How do you grow from a seed bank to feed hundreds of infants (the minimum size for a sustainable DNA population)? Where do the plants grow? In what soil? What water are you using?

All food that goes to space now is dehydrated and they use onboard water to rehydrate it, because it's more efficient and cost effective. There are no canned goods.

Yes, messages that take 9 years isn't interaction. It's extremely slow communication that would have virtually no function.

I consider science fiction, for the purposes of questioning the future, to be based on science. It's also not important and was a throwaway line.

Yes, humans have nothing to gain by sending probes light years away. There is no opportunity for anyone on earth to benefit from that endeavor. The trip would take multiple lifetimes, so unless people are immortal, nobody who sent the ship would be there for or to arrive, AND the technological advances made in the interim would very likely make the previously sent ship obsolete. It's much more likely that we will transition to hybrid biomechanical beings before even attempting to reach another star, and biomechanical beings may have immortality or have lost the need for physical bodies entirely, with the ability to exist on a computer server and be uploaded into various forms once it arrives.

Nope. Stupid. Too stupid. Blocked.

Lol being right is right. Not pednatic. Being accurate has meaning.

You didn't say "potentially habitable", you said habitable. Literally any planet anywhere is "potentially habitable". Even asteroids. Maybe we'll design a Venus or Uranus habitat one day. That phrase is functionally meaningless.

NASA isn't projecting the first manned flight until at least 2035 (super likely to be delayed). I suspect you think space works like it does in the movies.

Dude you said there are many habitable planets, and then you referenced Mars, and I have no idea why. Mars is not habitable. Any human exposed to Mars would be dead in under one minute from numerous fatal effects. I think you're greatly overestimating your own knowledge about space, physics and science in general. We went to the moon 50 years ago, and we can barely even get back.

Going to another star is not realistic for human beings. We can send machines.

Sorry, idk what you're talking about. Earth is the only habitable planet ever discovered. Any human being who leaves Earth's atmosphere has zero other survivable habitats in the known universe.

Planetary geoengineering would take millennia, and require truly enormous resources and investments for something that wouldn't be realized for 1000s of years, light years away, with no opportunity for communication.

I used to get excited about space exploration and these types of far out topics, but our societies can barely feed their people. In the end idk what's so meaningful about spreading humans to other planets if we can't keep this planet sustainable and we can't end human suffering.

That's not what happens though. Within a few hundred years the beings living on the other planet would likely not be considered human due to significant changes in physiology based on new gravity, atmospheric pressure and density, atmospheric composition, differences in star output and radiation. Their culture would change immediately, because none of the places or items available on earth would be there. Also, if it's embryos, they do not have culture. It would have to be forced on them by the robots.

The sun is well understood and will be safe for 1 billion years at least, at which point it's impossible we would still be the same species we are today unless humanity pursues genomics and stops all genetic mutations permanently.

If we explore the galaxy, it's most likely to be done by small probes that can self-replicate and therefore bounce from planet to planet instead of requiring new machines be sent from earth. The time scales are too large, the distances too great, and the supposed benefits are not felt or experienced by anyone.

One-way communication to the nearest star would take 4.5 years, 9 years to get an answer. There would be no functional purpose for communication, no opportunity for conversation.

Further, the resources required to keep humans alive are enormous - each inhabitant of the new planet would require about 75,000 pounds of food and 86,000 litres of water, which is unlikely to be mined or produced on-planet for at least the first several hundred years while building would occur.

The payoff time would be never, because no humans on earth would ever be able to interact with people on the other planet. The closest star is 4.5 light years away, so even a simple text message exchange would take 9 earth years. No human on earth would experience a benefit to their lives, and the people on the new planet are unlikely to thank humanity for stranding them.

The only.proposed method so far for interstellar travel are micromachines with solar sails, but no, they cannot carry any cargo. The theoretical design weighs mere grams. You would need a full spaceship of decades worth of food, water and other materials for however many people are intended, and massive amounts of gases to survive. The only reason earth is habitable to humans is because various other life forms altered the planet's chemistry and made it hospitable for us.

