Skip Navigation
150 comments

  • I don't think capital can sustain projects of this magnitude. Space is too harsh of an environment for delulu. We can hardly grapple with the idea that our actions on earth have consequences because of our condition. I like space stuff and I even like to create designs of starships, but I don't think we're in a position to reach for the stars just yet. Even if I'm wrong, we can't allow space fascism get started either. There is probably life out there and if space capitalism finds them, they'll try to pull another indigenous genocide and invent new forms of xenophobia to justify it.

    None of our problems are technological. We have massive people problems. Building a new billions of dollar machine or trillions of dollar space station isn't going to disrupt the imperial core. The Gray Techno Fash won't suddenly become humanists because space.

    Space life can be fun to think about, but techno futurism is a liberal fetish and tends to result in liberal fantasies if you don't decolonize your mind.

    https://readsettlers.org tbh

  • If we can do B, A doesn't provide many benefits.

    A 1km diameter, 30km cylinder would provide enough area to feed ~140k people. 95km^2 of space.

    That is assuming no imported food etc, based on 7000m^2 per person which is almost 2 acres each.

    140k people is a small city.

    • Habitats are risky and not as good as planets imo. It would be trivially simply to sabotage one and kill everyone inside. Just vent atmo into space, poison the air/water, and even a accidental fire could kill everyone who doesnt manage to flee.. Planets not so easy. Some of the same attacks work but u can just walk elsewhere.

      plus in a habitat your not really thinking of psychological effects. Its been shown for example that humans needs to see big bodies of water regularly to not get stressed out. So youd need to devote significant space onboard to just that. Plus imagine never seeing the mountains again, or a sunset, or the ocean. The earth is intrinsically linked to our evolution and many of its features are far too big to have on a habitat. I mean not to mention all the microbiomes we interact with unknowingly on earth all the time.

      While habitats might be an ok solution for some people there are definitely things we will always need a planet for and imo a planet will always be superior in quality of life.

    • 140k people is about the amount of people living in a 1km radius around you, if you live in some inner city area.

      • You could have most people in a relatively small area with the rest for farming.

        There would be little need for the equivalent of roads, almost all travel would be walk or bike. The longest distance between two points is less than 34km. If the main settlement is in a ring around the middle of the cylinder, it is less than 17km to any point.

  • We should be exploring both options, exploration can often lead to unexpected discoveries and technological advancement.

  • All of the above. But start with cleaning up this planet. Build better / more sustainable and more diverse communities and energy production. Build arcologies in the arctic, deserts, oceans. Those are good “practice” for building the same off planet.

  • A quote attributed to a few people, Heinlein and Pournelle for two, "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." Both space and planets have shared and their separate problems to solve. In my head I prefer the image of most populations moving into habitats in space, customized to their preferences, with smaller settlements on various bodies for their own purposes. In my realistic view I don't see us getting that far before we get bogged down with all the problems we've created on this planet. The window to a permanent space civilization might have already shut. A sad thing, as a 70s kid I grew up convinced we were full speed into some version of what scifi had sold to me.

  • After reading A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith I think a O'Neill Cylinder spinning spaceship for artificial gravity type is more achievable than planarity colonisation.

    But the main point of the book, and I am fairly convinced of the more I think about it, is that it is a lot of effort and risk for not a lot of gain and we are entirely unprepared for space colonisation.

  • Neither. There's plenty of room and resources here on Earth. I think it's fine to do space exploration and even have research bases on moons and other planets, but I just don't see the imperative for colonization.

150 comments