[hamdani yusuf]

What would be the advantage of living on Mars, from living on Earth?

Being independent from a particular heavenly body,  namely earth.
So humanity can still exist even when the earth stop existing.

[evan_au]

So, the Solar system doesn't have such a planet as Earth that humans can live there without any problem.

Correction: The Solar system doesn't have any planet that humans can live there without any problem (not even Earth)!
- 70% of Earth's surface is inhospitable, and humans need to stay in ships with supplies of oxygen to sustain life.
- 33% of the land surface is deserts, where humans would starve and/or die of exposure
- 12% of the land surface receives seasonal snowfall, where humans need insulating clothing & shelter to avoid death by hypothermia
- In much of the rest, humans use protective clothing and/or shelter for comfort

[Bored chemist]

To back this up, one of the most respected past students of the Moon, W.H Pickering, claimed that the darkening of lunar craters, such as Plato, was caused by the massing of lunar insects. Like locusts.

You can't "back up" an assertion which is known to be wrong by citing something which was believed a hundred years ago- before we found out the truth.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

So, the Solar system doesn't have such a planet as Earth that humans can live there without any problem.

Correction: The Solar system doesn't have any planet that humans can live there without any problem (not even Earth)!
- 70% of Earth's surface is inhospitable, and humans need to stay in ships with supplies of oxygen to sustain life.
- 33% of the land surface is deserts, where humans would starve and/or die of exposure
- 12% of the land surface receives seasonal snowfall, where humans need insulating clothing & shelter to avoid death by hypothermia
- In much of the rest, humans use protective clothing and/or shelter for comfort

But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.

[syhprum]

Maybe it would be easier to build your large telescope but dust is going to be a big problem at optical frequencies.

[hamdani yusuf]

But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.

For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.

For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.

I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this event

[hamdani yusuf]

But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.

For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.

I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this event

Except if we can convince humans that they share a common goal, hence they will be able to organize and cooperate effectively to achieve that goal. In another thread I discussed specifically about that goal, and arrived at a conclusion which is a logical necessity. It means that its alternatives are self defeating or lead to contradiction.

[alancalverd]

Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.

[hamdani yusuf]

Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.

How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?

[Halc]

I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this event

Destroying a planet is an orders of magnitude greater task than that which humans are capable. So I think not. Earth will go on just fine as it has after every single significant extinction event. The Holocene extinction event is no different. With our luck, humans might even survive it. With Earth's luck, we won't.

Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.

How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?

Fermi paradox seems awful good evidence that technological prowess isn't particularly healthy for the continued existence of the species involved. Human seem no smarter than bacteria in a nutrient-filled petri dish. We've absolutely no self control, made all the more pathetic because unlike the bacteria, we can see the problem but we still ignore it.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this event

Destroying a planet is an orders of magnitude greater task than that which humans are capable. So I think not. Earth will go on just fine as it has after every single significant extinction event. The Holocene extinction event is no different. With our luck, humans might even survive it. With Earth's luck, we won't.

Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.

How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?

Fermi paradox seems awful good evidence that technological prowess isn't particularly healthy for the continued existence of the species involved. Human seem no smarter than bacteria in a nutrient-filled petri dish. We've absolutely no self control, made all the more pathetic because unlike the bacteria, we can see the problem but we still ignore it.

I don't` think that humans will die out completely (of course it will depend on the factor of the extinction) but still, I think that some will survive. However, I hope that we will start to take care of Earth and prevent it from and us being extinct.   

[alancalverd]

Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.

How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?

Probable extinction of life due to the fate of the sun is ~ 5 x 10^9 year
Genus homo has been around for about 10^6 years, other primates (leading to chimpanzee)  about 5 x 10^6 years
Bayesian statistics says the most probable extinction of genus homo is thus 1 - 5 x 10^6 years
All dinosaurs came and went over about 2 x 10^8 years, which seems a reasonable upper limit for an entire family.

[hamdani yusuf]

Not all dinosaurs have gone extinct. Biologically speaking, birds are dinosaurs too. They are alive and kicking.
In the next few millenia humans may evolve into something so different than they are now. They may branch into several different species, depending on their new environments.
Last universal common ancestor may had gone extinct long ago. But we as their descendants still have a chance to continue their legacy.

[hamdani yusuf]

Let's not forget that technological advancements occur exponentially. Some event suggest that it's double exponential. So linear thinkers will keep getting things wrong by underestimating what would be achievable in the future.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.

For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.

I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this event

Except if we can convince humans that they share a common goal, hence they will be able to organize and cooperate effectively to achieve that goal. In another thread I discussed specifically about that goal, and arrived at a conclusion which is a logical necessity. It means that its alternatives are self defeating or lead to contradiction.

Yeah, you are right. We should convince everybody that Earth is our home and there is no planet like this ( at least in the Solar system) So we need to protect it and chande a bit the way we live.

[alancalverd]

Not all dinosaurs have gone extinct. