6 ms·

I wonder if it will turn out to be easier to adapt lifeforms to the planets than to try to adapt the planets to the lifeforms.

by tarr11 5mo ago

lukan 5mo ago
Both probably, but you cannot really adapt life to no water and hard radiation. (at most sustain it in stasis, but not growing)
SoftTalker 5mo ago
Neither is realistic; living on the Moon or Mars or any other planet is a fantasy.
- SecretDreams 5mo ago
  This is the thinking of someone on the timescales of a single life. If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory (US/world politics not withstanding), I think nothing is really a fantasy. Rather, it's all possible but maybe just not in our own lifetimes. But it is also terribly difficult for us to plan for tomorrow, let alone for a future where our descendants are at the helm.
  - fellowmartian 5mo ago
    I agree, it’s just a failure of imagination. Some folks correctly foresee not being able to continue what we’re doing now in the exact same way in some new context and conclude everything is impossible. Life isn’t this fickle, it’s adapted before and will adapt again. This is why great science fiction is so valuable, as some people are better at imagining new ways of being more than others, and can show the rest of us the possibilities.
    - jiggawatts 5mo ago
      The counterargument is a simple opportunity cost calculation: There will never, ever, ever[1] be a scenario where if you weighed up the options of "expand into some less habitable area of the Earth" versus "expand to Mars", the latter is the better option either 1) financially, or b) quality of life. Nobody[2] ever picks the dramatically more expensive and dramatically worse option! Also, people that are desperate enough to even consider living in the least desirable -- but still just barely habitable -- parts of planet Earth are essentially by definition too poor to afford interplanetary travel. And no, no amount future sci-fi technology can possibly overcome the simple energy costs of this! If someone can afford the hugely energy intensive interplanetary travel, and the up-front investment required to survive incredibly harsh environments, then by definition they could more productively invest that here on Earth! It's the cheaper and better option in every possible way, and always will be. This will remain true even if it's standing room only on the entire planetary surface -- it'll be cheaper to build levels upwards while digging downwards. Maybe our atmosphere will become horrifically polluted? Sure, okay, air filters are faaar cheaper than a full vacuum-capable space suit! Etc, etc, etc... [1] Okay, fine, maybe in a million years. Whatever ends up preferring Mars at that point will no longer be "human" by any sane classification. [2] For some values of nobody. There are morons that buy overpriced branded handbags made of literal trash. I doubt idiots like that will make for a successful, self-sustaining colony.
      - ryandrake 5mo ago
        I wish this kind of economic and biologic sanity was more common in discussions of colonizing outer space. We've watched too much Star Trek. Building a city in Antarctica will be economically viable long before building a city on Mars is.
        SecretDreams 5mo ago
        Most of modern civilization has been built over the last century. 1000 years is a very long time brotha. We only got into space 60-70 years ago. And, rarely, have economic considerations been the only driver for those great societal leaps.
        card_zero 5mo ago
        The Madrid Protocol says you can't do anything fun with Antarctica. Can't have a mine, a garbage heap, or a farm. I suppose the world's militaries stand ready to capture any enterprising colonists and destroy their structures.
    - tclancy 5mo ago
      Well, of course you would say that.
  - AlecSchueler 5mo ago
    > If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory It's unlikely that we can persist in our current trajectory for another 100 years without catastrophic climate events puttung a stop to all of these endeavours.

I wonder if it will turn out to be easier to adapt lifeforms to the planets than to try to adapt the planets to the lifeforms.

by tarr11 5mo ago

I wonder if it will turn out to be easier to adapt lifeforms to the planets than to try to adapt the planets to the lifeforms.

lukan 5mo ago

Both probably, but you cannot really adapt life to no water and hard radiation. (at most sustain it in stasis, but not growing)

SoftTalker 5mo ago

Neither is realistic; living on the Moon or Mars or any other planet is a fantasy.

SecretDreams 5mo ago
This is the thinking of someone on the timescales of a single life. If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory (US/world politics not withstanding), I think nothing is really a fantasy. Rather, it's all possible but maybe just not in our own lifetimes. But it is also terribly difficult for us to plan for tomorrow, let alone for a future where our descendants are at the helm.
- fellowmartian 5mo ago
  I agree, it’s just a failure of imagination. Some folks correctly foresee not being able to continue what we’re doing now in the exact same way in some new context and conclude everything is impossible. Life isn’t this fickle, it’s adapted before and will adapt again. This is why great science fiction is so valuable, as some people are better at imagining new ways of being more than others, and can show the rest of us the possibilities.
  - jiggawatts 5mo ago
    The counterargument is a simple opportunity cost calculation: There will never, ever, ever[1] be a scenario where if you weighed up the options of "expand into some less habitable area of the Earth" versus "expand to Mars", the latter is the better option either 1) financially, or b) quality of life. Nobody[2] ever picks the dramatically more expensive and dramatically worse option! Also, people that are desperate enough to even consider living in the least desirable -- but still just barely habitable -- parts of planet Earth are essentially by definition too poor to afford interplanetary travel. And no, no amount future sci-fi technology can possibly overcome the simple energy costs of this! If someone can afford the hugely energy intensive interplanetary travel, and the up-front investment required to survive incredibly harsh environments, then by definition they could more productively invest that here on Earth! It's the cheaper and better option in every possible way, and always will be. This will remain true even if it's standing room only on the entire planetary surface -- it'll be cheaper to build levels upwards while digging downwards. Maybe our atmosphere will become horrifically polluted? Sure, okay, air filters are faaar cheaper than a full vacuum-capable space suit! Etc, etc, etc... [1] Okay, fine, maybe in a million years. Whatever ends up preferring Mars at that point will no longer be "human" by any sane classification. [2] For some values of nobody. There are morons that buy overpriced branded handbags made of literal trash. I doubt idiots like that will make for a successful, self-sustaining colony.
    - ryandrake 5mo ago
      I wish this kind of economic and biologic sanity was more common in discussions of colonizing outer space. We've watched too much Star Trek. Building a city in Antarctica will be economically viable long before building a city on Mars is.
      - SecretDreams 5mo ago
        Most of modern civilization has been built over the last century. 1000 years is a very long time brotha. We only got into space 60-70 years ago. And, rarely, have economic considerations been the only driver for those great societal leaps.
      - card_zero 5mo ago
        The Madrid Protocol says you can't do anything fun with Antarctica. Can't have a mine, a garbage heap, or a farm. I suppose the world's militaries stand ready to capture any enterprising colonists and destroy their structures.
  - tclancy 5mo ago
    Well, of course you would say that.
- AlecSchueler 5mo ago
  > If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory It's unlikely that we can persist in our current trajectory for another 100 years without catastrophic climate events puttung a stop to all of these endeavours.