Will Humanity Colonize Space?

[demicolon]

@ChefBourgeoisie please tell me what's the difference between fertility and birth rate?

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

Do you think Humanity will eventually be able to colonize space? Like setting up bases or settlements on other planets and moons, traversing through space, leaving our Solar System, and beyond. Do you think it's possible? How do you think it would be done? What is the timeframe for it happening, if you think it will? Are there hot, sexy alien bitches out there? The questions are truly innumerable...

I think humanity will come to inhabit the solar system but that it will take thousands of years to become significant, permanent, and self propagating.

Once that is done I think over a very long timespan - tens of thousands of years or more, we'll manage to reach a few neighbouring star systems.

I think humans who inhabit space habitats or other worlds will evolve (or be gene manipulated) to adapt to those environments. You won't have much if any travel between places. People will talk to each other trough radio waves, but most aren't going to spend a decade or more to go to a station around Jupiter or wherever and back.

 

[D-X-G-X]

Space exploration is fucking stupid and there are no aliens in outer space. New millennium version of chasing unicorns and dragons.

 

[regalterry]

Erecting permanent habitats on the Moon and Mars is already possible, we have all the necessary technologies, the only reason it hasn't been done already is lack of interest.

Now, to make such habitats self-sustaining is much more difficult, but again, also doable with enough effort. We have the necessary tech, other than our ability to simulate 1G, but even that can be overcome through the use of centrifugal force.

Colonizing other objects is going to be significantly more difficult, both because of the hostile environment and vast distances involved. Even "hard" sci-fi stories like the Expanse require fictional, efficient and very fast engines to explain how humanity has managed to expand so far into the solar system.

I think the most realistic depiction of human colonization was the Universal Century setting of the Gundam anime. The Moon features big cities and major shipyards, Mars is sparsely colonized (a few million people) and considered a distant backwater, while the vast majority of spaceborne humans live in O'Neill cylinders positioned at the various Lagrange points, which make up what is called the Earth Sphere.

The distances between Earth and the various Sides (what they call each Lagrange point) are not so fast as to make travel prohibitive (we're talking a few weeks to a few months of travel). The people living around Jupiter are considered bizarre and alien, and the fleets going to and from Jupiter take years to complete their journey.

As for interstellar travel, unless we somehow figure out a way to overcome the vast distances, it's going to be hard to find a civilization willing to pour the gargantuan resources necessary for such an endeavor. For one, even if a planet that looks habitable is found "nearby", it's like to take decades for an unmanned probe to get there and send data back.

Then you need to build a generational ship to transport colonists there, fully cognizant that you will not be seeing any return on your investment - the new colony won't be able to send resources back, and even sending one message back and forth will take years. It would be a hard sell for the population, doubly so if there are more pressing domestic issues that require those resources.

Space exploration is fucking stupid

Nigger.

and there are no aliens in outer space

Statistically, there must be life out there.

Now, the question is whether said life is developed enough to have emerged from the primordial oceans, whether they are sentient and whether they have moved far along their tech tree to stand blasting out radio signals.

And even if all those requirements are fulfilled, if they're too far away from us we are never going to be able to detect them or the signals they're sending.

Aliens must exist, we are not a unique anomaly, but the distances between us and the nearest alien are likely so vast we might as well be the only intelligent life in existence for all intents and purposes.

 

[D-X-G-X]

Statistically, there must be life out there.

Of course there is. You're already where life is at.

Unless you are really into protozoa or bacterial cultures, you aren't getting anything interesting from outer space in terms of life. It's a dead end "real discovery was friends we made along the way" journey.

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

please tell me what's the difference between fertility and birth rate?

A country with 100 people has 5 births total in 2025. That is their birth rate. A country of 1 million people has 5 births in 2025, that is also their birth rate.

One of these countries isn't in bad shape at all. The other will become extinct in short order. They both have the same birth rate (this number of kids were born in this unit of time). They don't have the same fertility rates (this average number of kids were born to this number of women over the women's entire lifetimes).

It's the reason nigger-brained retards will retort with "but there are 8 billion of us!"... it does not matter that there are 8 billion, if 7.9 billion are all geriatric and over the age of reproduction. It could be 100 quadrillion geezers, but they're all too old to have kids and in 50 years when they're all dead, the population's tiny again. They're counting the wrong thing. They're counting "how many people there are right now", and not "how many people can make more people". If the latter number's too low, nothing else matters.

Now ask yourself this: Why is this always being confused by idiots everywhere? Is it because they're too stupid to know the difference, or are they shills deliberately trying to muddle the details? And which is worse? Can we overcome stupidity more easily than the enemies of mankind trying to lull us back to sleep so we become extinct, or is stupidity more dangerous still?

 

[Fount of BadSpeak]

Nope. We waste trillions of dollars and massive amounts of industry propping up nonhuman browns. America alone, just with the money it has wasted on niggers, could have moon and Mars bases right this moment, but instead we dedicated ourselves to making sure that fat subhumans got gibs instead, and we are obviously not going to change that any time soon. Humans will never seize their destiny amongst the stars so long as we choose to be weighted down in the dirt with those who are the same color as said dirt.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Now, the question is whether said life is developed enough to have emerged from the primordial oceans, whether they are sentient and whether they have moved far along their tech tree to stand blasting out radio signals.

