Will humans be able to colonize other planets and galaxies?

>Fantasies of a colonized mind.

explain

I have a feeling that we won't even colonize another planet.

But if we do manage to get out of the resource squeeze we are heading for, it is much more likely that an AI we build make it to another galaxy. Just not ourselves.

Maybe an army of frozen embryos could make the trip. Or some hideous genetic monstrosity that does not need oxygen and does not age. A brain in a jar running at 0.0000000001% processing power for the duration of the flight?? I don't fuggen know babe. People like you and me aren't going galaxy hoping. Might not even make it out of the solar system

No and No

The best we can do is O'Neill Cylinders and I doubt we will ever have a colony on one unless it is to mine near a planet or asteroid. For everything else, humanity doesn't have enough time to do it.

Says who? You can reach the Virgo Cluster by going at more than 0.4% light speed. Sure, you'll be en route for a billion years or so, but you can shorten this by going faster. And there's not much stuff in between galaxy clusters.

I mean to travel to galaxies you'd need tons of generations wasting their lives traveling through space.

>0.4% light speed
>268,246,651mph

Good luck with that.

Virgo Cluster is about 65 million light years away. Now, is the cluster moving away from us or towards us? If it is moving away, you will never reach it no matter how long you travel.

>you can shorten this by going faster

lol Powered by fairy dust I suppose? Don't forget, you have to slow down too.

>If it is moving away, you will never reach it no matter how long you travel.
What? Why? It's receding at 0.4% of light speed, as said above. Nothing physically impossible about that.

>lol Powered by fairy dust I suppose?
No, it takes a small fraction of the sun's energy output for a very short time to accelerate a small probe. Obviously you're not going to sent grown humans.

>Don't forget, you have to slow down too.
Not as much as you need to accelerate, because they are receding. But sure, you have to slow down once, at the end. Still no FTL needed and no laws of physics broken.

Be able to...technically we're able to now. If everyone worked together, we could totally do it. The problem in the fantasy isn't the science.

You do realize that the fastest manmade object is actually the Juno, right? It is only traveling 90,000mph I think. That is only 0.033% of the 4% of C you are stating.

FYI, the Virgo cluster will eventually eat the Local Group. Thus, the best strategy is to wait here on Earth until that happens.

Good luck with the macrogravity problem.

0.4%, not 4%. With 4% you get to infect the Coma Cluster and others as well.

And no, the Virgo cluster won't eat the Local Group, they are not gravitationally bound and receding from each other because of the expansion of the universe. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Virgo Supercluster, which is not a cluster in the sense that its galaxies are gravitationally bound.

Neither of those are real, and they never will be.
Wouldn't local group separate too after some time?

>you'll be en route for a billion years or so

so you only need carry enough energy to power a small civilization for a billion years or so.

>Will humans be able to colonize other planets and galaxies?
Assuming we don't die first, obviously yes.
A more interesting question is how hard would it be do that.

>enough energy to power a small civilization for a billion years or so.
>only
maximum kek

also consider that the population can't be THAT small because a billion years of inbreeding would probably devolve sentience out of existence

No, you send a small seed ship with AI and no humans. The AI then creates humans from organic matter printers, perhaps frozen embryos, or it just creates an AI society.

youtube.com/watch?v=3WtgmT5CYU8

Or you just infect everything with bacteria and they evolve in survivable niches.

I'm not saying this is a good idea, just that it can be done physically. These galaxies will obviously be better off if we don't do this.

>Wouldn't local group separate too after some time?
No, these galaxies are gravitationally bound. That means the gravitation between them from their mass (mostly "dark matter") is larger than the expansion of space between them (from "dark energy").

I sincerely hope not, humans are ignorant scum.

How about a ship like rama that aims for a orbit around a target sun? The energy from the sun kicks shit back into gear inside the ship

>uploading consciousness to preserve a mind is also a viable method.

If we were able to upload consciousness to a server or artificial brain, why would we keep its structural arrangement human?

Surely, we’d edit it in a manner than increases its autonomy and intelligence, thereby rendering it inhuman?

