be a second.


----------



## Nik (Nov 25, 2011)

Without a 'beanstalk', you cannot shift enough people off Earth to out-run population growth. But, with a SSTO such as Skylon, you could build orbital and Lunar facilities to 'Antarctic' numbers. From there, Mars is a logical step, with the long-stay mission's enabling tech duplicated 'down here'...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 25, 2011)

Boneman said:


> Sadly, I can't open the link, DA. Anyone else having problems with it? Says winnipeg free press in my browser before it crashes...



Sorry about that. For some reason, there was a colon missing from the link.

Click here for the link (including a bonus virus, just for you).


----------



## Dozmonic (Nov 25, 2011)

It's not only saving from ourselves that expanding into space and other planets would help, but survival from natural disasters too. Jupiter does a great job of shielding us from asteroids and debris, but it doesn't always save us. Hence 5 major extinction level events in the past. Space is the only way, long term, to attempt to guarantee humanity survives.


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 25, 2011)

I see it as more fundamental than that. Most civilisations in the past have gone into decline when they stopped expanding. In the past logistical and communication delays have restricted the physical limits of their civilisation. You could now view our civilisation as a global one that has not really been able to expand since the turn of the century and I believe it has been in decline since then. I truly believe we need new expanding frontiers to reverse that decline.

Expansion into space is the obvious answer.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 27, 2011)

TheTomG said:


> There are stories in this debate somewhere



Steven Gould's _Wildside_ presents another, unquestionably fantastical option: a dimensional gateway to an alternate Earth where Mankind never evolved. The book is primarily adventure as the young man with the gateway exploits the alternate Earth in minor ways, until the big boys suddenly take note of his peculiar operation. Then it becomes a struggle to maintain control of the gate and prevent over-exploitation of the Wildside.

The ultimate revelation of where the gateway came from is just as fantastic as the technology itself. A fun read.


----------

