Steps are being taken to mitigate the harm that humanity does to our environment, yet some of the issues seem insurmountable. With our global population quickly rising, and with rapidly developing environmental risks, there are major doubts about Earth’s ability to support humankind.
Even with new energy sources, food-growing techniques, and devices that can be invented to make everything more efficient, our population is expanding to unsustainable levels. The solution has long been to expand the areas of extreme growth. The problem of overpopulation on such a worldwide scale cannot be solved by these largely inefficient tactics like terraforming or artificial islands . Not only is building a whole new island time consuming and very expensive, but this solution, like many others, has negative consequences for the environment. The debris and sand caused by building an artificial island can harm or ruin sensitive parts of the ocean’s ecosystem.
“So,” You might ask, “what is the solution?” There is another approach to the population crisis. A bold and risky mission that, if it succeeds, might usher in a brand-new era in the history of humanity by discovering and settling distant worlds. Although space colonization is a problematic, debatable, and costly strategy, it is likely the best we currently have for several reasons.
Firstly, there’s always the possibility of a catastrophe that humanity won’t be able to foresee or prepare for. The media often warns about “death asteroids” heading toward Earth, yet none of them have hit our planet. Just like the dinosaurs over sixty million years ago, humanity may one day be less fortunate. We may experience an asteroid, a technological failure, or an extremely powerful solar flare. “The dinosaurs perished because they lacked the intelligence to develop a sufficient interstellar society. The distinction between us and them is hardly apparent” (Popular Science). To shield human society and culture from utter extinction, leaving our world and relocating to other planets appears to be a more effective alternative.
A different argument might sound a little ridiculous, but it is no less compelling or important to human civilization. The greatest accomplishment of our species will probably include leaving Earth and colonizing other planets and star systems. Therefore, it would be absurd to think there existed or exists no other intelligent societies we could someday come into contact with. And even if we don’t, wouldn’t it still be wonderful or amazing to leave a mark on the history of the universe, even if we, as a species, go extinct? So that our building, art, technology, and history would still be present if some extraterrestrial archaeologists travelled to a far-off world on the boundaries of the galaxy? Would it instead be better if we reached 100 billion within the next two hundred years only to starve to death from overcrowding and harmful emissions? Because if we choose to not travel to space, this is the problem humanity will face.
Numerous well-known scientists, including Stephen Hawking, have affirmed this argument. “Spreading out into space, rather than remaining inward-looking on planet Earth, is our only hope of long-term survival. In the last century, we have advanced remarkably. But if we want to live past the next 100 years, Hawking asserts, “our future lies in space (Tree Hugger).
Colonizing other planets will not only alleviate the overpopulation issue but also generate additional jobs, construct new economic systems like commercial space travel, and eventually resolve the ongoing issue of depleting natural resources. This colonization objective is opposed by many people, mostly “green” individuals. Why is it necessary for us to relocate to other planets to find additional resources? Why are we required to destroy worlds besides our own? Because, firstly, colonizing other planets would stop us from wasting and draining all the resources from Earth. Secondly, crowding too many people into a small area would surely result in disputes over what becomes valuable in the coming years, such as oil, open space, pure water, air, etc. Finally, there’s no assurance that a society that is developed enough to travel into space will continue to care for the environment in the same manner as it does today.
Possibly the only “win-win” answer humanity can devise to the overpopulation issue is colonizing space. In addition to protecting our civilization from extinction in the event of a global disaster, it would also address the issue of limited natural resources, provide jobs, and further humankind’s overall scientific, cultural, and industrial development. The most significant benefit is that it will enable humanity to leave a lasting mark on the universe’s history. Rather than remaining and most likely vanishing as a tiny regional civilization on the outskirts of our galaxy, it will develop into a galactical society, leaving its remnants everywhere. Whatever happens to mankind, it would be our triumphant ending.
