Fix or colonise

[legion431]

I've been thinking about if humanity had the necessary resources would it choose to expand the human race amongst the rest of the solar system or stay here and fix the problems like war, poverty etc.

I know we could have an equal amount of both but if it boiled down to one of the two what would you choose: colonisation of other planets or staying and fixing the current problems.

EDIT: OH! And if we were to colonise, say, Mars, would you want, if it was your country to first colonise it, place their flag first or a flag representing humanity as a whole.

 

[BonsaiK]

Neither will happen. We won't be expanding to other planets because it's just a hassle and there's really no point. We won't be fixing the problems here either because those problems are all very explicitly tied in with human nature.

 

[Sandernista]

We won't be fixing the problems here either because those problems are all very explicitly tied in with human nature.

Hm. I disagree. I think the problems will eventually disappear, fix themselves.

I don't see the need to colonize other planets ever though.

 

[RipRoaringWaterfowl]

Both! It must be both! There are equal amounts of scientists working on fixing earthly problems and working on colonizing the Moon, Mars, three or four moons around Jupiter; while quite obviously not all problems will be solved, both will happen, and things will be fairly better.

Oh, and flying cars.

 

[chadachada123]

Neither will happen. We won't be expanding to other planets because it's just a hassle and there's really no point. We won't be fixing the problems here either because those problems are all very explicitly tied in with human nature.

There's no point? Our survival as a species requires it eventually. Besides, the value for research on gravitational effects and the effects of radiation, among other things, would be immense.

I give us 300 years MAX before we have a sizeable colony and the beginning of terraformation (if it's reasonably possible) of Mars. Guaranteed.

Regarding OP's question, by the time we humans reach this point, we'll likely have our space program a united one, probably headed by the UN. Picture the Halo universe. Their space program, and in fact the human military, evolved from the United Nations. The marines in that universe are in the UNSC, United Nations Space Command.

Either us uniting as a planet will lead to colonization, or colonization will lead to us uniting as a planet. Both are pretty deeply intertwined with the other.

 

[NeonOranges]

I'm going with colonize, if only because humanity just celebrated it's 7th billion human being and we are going to fast run out of space.

 

[somonels]

Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate.

 

[Delsana]

We'll probably colonize space and the moon for starters.

To think otherwise is pretty ignorant when you realize we have a limited population limit on our planet.

 

[BonsaiK]

Neither will happen. We won't be expanding to other planets because it's just a hassle and there's really no point. We won't be fixing the problems here either because those problems are all very explicitly tied in with human nature.

There's no point? Our survival as a species requires it eventually. Besides, the value for research on gravitational effects and the effects of radiation, among other things, would be immense.

I give us 300 years MAX before we have a sizeable colony and the beginning of terraformation (if it's reasonably possible) of Mars. Guaranteed.

Regarding OP's question, by the time we humans reach this point, we'll likely have our space program a united one, probably headed by the UN. Picture the Halo universe. Their space program, and in fact the human military, evolved from the United Nations. The marines in that universe are in the UNSC, United Nations Space Command.

Either us uniting as a planet will lead to colonization, or colonization will lead to us uniting as a planet. Both are pretty deeply intertwined with the other.

If we've got the technology to terraform Mars and make it liveable, rather than taking decades to ship all that technology over there, set it up and make it work, we'd be better off utilising it to terraform Earth and fix environmental problems. Then there would be no problem at all with living on Earth forever (or until the sun gets big enough to fry us anyway but that's a few billions years yet so who's counting).

Interplanetary science fiction always has "uniform governance" of planets with one universal ruling body, but people aren't just going to suddenly cede control of their block of land just because there's a space program that's getting somewhere. It's horseshit, that's now how humans work. It's a similar bunch of crap as the "uniform planets" that always appear in sci-fi - you have the "desert planet", the "forest planet", the "weird crystal bullshit" planet, etc... ignoring the fact that weather patterns on all planets vary all over the place, and that any planet capable of supporting life probably is going to have desert AND forest AND weird crystal bullshit. But people use these silly concepts in sci-fi-lite (like Star Wars) all the time because it's simple for people to understand.

The space age is pretty much over. We went to the Moon and discoverd that there were rocks there. It didn't excite us that much. Most space missions now are about getting better mobile phone coverage.

 

[ZephyrFireStrom]

There are far greater problems than war. Those problems hit closer to home as well.

 

[TorqueConverter]

War is not a problem it's a facet of human nature. To not have war is to be inhuman. I don't believe poverty is a problem, as in there is no solution to make it go away. Problems generally have solutions. Communist nations have poverty.

Colonize away.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Here's hoping we do both. We could use a bit more leg room and a bit less conflicts for it.