Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff?

C) keep the planet we have habitable

our planet could easily be wiped by a number of things. if we dont plan for a planetary catastrophe out of our control, our species is doomed.
- a planetary catastrophe out of our control
  You're still describing climate change. Science fiction ideas are fun to think about but our own inability to live harmoniously with nature is going to kill us off before any of those problems become relevant.
- Humanity can easily survive a KT extinction event. Sure, 99.999% of us will die, but tens of thousands will still survive.
- If Mars became one "arm" of the human race Earth would still be the heart. Your heart fails and all your limbs are fucked.
- there is not a single thing that could wipe out a deep sea habitat that wouldnt also wipe any space colonies. but i dont see anybody arguing for that, despite being far more achievable and practical. also, there is no feasible way for space colonies to be self sufficient anywhere in the near future, so wiping out earth also wipes out space colonies relying on it for supplies. this argument aboOt survivability is absurd.
- our planet could easily be wiped by a number of things.
  Most likely by us, while we waste our limited resources on useless things like spaceships
  if we dont plan for a planetary catastrophe out of our control, our species is doomed.
  Oh no, how will the universe ever recover from this tragedy?

If the colonization strategy is the Moon then Mars, I expect humanity would have the technology needed to colonize Mars easily while terraforming occurs.
The problem with an O'Neil Cylinder is bringing up enough processed material to build one.
- The problem with an O’Neil Cylinder is bringing up enough processed material to build one.
  One possible solution is a moon base. The moon is full of titanium and iron.
  And then you could launch the stuff out of a weaker gravity well with no air resistance.

If we can't manage to keep Earth's ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won't be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there's no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.

Without some serious (currently impossible) terraforming, Mars colonies are limited to deep caves or heavily shielded buildings, no outside to relax, nowhere else to go. Have a look at the list of crimes in Antarctica, a similar situation where people are stuck together, that's not a good environment for mental health, and it will be worse farther away. A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?

If we can’t manage to keep Earth’s ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won’t be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there’s no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.
I'm unconvinced that pulling back from space programs will make Earth's ecosystem thrive.
A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?
Agreed. That would be a super-weird concept, like a country owned by a private corporation.
- I'm unconvinced that pulling back from space programs will make Earth's ecosystem thrive.
  My point was more or less the opposite: Anyone interested in space exploration should also be interested in keeping Earth well livable, because that is needed for its success.
I definitely agree with you, however, I think needing to become self sustaining on earth is a goal that would be well served by trying to design a self sufficient system for mars.
Earth is big enough that it's really easy to forget we're all in the same fish bowl. Entire cities can flush their shit down the river and as far as they are concerned, nothing bad ever happens to them. The scale of earth makes us blind to the problems our actions and methods cause. The ecosystems also do quite a bit to protect us from our own actions
You can't ignore externalities in a space colony. Everything must be accounted for. That is what makes it so difficult to design for. Any small amount of waste will still accumulate over time and eventually becomes a problem.
The tighter scope and strict requirements of a space colony would make it easier to actually objectively measure how sustainable it is. You would know exactly how much external inputs you are delivering each year. We can then take the lessons and technologies that are absolutely required in a space settlement and use them to inform how to better be sustainable on earth. For example, solar cells used to only really be used on satellites, not because they were great on satellites, but because they were pretty much the only option that could stay operational for years. Now PV power generation is helping countries all over the world become a little more sustainable. The harsh requirements of space make us better at problem solving.
I totally agree that earth is our only option for species survival though. Anyone selling Mars as a "backup" for humanity is either delusional or a con man. I think developing the capability to keep a settlement on Mars is a worthwhile endeavor, but there is no way for humanity to thrive there. Any large scale catastrophe on earth will still be more survivable in select pockets on earth than anywhere on Mars.

Bonkers question. Can't even figure out living on Earth sustainably and you want to talk about doing it without gravity, an atmosphere or an ionosphere?

Not a bonkers question, it's actually totally predictable if you have an accurate read for both the White urge to despoil the frontier, and the depths of techbro narcissism. They just want to be the first to bust their load somewhere new, no matter what it takes, no matter whose resources they have to spend, no matter what they leave behind. Colonizer-assed cracker techbros always leave shit behind.
This is what the space-age (hwhite) colonizer's future looks like: every planet now has ring arrangements of dead satellites, empty fuel pods, blown-apart thrusters, and other assorted human-make space junk. Rings of garbage for all nine, dead vessels (crewed by now, long-dead, pressganged "conscripts" [because "conscript" causes less riots than "undesirable"]) hanging in high planetary orbits like macabre baby mobiles, and a still-smoldering coal where Earth used to be.
I have no fucking respect for it.
- Only two things are infinite: the universe and Seppos' ability to bring up race in any convrsation.

Fix our own planet first

Launch Billionaires into deep space without supplies

Yes.

Seriously, we should be doing both as long term space habitats can serve as a way to reduce the cost of moving cargo around.

do you mean moving it around the 'city' internally? Or do you mean moving it to and from the habitat?

Men will do anything other than go to therapy.

I don't think capital can sustain projects of this magnitude. Space is too harsh of an environment for delulu. We can hardly grapple with the idea that our actions on earth have consequences because of our condition. I like space stuff and I even like to create designs of starships, but I don't think we're in a position to reach for the stars just yet. Even if I'm wrong, we can't allow space fascism get started either. There is probably life out there and if space capitalism finds them, they'll try to pull another indigenous genocide and invent new forms of xenophobia to justify it.

None of our problems are technological. We have massive people problems. Building a new billions of dollar machine or trillions of dollar space station isn't going to disrupt the imperial core. The Gray Techno Fash won't suddenly become humanists because space.

Space life can be fun to think about, but techno futurism is a liberal fetish and tends to result in liberal fantasies if you don't decolonize your mind.

https://readsettlers.org tbh

D) Move manufacturing and other dirty processes off planet and live here.

Okay Bezos.
- Tyrell Corporation.
Why is this getting upvoted so much, its just NIMBY, but for the universe. We should decrease environmental damage rather than exporting it or sweeping it under the rug.

Is this sub-populated mostly by Facebook people? Some of the answers really feel like it.

All these answers are so killjoy and boring. Like yeah we should strive to make our own planet better, but why not also do this? Building habitats on other worlds doesn't prevent us from caring for this one.
Plus maybe trying to make a liveable environment in space can give us new insights in preserving the one at home. Like how solar panels have come from space exploration.
- Why would people want to focus more on things we can actually do right now and would improve our lives instead of completely unfeasible pipe dreams? I don't understand.
- All these answers are so killjoy and boring.
  Yes, fantasizing about billionaires fixing everything by making good on their bullshit marketing pitches is very exciting to credulous people.
  Building habitats on other worlds doesn't prevent us from caring for this one.
  If you believe that there's some magic means to have zero emissions launches into space that are in any way self-sustained without further launches to keep throwing resources after spent resources from an increasingly polluted, depleted, and warming Earth, sure, you can huff that hopium deep and hard and ignore the worsening material reality all around you.
  Plus maybe trying to make a liveable environment in space can give us new insights in preserving the one at home.
  You've bought deeply into billionaire bullshit and their bogus promises, especially as privatized space travel in the west becomes increasingly vanity tourism and marketing stunts. The accomplishments that such companies' underpaid and overworked workers achieve are not for the common good, nor can they be because they are publicly subsidized private companies seeking to maximize profits and expand their own venture capital appeal, and nothing more.
- All these answers are so killjoy and boring
  Fuck you, the planet is literally on fire and you bazinga-assed techbros want to talk about escape plans. FIX WHAT YOU FUCKED UP FIRST.
What do you mean?

If we can do B, A doesn't provide many benefits.

A 1km diameter, 30km cylinder would provide enough area to feed ~140k people. 95km^2 of space.

That is assuming no imported food etc, based on 7000m^2 per person which is almost 2 acres each.

140k people is a small city.

Habitats are risky and not as good as planets imo. It would be trivially simply to sabotage one and kill everyone inside. Just vent atmo into space, poison the air/water, and even a accidental fire could kill everyone who doesnt manage to flee.. Planets not so easy. Some of the same attacks work but u can just walk elsewhere.
plus in a habitat your not really thinking of psychological effects. Its been shown for example that humans needs to see big bodies of water regularly to not get stressed out. So youd need to devote significant space onboard to just that. Plus imagine never seeing the mountains again, or a sunset, or the ocean. The earth is intrinsically linked to our evolution and many of its features are far too big to have on a habitat. I mean not to mention all the microbiomes we interact with unknowingly on earth all the time.
While habitats might be an ok solution for some people there are definitely things we will always need a planet for and imo a planet will always be superior in quality of life.
140k people is about the amount of people living in a 1km radius around you, if you live in some inner city area.
- You could have most people in a relatively small area with the rest for farming.
  There would be little need for the equivalent of roads, almost all travel would be walk or bike. The longest distance between two points is less than 34km. If the main settlement is in a ring around the middle of the cylinder, it is less than 17km to any point.

We should be exploring both options, exploration can often lead to unexpected discoveries and technological advancement.

Neither. We can't even unfuck Earth, where in that did we earn the privilege to pollute the cosmos?

Who do we need permission from? The rocks?
- You're so fixated on whether you can that you will never stop to question if you should. What, are you going to frack asteroids until they become space junk? Utterly violate another planet to its core for all its worth the way you've done the Earth, just to bail out like the deadbeat developer humanity has proven itself as? Disgusting, parasitic, over-consumptive, self-centered, practically narcissistic-assed question out of you.
What's your definition of 'pollute'? I don't really get how the verb 'pollute' can apply to non-biological planets; to me the word means something like 'putting matter in places where is disrupts ecosystems'. I think the book about Gaia has a definition like this too.
- Yeah no; I don't do 'quibbling definitions with sophists'. If you don't know what 'pollute' means, you're not fit to discourse with me. 🖕🖕
Neither. We can’t even unfuck Earth, where in that did we earn the privilege to pollute the cosmos?
What kind of weird Abrahamic mental model is going on here? We need to morally prove ourselves to Jehovah and he will decree we have "earned" the "privilege" to go to some rocks? Makes no sense.

