The problem with planetary colonization...

[Crazy Eddie]

That may not be the method anyone favors, but it's more likely, as it is the most affordable.

And the most pointless. As you yourself just explained, the whole issue of colonization is MONEY.

Which means that, ultimately, the whole REASON for colonization is, also, money. The people going to colonize a new world will do so with the intention of creating a profitable enterprise off resources they find in their new home. How they expect to turn it profitable will depend on many things, not least of which is how they've planned their business model and what they expect to find when they get there. The overall point is they're going into space to make a profit, NOT to spread humanity for humanity's sake.

Embryos will not accomplish that, as there's no reason to send human beings -- let alone uneducated human beings who don't know how to do anything -- in order to make the colony profitable. Unless, of course, you're colonizing a world on behalf of a nearby alien civilization that considers human beings to be a delicacy, in which case the embryos are just livestock.

If you're running a business that requires a human presence, then you are sending experts in the field who will be able to run the business at a profit AND you're producing something from that colony that justifies the expense of sending them. But the purpose of colonization is not to spread civilization, the purpose of colonization is to create wealth.

 

[Tenacity]

Which means that, ultimately, the whole REASON for colonization is, also, money.

Lebensraum.

 

[Jedi Marso]

I have two of them.

One, we assume that some distant planet would automatically support human life, if they happen to have "Earth-like" conditions. The thing is that we assuming that OUR bodies can handle being in an entirely different bio-sphere. Would we have to go through some sort of "therapy" in order to adapt?

A planet has to be very 'Earthlike' indeed for humans (and other flora and fauna from Earth) to survive there unassisted. Climate, ambient radiation (depending on the star-type being orbited), amino-spin, trace elements, and a whole lot more things factor in. Say the air is great and the water is great, but the native life has an opposite amino-spin to life on Earth? It would mean, at the very least, that if you ate the local fruit and vegetables (assuming they weren't poisonous), they would offer no nutritional value to your body. You could stuff yourself with local food every day and literally starve to death. Germs and viruses might or might not affect humans, and vice verca, depending on a lot of the same sorts of factors. Or say you could eat the local food, but there was no naturally occurring potassium in the area of the colony? Over time, without supplements, the population would slowly turn imbecilic. (There's a good book that uses this as a plot point- Destiny Road, I think it was.) So there are a LOT of things that would factor in to choosing an Earth-2 and making sure it was livable. The good thing is that humans are smart, and we can solve problems like that. Once we have the technology to actually colonize a distant planet, those problems will be even easier to solve.

And, two, would colonization disrupt the natural process of that world? Assuming that there is not any sentient life, would our presence prevent the development of sentient life on that world? And, if there are sentient life, but not as advanced, are there ethical considerations to be had? I can imagine a scenario, like in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, our presence would be like that of the "Ancient Astronaut Conspiracy", where "aliens" intermingled with primitive humans to produce a more advanced version of humanity that we see today (yes, I am a fan of the old IN SEARCH OF... series ).

Anyway, just wondering...

Human colonization would indisputably disrupt natural development on another world. Life takes eons to develop and evolve, and life-bearing planets would likely go through periodic extinctions cycles the way this planet has. However, a human civilization technically advanced enough to get there and colonize operates and expands on an impossibly fast scale compared to natural evolution. In short: we'd cover the planet, plunder the resources, and 'set-up shop' in the cosmic blink of an eye. The natural development on that world wouldn't have a chance unless we took special measures to make sure it did.

If an alien civilization already existed, then whether we would attempt to start a colony or not would hinge on moral and ethical issues that would have to be addressed, coupled with the ability (or lack thereof) of the natives to stop us if we wanted to go ahead.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

It's a pity nothing earth like is near Alpha Centauri, that's the closest star isn't it?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

And the most space saving as they wouldn't need too build much to support the ship like amenities and things that fully grown humans would need. Life support would be more compact and robust, or they'd just have onboard freezers for the embryos.

Only what happens when the embryos reach their destination? Who gestates them or rears them?

 

[publiusr]

It would have to be a really good AI.

If I were an AI, I might make their history into something like a creation myth. A planet sends its children to seed another world. I tech science--but not a jot of history. They dont need to pick up the old hatreds--the old religion. A true fresh start. Past a few years old--they help each other mature. I allow them non sentient--and tell them that I am dying.

I'm not--and I'm watching. Don't let them know anything about fission--what have you.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Lebensraum.

Colonization and conquest are not the same thing.

But even then, the whole point of conquest is to expand the Empire/Fatherland/Homeland's access to land and resources. Religious fanatics and purists will sometimes fight wars over territory they think is "rightfully theirs" but when the chips are down they'll happily settle for territory that is sufficiently profitable.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

"Your distant ancestors found a way to colonize an extremely hostile world while leaving the safety and comfort of their own behind, and they weren't even sapient. I dare you to do better."

 

[scotthm]

"Your distant ancestors found a way to colonize an extremely hostile world while leaving the safety and comfort of their own behind, and they weren't even sapient. I dare you to do better."

What makes you think what was left behind was "safe" and "comfortable"?

---------------

 

[Doom Shepherd]

What makes you think what was left behind was "safe" and "comfortable"?

By comparison? At least in the sea they could breathe.

