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
Cost/benefit. Habitats with life support are expensive. On other planets, they’re worth the cost because you die without them. On Earth, not so much.
If there was an immediate and known threat that will make Earth hostile to life, people would rush to build such habitats. And people will fight over them.
Latest Answers