• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Being hard is the point. (That’s what she said).

    In making that attempt, we have to solve a lot of problems. How do we make a self-sustaining ecosystems where humans can live indefinitely? Can humans live that long in reduced gravity without issues? Can children be raised to healthy adulthood in reduced gravity? Is human pregnancy even possible there (probably is, but we don’t know that for sure)? Are there technologies or genetic engineering that we could use to solve the issues we encounter?

    How do we mine asteroids? How do we manufacture things in zero gravity? How do we build the Internet to handle latency measured in minutes or hours or days?

    These are all hard problems, but if they were easy, then they wouldn’t be interesting.

    And I’d say the same for ocean colonies. That’s hard, too. Not quite as hard, but hard.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Colonization doesn’t make sense in light of what’s likely to come first. Artifical intelligence, mind uploading, extensive genetic engineering, programmable nanotech for fabrication, take your pick… All these are infinitely more reachable and cheaper than dedicating tons of resources to sustaining a squishy, fragile human bodies in space while the vast majority are still stuck on Earth due to economic constraints.

      It’s just not economical until humans are so different that it doesn’t really resemble are Star Trek-ish visions of humans on space boats (eg they’re flying around in computers, AI are sent ahead to construct habitation, bodies are genetically engineered for survival in space, that sort of thing).

      Again, I am not talking about research or the glory of stepping foot somewhere, but I just don’t see the point of trying to emulate a traditional human living in an environment where it’s so impractical.