POLL: Which should be colonized first: Space or the oceans? Discuss!

[BlamoHammer]

My gf and I went to see Master and Commander and before it showed a preview of "The Day After Tomorrow", which looks to be yet another flick about the end of the world. This led us to talking about what will happen if/when the Earth's surface becomes overcrowded. I think we are most likely to head out to space first but she asked why go to all the trouble when we have 75% of the Earth's surface left to put people on.

This sparked a 5 minute long debate which only ended when the trailer for Troy came on and she was distracted by Brad Pitt. :brokenheart:

In any case I thought it could be an interesting topic so here you are...which would you choose and why?

 

[Siddhartha]

We need to improve education and health care quality and access first before we throw our resources down gravity wells like space or ocean colonization.

 

[yhelothar]

space... by the time we need to colonize either.. space will be cheap, probably a lot cheaper than ocean...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Ocean seem more problematic than space. What with all the storms and such. If we could find an inexpensive way to get people and materials into space I think that would be a better alternative. Both pose similar problems but I think the violence of the sea makes it less likely that people would habitate there for long periods of time.

 

[BlamoHammer]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
We need to improve education and health care quality and access first before we throw our resources down gravity wells like space or ocean colonization.

Wholeheartedly agreed. The idea was more of a hypothetical situation rather than an upcoming plan for the species.

 

[OS]

space, it receives a lot more funding and media glorification than deep sea.

 

[HOWITIS]

earth will never be overcrowded. in fact, europe, america and japan will have a population shortage weventually. we should undertake policies to increase our population growth, but since it is already 2.0 we just tneed to raise it to 2.1. some european countries have a growth of like 0.7 they are the ones in real trouble.

 

[MithShrike]

Space is far more economically feasible than the ocean. Most of the research and materials are available to us to colonize the Moon. I say the first step would be to erect a skyhook from Ecuador and using that we launch LEO-Moon vehicles to ferry back and forth. Now, launching satellites will be much cheaper and communications can be vastly improved throughout the world. Also, once a base is setup on the moon we could launch manufacturing facilities in orbit around the Moon and Earth so that we could use more landspace for residency. Another thing which would help a lot would be the capture of near Earth asteroids and harvesting them for raw materiele in our orbital manufacturing facilities. Much cheaper to do that than haul up all that carbon and iron to the Moon via our skyhook.

As you people can tell I've read way to much Ben Bova.

 

[matt426malm]

Anybody read Case for Mars. I don't think it is really all that hard to go to space but besides science there isn't really a reason to go. However, we are a long while before we will be able to support any sizeable population in space. I think that the next place people will be living/working will be something like virtual reality internet. It would be a lot cheaper with not really any limitations. Something like the Matrix.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: HOWITIS
earth will never be overcrowded. in fact, europe, america and japan will have a population shortage weventually. we should undertake policies to increase our population growth, but since it is already 2.0 we just tneed to raise it to 2.1. some european countries have a growth of like 0.7 they are the ones in real trouble.

Funny you mention this. We had a mock un debate in Env Science AP about population growth and adopting a zero growth policy.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Mith
Space is far more economically feasible than the ocean. Most of the research and materials are available to us to colonize the Moon. I say the first step would be to erect a skyhook from Ecuador and using that we launch LEO-Moon vehicles to ferry back and forth. Now, launching satellites will be much cheaper and communications can be vastly improved throughout the world. Also, once a base is setup on the moon we could launch manufacturing facilities in orbit around the Moon and Earth so that we could use more landspace for residency. Another thing which would help a lot would be the capture of near Earth asteroids and harvesting them for raw materiele in our orbital manufacturing facilities. Much cheaper to do that than haul up all that carbon and iron to the Moon via our skyhook.

As you people can tell I've read way to much Ben Bova.

supposedly once they figure out how to make carbon nano tubes miles long, it'll be feasible to have a space elevator.

 

[DXM]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Mith
Space is far more economically feasible than the ocean. Most of the research and materials are available to us to colonize the Moon. I say the first step would be to erect a skyhook from Ecuador and using that we launch LEO-Moon vehicles to ferry back and forth. Now, launching satellites will be much cheaper and communications can be vastly improved throughout the world. Also, once a base is setup on the moon we could launch manufacturing facilities in orbit around the Moon and Earth so that we could use more landspace for residency. Another thing which would help a lot would be the capture of near Earth asteroids and harvesting them for raw materiele in our orbital manufacturing facilities. Much cheaper to do that than haul up all that carbon and iron to the Moon via our skyhook.

As you people can tell I've read way to much Ben Bova.

supposedly once they figure out how to make carbon nano tubes miles long, it'll be feasible to have a space elevator.

That's interesting, do you know where I can read more about this?

Also, I voted for the ocean since one shuttle launch can run several hundreds of millions so the cost to transfer even a few thousand colonists to a space colony would be enormous, certainly not more than building a few floating or underwater colonies on/in the ocean.

