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
A. Why would you spend millions of dollars creating and maintaining an enclosed environment that is just… the same as outside, except for science?
B. People have tried, to see how it would be on other planets, and it’s actually really hard to get perfectly right. If you don’t, you probably starve to death or all your trees fall over or whatever.
Look up the biodomes in Sydney Australia, I think they tried a few times and it all ended up poorly.
You really really have to need to depend on one of these to live in one without it being for science, because otherwise what are you even doing?
Latest Answers