←back to thread

101 points JPLeRouzic | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
krunck ◴[] No.44380402[source]
The comment by Benjamin Stockton on the article page is spot-on:

>I just wonder if humanity’s adventurous nature is leading us away from a proper focus on the sustainability of our civilization, our specie, and our fragile planetary environment?

But we still need spaceflight at least for planetary defense against asteroids, mining asteroids(so we don't have to mine Earth), etc.

replies(6): >>44380447 #>>44380646 #>>44382247 #>>44382355 #>>44384045 #>>44401902 #
1. usuallyalurker ◴[] No.44382355[source]
Not only is that comment a false dichotomy (we can both explore space and make humanity more sustainable at the same time), it also presumes that space exploration and sustainability are at odds with one another and not synergistic.

Humans, simply by existing on Earth, have a huge and often negative impact on the environment. If we could somehow shift the human population off Earth, either by terraforming planets (like Mars) or creating artificial space habitats, it would have a huge positive impact on Earth's environment. We don't currently have the technology to do so - we would need space elevators to feasibly move humanity off Earth - but that doesn't mean we should move our attention away from space in the meantime.

replies(2): >>44390572 #>>44415332 #
2. nradov ◴[] No.44390572[source]
It's silly to think that eliminating human impact on Earth's environment is a positive goal. What's the point? Humans are literally part of the environment. (That doesn't mean we should cause wanton damage.) Even if it was possible to live in space I would stay right here, and I make no apologies for my impact.
3. MrMorden ◴[] No.44415332[source]
We can't even terraform the Empty Quarter. Doing it to Mars and then somehow giving that planet a magnetic field is fantasy.