do u think colonising space is needed for the survival of the human race?

Answer 1

This can only happen if technology advances and our understanding of meterology grows. If this happens than human survival will last longer, but if it never happens for a billion years a natural force will distroy us, the sun is the canidate right now. A chance that a meteror will hit us is surprising, and the self destruction of our race is very unlikely. (Knock on wood)

Answer 2

Sooner or later, we have to start finding other planets that are humanly habitable so as to keep our bugeoning population in control, and also to reverse the depletion of natural resources of the earth. So I would say yes, space colonization is needed for the survival of the human race. However, before this could even happen, nations must agree not to hog space territory for themselves. For the first and second millennia of space exploration, it is imperative that nations share any habitable planet that they will discover, so that each nation can have a piece of it and no one is left behind. Until this happens, space exploration will just be an extension of human history where wars and strife happen everytime.

Answer 3

No, I don't think so. It might be good for the expansion of the tribe. We have a lot left to do here and lots of capabilities to fix up what we've been neglecting and/or ruining.

The breed might benefit if folks who don't have courage and stamina left this planet so the rest can roll up their sleeves and get on with the repair work.

Setting up shop on some other space item (planet, moon, asteroid...) is an interesting idea and we most certainly will try to do so. Of course, if we can't do it right here, what are the chances we'll do it right anywhere else? We're designed for here. It's supposed to be an easy fit.

We can't even set up underwater cities yet.

Anyway, if we don't turn it around and do the right things in the next sixty or so years we might as well take a taxi to Titan or try to refurbish Mars.

So, my answer is no unless...then again maybe yes.

Answer 4

eventually yes, we will need to colonise space and any planet that can take us

the population of the world is getter larger and larger by the minute and eventually we'll just run out of room

but i believe it won't happen in a very VERY long time, as there is still plenty of room on this earth, but not unlimited natural resources.

our main concern is ensuring we have enough water and food to survive as a whole.

Answer 5

Colonizing other planets, and perhaps the interior of asteroids, offers humanity certain advantages. However, the relief of population pressure on Earth is not one of those advantages.

Yes, Earth will run out of room for humans - or, more exactly, Earth will run out of the resources needed to keep those humans alive. But space colonies can't take away any significant fraction of Earth's population, not ever. Neither can space colonies ever supply Earth with resources copious enough to make up for the loss of fossil fuels, or metals, or the yield of terrestrial mechanized agriculture. Colonies on other planets will not make life easier for people who remain on Earth, at least not in the short-term, direct sense.

Space colonies are a kind of insurance policy for civilization itself, a means of preserving the highest part of human culture against any disaster that might obliterate it were it to remain on Earth alone.

Suppose there's a nuclear war on Earth that destroys all the highest cultural centers and kills most of the world's smartest people. If there were no space colonies, the lost knowledge might be gone for good... unless it were rediscovered perhaps thousands of years later. But if space colonies exist, the lost knowledge could be reintroduced on Earth.

Likewise, recordings of songs and books and reproductions of famous art works could reappear on Earth, if they had been preserved in space colonies. But if there were no space colonies, all of those cultural achievements would be gone forever, never to be seen or heard from again.

There's a concept used by paramedics and doctors during emergencies. It's called "triage." When there's a disaster, lots of people are hurt, and the ready supply of doctors and medicine and bandages is often too small to help everyone who needs help. So the paramedics group people into three categories:

FIRST: there are the people who aren't hurt very badly, and they can wait until more seriously hurt people are tended first without coming to greater harm because of the delay.

SECOND: there are the people who are hurt badly, and who might die if they aren't tended immediately, but who will probably recover if they receive prompt attention.

THIRD: there are the people who are hurt so badly that they will die no matter how much medical attention they receive. Or, short of that, the time and resources used in saving ONE of them will result in MANY deaths among people in Category #2 who could have been saved if the same resources were devoted to them, instead. When the crunch really is on, one life can be sacrificed so that more than one life can be saved.

However, sometimes a particular person must be preserved because he is the key to saving many other people. If a ship sinks and its overcrowded lifeboat is going down because there are too many people in it, some of the people must be thrown out. But the one person who must NOT be thrown out is the navigator, because he's the only fellow who can guide the lifeboat across the sea into a port. If HE dies, so does everyone else! So it is better to give most of the people in the boat to the sharks and keep him, rather than the reverse. This really isn't an exception; the idea is still to save as many as possible, but human skills are sometimes the primary resource bottleneck.

Now, a planetary emergency can be like a car accident. There can be too many people in desperate need for the available resources to save them all. So... triage. The most valuable people are identified, the ones who saving will optimize the post-emergency condition of the world, and the resources are given preferentially to them. The rest are sacrificed.

When many must die, when by no means can all be saved, it makes sense to preserve those most able to repay the costs of their preservation. If gushy sentimentality is allowed to decide who gets what, the result will be MORE death and loss than would have occured if the hard choices been made intelligently. So there must be some way of keeping gushily sentimental people away from decision-making roles during an emergency. (In fact, that's a good idea at any time, but it is especially so in an emergency.)

Space colonies can speed the recovery of Earth following a planetary disaster, but they too will find it necessary to spend their resources on some, preferentially, rather than dissipate them equally to everyone who wants help. When a crisis of that sort strikes, trying to be "fair" only ensures that EVERYBODY dies and that NOBODY survives. The choice, in an emergency, is seldom between all and some. Usually, it's between some and none.

Answer 6

Yes, if we don't destroy ourselves first and we want to become immortal, we'll have to find a new home. Unless a large portion of mankind were wiped out over and over again.. in that case we could stay on Earth until the sun started expanding (as long as there are enough resources).

Answer 7

Yes, and we've only got 10 billion years to get off this rock, this solar system and find a good source of light, not to mention a planet, water, oxygen, and a good video store on the corner.

Answer 8

Yes.
For mankind, this planet is a sinking ship like the titanic and it's time to get off now.

Answer 9

Only if the people in my hometown keep breeding more trash and throwing it out the window as they drive their POS trucks down the street at 90mph.

Answer 10

yes , definitely.
but it will backfire because whatever causes earth to vanish will also affect nearby planets.
time speed and distance constraints make it impossible to veture too far out of our puny solar system.