@WoodshopHandman @boeswilligkeit >Non-issues
The limited heat dissipation dictates how much energy the world can use per year before it overruns the heat sink capacity of the earth. This isn't global warming i'm talking about. The only means of staying under it perpetually are a steady state model where the standard of living drops significantly.
Rocks have fallen before and destroyed the planet. also super volcanoes like the one in India or Siberia.
>No, obviously
Alright then, if you don't want humanity/animals/plants to die from cataclysm, it's surely not a good idea to keep all our eggs in one basket.
>How do you define "quality of life"?
The foods people are able to/allowed to eat. They take tremendous resources that we agree are limited. Also, the amount of electricity each person has access to. In a steady-state system, it's about the level of your average african. Space can do far better. Air is abundant in space via separation of water, which is extremely abundant. Food can easily be grown in space en masse. Space Colonies also offer new chances for independent governments to form. Space Germany, anyone?
>I don't think we'll have to.
I've considered all sorts of scenarios where we just let people die off, and like people drowning, they tend to take anyone nearby with them. It will snowball something fierce and we should avoid it at all costs.
>Even more delusional than suggesting colonies on other planets
Not at all, we've had the technology since the 1960's. Orbital Colonies have the tremendous benefit of very low energy costs for transportation of resources from asteroids. Radiation can be managed via ice or magnetic shields. Planetary Colonies all have deep gravity wells that increase costs exponentially, or horrific natural features like the Moon being covered in microscopic glass.