And even if all those requirements are fulfilled, if they're too far away from us we are never going to be able to detect them or the signals they're sending.

It's mostly a moot point even with contact. It's unlikely that there would be productive contact with an alien. How many species on earth do we have productive contact with? A handful out of millions. How many of those are on a kind of equal basis? Like there are 2 or 3 that come close but don't reach it, dogs, cats and horses and we've replaced the last of these three with machines.

Adimov's the gods themselves comes to mind. There an alien race from another universe manages to send sufficient clues that can be deciphered to build the machine that they specify, which allows limited 2 way communication. Then they give specifications for a machine that seems to produce limitless energy. The specifics how it produces that energy is a fascinating plot point, but the essence is that it will eventually implode earth into a star, which can then be harvested by the aliens (among other things).

It's like the ABBA song, the winner takes it all. Contact with any intelligent alien is likely to play out like the winner takes it all.

 

[demicolon]

Now ask yourself this: Why is this always being confused by idiots everywhere? Is it because they're too stupid to know the difference, or are they shills deliberately trying to muddle the details?

TBF I was making fun of you by asking a stupid question. TBS I think you know how many people can't grasp the concept of per capita or basic probabilities. I guess the average person pretends to not see the problem, otherwise they'd have to publictly admit that people are not equal and that We the People cannot just "coexist" and get all along and sing Kumbaya. It's both a big no-no and too depressing to contemplate for many.

 

[Nick Gars]

Born too late to colonize America, born too early to subjugate space niggers.

Smfh

 

[demicolon]

Anyone doing a cursory nuts and bolts inquiry into the logistics of space exploration soon discovers why the Fermi Paradox is a thing. It is massively expensive in every conceivable way with next to no returns. Intelligent life flourishes and dies in the place it was born, in a timeframe that is but a blink of an eye on the cosmic scale.

IMO Fermi Paradox stems from ayyyliens being smart enough to actively avoid both detection by us and contact. I mean when you think about it, Greys flying down on Earth with some kind of diplomatic mission makes as much sense as an entomologist doing the same to ants in an Amazon jungle. There's no point and you can bring some nasty disease or parasite if you go inside.

It doesn't even need to have a nefarious reason: they might avoid humanity simply because they don't want to disrupt our development as a species. As in, they're making PhDs out of us.

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

A country with 100 people has 5 births total in 2025. That is their birth rate. A country of 1 million people has 5 births in 2025, that is also their birth rate.

One of these countries isn't in bad shape at all. The other will become extinct in short order. They both have the same birth rate (this number of kids were born in this unit of time). They don't have the same fertility rates (this average number of kids were born to this number of women over the women's entire lifetimes).

It's the reason nigger-brained retards will retort with "but there are 8 billion of us!"... it does not matter that there are 8 billion, if 7.9 billion are all geriatric and over the age of reproduction. It could be 100 quadrillion geezers, but they're all too old to have kids and in 50 years when they're all dead, the population's tiny again. They're counting the wrong thing. They're counting "how many people there are right now", and not "how many people can make more people". If the latter number's too low, nothing else matters.

Now ask yourself this: Why is this always being confused by idiots everywhere? Is it because they're too stupid to know the difference, or are they shills deliberately trying to muddle the details? And which is worse? Can we overcome stupidity more easily than the enemies of mankind trying to lull us back to sleep so we become extinct, or is stupidity more dangerous still?

Nigga, even South Korea, which has the lowest fertility rate in the world, would take several hundred years to completely depopulate if it remains at the absurdly low 0.7% fertility rate, which it likely won't for that long.

Why?

Natural selection, my nigga. The selective pressures causing the birth dearth means that whatever enshittification is occurring, that those few who do have kids are passing on their genes, and with that, the propensity to have children in these crappy times. Now whether the traits being selected for are ones suitable to keep a high tech globalist consumerist society rolling are questionable (I'm of the position that they are not), but it does mean that humanity survives for the foreseeable future even if it's completely alien to us in the long term.

Evolution, my nigga. That's how it works.

IMO Fermi Paradox stems from ayyyliens being smart enough to actively avoid both detection by us and contact. I mean when you think about it, Greys flying down on Earth with some kind of diplomatic mission makes as much sense as an entomologist doing the same to ants in an Amazon jungle. There's no point and you can bring some nasty disease or parasite if you go inside.

It doesn't even need to have a nefarious reason: they might avoid humanity simply because they don't want to disrupt our development as a species. As in, they're making PhDs out of us.

They're treating us like we treat the Andaman Islanders and uncontacted Amazonians... makes sense

Though I tend to think that whatever possible alien probes into our system, if they exist, are AIs rather than biological creatures. I tend to believe that FTL travel is impossible, and it makes more sense to send a small hyper-intelligent super-computer out than a generation ship. Hell, maybe the AI probes are all that's left of whatever civilization sent them out eons ago. Their sun went nova and all that exists is computer collecting data and sending it out to someplace that doesn't exist anymore.

