O'Neill Space Stations on 99% Invisible podcast

[kerbiloid]

The wider you spread → the more often you face threats → the more often you get billion casualties → the more indifferently you take this → the less backup settlements you need → the less sense to wide spread.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

It could indeed sustain over 8 million survivors. It could save us from unexpected disasters. we could use mars colonies too, but the key of long term human survival is to have hundreds of colonies, orbital and planetary, take care of the earth, and spread to the stars. There is no imminent threat, but we need to start now. we have every necessary piece of technology, and all of the money.

We don't have any of the key technologies to build self-sustaining space colonies. All we have is a couple of theoretical ideas, but the TRL is way below 2 or 3 for most of them. Neither could we realistically fund the construction of such colonies if we wanted to. Space colonies, at this stage, are a hypothetical construct at best, so there is absolutely no basis to claim that they could sustain 8 million people.

There is also no rush to start now. Statistically, the difference between an Earth-destroying "unexpected disaster" that hasn't occured in a billion years happening in the next 50 years, vs in 2000 years is practically nil. We would be better off spending our efforts on fixing the expected disasters that are going to happen over the next couple of decades.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Nibb31

[Bill Phil]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

We don't have "every necessary piece of technology" to build self-sustaining space colonies. Neither could we realistically fund them if we wanted to. Space colonies, at this stage, are a hypothetical construct at best, so there is absolutely no basis to claim that they could sustain 8 million people.

If we fully dedicated the human species to building one, we could. We have the technology. It's just a giant spinning cylinder in space. Now, we can't get an isolated biosphere as of now, but if we really dedicated ourselves, we could develop it successfully within a century, perhaps less than 50 years.

The GWP is over 70 trillion USD, and the world produces 1.5 billion tonnes of steel per year. We can build space colonies, but maybe not "self-sustaining" ones. Even so, developing a self-sustaining colony could be done, if we dedicated the entire human species. So, it's doable. It'll just take time. A lot of it. But over that time we'll have quadrillions of USD and tens of billions of tonnes of steel. Definitely doable.

[Nibb31]

22 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

If we fully dedicated the human species to building one, we could.

Sure, it would mean diverting precious resources (time, money, workforce, energy, consumables) from everything else that we spend those resources on (infrastructure, education, social cohesion, research, peace, police, justice, etc...). I'm not sure what state the world would be in after that. 

It's easy to decide that your pet peeve cause deserves that the entire world sacrifices itself. The hard part is deciding which causes you are going to sacrifice.

This is the same for pretty much every government on Earth. Deciding that a new policy needs funding is easy. Cutting the funding for existing policies to pay for the new one is the hard part. Everyone wants free beer. Nobody wants you to pay for it by closing schools, abandoning roads, cancelling research projects, and shutting down public services.

Quote

We have the technology.

No we don't. Can you remind me of the TRL levels for asteroid mining, closed loop life support, artificial gravity, cosmic radiation protection, long term habitation, super heavy launch techniques, orbital construction.

Anything below a TRL of 8 means that we don't have that technology. At best, those things are at TRL 1 or 2.

Quote

It's just a giant spinning cylinder in space. Now, we can't get an isolated biosphere as of now, but if we really dedicated ourselves, we could develop it successfully within a century, perhaps less than 50 years.

"If we really dedicated ourselves, we could develop, maybe, perhaps, in the future" = "we don't have that technology".

Quote

The GWP is over 70 trillion USD, and the world produces 1.5 billion tonnes of steel per year. We can build space colonies, but maybe not "self-sustaining" ones.

Just like all those other resources, that steel is used for thousands of other useful applications. Which ones are you going to give up? Do we suddenly have to stop building all other steel-based products that are required to develop the economy. 

Quote

Even so, developing a self-sustaining colony could be done, if we dedicated the entire human species. So, it's doable. It'll just take time. A lot of it. But over that time we'll have quadrillions of USD and tens of billions of tonnes of steel. Definitely doable.

But why would we dedicate 8 billion people to a project that would only profit a small number? What about the consequences of halting pretty much every other major project in developing countries and putting the World's economy in standby mode while you do this ? The social, political, and economical consequences make it definitely not "doable".

Edited July 5, 2016 by Nibb31

[The Optimist]

On 7/3/2016 at 2:14 PM, Robotengineer said:

If it is perfect enough and we have loads of extra resources, why bother going at all? We are already exploring for science, but our governments don't care enough to seriously fund colonization efforts, no matter how 'perfect' our situation may become. (In fact, having a 'perfect' situation would likely be a disincentive towards colonization, rather than an incentive.) 

