Asklemmy

43971 readers

955 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Until we are able to travel way faster than what we can do now, I think it’s more feasible to build in space. Lots of implications for long term effects on human bodies though. Most ideal is a wormhole to an identical planet to earth so humans won’t need to adapt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

The odds of an exactly identical planet existing naturally are very slim. The only way to get that is some kind of terraforming. Or we evolve to adapt to our new environments. Which could mean that humans could split out into multiple successor species.