Links: Link: https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-02/after-earth-why-where-how-and-when-we-might-leave-our-home-planet/
https://www.treehugger.com/gardening-outer-space-going-be-tough-4852327
Even with new energy sources, food-growing techniques, and devices that can be invented to make everything more efficient, our population is expanding to unsustainable levels. The solution has long been to expand the areas of extreme growth. The problem of overpopulation on such a worldwide scale cannot be solved by these largely inefficient tactics like terraforming or artificial islands . Not only is building a whole new island time consuming and very expensive, but this solution, like many others, has negative consequences for the environment. The debris and sand caused by building an artificial island can harm or ruin sensitive parts of the ocean’s ecosystem.
“So,” You might ask, “what is the solution?” There is another approach to the population crisis. A bold and risky mission that, if it succeeds, might usher in a brand-new era in the history of humanity by discovering and settling distant worlds. Although space colonization is a problematic, debatable, and costly strategy, it is likely the best we currently have for several reasons.
Firstly, there’s always the possibility of a catastrophe that humanity won’t be able to foresee or prepare for. The media often warns about “death asteroids” heading toward Earth, yet none of them have hit our planet. Just like the dinosaurs over sixty million years ago, humanity may one day be less fortunate. We may experience an asteroid, a technological failure, or an extremely powerful solar flare. “The dinosaurs perished because they lacked the intelligence to develop a sufficient interstellar society. The distinction between us and them is hardly apparent” (Popular Science). To shield human society and culture from utter extinction, leaving our world and relocating to other planets appears to be a more effective alternative.
A different argument might sound a little ridiculous, but it is no less compelling or important to human civilization. The greatest accomplishment of our species will probably include leaving Earth and colonizing other planets and star systems. Therefore, it would be absurd to think there existed or exists no other intelligent societies we could someday come into contact with. And even if we don’t, wouldn’t it still be wonderful or amazing to leave a mark on the history of the universe, even if we, as a species, go extinct? So that our building, art, technology, and history would still be present if some extraterrestrial archaeologists travelled to a far-off world on the boundaries of the galaxy? Would it instead be better if we reached 100 billion within the next two hundred years only to starve to death from overcrowding and harmful emissions? Because if we choose to not travel to space, this is the problem humanity will face.
Numerous well-known scientists, including Stephen Hawking, have affirmed this argument. “Spreading out into space, rather than remaining inward-looking on planet Earth, is our only hope of long-term survival. In the last century, we have advanced remarkably. But if we want to live past the next 100 years, Hawking asserts, “our future lies in space (Tree Hugger).
Colonizing other planets will not only alleviate the overpopulation issue but also generate additional jobs, construct new economic systems like commercial space travel, and eventually resolve the ongoing issue of depleting natural resources. This colonization objective is opposed by many people, mostly “green” individuals. Why is it necessary for us to relocate to other planets to find additional resources? Why are we required to destroy worlds besides our own? Because, firstly, colonizing other planets would stop us from wasting and draining all the resources from Earth. Secondly, crowding too many people into a small area would surely result in disputes over what becomes valuable in the coming years, such as oil, open space, pure water, air, etc. Finally, there’s no assurance that a society that is developed enough to travel into space will continue to care for the environment in the same manner as it does today.
Possibly the only “win-win” answer humanity can devise to the overpopulation issue is colonizing space. In addition to protecting our civilization from extinction in the event of a global disaster, it would also address the issue of limited natural resources, provide jobs, and further humankind’s overall scientific, cultural, and industrial development. The most significant benefit is that it will enable humanity to leave a lasting mark on the universe’s history. Rather than remaining and most likely vanishing as a tiny regional civilization on the outskirts of our galaxy, it will develop into a galactical society, leaving its remnants everywhere. Whatever happens to mankind, it would be our triumphant ending.
Links: Link: https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-02/after-earth-why-where-how-and-when-we-might-leave-our-home-planet/
https://www.treehugger.com/gardening-outer-space-going-be-tough-4852327