How about we focus our efforts on unshittifying Earth first, eh?

Why not both?

I'm guessing B will happen first, just because we have so much more control of the environment, but we're still so far away from either one... Maybe I'll get to see the early stages sometime in my life.

The Lunar Gateway will be complete in your lifetime and and the Artemis program is underway. Who knows what will happen after that.

Why? Nice planet we've got here, we could focus on preventing it becoming inhabitable due to climate change instead.

No matter what you do the Earth won't stay habitable forever. So we either learn to expand out into space as a species or face extinction eventually. Not to mention putting all our eggs in one basket is a terrible idea. Any cosmological event could wipe out the Earth at any time. The question is are you okay with our entire species going with it?
There needs to be a backup, ideally multiple.
- the answer is yes. I am ok with our entire species going with it. Death comes for us all it should not be seeked out, but neither should it be feared.
I'm not convinced that suspending space programs would create solutions to climate change.

Space colonies. That way they can be dropped to earth to start colony independence wars.

Europa tea party!!!!!!!

All of the above. But start with cleaning up this planet. Build better / more sustainable and more diverse communities and energy production. Build arcologies in the arctic, deserts, oceans. Those are good “practice” for building the same off planet.

Porque no los dos?

I'm not sure that fitting Earthlike habitats in giant spaceships would make sense without limitless exponential growth. Wouldn't it be more feasible to put something on the surface of a planet?

No matter how advanced our technology gets, we are not going to get around the basic constraints on energy.

Hopium huffers will smugly chant "asteroid mining!" as the answer to your questions, in much the same way that "monorail!" was chanted during that one Simpsons episode.

A quote attributed to a few people, Heinlein and Pournelle for two, "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." Both space and planets have shared and their separate problems to solve. In my head I prefer the image of most populations moving into habitats in space, customized to their preferences, with smaller settlements on various bodies for their own purposes. In my realistic view I don't see us getting that far before we get bogged down with all the problems we've created on this planet. The window to a permanent space civilization might have already shut. A sad thing, as a 70s kid I grew up convinced we were full speed into some version of what scifi had sold to me.

Ringworld.

Genetically modify ourselves so that we can live both in zero gravity (and maybe survive short exposure to vacuum) and on other planets.

https://spacegenetics.hms.harvard.edu/

We. Like, you and me? Whatever you wanna do I guess.

Both.

Actually, both.

After reading A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith I think a O'Neill Cylinder spinning spaceship for artificial gravity type is more achievable than planarity colonisation.

But the main point of the book, and I am fairly convinced of the more I think about it, is that it is a lot of effort and risk for not a lot of gain and we are entirely unprepared for space colonisation.

Neither. There's plenty of room and resources here on Earth. I think it's fine to do space exploration and even have research bases on moons and other planets, but I just don't see the imperative for colonization.

I don’t think space habitats any significant distance from Earth will be possible. Mitigating the increased radiation will be tough enough just trying to get to Mars, much less trying to stay in space out that far. At least on Mars we can hang out in old lava tubes or something.

i think you underestimate human ingenuity and the time frames involved.
Yes and first century peasants couldn't imagine the idea of reading comments and responding to them on a magic lit up rectangle that knows when you touch it and where and exchanges the information involved invisibly through the air even passing through solid objects.
If that's what you think, then you severely underestimate human technological innovation.

Until we are able to travel way faster than what we can do now, I think it’s more feasible to build in space. Lots of implications for long term effects on human bodies though. Most ideal is a wormhole to an identical planet to earth so humans won’t need to adapt.

The odds of an exactly identical planet existing naturally are very slim. The only way to get that is some kind of terraforming. Or we evolve to adapt to our new environments. Which could mean that humans could split out into multiple successor species.

How to survive in space: Develop ways to survive in space only first. Once you manage that all the other problems are trivial compared and you don't have a single point of failure (aka our planet) anymore. Isn't that obvious?

If we are capable of doing one, then we can do both.

We should stay fucking put until we figure out how to end greed and racism once and for all

We aren't going to stop being prejudiced against each other until we meet other species to turn our prejudices outward.
Any ideas?

yes.

if we want to become a true space faring species resilient to all that the universe can throw at us we will need both

Both! All three!

THE YEAR IS UNIVERSAL CENTURY 0079

C) Undersea habitat domes!

Colonizing Antarctica would be more reasonable than that.

What’s the purpose—research? Tax evasion? Shits and giggles?

Survival

Huge sci-fi lover here. But at the same time, colonization of space for humans is possibly impossible without avatars. The human body evolved here, and it's a vessel that works here the best. To colonize other worlds, it's more economically viable to send machines, create biologically synthesized new species (taking dna from local species there), and then transfer consciousness to them. Similar with Avatar, but without having to have the spaceships arrive in the planet full of humans. Humans remain on earth, and they project their consciousness somewhere else, in an instant due to entanglement.

That's not how entanglement works

I feel like if you think about this for even a minute this seems like the worst possible idea ever.
I mean, sure it's an achievement. But so is smashing the moon into the Earth.