To me, it feels like a further step in advancing human civilization. Disperse the population a bit and keep growing as a species. That said, I’m no expert and if you have literature to recommend please do!

  • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Very low priority first focus should be on making our only planet as livable and with as many healthy ecosystems and thriving species as possible given how utterly unlikely we will ever have significant population on any other.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      While it’s easy to agree with your priorities, taking resources away from our future will make next to no difference. Most of these issues are not budget issues and the space program is a miniscule budget comparatively.

      For example most of these places where overuse of water is ruining ecosystems can’t really be helped with money. Maybe more intelligent allocation helps in some cases but we really need to face that some places can’t support the number of people there

      • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yes and no

        “Low priority” and “first” are actually pretty different statements. “First” requires pretty authoritarian control over how people spend their time. But the statements are thrown together pretty often and people intuitively accept them. Realistically the world is a bunch of people doing their own thing, and in that world a small fraction of time and resources is spent on space. Some of this ends up being useful technology is developed for the rest of the world too. Personally I’m hopeful for stations and bases doing some of the expensive research for closed loop products and recycling but that’s still a hope and far from a certainty