Argument in the survival of colonies around the world

Survivors to implement the colonies of the world has a lot of attraction. It begins to consider the threat of extinction. There have been many events to disappear in the past and there is no reason to think that humans are exempt. There are many doomsday scenarios that can cause our disappearance, from the classic asteroid strike to the nuclear armageddon made by humans. Less extreme, but still worried, our civilization would end the disaster.

In the face of these threats, it is a rational response to ensure that it is the external population of human beings that would allow humans, if the Earth was subject to an event to extinction. In extreme scenarios, the external population can help care and restore civilization. These scenarios are known for lovers of fans.

From a moral point of view, the argument that we should establish colonies that we should ensure survival is utilitarian. While the gista are expensive, humans and human civilizations are compensated that increase the probabilities that survive. This type of ethical reasoning carried out by JS Mill involves weighting a positive and negative value generated by an action. The most positive value of creatures that is a number is a suitable action that generates the action generated by a factor.

It is a moral council that will also be used in nature, improving these resources to increase the chances of survival on the ground. Although climate change is obvious, there are many other threats that may be taken using resources on Earth. The argument of the “Earth’s first” is often made in terms of investment return. For example, spending a billion billion for the moon colony would benefit less than millions of threats to deal with land threats.

Although argument is sensible, the obvious counter is not to dismiss expenses in the development of space to address terrestrial problems. After all, we will already spend wide resources in things that do not increase human survival opportunities (and many decreases). It is also necessary to purchase from the upper class that controls the resources, and is much more likely to finance the base of the Moon or Mars Mission to Finance. Therefore, the argument of “money is better spent in other things” is sensible, is not an effective practical argument against expenditure resources for colonies around the world.

Another reasonable obstacle is moral and practical: Spending resources based on survival argument fails to create a feasible colony aimed at the survival of species because they lack technology and resources. Some can use Adam and Eve as an inspiration, creating a feasible and sustainable colony or conserving civilization is also very difficult. The colony should have enough population to be feasible and must be without ground support. That being the case, it should grow his food and produce its water, air and equipment. Think about how difficult it is to act in Antarctica; It would be difficult to work on a colony on the Moon or Mart.

A counter is not an impossible colony that is unable to argue, even massive investment and perhaps the efforts needed. This will lead us to arguments about the efficient use of resources. It would be more sense, critics would argue using these resources that improve life on earth.

It is a third objection that humans are not suitable for living in a life colony. We cannot survive in space or in every other world of our solar system without life support. To ignore air, food and water and radiation, there is also gravity. Humans, at least the current model, do not live well in low gravity.

A counter is an argument of the moon and Mars potential seriously sufficient to be feasible for human residence. There is also the possibility of creating “artificial” gravities in science, a different, radical but possible way to live in such environments. The life of Earth could also be changed to survive and grow in such conditions. SCIENCE FICTION Access to the field, we can imagine radical changes in humans to put human brains in mechanical bodies from complete biological reconnections.

Human change proposals arouse serious questions, including the question of what is needed to be human. After all, imagine a changed person who can survive on the skin of the moon. Would a person like this be a man still? This worries that when it comes to survival space, if we need to leave man to survive, then it would be the end of humanity.

The answer to this concern is that arguing is not biology, other factors that do not matter. For example, “people in space” “Human people” can be said that the survival of the “Space people” would mean the survival of humanity, if not homo sapiens. Of course, the same type of argument could be done if the AI ​​is destroyed by biological humans; Our AI “children” would survive. As an inconvenience to close, there is a classic trial day problem, I remember my first space arguments as a college child.

The problem of the trial is that God has established trial day, perhaps as placed in revelations. In this point of view, humanity is perfectly safe until the day of the court on the ground, as nothing happens to hinder this. So it is no intention to spread the earth for survival. Other good reasons to spread to space, such as finding foreigners or finding asteroids, but the survival arguments would not be weight in a view of the world. The challenge is to prove that this approach is correct. The logic itself, of course, can be done almost anything: God has planned for trial day, there is no sense to try to worry about the cures of diseases or even more. That is, fatalism of this approach should be universal.

My overview is to build a long-term vision for the survival argument, which requires a long-term vision. And there is a problem that lasts enough time to succeed. Therefore, it would be a reasonable approach to focus on the ground while he takes steps to spread into space. Of course, the “easiest” solution would be to replace AI; The AI ​​systems would have few problems to survive around the world.