Juste bring a stock of fertilized eggs with genes diversity.
With females crew members and its GG.

>you send a small seed ship with AI and no humans

This.

>AI then creates humans from organic matter printers, perhaps frozen embryos

Why would we want to establish a colony of primitive apes, if we could simply allow intelligence to proliferate throughout the universe in absence of its chimp like forbearers?

>or it just creates an AI society.

Yes, this.

>Why would we want to establish a colony of primitive apes
It was the original question. I myself obviously wouldn't pay $5 for any of these projects without getting something in return.

I know, I was agreeing with you.

Just using your post as a springboard to attack the notion of humans expanding their presence in the universe.

Because the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Save for the few blue shifted galaxies, before you get anywhere near them, the galaxies you are aiming for will be moving away from you at, relatively, faster than the speed of light. They, effectively, will no longer exist from your frame of reference, well before you ever reach them.

Unless FTL turns out to be a thing, of course. Even then, it'd have to be quite a lot faster than the speed of light for most galaxies (some sort of jump-drive teleportation like effect, of the sort no one even has a working hypotheses for, at the moment.)

>the galaxies you are aiming for will be moving away from you at, relatively, faster than the speed of light.
No, their recessional velocity is proportional to the distance. The Virgo clulster is receding at less than 0.4% of light speed, the Coma cluster 2.3%.

This outlines a projection what can and can't be reached from our position:
fhi.ox.ac.uk/intergalactic-spreading.pdf

Again, I'm not suggesting we actually pay for this. I don't see a benefit for the paying people.

>I don't see a benefit for the paying people.
Well, not under the current technology and circumstances.

I dunno what the odds of a quasar being born in the center of our galaxy are, but I know that, if it were to happen, it'd flood the galaxy with so much hard radiation that it'd cook anything within it. (Even if said radiation would take ~50,000 years to propagate.) Granted, it may have already happened, and we wouldn't know it until it was too late.

I suppose the odds of such an occurance go up when we merge with Andromeda, but that's another 4 billion years away.

Eventually, barring a dark age, manufacturing tech would be sufficient to do it "just cuz we can", at least for the already mentioned unmanned mission just seeding some DNA. It's not as if we sent Voyager I & II into the deep out of urgency nor for profit.

Yes, I agree it can be done with realistic future tax funding, if you want to infect or spam the universe for some reason.

Of course, the taxpayers won't have a benefit, even if everyone on earth dies they still don't benefit from sending stuff out as all the taxpayers stay on earth.

Perhaps if they were already brain emulations or AIs who can copy themselves and treat their copies as identical to their selves, you could store the copy and use it as a blueprint at the destination.

Or attention whores like Elon Musk will do it as a hobby.

Unlikely given our current direction.

It all relies on government approval. I don't believe we will ever again see a space boom like the 60's.

When you put the future of humanity in perspective, space colonisation is the only step forward - unless you want to cull the population.

Yet here we are, the 'importance' of this doesn't factor into the current state of global affairs.

Unfortunately I don't think progress will accelerate until there is 'something' significant, which could potentially be anything from a planet wide catastrophe to absolute depletion of resources.

We're fucked.

>When you put the future of humanity in perspective, space colonisation is the only step forward - unless you want to cull the population.

The population on earth will always stay on earth. The number of people put on a space ship is always going to be so small that you could have just used the money and energy of the space flights and supported those people on earth.

In other words, if there is a malthusian problem on earth, space colonization cannot be a solution.

To that end population control will always be the easier option, but in principle say Mars for example was able to be economically colonised, albeit the growth and development of said colony slow, would we not in effect be able to displace some of the population to other colonies.

Although in reality the only people who would actually be viable in an off planet colony to begin with would be valuable persons on knowledge and skill.

What I'm intending is far off from early colonisation where mass population can be sustained with little effect of their individual technical capabilities, essentially filling labour roles and if possible agricultural ones too.

But if we are being realistic, the fix all for our current situation is to remove low quality/low output persons. As unethical as this step intends to be, a value system in society put in place by an autocratic global authority seems the albeit dystopian solution.

