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.
Conversation
Quote Tweet
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
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
Exactly, even ignoring the fact that probability for such things increase with time span, the value at risk (every single human or post-human life to be born in the future, from the point of the X event) makes the expected cost worth almost anything.
2
1
> “It is absurdly arrogant to premise your evaluations of any understanding of what the situation maybe like for humanity even a few hundred years down the road”
> “extinction events will almost certainly never happen within our civilisation’s lifespan “
1
It’s just strange to me how you guys are so opposed to even trying this. Worst case scenario, we go there, discover that it is in fact unfeasible and leave it at that.
On the flip side, the first step in the million year long process of spreading Earth life through the stars-
2
1
This tough question - but I think if you care about climate change as most seem to, it’s a fairly straight path to spreading life across cosmos. Though this connection doesn’t seem to be made very often