Welcome to Counter Argument Thursday. This is where I write blog post the is opposite and critical of my position on space habitation and space habitation. I do not agree with the position in the blog post, but it is an argument I need to address.
When compared to planetary defense, space habitation is a less effective investment. In this hard times, we need to choose the effective plan. Space habitation supports argue from a position of protecting the humanity with their plans. But, I doubt space habitations can support more then 1% of the population of humanity in the universe. In an emergency situation, space habitations can not support a 1000% or more increase in population. Maybe they will have the supplies, but the jobs and living space might not exist to support a massive migration to space.
The Hard SF article Can Space Colonization End Overpopulation? also disproves the use of space habitats as refugee camps
“Assuming that by 2058 we are able to build and use colony ships that will hold 1000 people each, that means 108,000 such colony ships every year. That comes out to about 295 each and every day of the year - more than 12 every hour.
This is a mind-bogglingly large project by itself. However, it is only part of what would be required. Every ten years you would need some habitable place for another billion people. We simply don't have any planets or moons in this solar system where you can just drop people off with tents and have them live like Daniel Boone. You have to either terraform a world, manufacture artificial habitats for all those people or find habitable worlds in other star systems. Any of those are going to require significant time and resources…
In theory, mining and manufacturing could be carried out off-planet - but first it would be necessary to invest time and resources to build off-planet mining and manufacturing. And while large amounts of resources are being used to bring large-scale off-planet mining and manufacturing into being, there will be less resources to be spent on transporting people to other places.”
Even with a massive space economy, reusable ships (Assuming reusable,1000 passenger ships exists) would not exist in massive quantities. So, space can not be used as a destination in an emergency.
Alas, there is another problem. space habitations are not guaranteed to survival for a long period. They are depended on technology to operate. Space also has ample radiation and we do not understand the effects of this radiation in the long term.
Planetary defense offers a less risky investment. We know that Earth can support life and has self restoring processes. If natural disasters worthy of a blockbuster movie can be defended against, we can ensure the safety of a larger number of humans.
Reactions
-Can humanity pull off planetary defense and space habitation at the same time?
-Should planetary defense take priority over space habitation?
Resources
Author unnamed. “Can Space Colonization End Overpopulation.” Weblog entry. Hard SF. No date. January 14, 2010 <http://hardsf.org/IssuPopu.htm>.
In Case You Skimmed
- Planetary defense can save more lives then space habitation