We cannot argue against the fact that a large percentage of the global population is little more than cattle in the grand scheme of things.

You answered your own question, we are not going to waste an expensive trip to evacuate surplus people from an overpopulated earth, that's not how space colonization would work.

If anything new people would grow off-world after it is already heavily settled by experts.

The project has only costs and no benefits to the people on earth, which is why it would be funded by parasitic extraction from the population you have aptly called cattle.

Or we - the cattle - could just lynch the kleptocratic elites and take control of our taxation back.

Well, not with that attitude.

The primary threat, however, is not overpopulation. You can control population, one way or the other. The primary threat is having all your eggs in one, extremely fragile, biosphere, that can be broken through any number of events, many of which you get no warning for.

If mankind fails to setup elsewhere, the story of life on Earth ends at the next cosmological hiccup or geological sneeze.

Without a major cultural shift, however, I doubt much can be done about it, as very few seem to care about anything that's going to happen after they're dead. (Hell, getting hard to get folks to look more than four years into the future, let alone dozens to hundreds of generations.)

I suppose there's always hope that some cosmic golf ball, large enough to cause significant destruction, but small enough not to end civilization, will come along and wipe out a major city or two, and thus give us enough of a wake up call to fulfill some sort of destiny beyond our cradle. Just have to hope it comes along while we're still together enough to get started on the project, and that it comes along before something more final does.

>But if we are being realistic, the fix all for our current situation is to remove low quality/low output persons. As unethical as this step intends to be, a value system in society put in place by an autocratic global authority seems the albeit dystopian solution.
>We cannot argue against the fact that a large percentage of the global population is little more than cattle in the grand scheme of things.
No.
I'm sorry, but that's retarded. Did you put even the slightest thought into how that would turn out, or all the ways that could wrong?

>If mankind fails to setup elsewhere, the story of life on Earth ends at the next cosmological hiccup or geological sneeze.
Good. And nothing of value was lost.

Let's be realistic here: If such a project was ever funded, you and I would only pay, our friends and family would pay, and not one of them would be even on the ship. No one even related by 2 or 3 steps to anyone we care about would be on the ship. And yet we would all be forced to pay.

It's collectivism rebranded as fake morality. And if you think the world they would create would be some great utopia, you're crazy. It would be exactly the same political shit we are faced with here, except in a shitter environment.

I love discussing these projects for fun, but the advocates are out of their mind.

>edgy, the post
Well, I did mention it'd require a major cultural shift. Still, despite edgy teens such as yourself, I think the bulk of humanity still thinks humanity is worth saving, even if they don't want to invest a whole of their own lives towards it.

Nonetheless, it wouldn't be the first project we've completed where the generation that started it saw no immediate benefit, even if such efforts are rare these days.

But no, I'm not expecting some sort of utopia. Barring a lot of genetic engineering (that would no doubt be flawed in basis anyways), man will still be man. However, survival first - being worthy of survival can come later. (Without one there's no hope for the other.)

...

Nice rationalization, you completely ignored the fact that it won't even be our children who benefit, nor anyone related to us. So it's not even about generations, we're talking about a small subset of people whose offspring survive while the rest of us are used as cattle and then die off.

As for
>I think the bulk of humanity still thinks humanity is worth saving
well, you think wrong, as billions of religious people want billions of other religious people to burn in hell forever, mutually and literally.

>However, survival first - being worthy of survival can come later. (Without one there's no hope for the other.)
Garbage, of course. That's like saying, let's invest in a project first and later figure out whether it's worth investing in. As I said, collectivism rebranded as fake morality.

>it won't even be our children who benefit, nor anyone related to us.
Fair.

>while the rest of us are used as cattle and then die off.
He's right, you are edgemeister supreme.

>well, you think wrong, as billions of religious people want billions of other religious people to burn in hell forever, mutually and literally.
I hate religious people but this is extending extremist viewpoints to all, and billions seems like a pretty big exaggeration.

>That's like saying, let's invest in a project first and later figure out whether it's worth investing in.
Life doesn't have economic value, edgemeister. None of it does. The "worthy" simply redistribute mass amounts of wealth. It's the working slave class you despise that keeps shit running.