But that's always the excuse I hear - space is/other worlds are - hostile and dangerous and we'd never be able to adapt. Balderdash.

 

[scotthm]

But that's always the excuse I hear - space is/other worlds are - hostile and dangerous and we'd never be able to adapt. Balderdash.

A population may be able to adapt, but individuals often won't be able to, so you shouldn't expect most people to get too excited about colonizing hostile environments.

---------------

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ As I have said many, MANY times, the one and only obstacle to space colonization is when some government or another accepts as a given that a whole lot of people are probably going to die up there.

It's not, mind you, an issue of being okay with people dying. It's an issue of governments and corporations refraining from the obligatory handwringing and recrimination and obsessive finger-pointing that currently results in the case of an accident. The day that dead astronauts are a national tragedy rather than a scandal warranting an apology or an investigation is the day we are truly ready to colonize space.

 

[GreenDragonKnight]

I have in my lifetime read a lot of science fiction from the pulp era and, while I very much enjoy such literature, they were notoriously erroneous in their predictions of the future. Many sci-fi authors of the 20s, 30s and 40s, for example, thought that by the year 2000 we'd all have colonies on Mars and/or Venus and robots doing our housework, while, of course, none of them foresaw i-phones and the internet and plasma TVs and all this other stuff the millennials can't imagine a world without.
But, in the so-called real world, colonizing other planets is simply impossible. Venus, far from being the lush, tropical, jungle world it was once thought to be, has am atmosphere that would annihilate anyone who set foot on it in a fraction of a second. And Mars, while it is theoretically possible to terraform it (another decades old science fiction staple), in truth, even if it had a breathable atmosphere standing on its surface would be a bad idea because it has no magnetic field which means that anyone standing there would be directly exposed to solar radiation and so anyone standing there would almost certainly get cancer.
And, even if we ever find a habitable planet in another part of the Milky Way, it would take millennia to get there even if space faring technology truly existed, which it doesn't.
But you know, in a sense the pulps had it right, maybe not in a scientific light but in the sense that most of us just far prefer to think of Venus as a jungle world and Mars as an Edgar Rice Burroughs-ish Wild West Frontier world and going to other planets on colorful rockets. For most of us, that just has a great deal more appeal than what satellite imagery has shown us of the reality of space.

 

[publiusr]

This solar paint can help:
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2017/jun/solar-paint-offers-endless-energy-from-water-vapour

The water can come from this--also from solar power
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...of-material-straight-from-the-desert-air.html

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Water can also come from air using the peltier effect

 

[Tim Walker]

It seems that one category that has been identified is the "super earths". And it has been suggested that some may have biospheres.

Very interesting from a scientific point of view. Not so interesting in terms of surface gravity and colonization. So many life bearing worlds may be, if effect, off limits, except for probes.

 

[Gary7]

This is where sci-fi conditions the mind to believe in something far outside the realm of possibility. We are probably well over a thousand years away from being able to colonize another body in our solar system. And unless we develop some kind of interstellar drive that can reduce the travel time, we're not going to visit any place outside our solar system.

I still believe we need to focus more on Earth first. Because we're quickly destroying it. And keeping the priority low will mean certain demise to our civilization. The next frontier is the ocean. There is so much room down there. We need to find a way to live beneath the sea.

 

[Tesophius]

I have two of them.

One, we assume that some distant planet would automatically support human life, if they happen to have "Earth-like" conditions. The thing is that we assuming that OUR bodies can handle being in an entirely different bio-sphere. Would we have to go through some sort of "therapy" in order to adapt?

And, two, would colonization disrupt the natural process of that world? Assuming that there is not any sentient life, would our presence prevent the development of sentient life on that world? And, if there are sentient life, but not as advanced, are there ethical considerations to be had? I can imagine a scenario, like in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, our presence would be like that of the "Ancient Astronaut Conspiracy", where "aliens" intermingled with primitive humans to produce a more advanced version of humanity that we see today (yes, I am a fan of the old IN SEARCH OF... series ).

Anyway, just wondering...

When we talk about hypothetically colonizing Earth-like planets, it's assumed that we're talking about completely lifeless worlds, without a biosphere. No one has ever seriously considered colonizing a planet that already has any degree of complicated life forms. By complicated I mean cockroaches and not hominids of equal intelligence to Homo Sapiens as depicted in the INTO DARKNESS. No one would seriously consider colonizing a world full of intelligent primates. The galaxy is too vast to have to do this.

 

[sojourner]

it's assumed that we're talking about completely lifeless worlds,

Nope. I have no problem colonizing a world with an established biosphere, so I don't know who this "we" is that you are referring to here.

 

[Tesophius]

Nope. I have no problem colonizing a world with an established biosphere, so I don't know who this "we" is that you are referring to here.

I'm referring to the scientific community. No mainstream NASA scientist would propose colonization of an inhabited world. With Mars we go through such extreme measures to prevent any contamination that not a single microbe is allowed to be delivered to the surface.

Discovering a planet with an extant biosphere is an opportunity to study it. Contamination negates this benefit. We've yet to finish exploring/studying our own planet. Such worlds are going to be treated with great care to learn as much as possible about them, entire disciplines would be born in which people will specialize in becoming experts in one or another planet. It's inconceivable that we would start populating one.