Save Earth or Save the Human Species?

I've been thinking about this for a little while and now and instead of debating the merits of Climate Change and whether it is man made or natural, I think the real question we should be exploring is the cost of geo-engineering the planet vs the cost of colonizing space.

It will cost us, all around the world, trillions of dollars and lots of suffering to geo-engineer the planet. We know eventually that Earth will reach the end of it's life and no longer be able to sustain life as we know it, Climate Change or not. It will cost trillions of dollars to successfully colonize space.

Obviously Earth only has the resources to do one. Which one do you think we should invest in?

Saving Earth or Saving the human Species?

originally posted by: Timing
Obviously Earth only has the resources to do one. Which one do you think we should invest in?

I am fairly certain that we will be able to utilize off-world resources as well were they may be even more abundant and easier to secure.

a reply to: Timing

Get humans to save the habitat in which they call home intelligently, why advancing space based theories to inhabit the Cosmos...

Good question

NAMASTE*******

a reply to: Timing

Why does saving Earth or Humans have to be an option? If we cannot save the Earth then we cannot save Humans.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I believe that too, but the question is the cost, and we all know when it comes to politics only one major pet project will win.

In this instance it's whether we secure more money for NASA or create more programs to promote private space exploration. Advancements in private space exploration will come slowly if these cap and trade incentives are allowed to succeed.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

I agree that we should do what we can to save the planet, i.e. reduce toxic pollution, look for viable alternative energy like solar, and advancements in battery technology. The real issue is that the world only has enough finances to support geo-engineering or legitimate space exploration.

So we can only do one or the other.

a reply to: kwakakev

If you don't think we can do either that's fine too.

I like to hear a more detailed explanation on why we can't save humans if we can't save the Earth.

Can we please stop using "off-world resources" and "colonization" as legitimate options for fixing and/or escaping our suicidal global culture?

We send remote control cars to Mars and everyone starts clamoring about mining and colonizing it. We're a long way off from that, if it's even possible at all (of which we haven't the slightest clue).

We're in a hell of a mess right here, right now. Don't tell me the problem will be fixed in 100 years after we colonize Mars or start mining dilithium on the Moon.

Are you kidding? A science-fiction novel is not a solution to our immediate problem. We need to work from the assumption that we are stuck here, with the resources we have now.

Because that is the reality of the situation we are in. Anything else is pure fantasy.

The first task would be to stop 'war'. If we would stop killing each other maybe we could solve some problems.

a reply to: NthOther

That is the issue though, we only have a finite amount of resources(money). We can allocated that money and we all live in huts, or we can allocate that money in space exploration to colonize space.

Sure colonizing space maybe 50 years off or so, but viable geo-engineering solutions are the same amount of time away and cost just as much.

The other problem with geo-engineering is that we don't understand the climate or the earth well enough to know that we aren't going to significantly change the climate in a way that kills us all. All the solutions so far like dumping billions of tons of iron in the ocean, has an adverse effect on ocean habitats and could possibly plunge us into an ice age.

a reply to: minusinfinity

There will always be war and conflict, someone will always want control.

It's a balance, war and peace, good and bad, truth and fiction, and while war is a horrible thing it does help us advance as a species. (I disagree with war too, but understand sometimes it's the only solution to a dispute. i.e. being attacked.)

originally posted by: Timing
In this instance it's whether we secure more money for NASA or create more programs to promote private space exploration. Advancements in private space exploration will come slowly if these cap and trade incentives are allowed to succeed.

If the private sector is going to do it why do we have to create a program? That would be like having two NASAs.

Wouldn't saving the Earth result in the saving of humans? I believe it goes hand in hand. The real problem is over population. Eventually, expanding into space will have to become a viable option. Space, and the oceans, are about the last places man has left to explore. It's exciting to think of the prospect of colonizing another planet or the moon.

Though not viable now, it will have to become an option at some point.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The reason for a Government funded program is corporations are only loyal to themselves and once they get off this rock what's stopping them from cutting all ties and saying we are on our own and taking all the tech with them?

While governments are corrupt at least we the people will have some sort of stop gap measure to reign them in if things to get too out of hand, in theory at least.

originally posted by: Timing
The reason for a Government funded program is corporations are only loyal to themselves and once they get off this rock what's stopping them from cutting all ties and saying we are on our own and taking all the tech with them?

Corporate espionage.

It happens now, it will happen then.

Both. But you'll need to kill capitalism (abolish private property, right of inheritance and money).

Save Humans = bye bye earth
Bye Bye earth = Bye Bye Humans.

The best option seems pretty clear to me.

originally posted by: Chiftel
Both. But you'll need to kill capitalism (abolish private property, right of inheritance and money).

At that point I would rather live on my own damn planet. Alone.

originally posted by: Timing
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The reason for a Government funded program is corporations are only loyal to themselves and once they get off this rock what's stopping them from cutting all ties and saying we are on our own and taking all the tech with them?

While governments are corrupt at least we the people will have some sort of stop gap measure to reign them in if things to get too out of hand, in theory at least.

And if you are part of a group that invests its own time, its own legitimately gained resources and effort into the project and eventually gets off-world and on its own ... why would anyone left behind presume to think it owed them anything more than it chose to sell back?

You are talking about saving the human race, not about how it might be accomplished. This would save it even if it meant substantial numbers of people were left behind for not being a part of the effort to leave.

I'm guessing that when you read the story of the The Little Red Hen, you think she is terrible for keeping all the bread to herself?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Chiftel
Both. But you'll need to kill capitalism (abolish private property, right of inheritance and money).

At that point I would rather live on my own damn planet. Alone.

You're welcome to leave. But not with any resources, technology and raw materials you take from here. We don't owe you a rocket.

You could try hitching a ride with a UFO or something.