I'm not insinuating that with a flick of the wrist.

It's real horrific stuff, but tell me in all honesty that if NOTHING changes from where we are now until halfway through this century that this won't become more apparent.

You can't be naive and think that the brutal realities of nature don't apply to us. We need to be controlled just like any other environment destroying animal.

The only thing that makes us valuable is our abilities, as a species we have made great achievements. Just like a plant seeks and grows toward sunlight, we should seek the excellence of humanity.

This is why I believe that the 'Spartan baby pit' and eugenics ideologies are important. We need a culture where underachieving is severely frowned upon, where we prioritise education and mastery over the self is paramount.

It's not a future that I would prefer, because it's a future that doesn't include me. I'm useless, but my only redeeming feature is I can look past myself.

We live in a society of 'now'. When the excellence of humanity can only be solved by living for the future.

None of us will ever live in a utopian future, other people will. Whether you believe in religious ideas of reincarnation or the ultimate eternal darkness. It does not matter. There will be people who feel the way you want to feel. Who haves the things you don't have. There is nothing you can do about this. But does that mean they shouldn't have it because you can't?

>billions seems like a pretty big exaggeration.
Check the numbers and the official dogmas. Just look at Christianity and Islam and their condition for hellfire.

>He's right, you are edgemeister supreme.
>the working slave class you despise
The cattle reference didn't come from me, and I include myself in the class of people who would be forced to pay without benefit.

>Life doesn't have economic value, edgemeister. None of it does.
More garbage rationization, we were talking about the ethical value.

I see no ethical value in spamming the universe with the same political shit that we have here on earth and not even benefitting me and my family or friends. His argument was that it doesn't matter because "survival comes first", which is the oppositve of rational.

>edgemeister.
Yeah, nice try, kiddo. Pay for your own hypocritical shit or you will learn these memes will lose their power and physical violence will happen.

>Nice rationalization, you completely ignored the fact that it won't even be our children who benefit, nor anyone related to us. So it's not even about generations, we're talking about a small subset of people whose offspring survive while the rest of us are used as cattle and then die off.
Dozens or hundreds of generations putting some fragment of their labor into the creation of a distant future generation which can continue the story of terrestrial life beyond the biosphere that spawned it and thus prevent its inevitable extinction and allow it to continue its evolution among the stars.

I mean, of all the pointless things we can and do invest energy into...

>well, you think wrong, as billions of religious people want billions of other religious people to burn in hell forever, mutually and literally.
Even those nutcases want to convert the world to their religion in order to "save" it, so the core motivation isn't that far off, however tainted by tribalism it maybe.

>Garbage, of course. That's like saying, let's invest in a project first and later figure out whether it's worth investing in. As I said, collectivism rebranded as fake morality.
Only life can grant value and meaning. If it doesn't grant itself value, it doesn't survive, and then nothing has value or meaning. So to claim that survival is a pointless endeavor is in itself pointless.

>So to claim that survival is a pointless endeavor is in itself pointless.
Wrong, life can have negative value. Also I am partial to what life I create or save. I have no motivation to care about obnoxious strangers who have no benefit to me, my friends or my family.

You're only here because there were so many among previous generations that felt otherwise, and the same will be true of your descendants.

But yeah, your LaVeyan philosophy is among the largest threats to the long term survival of mankind, and admittedly, has probably recently become more pervasive, rather than less. Nonetheless, survival doesn't require that majority of mankind think beyond themselves, only that a portion of them continue to do so and continue to make that effort. Albeit, it certainly would help the odds if such individuals were more common, rather than less.

>You're only here because there were so many among previous generations that felt otherwise, and the same will be true of your descendants.
Aaaaaand the same bait-and-switch just repeated again.

Completely ignoring that it won't be our decendents, it will be the decendents of strangers who benefit while we are forced to pay.

How many people do you think will be on these seed ships? Who many do you think will be decended from you?

It's funny how collectivist propaganda tries to re-frame parasitic extraction as a intergenerational benefit within families.

