> My opinion is that without space, humanity will destroy itself in a matter of centuries, through environmental pollution, nuclear war, disease, or any of the other methods we've come up with in the last 100 years.
People say this, but I don't get what it's based in. Our track record for surviving is incredibly impressive. In fact, if there's one trait we humans have that's worth noting, it's our ability to survive, no matter the conditions.
I also find it amusing that predict that humanity will destroy itself in a matter of centuries after starting your post with "So many cynical comments in here." :)
I hear what you're saying. I had the first thought just after making my comment, and explored it a little more. I hope you'll indulge me, because I'm genuinely curious what you think.
It's really only in the last 120 years that humans have been able to inflict enough damage within a few generations to seriously damage our existence. So I limit myself to that era (and forward), because I'm focusing on human-inflicted extinction.
I have 4 or 5 nuclear near-events that very narrowly started a nuclear war. (I suppose I forget that humans will survive total nuclear war, but there would be so much death that I'm not sure I'd want to survive it.) We can add in global warming, although we don't know what the effects will be.
So 6 events or so in the last 120 years, 1 of which is still undecided. The "next few centuries" part was a bit dramatic -- but over the next 1,000,000 years, how many more near-misses will we have? Even if we survive 99%, there's still a pretty high chance that humanity is gone. And from reading descriptions of things like the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think the odds of nuclear exchange were much higher than 1%.
I must confess to resembling the second comment. In humanity, I see a lot of hope, but I see also reason for despair. I guess the cynicism hit me a bit because it's people being cynical about the one endeavor I believe holds hope for uniting our species.
I suppose I might agree with you that it's likely catastrophic events will be caused by us at some point, but I very much disagree that the survivors of those events will ever consider life not worth living. Wanting to stay alive is probably our most fundamental desire, and we happen to be pretty damn good at doing it. I think of those types of events like forest fires. On the surface, they seem devastating, but they actually end up serving a wider purpose and thus, one should not despair.
However, if 99% of the world's population died and the remainder had to scratch out a difficult living, I think it would be difficult to distance myself from the reality that my existence, as I had known it to that point, was dead.
One of the great things about the human spirit is the resilience of our species and our individuals. However, it's hard for me to think I'd just accept it as part of a greater purpose. (In fact, that language makes me think of a religious approach to death -- "they're in a better place" -- which does nothing to soften the blow from a loved one's death.)
People say this, but I don't get what it's based in. Our track record for surviving is incredibly impressive. In fact, if there's one trait we humans have that's worth noting, it's our ability to survive, no matter the conditions.
I also find it amusing that predict that humanity will destroy itself in a matter of centuries after starting your post with "So many cynical comments in here." :)