![Ether.gush.hose [Twigwam.eth]🖖](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1168721445813465089/fPUAhUv3_normal.jpg)
Anarctica can't be colonized due to international treaties. And yet, it's been permanently occupied by a large number of scientists for decades. Other similarly inhospitable places like northern Siberia have been inhabited for centuries. This is a profoundly goofy argument.
This is something I’ve believed for a long time: Humans aren’t going to colonize Mars. Or anywhere off Earth. Not for many decades. Why? MUCH too costly and dangerous. Who would raise kids there? Antarctica is orders of magnitude easier — yet ppl show no interest. More below:https://twitter.com/hughhowey/status/1134540120877649921 …
A THREAD ABOUT LIVING IN SPACE
We aren't going to do it. Not by the millions, and probably not even in the thousands.
Show this thread
-
-
-
OK, replace Antarctica with “the open ocean” or even “the bottom of the sea.” Why are we so keen to colonize space, but relatively uninterested in colonizing the hard-to-inhabit parts of our own planet?
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You must follow
@robinhanson
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Lol, ppl don't even want to live in the northern parts of the southern provinces of Canada
-
Adjusting this is unironically the major probable economic impact of climate change
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not just decades. Not just centuries. Never.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Why do you think people do things?
-
For many different reasons? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.