Is it about perceived ethics and population? It would be too difficult to stand by on the same planet thriving while the rest can see it up close? Safety, security etc.?
Is it as simple as planetary colonization being about exploration and very long term advancement more than the disaster escape scenario in my mind?
Or, am I completely missing something else?
EDIT to clarify that I’m not suggesting any artificial habitat that would be lived in now or in the near future, but in the bigger picture of humans needing to adapt to the changing world.
In: Planetary Science
No, you’re in the right track in your thinking as long as we’re talking about ways for (some of) humanity to survive after we’ve ruined earth. These are the options in increasing technological difficulty:
– Not ruin earth in the first place
– Ruin earth but (some) people live on earth in artificial habitats (like you’re asking about)
– Live in artificial habitats on Mars (or wherever)
The reason techno-utopians like Elon Musk are obsessed with option three is because it’s cool and sci-fi and utopian. The reason nobody ever talks about option two is because it highlights how dystopian destroying the earth is. It’s just not a cool future.
Latest Answers