The cost is probably the largest blockade to an attempt, but I doubt even an earnest attempt would be successful or meaningful. Earth humans have nothing to gain by sending embryos light years away.

There is no current physics understanding that enables life forms to conduct interstellar travel on human timescales. We can send machines over decades or centuries, and possibly eventually humans, but the idea of centuries long trips sounds more like fiction than science fiction. There's too many things that could go wrong on a generation ship, and there are no known habitable.planets.

meaningful interstellar travel and communications would require understanding how to manipulate wormholes or to break the speed of light. We don't understand either of those things or know if they are possible, so it's not just technology.

Um. No. Look into the actual costs of space exploration. There is no possible resource on Mars that would be cost effective to return to earth. Unless they find magic potions, Mars is a ball of rust and ice.

Interstellar travel is unlikely to ever occur unless new physics are discovered. also, there is a TV series called "raised by wolves" with two seasons that is essentially what you describe: Androids raising kids born from stored embryos on a foreign planet.

If you continue, consider: What's the purpose of the colonies? Why can't the fully humanoid robots, which are basically human clones, perform whatever labor is to be done there? What purpose would it serve to send humans to what is surely an imperfect planet for human beings? (There have been no planets discovered so far that are anywhere near habitable)

These questions can be answered, and having answers would make a more compelling context for any fictional story.

Posts like this will begin being deleted and possibly receiving bans according to mods. This is not what the sub is for.

Sure, ok, except... It's not, because homes depreciate just like cars. They require consistent maintenance. They also incur annual taxes that are never recouped. You also can't just sell your home, unless you simultaneously secure a new place to live.

The only reason prices go up is scarcity, and that relies on external factors far beyond your control. If a new development pops up next to yours in 10 years, your home is likely to be less desirable, and therefore command a lower selling value than the newer homes, because it is old and has depreciated. Flipping homes can be profitable if you can manage to affordably rehab a beater.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/real-estate/is-buying-a-home-worth-it/

If you'll notice, the people saying it's a good investment are literally the people selling mortgages.

If you think lived-in homes are investments, perhaps a course in economics would help. A property is only an investment when you earn from it. There is no guarantee your property's value will increase for future sale, nor that anyone will want to buy it. A house is an investment the same way a car is. Meaning, it's not.

I'm gonna go with the big science thing that is guaranteed to change the life of every future human and current earth resident: the ongoing destruction of our planet. In short terms, climate change, mass extinction, plastics and forever chemicals, plus the still real threat of global nuclear war. Sure fusion might power the light and heat in 50 years (we are nowhere near actually using fusion power), and AI might be able to design better systems or solutions. The coming years will deliver major changes to human societies, but it's unlikely they are going to be for the better.

Flying cars are just airplanes. The fuel required for air travel is significantly higher than ground travel. What is the positive aspect of this?

Sure they can! It's possible it would make animation more accessible. That does not mean it would allow more people to earn a living creating animated content, or earn more money. More content simply devalues the content. Also, how many people (artists, animators) can afford to spend the time to develop a fully finished product without any pre-arranged distribution or guaranteed value?

Those techniques will undoubtedly be taught to the AI. I get that it could reduce overall labor needs, but how is that a positive? Are you assuming that being responsible for more of the end product will result in higher wages?

The creators of South Park have already done this. They just announced a $20 million funding round. Idk why you think this will benefit animators though. All it means is animators won't even be needed beyond sketching a few samples to feed to the AI.

Ditto on never ever. It is as fictional as Star Trek's replicator.

AI shuts off the power. you're welcome for the free story idea.

I'm a writer. AI has already started to take over journalism. I think giving AI knowledge tasks is terrifying. We will lose control.

I think you're describing how AI Will take over human jobs for the benefit of billionaires.

And the moon! Ha.

There's also a separate option that for profit corporations will undoubtedly exploit: the singularity is predicted for 2029, when machine general intelligence will surpass human intelligence. Subsequent advances in robotics will likely result in fully humanoid robots capable of self maintenance and repair by the 2040s or 2050s, which eliminates the need for food and water and places unrestricted timelines on operations. Human settlements are likely to be built by said robots because not a ton of people will be up for one way trips and the cost of sending robots is significantly lower.