/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11264939]

Why is humanity's entire effort focused on somehow solving the mess we've created here through pollution, which will only get worse from now on and is definitely unsolvable as long as there's billions of humans here, instead of building habitats around Earth and simply exporting our species in the safety of Space? We would be able to export manufacturing up there as well, solving the issue of pollution once and for all while leaving Earth behind as this green patch of uninhabited nature that we can visit once in a while.

In that case, the enforcement of green energy and all kinds of limitations is the restrictive approach whereas spreading our excess population in Space is the expansive one. There's no reason to go with restriction if expansion is possible as well and instead of coming up with the nth iteration of green *something*, we can use this cheap energy we have right now to manufacture everything we need to make it happen, be it the Space Elevator or the stations themselves, after which we wont even have to solve pollution and climate change because the majority of the ones responsible for it will be up there, being forced to manage the pollution locally for their own habitats.

[Anonymous No.11265690]

>>11264939
>which will only get worse from now on and is definitely unsolvable as long as there's billions of humans here
What are you basing that claim on? Pre-industrial revolution we produced fuck all green house gasses, we just need to accept a degree of short term luxury reduction until technologies are used that allow us to have our cake and eat it too.

>We would be able to export manufacturing up there as well
This is Blue Origins stated goal.

>There's no reason to go with restriction if expansion is possible as well
Given the highly political nature of space exploration I wouldn't bet on it as a sollution, the first time a launch kills 100 people you know it's going to be years until that vehicle flys again.