Is there any economics ‘research’ on redundancy, i.e. humanity surviving Earth ceasing to be habitable? I’d think that would dominate sufficiently long-term considerations.
I agree with you that there are no strict economic benefits to space colonization – not in the ‘near-term’ anyways.
The problem with most of those arguments is that almost anything we can do in space, we can do better on Earth. If we can make a a self-sustaining closed ecosystem is space or on another planet… then we can do the same on Earth, more easily, in almost all circumstances (including nuclear war, supervolcano, massive global warming, meteor impact...).
It makes sense to expland if the Earth is an easy target; eg in a war or a meteor impact. But if we can expand into space, then other planets also become realistic war targets, AND we should have the capacity to deviate a meteor.
Yeah, I wasn’t thinking of circumstances where you, rightly, point out that it would be easier to create ‘closed habitable systems’ on Earth.
The only examples I can think of would be, in essence, very large meteors, e.g. very large meteors or a rogue planet or rogue black hole.
I’d expect any closed habitable systems to be more at risk of failing tho if they were on Earth, were a disaster to occur there, e.g. by ‘invasions’ from others fleeing the disaster that know of the closed system.
Maybe you’re right that the costs of creating closed habitable systems off-Earth will ‘always’ be greater than just protecting Earth, but my intuition is that there’s still a non-zero probability that it might payoff from doing so.
Certainly tho, sufficiently far enough in the future (e.g. many billions of years from now), that cost-benefit analysis might change radically (e.g. when the Sun dies).
I’d expect large benefits from developing the knowledge and understanding sufficient to being able to create closed habitable systems too.
It’s also possible that the relevant constraints for avoiding or adapting to some disasters aren’t strictly economic or financial but social or organizational, in which case multiple closed habitable systems could payoff in that sense too.
In these comments, I am, maybe obviously, thinking of people living off-Earth as hedging. From that perspective, the optimal costs paid for developing the ability for people to live off-Earth doesn’t seem to be literally zero.
From the perspective of weathering large disasters, and not just ensuring the survival of people at all, even not-strictly-closed habitable systems might be worth investing in. If we could grow food in space, it could possibly help feed people on Earth in the aftermath of a global nuclear war, even if it’s not strictly necessary to ensure that anyone survives.
Is there any economics ‘research’ on redundancy, i.e. humanity surviving Earth ceasing to be habitable? I’d think that would dominate sufficiently long-term considerations.
I agree with you that there are no strict economic benefits to space colonization – not in the ‘near-term’ anyways.
The problem with most of those arguments is that almost anything we can do in space, we can do better on Earth. If we can make a a self-sustaining closed ecosystem is space or on another planet… then we can do the same on Earth, more easily, in almost all circumstances (including nuclear war, supervolcano, massive global warming, meteor impact...).
It makes sense to expland if the Earth is an easy target; eg in a war or a meteor impact. But if we can expand into space, then other planets also become realistic war targets, AND we should have the capacity to deviate a meteor.
But maybe I’m missing some other scenarios?
Yeah, I wasn’t thinking of circumstances where you, rightly, point out that it would be easier to create ‘closed habitable systems’ on Earth.
The only examples I can think of would be, in essence, very large meteors, e.g. very large meteors or a rogue planet or rogue black hole.
I’d expect any closed habitable systems to be more at risk of failing tho if they were on Earth, were a disaster to occur there, e.g. by ‘invasions’ from others fleeing the disaster that know of the closed system.
Maybe you’re right that the costs of creating closed habitable systems off-Earth will ‘always’ be greater than just protecting Earth, but my intuition is that there’s still a non-zero probability that it might payoff from doing so.
Certainly tho, sufficiently far enough in the future (e.g. many billions of years from now), that cost-benefit analysis might change radically (e.g. when the Sun dies).
I’d expect large benefits from developing the knowledge and understanding sufficient to being able to create closed habitable systems too.
It’s also possible that the relevant constraints for avoiding or adapting to some disasters aren’t strictly economic or financial but social or organizational, in which case multiple closed habitable systems could payoff in that sense too.
In these comments, I am, maybe obviously, thinking of people living off-Earth as hedging. From that perspective, the optimal costs paid for developing the ability for people to live off-Earth doesn’t seem to be literally zero.
From the perspective of weathering large disasters, and not just ensuring the survival of people at all, even not-strictly-closed habitable systems might be worth investing in. If we could grow food in space, it could possibly help feed people on Earth in the aftermath of a global nuclear war, even if it’s not strictly necessary to ensure that anyone survives.
I also think that mastering closed systems in space would help a lot for having semi-closed systems on Earth.