General Question

ETpro's avatar

To Ensure Human Survival, Should we Colonize Space?

Asked by ETpro (34605points) November 4th, 2013

If we wish to survive in the long term, it would seem to me that we must begin the development process for space colonization ASAP. Looking back through Earth’s geologic history, we see from the fossil record that there have been a number of events that proved so catastrophic that large portions of all life on earth went extinct due to them. Truly mass extinctions happen on average once every 50 to 100 million years.

The last one, 65 million years ago, ended the 150 million year Age of the Dinosaurs, yet many small mammals survived, making way for the advent of larger, more complex mammals and eventually man. Our best evidence suggests that an asteroid or comet about the size of Mount Everest hit Earth on the Yucatan Peninsula and the resulting shock wave plus the nuclear winter generated by the global dust cloud did in the dinosaurs. Yet along with small mammals; crocodiles, turtles and snakes survived; so there is a substantial chance man, with his ability to hunker down in well-stocked bunkers, could survive such an event as well.

But the past is littered with mass extinctions. Yellowstone park is one of the largest volcanic calderas on Earth, with a diameter of about 50 Km. Over the past 2 million years, it has erupted about every 600,000 years; and it last erupted 600,000 years ago. When it goes again, it may wipe out much of the life in North America and pose a severe threat to global populations; but it is not likely to be a end-of-humanity event.

Much larger volcanic events called giant fissure eruptions can occur along subduction zones where one tectonic plate bumps up against, and slides under another. Iceland has small fissure eruptions routinely, but there has not been a giant, life-ending one on Earth since complex life emerged. Should such an event happen again, it would likely spell the end of human and most other life on Earth.

Other threats include impacts with very large asteroids, comets, planetoids or even wandering planets or black holes. The supernova of a nearby massive star could impact all life on Earth. Likewise, more remote massive stars can generate gamma ray bursts, the highest energy events in the universe short of the Big Bang. If Earth had the misfortune of being aligned with the energy beam of a gamma ray burst, even from a star as far as 1,000 light years from Earth, that would likely spell our doom. The radiation coupled with the warming produced in our atmosphere by collisions with the charged particles, and the destruction of our protective ozone layer would deliver a deadly punch.

The Earth’s Magnetic field is also known to go through fluctuations. It occasionally reverses poles. If it were to collapse for any significant amount of time, it would allow solar radiation to strip away Earth’s protective ozone layer and rob of us of our protection from cosmic radiation.

Finally, the Sun itself will begin growing hotter. In about 1 billion to 2.3 billion years, it will heat Earth to the point life on it will be threatened. At that time, our Sun will vaporize all water on Earth and heat the planet to temperatures at least as severe as those on Mercury, where it is hot enough to melt lead. In about 7.25 billion years, the Sun will become a red giant. Cosmologists are not yet certain whether the Sun’s outer atmosphere will actually engulf Earth during its red giant phase, but the best guess is it will. This, of course, would end the existence of our planet, melting us and swallowing us up in the Sun’s core.

So it’s a sure bet something is going to wipe us out if we hang around here and wait long enough. The scary part is nobody currently knows which of the possible threats will do the job, or when it will occur. Given all that, it makes a great deal of sense to start the process of figuring out how to colonize space NOW.

From the time President Kennedy gave the order to put man on the moon, it took science 10 years to figure out how. Finding an Earth-like exoplanet and landing a colonizing force on it will be many thousands of times more complex than the moon shots were. But I have no doubt it can be done, and probably for less in real terms than it cost mankind to fight WWII. Why don’t world leaders gather, begin the public education process it would take to build global support for space colonization, and get the ball rolling on actually doing it? Who knows, with the money and cooperation required, maybe it would stave off WWIII, which with the current nuclear arsenal could be one more possible human extinction event.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

Rarebear's avatar

Ultimately, long term, over millions of years, it’s the only way to ensure survival as a species. But since we haven’t solved the riddle of Relativity yet, it would involve generational space arks, with a high likelihood of death.

So really, we’re toast.

ETpro's avatar

It just occurred to me that I should give credit for this question to our own Matt Browne, whose excellent sci-fi thriller, The Future Happens Twice: The Perennial Project got me to thinking about this as a reality and not just a work of fiction.

@Rarebear the above book posits some interesting solutions to a trip of 42,000 years. Interestingly, several earth-sized exoplanets have been located now by Kepler not so far from Earth, and orbiting close to a red dwarf star

hipnek's avatar

We’ll get there eventually, if we don’t blow ourselves up first.

gorillapaws's avatar

I’m a big fan of the one-way manned Mars mission concept. The early explorers coming to “The New World” knew it was a one way trip. I think it would make the resources involved much more manageable.

tinyfaery's avatar

No. Human beings had their chance. The world, hell, the universes would probably be better off without humans.

ragingloli's avatar

Good luck getting past the blockade, silly primates.

Juels's avatar

Wow, what a really thought out question… Has this been bothering you for a while?

Why not colonize space? Eventually, over-crowding and dwindling supplies will force us to seek other planets for the necessary resources.

