Is the future of humanity really in space?

[sen-no-sen]

Is the future of humanity really in space?

In a conference at the International Paris Air Show (SIAE), the philosopher Étienne Klein and the sociologist Gérald Bronner answered the question: "Is the future of humanity essentially linked to the Earth? "

"Man is Terran before being human"

On the 219 exoplanets discovered by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, 10 could be habitable. Good news, no? Yes, except that the closest of them is 40 light-years away from Earth. With the current technological means, it would take millions of years to reach it. Needless to say none of us will see a piece of exoplanet - except perhaps Walt Disney, who smarter than everyone else, has been cryopreserved. In short, we might want to go very hard, the physical limits are indeed there.

“We will only be able to leave Earth if we take it with us.” - Edmund Husserl

Physical limits or not, for Étienne Klein, the future of man can only be on Earth. "Man is Terran before being human. We could leave Earth, but we would lose our humanity", explains the philosopher. Because on Mars or elsewhere, it is impossible to exchange normally in a diving suit, to have a drink on the terrace or to take a dip in the sea. "What makes us humans, our way of being together, depends on the conditions of life on Earth. I don't think that desire is transportable, "insists Étienne Klein.

http://mashable.france24.com/monde/20170625-futur-humanite-terre-espace

I share the conclusion of Etienne Klein:"Space is tourism. We won't go any further," explains Étienne Klein. Before concluding: "And then life in space, it's not funny at all."

What do you think about friends?

[chatelot16]

to make a person live an hour in space, we must swallow the production of a multitude of people for years on earth

autonomous living in the space ???? currently completely impossible ... so no future for man in space

we only have one land ... we must treat it because we are not ready to find another one

[Ahmed]

There is necessarily a correspondence between technology and the psyche of those who deploy it or / and undergo it. Globalization is physically limited to the Earth, but its phase of expansion being completed, it is logical that temptations arise for a hypothetical "conquest" (that word says a lot!) Of space. With two degrees: the first is the extraction of raw materials and energy from space; the second, even more ambitious, involves colonizing other planets. This last point can be read in two ways: either positively, as a scientist triumph, or negatively as the resignation recorded for the destruction of living conditions on Earth.
The two going together, it postulates that what we have not managed to achieve here, we would be able to achieve elsewhere, or even more pessimistically, that we would be condemned (as a species) to a perpetual wandering .. .

To follow (it's getting late! ).

[Ahmed]

In the state of the art, Chatelot rightly to point out the impossibility of a distant space enterprise, that would imply a considerable technological (?) advance and a joint modification of the human ... It is quite obvious that even if planets had similarities sufficient to incite to this kind of experience is hardly imaginable because of our adaptation to a multitude of very particular conditions, so much so that migrations from one point to another of the Earth have disadvantages.

On the other hand, if we disregard this blockage, I would be very favorable to all those who wish to "go and see the country" to do so! I believe that this would have the same beneficial effect as the medieval crusades: it is the most aggressive and the most harmful who left to kill each other with their Muslim counterparts ...
A partition between “basic” humans and transhumans is a possibility (it is in any case a tendency) which would be extremely unfortunate, but a massive exile of “supermen” would contribute powerfully to restore the situation!

* I think of Irish people who have migrated to Australia and suffer from frequent skin cancer.

[Christophe]

I think that the (distant) future of humanity is rather ... under the sea ...

[Christophe]

I share the conclusion of Etienne Klein:"Space is tourism. We won't go any further," explains Étienne Klein. Before concluding: "And then life in space, it's not funny at all."

What do you think about friends?

I think I totally agree: those who "sell" space exploration and "colonize" other planets had better work so that humanity can remain living on Earth in good conditions. conditions!

Ah, but it's on: it's less seller ...

[Ahmed]

Christophe, you write:

... those who "sell" space exploration and "colonization" of other planets would do better to work so that humanity can remain living on Earth in good conditions!

Ah, but that's for sure: it's less seller ...

Two remarks:
- there is a desperate search for new sectors to invest the colossal amount of capital that is struggling to achieve what it is doomed to: go on the market in the form of merchandise and come back increased. It is in this sense that we have to analyze these kinds of projects.
- I am convinced that almost all humans are individually and in their heart, quite willing to respect and maintain good living conditions on Earth, unfortunately, their actions do not depend so much on their own will, but must comply with systemic rules that absolutely violate these good intentions.

[Christophe]

These are 2 remarks nicely said!

As for dormant capital rather than "selling dreams" (because that's exactly it) ... it would be enough to attribute them to a universal basic income and socially everyone would be happy (but not resources...)...

[Ahmed]

It's a nice compliment! Thank you!

You write:

As for dormant capital, rather than "selling the dream" (because that's exactly it) ... it would be enough to attribute it to a universal basic income and socially everyone would be happy (but not the resources...)...

Two remarks (again! ):
- The universal basic income (which has been discussed elsewhere) is envisaged under different modalities, most of which are of a modest amount, which would not affect the resources more than the total of the various existing aid to date and would not satisfy many people either. This would be true of a generalized redistribution that would make no sense since it would preside over the same state of mind that led to the exacerbation of inequalities. The real good reform, necessary but not sufficient, would be that it is more expensive to be rich than poor (through progressive tariffs, common goods ...).
- It is tempting to disconnect labor from income, since it is only an adaptation to the inevitable evolution of the decrease of jobs (at the rate of 1% / year, approximately), but it is to forget that the work is linked to the production of abstract value * and that, without systemic change, this can not work: production work and consumption work must be dynamically balanced (that is, the two terms must both correspond and increase ). It is clear that this goal is unattainable regardless of the strategies deployed.

* I am talking about abstract value and not quantity of goods, because for these, automation is enough and it is very effective. This is an important point because many analysts are misled by confusing value and value support. In fact, the abstract value of the goods decreases with the decrease of work human that it contains.

[Petrus]

Let's explore and colonize space with science fiction. Mankind has many other challenges to face here on earth before considering colonizing other planets.