EDIT: After reading some articles on the concept of space elevators, I change my vote to space.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: DXM

Originally posted by: OS

supposedly once they figure out how to make carbon nano tubes miles long, it'll be feasible to have a space elevator.

That's interesting, do you know where I can read more about this?

Also, I voted for the ocean since one shuttle launch can run several hundreds of millions so the cost to transfer even a few thousand colonists to a space colony would be enormous, certainly not more than building a few floating or underwater colonies on/in the ocean.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spacedocumentary/story/0,2763,1041360,00.html

there's more reading by search on google for "carbon nanotube space elevator"

 

[Regs]

Space. I'm sure all the sea creatures would just love our company

 

[freakflag]

All talk of Bucky-ball powered moon elevators aside...I think that we can learn alot about habitation in space from inhabiting the ocean first.

It is much easier (and cost effective) to build and test different types of habitats right here on terra-firma in an environment not all that dissimilar from space.

 

[lowtech1]

Neither going to happen any time soon, because it is cheaper to kill a few millions or billions than colonizes space/ocean.

[edit] We are going to run out of dinosaur juice & fresh water long before we run out of land.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
We need to improve education and health care quality and access first before we throw our resources down gravity wells like space or ocean colonization.

pffttt boring!

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

why the hell would you want to live in the ocean, space is much cooler.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: DXM

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Mith
Space is far more economically feasible than the ocean. Most of the research and materials are available to us to colonize the Moon. I say the first step would be to erect a skyhook from Ecuador and using that we launch LEO-Moon vehicles to ferry back and forth. Now, launching satellites will be much cheaper and communications can be vastly improved throughout the world. Also, once a base is setup on the moon we could launch manufacturing facilities in orbit around the Moon and Earth so that we could use more landspace for residency. Another thing which would help a lot would be the capture of near Earth asteroids and harvesting them for raw materiele in our orbital manufacturing facilities. Much cheaper to do that than haul up all that carbon and iron to the Moon via our skyhook.

As you people can tell I've read way to much Ben Bova.

supposedly once they figure out how to make carbon nano tubes miles long, it'll be feasible to have a space elevator.

That's interesting, do you know where I can read more about this?

Also, I voted for the ocean since one shuttle launch can run several hundreds of millions so the cost to transfer even a few thousand colonists to a space colony would be enormous, certainly not more than building a few floating or underwater colonies on/in the ocean.

I don't know by the time we can make a carbon-nano-tube space elevator. We probably aren't that far away from self-replicating nano-robots that could make things molocule by molocule. All the recources we would need could be gotten out of the earth's crust. Any book by drexler is a good nano-technology book. Zubrin writes good books on space and going there for economical reasons not just because its the future so we should. Zubrin's reasons mining lunar regolith for deutrium useable in fusion reactors or mining asteroids for platinum metals that are worth about the same per ounce as gold. If there is somewhere to do something in space mars is the place to go. Taking okygen out of lunar ferite-oxides requires insane amounts of energy. Taking oxygen out of Mars's co2 atmosphere is a piece of cake. Besides growing any kind of food on mars would require lamps because the moon is dark for two weeks. Besides possibly the regolith and an optical array telescope there isn't much on the moon.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Space. Technology is much easier to create and prefect and we really need to start working at getting off this rock anyway.

 

[BlamoHammer]

Originally posted by: DXM

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Mith
Space is far more economically feasible than the ocean. Most of the research and materials are available to us to colonize the Moon. I say the first step would be to erect a skyhook from Ecuador and using that we launch LEO-Moon vehicles to ferry back and forth. Now, launching satellites will be much cheaper and communications can be vastly improved throughout the world. Also, once a base is setup on the moon we could launch manufacturing facilities in orbit around the Moon and Earth so that we could use more landspace for residency. Another thing which would help a lot would be the capture of near Earth asteroids and harvesting them for raw materiele in our orbital manufacturing facilities. Much cheaper to do that than haul up all that carbon and iron to the Moon via our skyhook.

As you people can tell I've read way to much Ben Bova.

supposedly once they figure out how to make carbon nano tubes miles long, it'll be feasible to have a space elevator.

That's interesting, do you know where I can read more about this?

Also, I voted for the ocean since one shuttle launch can run several hundreds of millions so the cost to transfer even a few thousand colonists to a space colony would be enormous, certainly not more than building a few floating or underwater colonies on/in the ocean.

EDIT: After reading some articles on the concept of space elevators, I change my vote to space.

I think any oceanic colonies would have to be underwater. The surface is just too violent for any sort of stability.

 

[NoReMoRsE]

Revenge is a dish which is best served cold.. and it's colder in space than in teh ocean.

 

[RU482]

I think I'll just stay in Iowa

 

[edmundoab]

sea first,
at least its still earth,
rather then exploring the unknown and trying to make something outta it

 

[IEatChildren]

I think we should at some point just lift all the cities we already have and build cities on the ground under them, and have different levels above ground rather than underground.
Also, in Japan, cities are already being built underground.