Conversation

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
m o n d a y
@spacepanty
Yes but don’t things become feasible (in centuries or otherwise) because we actually work on them? Progress doesn’t appear out of think air. I don’t think anyone expects thriving space cities within our lifetimes, or even our children’s lifetimes.
1
m o n d a y
@spacepanty
Quote Tweet
m o n d a y
@spacepanty
Mars colonies (at least right now) are usually brought up as insurance against extreme tail risk/extinction events where physical proximity is a catastrophe vector (large asteroid strikes, unknown superweapons, out of control bioweapon etc), And for that I think they make sense
1
1
Antipodal Gray
@0xGray
Well I mean OP of this whole thread is talking about us having 2 - 3 centuries left at best. On off chance that closing window causes a catastrophic war earlier I’d hope we did have a backup on mats even if it was resource intensive if it meant rescuing trillions of future lives
3
Antipodal Gray
@0xGray
This is a pretty good argument. I think you could sub in the moon in place of mars and achieve a fair amount of the security I’m concerned with. My concern isn’t just nukes, I think off the chain biotech and viruses are a bigger threat, hence having two locations
2
Likes
Antipodal Gray
@0xGray
Long term definitely agree with you - but short term I think we’ll struggle to do much better than capping a lava tube. Small steps that reduce risk on path to a Dyson swarm constellation of space habitats. We agree here
1