Space, should we colonize it

[Flemingisa]

This is a discussion thread on people's thoughts about space exploraation and if we should spend more or less on it.. And if we should spend more than what should we do with the money.. Have fun!

[Invictus]

I'll bite.

Given the current economic and political climate in most of the world at the moment, I don't believe that increasing funds for space exploration is very practical at this point in time. The US is currently over $17 trillion in debt with record levels of people not regularly in the workforce; especially the young. I think that the primary focus for most of the world at this point in time is for individual countries to re-examine themselves, their priorities, and their economic well-being before planning expensive space exploration. Perhaps growing economies like that of China will invest in space exploration. Just to clarify, I truly hope that in the future we (western countries) can invest great portions of our budgets on space exploration without having to worry about the follies of other men. Sadly, however, I don't think it's the best choice with our resources at this point in time.

[Deleted]

I agree with Invictus - there are far more important things that gov'ts can be working towards at the moment - however it would be really cool looking into the future - and would seem to address some of our peak population issues... i believe they are looking into a Mars mission at this time so that will be interesting to see...

[Kushastan]

Hell yeah we should spend more on it. It is necessary for the human race to survive if god for bid anything happens to this planet. Or else we could end up like the dinosaurs.

[heytonia]

I believe that exploration and colonisation of space has the potential to unite and heal rifts within nations. We currently have a very Earth centric view - once nations begin to explore space in more unified coalitions - as the ISS shows we can, then we will not be able to maintain the petty squabbles we have on Earth - especially when faced with the complexity and magnitude of space.

[thewestmarches]

If we do colonize space, it should start out small. Maybe a 20 person perminant outpost on the moon, and expand from there

[Klenthium]

Space exploration gave us many technologies in the late 20th century that we couldn't otherwise have made. The ISS is still doing beneficial experiments every single day they're up there.

Space exploration and research needs to be funded more than it is because the potential for great inventions and discoveries is up there, as well as the effectively unlimited resources and energy in our solar system.
Colonization is likely to be small-scale, on asteroids or the like as they're being mined.
But colonization, and more important, resource exploitation, of space has the potential to transform all of human society for the better.

[Matilda Love]

Wow, of course we should.
See Klenthium above.

Can we afford it?
Economics is yoked to space travel, much as it is the arts.

""Star Trek: Into Darkness" brought in about $84 million in its opening weekend — just a month after NASA cut $200 million from its planetary-sciences budget."
I got this from here:
www.space.com/21231-star-trek-space-exploration-economics.html
I don't know how accurate it is, but it amused me.

And it does illustrate how money is found when we want to do something.

It is no secret, there is lots of money in the world, but it's distribution (for many reasons that we might choose to explore in another debate)is largely inequitable.

[oasisa]

If humanity good, space travel good.

If humanity bad, nukes good and fun. Simple, right? I invite contradiction. Other donate 100 tacos because i always know the answer to everything. Debate sparks knowledge people! Specifically say how my point is wrong, just saying i am stupid goes nowhere interesting!

Forward comrades!

[Nate NBNS]

"I too am known for right answers (and porting out when I'm wrong).  Recent writing (Analog for example) has underlined the vastness and un economicness of the thing and our total, fantastical underrating of the problem  and especially our inability to live amidst cosmic rays.  Hawking on the other hand emphasizes that our miniscule race must have redundancy for the day of (zombie apocalypse, stray meteor, final war etc).  I therefore am in favour of dipping our collective toe in the void with some Niven-Banks orbital habitats and seeing how we do."

[WolfVale]

Its my impression that the United Nations once spoke on on this issue in RL, with the view that space, the moon etc. was not to be colonized but that it was open to everyone.

[Candlewhisper]

I think in the long run, the survival of sentient life depends on us getting off this precarious ball of rock, and into the wider universe.

So my thought is that its morally justifiable to spend money on space exploration and colonisation now - even if there are present demands on that money that would give more immediate compassionate / economic benefit - as we're weighing up the eventual benefit of survival of billions of billions of mind-states versus the wellbeing of a 7.35 more billion people now.

That's not to say that immediate thinking doesn't have a role: we need to be mindful of creating the conditions for sustainable human development, and sustained ecological management, but space exploration is definitely part of the long term picture.

[Republic of The Enclave]

Yes

[The Confederacy of Halimia]

The way I look at the issue is this:

The Earth is going to suffer a catastrophe eventually. Whether it's 200 years from now or 5 million, it's going to happen. It could be climate change (Not bringing in the 'Humans cause climate change' argument. Climate change is a natural part of the planet's climatic timespan, whether or not we cause it), it could be massive volcanic eruptions, or a meteor or six smashing into the planet unexpectedly.