The amount of work required to fix things properly isn't actually any larger than the amount of work needed for your genocide campaign. For extra points, what you're suggesting won't actually solve any issues, it'll just reduce the population down enough to reduce the symptoms. And all of that is assuming that "culling the weak" actually works. It doesn't. The amount of power you would need to hand over to implement it is going to attract exactly the same people who are responsible for half of the things you want to fix, and they're going to milk it for everything it's worth.

We can fix our problems with education and planning and hard work. We have good reasons to believe that they are effective solutions - as an example, look into the relationship between education (particularly of women) and birth rates. That's not to say it will be easy.

>You can't be naive and think that the brutal realities of nature don't apply to us. We need to be controlled just like any other environment destroying animal.
We've been dealing with "the brutal realities of nature" for as long as we've had hands. Discussion, communication, cooperation and compassion are tools we evolved in response to it. They work very well.

>The only thing that makes us valuable is our abilities, as a species we have made great achievements. Just like a plant seeks and grows toward sunlight, we should seek the excellence of humanity.
History shows that humanities compressive strength is vastly greater than it's tensile strength. External pressure drives us to work together, internal pressure breaks us. Societies pushed up from the bottom have accomplished great things, while societies pulled from the top tend to strain into dictatorial hellholes and then shatter.

If we want tomorrow to be better than today, we need to start employing the skills we are actually GOOD at. Not giving them up.

Descendants doesn't indicate simply your immediate children. Though, in this age, and at this scale, your genetic heritage isn't nearly as important as your informational or even motivational. For better or worse, the ripple effect of your presence continues for generations beyond and to, and through, those entirely unrelated to you, however small an effect it maybe. You can deny the value of the future, or you can strive to make it better, but either way, you're part of it, willingly or not.

Thus, you may as well set aside some tiny bit of that effort to invest in something constructive rather than destructive, even if it's towards entirely selfish ends, such as ensuring that tiny fragment of virtual immortality continues on for as long as possible.

>You can deny the value of the future
I don't deny the value of the future, I think it's negative. I think the value of the present is negative as well, and I expect no improvement from technology. The problem is human nature itself, and that's not fixable.

The best we could hope for by spamming the universe with the usual political bullshit (+ mutations) is neutral value, a form of wastage.

The worst are dystopias with more or less of the same shit that is forced on so many today.

I'm not saying I would never force this on others if it benefitted me and the people I care about. But I sure as hell wouldn't call it moral and pretend we have some collectivist duty to sacrifice our own wellbeing for it. Yet that is precisely what the political space colon activists are doing.

Personally, I don't think this Earth has enough time left in it for man to really improve, short of genetically engineering himself to the point where he's unrecognizable or some singularity crap.

...and while I don't expect the first space colonies to be anything but more of the same, if man is to ever improve himself, the more time and more opportunities he has to do so the better the odds. Near as we can tell, there's nothing out there, so it's not as if we'd be making things worse for anyone else meantime.

I think that's more than worth the 0.01% of my taxes that go to NASA or what not, especially given that the bulk of my taxes go towards making things worse and threatening that future anyways.

But if you think the value of life is negative, well, there's an obvious solution. Only the living can make that judgement though, so it does rather weigh against it.

>if man is to ever improve himself
Not realistic.You'd need better humans to even have the motivation to make better humans. Classic bootstrapping problem. Take one look at politics and you know better, if you are rational.

>But if you think the value of life is negative, well, there's an obvious solution.
Yes, don't sacrifice your own wellbeing to enable strangers to colonize space. And no, they won't have suicide rights if that's what you're implying. Human rights are fickle and incomplete even in the best of times and places, and let's not even mention animals. But you will of course close both eyes and pretend otherwise, because that's your ideology.

Again, unless I see a benefit for me or the people I care about, I see no value in rationalizing this bullsthit.

planets yes, galaxies no

[spoiler]we won't be human anymore by the time we colonize galaxies[/spoiler]

No
Never

Mars and moons of Sat and Jup definately

>says we won't colonize other planets
>says we'll colonize Mars