Why do people want to colonize space when they could just go colonize Antarctica for less effort and money?
Extinction events that happen 1 in 100 million are not an excuse since there are much cheaper ways to deal with that shit like paying people to live in vaults.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>antartica
you know why
It's not only about colonization, but also about the scientific progress made by developing space travel technology and the proof that man is capable of leaving Earth.
That who shpeel can be said about Antarctica.
Antarctica is still on the planet with the two billion niggers and counting
Ship all the niggers to Antarctica then.
Permafrost everywhere.
Still easier to deal with that vacuum, no water and fuel needed to get meatbags into space.
Hands off our clay plox
Also on a more serious note it makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective to try to diversify human presence across the solar system to protect our species survival against events like a Gamma Ray Burst or a massive asteroid.
It's never good to "put all your eggs in one basket". Spreading out across space increases our chance of survival as a species.
>alien sex
need I say more
sun's gonna explode anyway...
The sun will expand into a Red Giant and engulf the Earth but that will happen 7.6 billion years from now. Humans won't exist, or if they do they'd have the means to evacuate the planet by then.
The rock is miles beneath the permafrost.
just build igloos
but it's cheaper to pay people to live in bunkers than it is to send to to mars
>Why do people want to colonize space when they could just go colonize Antarctica for less effort and money?
damn OP you are retarded
We'll probably end up doing both.
Quoting Elon Musk:
"It will be a great adventure. Life is supposed to be more than just solving problems."
>colonize space
No, rocks are better building material.
Hes a retard.
>Why do people want to colonize space
It's about tapping new mineral resources that are unavailable to anyone not colonizing space.
In theory it gives whatever nation succeeds at it access to a totally untapped market. It would also get significantly less expensive over time the more infrastructure we put into space.
The biggest problem is leaving the atmosphere. If we could cut that out of the equation it would be entirely viable.
there is more resources on earth than people can mine just dig deeper
Fuck off we are full.
>all that useless space
>full
>there is more resources on earth than people can mine
>just dig deeper
senpai please.
fucking diamonds the size of your house are probably floating in the mantle
>fucking diamonds the size of your house are probably floating in the mantle
>Thinking diamonds are rare
>Thinking diamonds are actually valuable
Senpai. Please stop. Do some googleing.
The entire core is made of heavy metals. So...
Alright, I will spell it out for you.
Not every nation has access to rich mineral mines.
Not every mineral is right below you're feet.
You can't just "dig deeper" because of temperature and risk of mine collapse. More reasons but those are the main two.
Moving around in space is extremely cost efficient, the only difficulty comes from getting into space.
Get enough infrastructure in space and asteroid mining becomes a very viable thing as well as opening many different doors to space exploration and new scientific discoveries.
>idiots thing it's cheaper to build space infrastructure than it is to build deep mines
Considering that is true, yes.
It actually is. And it offers a lot more to the progress of mankind then just a really deep hole in the earth.
Idiots
Senpai. Just please.
Again that permafrost is a serious problem because you cannot grow plants from it.
>Just melt it
Antarctica's position makes making it ice free completely impossible.
>impling you can grow plants anywhere in space that would cost less.
Try and stop me, nigger. I will be fucking my alien wife, while you masturbate to pictures on the internet.
It's dark half the year and your stuff is constantly getting buried in snow,
It's less effort less money and less fun.
>The biggest problem is leaving the atmosphere. If we could cut that out of the equation it would be entirely viable.
So maybe don't bother.
There are whole oceans full of unexploited mineral wealth.
And there are better things to be doing in space that breaking rocks.
Yes, I too enjoy breathing the atmosphere on the ocean floor.
The next not Ray Bradbury with his cou de gras Vault People
I am totally onboard with explore the ocean and shit, just don't spend billions trying to shoot little rockets into space for no reason.
Wrong board for trolling, summernigger. Try /b/
>I am totally onboard with explore the ocean and shit
Then read up on why we don't actually do it. It's actually harder to get to the oceans floor then to land on the moon.
Antarctica's off limits for any kind of development. If someone tried to start a colony there, there'd be a war.
Antarctica would be very valuable. You'd have a huge amount of territorial waters to fish in, and untouched mineral resources under the ice. People would have taken it if it were up for grabs.
>It's actually harder to get to the oceans floor then to land on the moon.
False. People have been to the deepest point on the ocean floor. They got there earlier than the moon, or even into space, and at much lower cost. It's way easier to get to anywhere on the ocean floor than to orbit.
en.wikipedia.org
>implying any country would want to go to war for antartica
if next year plans for an Antartica colony were announced, and they needed people, would any of you go? Why or why not?
What is the Antarctic Treaty?
sci fi and popsci
people don't "want" they're ordered and they obey.
Yeah, sure, but before we do any of that let's kill all the shitskins first. They are the primary hindrance in man's exploration of space
Shitskins will be on Mars before you will ever be.
>implying treaties are actually ever enforced
...