Making the assumption that Humankind is not necessarily going to survive such a catastrophe on Earth, at the very least not intact as life exists now, I would posit the idea that space exploration, and as such colonisation, is vital to the continued existence of humankind. Once we have viable permanent settlements elsewhere in the solar system, or even further away, the chances of Humankind being utterly destroyed reduce significantly. What are the chances of Earth, Mars and Venus (for example) all being hit with a major catastrophe at the same time?

Of course another issue, in the event of such major catastrophes, is re-population. Efficient two-way transportation must be possible, how can Venus and Mars (examples still) re-populate Earth if they rely on Earth for all their space travel? One should not only keep their eggs in separate baskets, but should be able to fill a basket that finds itself emptied, it's eggs smashed.

On a shorter scale, for those not concerned with the ultimate fate of Humankind and more about nations and politics and jobs, I posit this: should nations begin to make space exploration their primary focus, the industry would have to expand massively. Mining jobs would be a safe as a concrete house inside a vault, Builders, mechanics, fitters and turners, anyone in the metalwork trades would have opportunities in the space trade. When rockets and shuttles leave Earth, the money spent on it doesn't leave, it goes into the pockets of builders, tradesmen, technicians, flight planners, miners.

[pazakistan]

I think we should clean up the earth before even thinking about colonizing other planets. A good first step would be more renewable energy. That way when we do colonize other planets even if they don't have coal or oil we could still live of solar power and other more environmentally friendly types of energy.

[Candlewhisper]

That's a fair argument, but the problem with that is that there will ALWAYS be things we can sort out on Earth, and if we always de-prioritise space, we're never going to get there.

On the long view, there's a ticking time bomb on the planet in that sooner or later we will run into some sort of extinction level event, whether its self-induced or just plain bad luck.

I'd say we need to do both: embrace environmentalism AND space travel, as both will help mankind's long term survival.

[Boltor]

I am gaining confidence that both the public and the private sectors of the world are taking sufficient steps for Humanity to be a spacefaring race, well at least to the bounds of our local solar system. Let us cross that hurdle later...

There are a ton of opportunities off Earth and even if governments don't push us to space by their own funded initiatives and programs, the private sector will see it lucrative/cheap enough to send those rockets out - at least for mining of rare elements - but that will require more infrastructure (anything between near orbit space stations to mining colonies close to the source) and possibly people living out there to do it (unless the robots take that job ).

Also I have moderate confidence that in the next century, baring total atomic annihilation or the breakdown of nations or total failure of the global economy causing crippling depressions and possibly war or large scale revolts or you know a multitude of possible extinction events occurring; a venture or program (public or private) will eventually succeed at sending colonists to Mars. Not confident to say if it will be sustainable long term but they will keep trying and keep developing towards that goal even if it is a lower priority.

[Durius]

Huge Yes for the space exploration.

Yes for the establishment of scientific outpost.

Yes for commercial uses of space, under regulated international norms. Such as, those commercial uses shall not interfere with pristine zones significant for scientific purposes, such as potential habitable worlds. Mining of asteroids and space tourism would a good places to start the commercialization of space.

Yes for space colonization, on the long run, but I'm opposed to initiatives as Mars to Stay. If we want to send people out there, we should be able to bring them back also.

Big No to colonization of space by commercial enterprises. I could support the establishment of outpost (working the same way as oil platforms) and that could expand to an permanent settlement, but no commercial enterprises shall rule over that society. Private companies are not governments and shall not dictate their rules over communities.

[Candlewhisper]

Commercial enterprises could fund the jump to space, so long as you don't have nations governed by commercial enterprises.

Though given the influence that the Oil industry has over American policy, I'm inclined to share your cynicism.

[Durius]

Well, it seems that Luxembourg is taking the first steps towards the development of a space mining industry (BBC, SpaceNews).

[rhinogipon]

It's my opinion and that of Rhinogipon, that space should be colonized. We as a species have a natural urge to expand and use resources. The Earth has a finite amount of materials that unless the Replicator Device become factual, we need to look elsewhere for materials. Limited colonizing should be allowed to any nation that wishes to colonize a planet moon, asteroid. Unless said body is so small that only a single colony can be supported, no nation should be allowed to own an entire body (At least not till colonizing other systems becomes viable).

[United States of Terrasen]

Well I personally don't think we have much choice anymore do we? I mean we've pushed this planet to the brink of death so if we can't reverse the effects of greenhouse gases, we are quickly going to need to find a new planet to call home. SHould it be our first priority however? No, absolutely not. While it is important, we HAVE to start to take enviromental issues more seriously, working on our econmies worldwide, and ensuring that our quality of life for every member of this planet improves before we can justify a mission to space that is not garenteed. (Sorry, that's just my two-cents)