As far as resources go, we can only mine, harvest, and reuse so much, and will eventually run out. 

lol. And how exactly are you supposed to stop increasing the population? Put in place a world-wide 2-child policy? Birth control in the water? Genocide? How are you going to deal with the outrage sparked by such policies? Do you seriously think that slowing and eventually stopping population increase is an easier problem than the relatively simple engineering and logistical problem of near-earth colonization? 

Climate change is an equally difficult problem. Until we can get backwards people to accept the science of climate change and start acting on it, the problem will continue to get worse. 

Climate change and population growth aren't like the cold war prospect of nuclear annihilation, where everybody lost should we go to war. Climate change and population growth are both problems that will affect only those young enough to live with the consequences (like myself) while the majority of those who either flat out deny climate change or don't think it is as dangerous as many think it to be won't even be around to deal with the consequences of their own inaction. They are in effect damning myself and my descendants to deal with the effects of their recklessness. 

You just said nothing lives forever and then said that there aren't threats where a space colony would guarantee survival, which are contradictory statements. Space colonies aren't about guaranteeing survival, they are about prolonging our species and diminishing the risk of extinction. And really, isn't that a rather nihilistic attitude?

So what if you can support more people in a post-apocalyptic earth colony? You want both so the risk is distributed across the colonies, and you aren't wiped out if one colony fails. 

It really doesn't matter whether our descendants evolve into a different species, as they are still our descendants. 

So... The fact that our civilization has brought about one of, if not the, most peaceful eras in human history, globalized the world, saved millions of people with modern medicine and technology, and created an open and welcoming society to almost everyone is just another civilization? Roman (and Greek) civilization are the primary influences for our modern civilization, so they are in many ways preserved in our own civilization, just as our civilization will be the foundation for a new one. It's a continuum, not a set of distinct civilizations. 

I don't think anyone is arguing that for the next couple of decades we are going to be stuck here. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't dally on space colonies, and should start preliminary work on them now.

How do we convince the people to stop having like 8 kids

Edited July 5, 2016 by The Optimist

[tater]

I think that O'Neil colonies present less of a challenge than Mars. I don't see either happening in my lifetime, or my kids lifetimes. I think that the primary issue is need, or rather lack of a need. There are no compelling economic reasons, so neither will happen in the private sector. There are no geopolitical reasons, so it will not happen in the government sector.

[Bill Phil]

4 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Sure, it would mean diverting precious resources (time, money, workforce, energy, consumables) from everything else that we spend those resources on (infrastructure, education, social cohesion, research, peace, police, justice, etc...). I'm not sure what state the world would be in after that. 

It's easy to decide that your pet peeve cause deserves that the entire world sacrifices itself. The hard part is deciding which causes you are going to sacrifice.

This is the same for pretty much every government on Earth. Deciding that a new policy needs funding is easy. Cutting the funding for existing policies to pay for the new one is the hard part. Everyone wants free beer. Nobody wants you to pay for it by closing schools, abandoning roads, cancelling research projects, and shutting down public services.

No we don't. Can you remind me of the TRL levels for asteroid mining, closed loop life support, artificial gravity, cosmic radiation protection, long term habitation, super heavy launch techniques, orbital construction.

Anything below a TRL of 8 means that we don't have that technology. At best, those things are at TRL 1 or 2.

"If we really dedicated ourselves, we could develop, maybe, perhaps, in the future" = "we don't have that technology".

Just like all those other resources, that steel is used for thousands of other useful applications. Which ones are you going to give up? Do we suddenly have to stop building all other steel-based products that are required to develop the economy. 

But why would we dedicate 8 billion people to a project that would only profit a small number? What about the consequences of halting pretty much every other major project in developing countries and putting the World's economy in standby mode while you do this ? The social, political, and economical consequences make it definitely not "doable".

You misunderstand.

We have the tech. Just not the infrastructure. Those two things aren't the same. Although it depends on your definition/interpretation of the word technology. As it stands it's pretty shaky, considering it's different for most people.

I'm not saying we should do it. For the exact reasons you mention. I'm just pointing out that we can. And that definitely is the case. But it would be hard. Even in some of the sci fi series that have them they took decades to build the early ones. That's probably realistic. 

We live at a time where humanity is enormously capable. Much of those capabilities are focused on necessities and other things, and that's good. 

We shouldn't colonize space now, and we couldn't do it within a few decades even if we wanted to. But it's good to start thinking about what to do when we start considering the colonization of space. 

[Nibb31]

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

You misunderstand.

We have the tech. Just not the infrastructure. Those two things aren't the same. Although it depends on your definition/interpretation of the word technology. As it stands it's pretty shaky, considering it's different for most people.

Which is why I deliberately used the notion of Technology Readiness Level as used by NASA, DoD, ESA, and other technology players. "We have the technology" means that you can actually start planning to implement engineering solutions that are based on it. Basically, when you get to TRL 8 or 9.

None of the technologies required by O'Neill colonies are beyond TRL 1 or 2, meaning that we haven't even done the basic trade studies or any preliminary engineering. In other words, we don't know whether they can actually work, whether they are feasible, reliable, cost-effective, or whether they will end up being moot or dead-ends. 

Having just a vague theoretical concept about how something might work is not the same as having the technology, whatever the definition that you use for that word.

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Nibb31

[Bill Phil]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Which is why I deliberately used the notion of Technology Readiness Level as used by NASA, DoD, ESA, and other technology players. "We have the technology" means that you can actually start planning to implement engineering solutions that are based on it. Basically, when you get to TRL 8 or 9.

None of the technologies required by O'Neill colonies are beyond TRL 1 or 2, meaning that we haven't even done the basic trade studies or any preliminary engineering. In other words, we don't know whether they can actually work, whether they are feasible, reliable, cost-effective, or whether they will end up being moot or dead-ends. 

Having just a vague theoretical concept about how something might work is not the same as having the technology, whatever the definition that you use for that word.

 

TRL refers to the readiness of the implementation of technology. Not to the presence of the tech. Not only that, but the biggest issue is something that we don't know. Would knowledge of physics be technology? No. It's just knowing physics. But the biggest issue is what we do and don't know. Specifically, knowing how to create isolated sustainable biospheres. 

But the fact that the TRL is even there shows that we have the technology, but we're not ready to use it. And we won't be ready to use it for a while. 

[Nibb31]

8 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

TRL refers to the readiness of the implementation of technology. Not to the presence of the tech. Not only that, but the biggest issue is something that we don't know. Would knowledge of physics be technology? No. It's just knowing physics. But the biggest issue is what we do and don't know. Specifically, knowing how to create isolated sustainable biospheres. 

But the fact that the TRL is even there shows that we have the technology, but we're not ready to use it. And we won't be ready to use it for a while. 

TRL 2 is the point where practical applications haven't even been invented yet. Which means that the technology is still only a theoretical concept that might be rejected before it ever gets to TRL 3. Ie. It doesn't exist.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm agreeing with NASA.

[Bill Phil]

59 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

TRL 2 is the point where practical applications haven't even been invented yet. Which means that the technology is still only a theoretical concept that might be rejected before it ever gets to TRL 3. Ie. It doesn't exist.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm agreeing with NASA.

Even "TRL" has nebulous definitions depending on which agency's definition you're using.

It's only one method for measuring technological maturity, which is a measure of technology development, specifically how many initial faults and problems have been reduced through development. A mature technology would be one that has little faults. Mining would be a mature technology. Space travel wouldn't necessarily be a mature technology, but it's about how specific you want to be. The RL-10 and the Centaur would be examples of a mature piece of technology, but Angara would not be.

Just because "practical applications" don't exist yet, doesn't mean it's a theoretical concept.

TRL is a method for ensuring that certain pieces of equipment will be at a mature tech level when they're used in a mission. NASA, and other agencies, are known for being careful.

The thing about this, is that we do have the tech. It's not mature, yes, but we have it in some way, shape, or form. Mining, space travel, and so on.

[tater]

I think that with a real effort (think Apollo or the Manhattan Project) the technology would not be a major hurdle, it's will, which from a practical standpoint means money. Those resources are not likely to be forthcoming in even the distant foreseeable future since there is not a plausible motivation to expend that sort of effort. I agree very theoretically in the "safeguard humanity" argument, but I really do mean theoretically. It's true, assuming you put people sufficiently far away from Earth to be safe from a planet-killer, and in sufficiently large numbers for there to be appropriate genetic diversity---and they need to be 100% self-sufficient. While possible, it's incredibly unlikely.

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

The thing about this, is that we do have the tech. It's not mature, yes, but we have it in some way, shape, or form. Mining, space travel, and so on.

By that standard, we also have the technology of warp drives, time travel, and cryogenic hibernation. At this moment, closed-loop biospheres, orbital manufacturing, mass launch systems, asteroid mining, or even artificial gravity are on the same level. They exist merely as notional concepts, not even lab models or sub-scale demonstrators. In no shape, way, or form, can those concepts be considered as actual technology that we can use as a basis for real-world applications.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Nibb31

[tater]

59 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

By that standard, we also have the technology of warp drives, time travel, and cryogenic hibernation. At this moment, closed-loop biospheres, orbital manufacturing, mass launch systems, asteroid mining, or even artificial gravity are on the same level. They exist merely as notional concepts, not even lab models or sub-scale demonstrators. In no shape, way, or form, can those concepts be considered as actual technology that we can use as a basis for real-world applications.

I'd hardly put the challenges of large, rotating space colonies in the realms of warp drive or time travel. That's a pretty hyperbolic comparison. LS systems are already pretty effective, and while I agree that getting from 90-something % recycling to near 100% is a real challenge, it's not fantasy. Also, the colonies would really need to be considered as a system, not just the torus/vernal sphere/cylinder of the actual station, but also whatever capability they have to secure external resources---you can add materials from comet or asteroid captures and still be "self-sufficient" as a closed system, even if the colony itself leaks, for example. Again, I'm not saying they are in a near timeframe, or a few generations, but I think that the technical challenges, unlike time or warp travel are actually real, not fantasy, and could be worked out.

[magnemoe]

On 3.7.2016 at 6:03 PM, Nibb31 said:

My point is that there is no evidence that colonization would have any effect on our survival as a species. The keys to our survival for the foreseeable future are on Earth.

First of all, you need to define the species, what makes us what we are, and what you want to actually preserve. When it comes to taxonomy, lines can be very blurred. Our species will evolve and turn into something different or go extinct, no matter how much effort to spend on building artificial environments. It's no big deal. Species evolve and go extinct every day, it's just how nature works. 

If it's our civilization or culture that you want to save, then that is even more short-lived. There has never been a single human culture or civilzation, and there is no reason to believe that our current culture deserves to be preserved any more than the Roman Empire or Precolumbian civilizations.

In the future, it might become apparent that we need to spread to the stars, but that is far from an actual *need* at this stage. For the next couple of decades, we are stuck here, so our survival is going to depend on how we deal with adapting to our changing environment, not the pipe dream of moving someplace else.

Collocation of space will not have an effect on survival short term, it will on long term, as in +200 years. 
An self supplied colony in space is over 100 years ahead being realistic optimist. No an Oneill colony or Mars city would not be self supplied.
Neither would they be economical short term Long term then you dump megaton of valuables down they would be, however baby steps, get fuel mining on Mun or asteroids going first, then ramp up. 

Our species is pretty easy to define, today, in 100 years it will probably be harder. Think of all the nutty groups playing with gene mods. 
add uplifted animals and AI to increase the confusion.

Culture would be more fragmented but also more global at this time , think earth 1916 versus 2016 as an template. 

On the gripping hand civilisation is rare in the galaxy or we would be an alien colony. 
Its important to save, but its pretty far future, its as stupid as detail planing your career in primary school, decent chance your work will be radically different form that you imagined anyway. Only thing you can do is to point in the right direction.

And yes, population explosion is over, we are mostly cruising while approaching Ap 2030-2050, lack of people unless we get AI working we probably see slave raids replacing immigration restrictions. 



 
 

[Rune]

On 3/7/2016 at 7:49 AM, Nibb31 said:

We don't *need* either. A tiny minority of people think they would be cool, but that is not a *need*.

Of course it's not a need. Few things ever are. We don't need cars, or planes, or the internet. We don't actually need buildings, or farming, or fire. Those are all things totally not required for the survival of mankind as a species, at least until a few billion years in the future when the sun runs out of hydrogen, and there won't be humans by then anyhow (as we define humans today) . I fully concede that point, yet I posit that it has nothing to do with a discussion about space colonization. Because you could make the same point about any other technological advancement!

However, limiting ourselves to the real state of Earth, and Earth-bound resources is, by definition, a smaller limit than using additional Earth-like real state and resources located off-earth. Since Earth-like real state is sorely lacking in all places we can reach from earth, actually building it to specification does indeed sound like a good idea, without getting into the benefits of not being stuck into a gravity well.

That is a worthwhile point, don't you think? The betterment of conditions for human kind, through the increase in available resources and sustainable population. More people means more ideas, more stuff, I'm sure you can see by now where I'm going with it, implant all the population reduction and environmental measures on Earth that you want... while you keep on expanding the human economical sphere, and ultimately human population and culture(s) outwards where it won't screw with a fragile and unique biosphere.

Sure, not a problem for this century. Certainly not one that should take priority over immediate threats and interests. But by the same token, it is something very worthwhile to invest a small fraction of your resources in. Like, say, the small fraction that is spent on... lipstick? No, wait, that would be greater than NASA's budget. Let's just say that we don't invest enough right now on the issue, and could use some more general R&D money, probably provided by the government institutions that are supposed to have this kind of long-distance foresight.

Edit: actually, I was just listening to the perfect musical companion to this post. Here:

 

Rune. Which is why I'll keep on advocating for space colonization, thank you.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Rune

[1of6Billion]

The Nay-sayers forget that it's a fundamental driver of human nature to explore. If it was not we would still be throwing rocks in Africa.

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Rune said:

However, limiting ourselves to the real state of Earth, and Earth-bound resources is, by definition, a smaller limit than using additional Earth-like real state and resources located off-earth. Since Earth-like real state is sorely lacking in all places we can reach from earth, actually building it to specification does indeed sound like a good idea, without getting into the benefits of not being stuck into a gravity well.

Living in self-sufficient colonies where the lives of thousands of people is going to rely on the scarce minerals that you can extract from asteroids is going to require strong discipline and management.

If you want O'Neill colonies, you are going to have to go sustainable, to keep population levels manageable, to learn to live with limited resources. Expanding out into space doesn't suddenly give you infinite resources. It only expands the limits temporarily until you reach new limits. Living in space is always going to require a much more frugal life than living on Earth, simply because the resources are going to be rarer and less diverse.

Quote

That is a worthwhile point, don't you think? The betterment of conditions for human kind, through the increase in available resources and sustainable population. More people means more ideas, more stuff, I'm sure you can see by now where I'm going with it, implant all the population reduction and environmental measures on Earth that you want... while you keep on expanding the human economical sphere, and ultimately human population and culture(s) outwards where it won't screw with a fragile and unique biosphere.

Sustainable development is going to have to happen, whichever path we choose, otherwise we're screwed.

If the betterment of living conditions for human kind is the goal, then that's easier to achieve by reducing our numbers. Wouldn't it be better for us as a species to be 2 billion living in relative comfort than 20 billion and forced to live in container modules in an artificial environment? What is the point of increasing population if everybody's standard of living suffers from it. Expansion for expansion's sake is pointless.

 

53 minutes ago, 1of6Billion said:

The Nay-sayers forget that it's a fundamental driver of human nature to explore. If it was not we would still be throwing rocks in Africa.

That sounds a bit ethnocentric. What's wrong with living in Africa?

Edited July 7, 2016 by Nibb31

[Rune]

43 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Living in self-sufficient colonies where the lives of thousands of people is going to rely on the scarce minerals that you can extract from asteroids is going to require strong discipline and management.

If you want O'Neill colonies, you are going to have to go sustainable, to keep population levels manageable, to learn to live with limited resources. Expanding out into space doesn't suddenly give you infinite resources. It only expands the limits temporarily until you reach new limits. Living in space is always going to require a much more frugal life than living on Earth, simply because the resources are going to be rarer and less diverse.
 

Going by your own declarations of the TRL of space colonies and their associated infrastructure, I think it is a waaay too early to say whether the final living conditions of the inhabitants will be better or worse than the current living conditions of the average human. The only way of finding out would be by actually testing and developing these concepts out, wouldn't you think? And the answer may very well turn out to be the opposite, or you may end up right. Point is, we won't know until we try. "What is the average ROI, in time, per square meter of agricultural-dedicated space colony" is the short of question no one can even begin to answer right now, no matter what they claim.

43 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Sustainable development is going to have to happen, whichever path we choose, otherwise we're screwed.

If the betterment of living conditions for human kind is the goal, then that's easier to achieve by reducing our numbers. Wouldn't it be better for us as a species to be 2 billion living in relative comfort than 20 billion and forced to live in container modules in an artificial environment? What is the point of increasing population if everybody's standard of living suffers from it. Expansion for expansion's sake is pointless.

I never argued against sustainable development. Also, I would never argue against reducing the population of Earth. I just argue against reducing total human population. And why increase it indeed? It's a worthwhile question to make at least once. Well, if you have more humans, you have more scientific advancement. You also have more works of art, more wars and violence, more politics and arguments and families and adolescent discussions on philosophy and everything else that is part of this race of ours. I, being part of it, might perhaps be biased, but I'd say the more the merrier. Because if I consider my life worth living, I must assume that other lives will be also worth living, as a first principle. If so, then, the more people living, the more people being happy to be alive and the more total happiness.

And, maybe, we can be many, many more than we are now, as in "orders of magnitude more", without killing our home planet or lowering our average living conditions. But only by expanding outwards from Earth. Which is why I say "space colonies" and all related concepts should be at the very least investigated, if not actively pursued until they are conclusively proven to be infeasible.

 

 

Rune. Don't have to invoke killer asteroids for it to make sense.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Rune

[tater]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

That sounds a bit ethnocentric. What's wrong with living in Africa?

Ask the archaic Homo sapiens or Homo erectus who left Africa that question. His point was that people---and our very close ancestors were also "people"---like to explore, and hence spread out of Africa. Given the environments they moved to with such small populations, it seems unlikely that the only driver was population pressure.

Edited July 7, 2016 by tater

[Nibb31]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

Ask the archaic Homo sapiens or Homo erectus who left Africa that question. His point was that people---and our very close ancestors were also "people"---like to explore, and hence spread out of Africa. Given the environments they moved to with such small populations, it seems unlikely that the only driver was population pressure.

Of course, the difference being that migration has always been dictated by greener pastures, richer environments, better living conditions, safer and more comfortable habitats. Space is the exact opposite of all that.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Nibb31

[tater]

7 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Of course, the difference being that migration has always been dictated by greener pastures, richer environments, better living conditions, safer and more comfortable habitats. Space is the exact opposite of all that.

I agree completely about the ease of moving to greener pastures on Earth vs space (space has no desirable destinations from a "living" standpoint). The point is that humans moved to less green pastures in many respects. Europe is certainly pretty, but it's also rather cold compared to the ease of walking around naked in Africa. It required technologies to be invented that didn't exist previously. So humans like to explore new places as part of our nature---but on Earth, that exploration can easily lead to nice places to live, unlike space where we have to build a nice place to live (which as you say could just as well be built here).

Edited July 7, 2016 by tater

[Robotengineer]

7 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Of course, the difference being that migration has always been dictated by greener pastures, richer environments, better living conditions, safer and more comfortable habitats. Space is the exact opposite of all that.

Not necessarily. Is the Mongolian Steppe or Northern Europe more habitable than sub-saharan Africa? What about the migration during the colonial period? I seriously doubt the 'migrants' to colonial Australia were destined for greener pastures. Colonial explorers were seeking riches and goods, not a new home for their people. Of course, mass migration has almost always been need driven, but they couldn't have migrated to the colonies had pioneers not explored and tamed those areas prior to their arrival. 

[Nibb31]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

I agree completely about the ease of moving to greener pastures on Earth vs space (space has no desirable destinations from a "living" standpoint). The point is that humans moved to less green pastures in many respects. Europe is certainly pretty, but it's also rather cold compared to the ease of walking around naked in Africa. It required technologies to be invented that didn't exist previously. So humans like to explore new places as part of our nature---but on Earth, that exploration can easily lead to nice places to live, unlike space where we have to build a nice place to live (which as you say could just as well be built here).

By that standard, it's a wonder there are any inhabitants in the UK

Remember that human migration happened over thousands of years. Regional climates changed several times over the period. Sometimes colder regions are more fertile or safer than warmer areas. As local conditions changed, some populations moved on whereas others preferred to stick around. In addition, war/demographic/cultural pressure sometimes means that a less fertile/colder place is still safer or more pleasant than a place where you can get killed or persecuted.

The point being, human migration has only been driven by the idea of making a better life, safer and/or more comfortable. Space is neither of those.

[Rune]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The point being, human migration has only been driven by the idea of making a better life, safer and/or more comfortable. Space is neither of those.

But it could be, with a sufficiently advanced technology. There is nothing fundamentally safer about a planet, and in fact there are a lot of things outside our control on a planet that are considered serious hazards (tectonic plates, climate, that short of things). A space colony has none of those. If the technology is good enough from the reliability standpoint, and the radiation is sufficiently attenuated, the probability of hazard on a space colony could very well be less than on the surface of a planet.

 

Rune. We are so used to planets, it's hard to imagine how differently we could live.