If we had to, should we live in the ocean or in space?

Question

If the Earth was ever destroyed because of global warming, pollution, or some other reason, and we couldn't live on the land anymore, should the human race go live under the ocean or in space? We could only do one or the other, but both have problems, like pressure, gravity, temperature, and many other things. What do you think we should do?

Answer 1

Well, ocean would be better because there are things we need (water which can be desalinated-salt removed, food supply, etc).

Answer 2

Water:
Well, if earth was destroyed, then would the ocean still even be around? Earth, water, all part of the globe...plus, last I checked, the water gets oxygen from the plants, which need the sun. But if the land's been destroyed, then whatever caused the sun to fry it all away, I'm sure, won't be allowing the nutrients needed for the plants in the water. So we'd never survive (no oxygen).

Space:
Looking at space, there's an issue with living there (like on space stations and all). So far, everybody who's tried has returned with back problems. I dunno the reasons, but our bodies were definitely not made to live in space. Another planet maybe, but now we're getting into Science Fiction, b/c nobody would live long enough to fly everybody to the next galaxy.

Earth's destruction:
Assuming you'll even be around still when it happens, I believe you'll have more important things to worry about at that time, like nuclear wars, super weapons, plagues, military conquests...if you'd like more info, there's a book with lots of books in it...2 halves, but they're both actually connected. The last book inside the second half explains the process of the earth's destruction a LOT better, as well as info on how to keep from being around when it happens.

Answer 3

We should live under the ocean is my answer. The ocean is more doable. Yes the pressure and temperature would be an issue, but with modern technology always coming up with new and better ways, we would be fine. Also, if the City of Atlantis was underwater, we can be too! I know it wasn't by choice, "earthquakes and all that jazz", but who knows, stranger things have happened? Space is not a good idea, because of gravity, lack of oxygen ( never mind the costs to always have oxygen) and most of all the endless and infinite space...to much of it, lol Anyway, if I had a choice it would be to live under the ocean.

Answer 4

Space definitely. Living in space is way, way cooler than living under the ocean, just look at a list of those who live in space:

Captain Kirk
Darth Vader
Han Solo & Chewbacca
Malcolm Reynolds
Jean Luc Picard
Galactus
The Little Prince
Captain Sheridan
Talia Winters
Commander John Crichton
Scorpius
River Tam
Starbuck
Commander Adama

Compared with a list of those who live under the ocean:

Aquaman
The Man from Atlantis
Namor the Submariner
The other Gungans besides Jar Jar
Aqualad
Lucas Wolenczak

Now which group would you sooner be around?

Sure, you might have to deal with the occasional Neelix or Wesley Crusher, but for every one of those there's at least one Seven of Nine, Wilma Deering, or space princess in a slave girl outfit.

Answer 5

Living in the ocean would be more cost effective because scientists have already built buildings that withstands the ocean currents and underwater pressures. The scientists have actually lived in these dwellings to do their studies. If people had a choice, the structure diagrams could be easily attained & some large corporation would probably see living under water as a good tax right off & jump in to be the 1st to build. It would probably cost each family who participates several thousand dollars. Small sea worthy ships can travel from the surface under water to the buildings without someone ever wearing scuba gear.
Space habitation, still being developed, would cost a fortune when you consider space suits,material for buildings & maintainence of gravity to planets that are not hostile in environment, as well as a spaceship who can get you to your destination without blowing up (like the Challenger).

Answer 6

Space seems like the only real option, but I hardly think the average person would even be allowed to try it. Such would become reserved for the rich and powerful, the most healthy specimens, and the best and brightest of humanity. There could come a time, where alternative planets might be suitable for human existence, if we could learn how to get to other galaxies, but surely such is far, far into the future, and most of 'the rest of us' would have long since become extinct.

Come to think of it, why should we insist upon trying to go survive in space, or in the ocean? If it comes to pass that humans are not meant to BE in existence any longer, would that be such a tragedy? For this Earth we are on, I should think not. She is already damaged so greatly that if we were no longer here, She might have a fighting chance to still provide a home for whatever other creatures would remain. I see Her already attempting to 'take care of Herself' whenever huge masses of humanity are lost through so-called acts of God. What may appear tragic for us, seems to be some meager self-survival technique from this planet we call 'home'.

Answer 7

There will be no ocean or space. since the earth are destroyed, all of us are some part of earth, so I cannot decide where to go to. What I expect for the ending story is, all the people on earth stay in peace and love, I want to say thank you for giving me great experience in living on earth.

if there a chance to run, I choose another planet that has the similiar facilities as earth. About the ocean, since all earth suface is covered by water, there will be difficult to produce oxigen.

Answer 8

I'd say the ocean. If we can figure out a way to keep the water from drowning us. Food is abundant in the Ocean, and I think there is a problem with living in space with no gravity where you will eventually lose your muscle function because there is no gravitational resistance. We'd become jello.

Answer 9

My opinion is that if it is possible that we (hypothetically speaking) originated from species in the ocean and crawled onto land (like mud jumping fish), and we are 76 percent Appxt? water, we have gravitational 'pulls' from the ocean at high tide or the full moon. I think we would be more able to adapt to something we have more knowledge of and are closer too, than outer space. That is just off the top of my head! Kim E

Answer 10

The effects of pollution would not only exist on land but in the ocean as well. We would have immense difficulty maintaining an environment under the seas as we would lack space, light and ores. In space is the logical option but would we make the same mistakes again?

Answer 11

Space is limitless. The oceans are not. What a silly question.
I know the dolphins decided at some point to return to the sea after a period on land, but that was a while ago. If we are capable of ruining the land areas of the planet, we are certainly capable of ruining oceanic habitats. We need independent ecologies which can survive each others' idiocies.