I was a big fan of RAW in my 20s. But these days, I keep running into more and more reasons why the “space migration” part will probably never happen. Not never as in delayed, but never as in never.
Zero-G screws with the human metabolism, and radiation is a lot worse, and outside the Van Allen belts both are plentiful. Even if a centrifuge can solve the former - which is by no means certain - radiation is a huge obstacle for a mere six-month trip to the little tin can of the ISS. And for a lifetime? Much much more of something is required, maybe shielding, maybe something else.
It might be worth billions to send a few people up there. But who would foot the bill for any kind of mass migration? It’s not like the Mayflower - a lot more than a wooden ship is required. Likewise, there’s no New World waiting full of corn and tomatoes and easily-killed natives. Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids.
And we keep getting excited about exosolar planets. But in all probability we will never be able to visit them. Einstein is probably right, there is a speed limit, and nobody’s going to invent warp drives. Not soon, not ever. It’s fun to imagine owning the Millennium Falcon, but there is no reason to think it will ever be real.
As Earth closes in on its estimated carrying capacity of 10 million humans (and that’s only if we all live at developing world standards), space migration is the only palatable solution to the population and environmental crises.
My point (and I do have one) is this: space migration may be “the only palatable solution,” but that doesn’t mean it’s possible. Maybe the only real solutions will be ones that are unpalatable. What if we can’t just use up this world and move on to the next? What if this is all we get - for the next thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand years? What if Earth is our only home forever? Would we act any differently?
Bob did live just long enough to see the naming of Eris and its moon Dysnomia, for which I’m grateful.
O’Neil colonies are certainly not in our near future, but the combination of laser launch and satellite solar power remain available to any major national or corporate entity with a long enough horizon.
Yes, we will have to coevolve ourselves together with our tech. Yes, there will be voices against this - but that’s why the meek shall inherit this stupid rock.
We know too little about the nature of space-time to come up with such authoritative denials. You cannot win against the speed of light in its own game. The question still open is, can you cheat?
Will we end up looking like little green men?
An Omni Magazine article from ages ago: (there was a longer one that described several types of space workers, but I couldn’t find it):
I think a combo of bio and tech approaches is better than trying to go with bio alone. Except for special cases where we want complete self-replication or unassisted growth.
Sure the question is open, and you can’t prove a negative. I’m well aware most people who think about the question assume, on sheer faith, that one day we’ll just fly off to Zeta Reticuli. But again I’ll ask, what if they’re wrong, and Einstein was right?
Newton did not stop being right after Einstein. Einstein just added more accuracy in edge cases. The same fate can, and likely will, happen to Einstein. No theory is definite.
Worst case, we’re doomed to this stupid set of rocks around this stupid star, with generation ships as a piss-poor long-distance travel to just the nearest stars, a choice even worse than Ryanair.
And then there’s the Luciferian ability of the Internet itself—which Leary tirelessly proselytized for in his last days—to create memetic hive minds that can exercise levels of intelligence beyond the capacity of the network’s individual nodes, for good or ill. Wikipedia, Twitter and Reddit are all prime examples—as is 4Chan.
