No, this is slightly different at least as you stated it.
I can agree with this. As you originally presented it, it was not clarified as such.
No, my point was that supply chains are a bigger cause of misery than global shortages. Also, with economic development, population growth decreases.
It is possible that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe (an insanely big place). We so far do not have any proof that we aren't according to science. Which would mean we are extremely rare and worthy to be preserved at all possible cost.
Its not a question of easy and hard its a question of not knowing what we do not know. There are many plausible ways we (on earth) could and likely will go extinct having nothing to do with normal atmosphere and gravity.
We actually don't even need another planets or moons to colonize if we can build suitable habitats in space. And yes it is possible (we actually set foot on the moon in the 1960's) but it won't ever happen with your "can't do anything" attitude.
That's interesting, but not very helpful.
The black death didn't do it. The third Star Wars trilogy didn't do it. And we survived the Cubs and Red Sox winning the World Series. Earth is by far, the best place for us to live within likely 1x10
All the benefits of being on a hostile planet... without the ability to go outside. Fucking wonderful! Sign me up! How many people do you think could live in that confinement for a lifetime? Read up on this, and these people know they will eventually be able to leave Antarctica... on a small space station?
A serious bio pandemic could though. Especially if it were a lab grown virus like someone would be stupid enough to invent.
Umm... the black death was serious. Killed 30 to 60% of Europe! Not made sick, killed!
The easiest way to live on Mars or the Moon is going to be figuring out how to do high resolution tensor scans of the human brain, and putting the result on a platform made of sand and metal instead of carbon and water.
According to Google, it's about 1/3 Earth's gravity.
Perhaps. But not as much as that magnitude is influenced by other factors, (such as the amount of per capita consumption, and the choice of energy sources to feed that consumption, for example). There are myriad influences, and absolute population is just a tiny and trivial contributor to that magnitude.
Indeed. So absolute population is simply a distraction, as it contributes nothing to our solution finding process whatsoever.
Using that reasoning, manatees or butterflies or polar bears are extremely rare and worthy to be preserved.
Life insurance policy? Ha! It's nothing more than a vanity program by wealthy assholes.
The math depends on the belief that population will continue to grow exponentially.
FTFY.
It is possible, but from my reading of history and human behavior, I’d think it would take generations for that to work.
The entire debate is predicated upon the completely false assumption, made by pretty much everyone prior to the middle of the twentieth century, that the fertility rates seen between the mid-Eighteenth and mid-Twentieth centuries represented the fertility rate that humans naturally and inevitably desired - ie. people assumed that family size was a conscious and explicit choice.
If I was interested in surviving in a decimated Earth, I might try building my house under the ocean or on the South Pole. That would be far easier and cheaper than building a house on Mars, and would yield a far better quality of life.