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

would take several hundred years to completely depopulate if it remains at the absurdly low 0.7% fertility rate,

No, it won't. Each subsequent generation doesn't exist in a vacuum... the older generations influence the behavior and norms of younger generations. The same generation that has the absurdly low fertility rate teaches those few girls born to have low fertility too. And that generation doesn't stay the same... they drive it lower still. This accelerates. It doesn't decline at a constant rate. I don't know how this can't be plainly obvious... do you think that at the end of this, there's just 2 or 3 young Koreans total, and that they only have the one kid, who is the last korean? Fuck no.

At some point in the not too distant future, the drop from tfr0.5 to 0.0ish happens in the span of just a few years. When you can't even buy diapers for a kid, even those inclined to have children think to themselves "maybe I should just give up on this". And they all do. When there are no pediatrician specialists left, maybe you just think it's no longer worth it to try. And when that happens, retards like yourself will both be shocked and then pretend that it's completely normal and non-objectionable, and that it's not really going to lead to human extinction because "we'll figure something out in a few years".

Natural selection, my nigga. The selective pressures causing the birth dearth means that whatever enshittification is occurring, that those few who do have kids are passing on their genes, and with that, the propensity to have children in these crappy times.

This isn't how natural selection works. Everyone has this fucking propensity, dumbass. You're the end result of 4 billion years of evolution of the things which didn't decide for shits and giggles to just not reproduce. Everything that did decide that went extinct a long, long time ago. Everyone has the propensity to reproduce despite the worst that nature could throw at us. Famines, plagues, fucking volcanic hellscapes and wipe-the-earth-clean tsunamis.

The reason they're not having children isn't lack of propensity. It's a contagious mental illness. And unless special steps are taken, everyone catches it. And no one's taking those steps, nor will they even figure it out until it's far too late.

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

No, it won't. Each subsequent generation doesn't exist in a vacuum... the older generations influence the behavior and norms of younger generations.

I snipped the rest of this because it's obvious you're a blank slate nigga who doesn't know fuck all about biology much less what selective pressures are.

But do go on ahead and project the current state of affairs decades or even hundreds of years into the future like there ain't gonna be no knock on effects that change things in the meanwhile.

As for myself, I may have no kids, but just one of my younger cousins has five of 'em. Altogether, my deceased maternal grandparents have 14 grandkids and even more great-grandkids with more on the way.

If technocratic upper-middle class urbanite whites and asians want to breed like giant pandas, it just means they die out and get replaced by someone else.

Anyways, go out there and knock some chick up if you're that worried about this shit. I'll even teach you the ancient Hawaiian method, which involves a beach party, dancing to slow jams, and most importantly, a case of Heineken and not being picky.

 

[demicolon]

They're treating us like we treat the Andaman Islanders and uncontacted Amazonians... makes sense

Or wild monkeys. What is harmless to us might be lethal to them. Reminds me of Charles Hall's "Tall Whites", probably the most convincing alien story I've read, who were amazed by human's Wolverine-like healing factor capable of healing a bone fracture in weeks (for them it took years.

Anyway, what's the point of terraforming Mars or other planets? Why not build deep underground structures where the environment is 100% self-contained? Who cares if Venus is covered in boiling-hot acid rain if you never go outside?

 

[TEA 3HF]

Ww3 is more likely to sunset us, ngl.

 

[Nice Stick]

When fertility rates crash and become sub-replacement, as they already have, population shrinks.

Is a declining population really an obstacle to progress? The reason 9 billion humans today cannot accomplish what 3 billion did 60 years ago is not because even more people are needed. Even back then, it was only about 200 million WASP's that accomplished most of the things that we would count as progress. It seems to me that their loss of power and cultural significance is arguably more correlated with the decline of our civilization than fertility.

 

[umseriously]

Yes it'll happen far in the future. It's the only way to escape the mongrel hordes that plagues this world and to propel humanity forwards. Any new nation that forms on these new worlds needs to gatekeep hard and as long as possible to not let our multicultural dystopia bleed over there.

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

Even back then, it was only about 200 million WASP's that accomplished most of the things that we would count as progress. It seems to me that their loss of power and cultural significance is arguably more correlated with the decline of our civilization than fertility.

If this is your conclusion, then I would point out that those extra 6 billion you talk about aren't the WASPs at all. And that the population that has shrunk is the one you credit with cultural and technological advances. You've basically just nitpicked that not all larger populations are equal, something which I've never disputed.

 

[Spooky Cloud Strife]

Yes it'll happen far in the future. It's the only way to escape the mongrel hordes that plagues this world and to propel humanity forwards. Any new nation that forms on these new worlds needs to gatekeep hard and as long as possible to not let our multicultural dystopia bleed over there.

but human history and modern global panorama showed us that humanity sucks at gatekeeping