Katniss's avatar

It would be nice to have somewhere to go when the Zombie Apacolypse comes.
Sorry….. I had to say it.

kritiper's avatar

We can only colonize some of our planets, if that is even possible. But MRSA will get us all sooner or later. I’d bet sooner, and before we colonize anything anywhere.

ETpro's avatar

@Rarebear Matt Browne’s book dismisses the idea of generational arks as too impractical, and I tend to agree. To carry a breeding population and enough resources for them all, a ship would have to be perhaps 100 times the size of a supercarrier. It would need shielding to deflect space debris and to protect the entire inhabited area and biosphere from cosmic radiation. Matt contemplates sending frozen embryos and androids programmed to put them in an artificial womb device, then care for them and educate them till they are old enough to land the ship.

This seems more feasible to me. The ship could be far smaller. It could travel thousands or tens of thousands of years before the human crew was brought to life. And while there would need to be a large number of embryos on board to establish a breeding population with sufficient genetic diversity, only a few crew members would be needed at first to land the ship, disembark, and establish a colony on a suitable exoplanet.

@hipnek That’s exactly why I think mankind should decide to start cooperative work on such a project now. If we all come to recognize that only through a global cooperative effort can we ensure the long-term survival of our species, maybe we’ll recognize that incinerating 50% of the development team would not advance the project. A common, survival driven goal can do wonders to breed cooperation.

@gorillapaws We’re far closer to being able to set up a permanent colony on Mars than on an exoplanet, obviously. And Mars will benefit from the same solar warming that will begin to fry the Earth in a billion years or so. Nonetheless, the challenges there are substantial. There is little protective atmosphere to burn up meteors, there is no protective ozone layer, and there is no remaining magnetosphere, which means the solar winds tend to strip away atmosphere and atmospheric moisture, which explains where most of the planet’s original supply of water went. Dealing with these issues would present formidable technical challenges for many decades to come.

@tinyfaery Having a particularly bad day? :-)

@ragingloli I’m sure that will cheer @tinyfaery up. :-)

@Juels Thank you. I’d been thinking about it for a very long time, but as I mentioned above I’m reading a Sci-Fi book by a Fluther member, and it really got the creative juices flowing. I began to see that it would be an enormous challenge, but not one that cannot be mastered with sufficient effort and research. As we watch science develop, we can see all the necessary pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place.

@Katniss What do zombies eat when there are no brains left on the planet?

@kritiper So let’s turn the tables and learn to eat MRSA.

mattbrowne's avatar

“Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space. The colonization of outer space is key to the survival of humankind, because it will be difficult for the world’s inhabitants to avoid disaster in the next hundred years.”—Stephen Hawking

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/18/stephen-hawking-space-exploration_n_1101975.html

flutherother's avatar

It is too early to think of colonising space as we don’t have the technology. In the short term we could build bunkers under the earth where a few representatives of humanity could survive cataclysms. This is more feasible than space missions. In the longer term the sun will make Earth uninhabitable but that is billions of years in the future. The immediate difficulty is finding a way of living on the Earth which is sustainable. Resources aren’t infinite and we are already running out of oil, precious minerals and even land. Once we stabilise the planet we will have plenty of time to explore the stars.

ibstubro's avatar

I’m with @tinyfaery. Since the beginning, the human race has acted as a self destructive cancer on the Earth. Until or unless we can rein in some of our more destructive behaviors, we should stay put. It’s possible that something along the lines of HIV, MRSA, or Ebola will wipe out 90% of the population and give the remaining 10% a chance to learn to live in harmony with the Earth.

mattbrowne's avatar

@flutherother – Frozen embryos and androids can be stored in bunkers too, which would be an advantage if people can’t leave these bunkers for several hundred years. What is needed is a stable energy source and enough resources to raise the babies.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Should we? I will leave that debate to the philosophers.
Will we? Yes if we survive long enough to invent the technology needed to make such an undertaking feasable.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
ETpro's avatar

@mattbrowne Excellent comment. Excellent book as well. Thanks for both.

@flutherother We didn’t have the technology to go to the Moon till we decided to do it. We didn’t have the technology to put a satellite in orbit around Earth till we decided to do it. I do not think we can afford to just sit back and wait for deep space exploration technology to fall into our laps. It’s not going to drop out of the sky. We will develop it only after we commit to doing so.

@ibstubro I’d too would love to see a highly evolved species be the first to leave Earth. But to sit around and go extinct waiting for that seems extraordinary dumb, perhaps even worthy of the condemnation human-haters want to level at our species.

@mattbrowne One more way.

@WestRiverrat I second @ibstubro. That’s a practical answer.

mattbrowne's avatar

Should we leave Africa? Homo sapiens said yes.
Should we cross the large ocean? The Aborigines said yes.
Should we discover a shorter way to India? Columbus said yes.
Should we reach for the moon? John F. Kennedy said yes.
Should this be enough? Explorers say no.

ETpro's avatar

@mattbrowne I guess it’s in our genes to explore.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther