Evacuate Earth

[Xannari Ferrows]

Then it is probabilistically based, not decisively according to the technology we have now.

[Wesreidau]

My epilepsy is a disease and the natural result of a scratched temporal lobe. So. Evacuating Earth?

[Stargate525]

Your best option is still really a lottery among the suitable candidates (passing a physical, not infertile, within an ideal age range). A genetic pool of 250,000 people is more than enough to really worry about inbreeding issues.

[Wesreidau]

Its easier, if nobody minds me saying, that everyone who wants donates gametes to a robotic ship. This ensures genetic continuation and prevents any risk of genetic stagnation whatsoever.

[SargeRho]

Indeed. It might be a good idea to send seed ships instead of full colony ships. And I say ships, because .... is bound to hit the fan with untried technology of that scale, so it's best to send several if possible. A small live crew in hibernation, and a few million embryos perhaps?

But maybe by the time we have the technology to upload somebody's personality to a computer, as well as advanced cloning technologies and the ability to somehow put someone's mind into a new body. That would allow you to move a LOT of people without quite an enormous vessel.

[One Wheeled Panda]

Indeed. It might be a good idea to send seed ships instead of full colony ships.

I never understood the particular concept of saving humankind. Humankind means nothing - only individual humans lives do. If they'd all die anyways, I don't see the point.

Edited May 28, 2015 by One Wheeled Panda

[SargeRho]

Nothing really matters on the grand scale of the cosmos. What matters and what does not is a purely subjective thing, and discussions like these are simply manifestations of our drive of the continuation of the species.

[Rune]

I agree with Ralathon. Once a civilisation has the ability to make self-supporting facilities in space there's no need to venture down onto planets except for exploration. That level of technology is probably centuries or millennia beyond where we are now, but that's not a big problem IMO. Most of the real extinction level threats are unlikely to get us in that timeframe.

+1, only I'd argue it's not really technology, but infrastucture. You don't need anything more complicated than chemical engines, thermal generators, and 19th century plumbing... as Gerard K. O'Neill showed in the seventies. Maybe a splash of 20th century electronics on top. The problem is setting it all up so it can be self-sufficient! That could end up taking us centuries, getting the required minimum self-sustaining population and industry.

Rune. Or decades if we are in a real hurry...

[victory143]

I would let the Rocket fly, but I would make sure that the people remembered every man, woman and child left behind.

The show must go on.

[Windspren]

If we could build a huge self sustaining generation ship I see no reason why we couldn't slam a couple of large asteroids into the star to alter its trajectory.

[ZetaX]

If we could build a huge self sustaining generation ship I see no reason why we couldn't slam a couple of large asteroids into the star to alter its trajectory.

You have a wrong understanding on how massive a star is. Also, hurdling a few asteroids towards something coming in faster that solar escape velocity is... really really difficult. Especially as it should hit decades before the star reaches earth.

[KAL 9000]

aw dang it i don't get a ticket

Me neither I'm aspie.

[78stonewobble]

I never understood the particular concept of saving humankind. Humankind means nothing - only individual humans lives do. If they'd all die anyways, I don't see the point.

If I understand this correctly... Well, why do individual human lives matter? Because they are sapient (more or less) beings capable of emotions? But you also need to think... for a lack of a better description 4 dimensionally and include time. If humankind survives, there will be many more individual human lives that matter, possibly more individual human lives than would die out, over time. By giving up on humankind, you are also giving up on, how many "individual human lives", that matter, that there could have been. Who, even if theoretical, matter as much as anyone alive now do.

What it seems to me you are arguing, is that a persons life can come at the cost of another persons life (in this case a future persons) and that is ok? It isn't in my oppinion, unless people .... me off enough

Edited October 8, 2015 by 78stonewobble

[lukethecoder64]

Wait a minute.. If we can build MASSIVE, self sustaining ships that can carry 250k people, then wouldn't we already AT LEAST have a self sustaining colony on another planet?!?!

- - - Updated - - -

As for the selection process, I think that the people who are willing to stay behind are the ones that deserve to go.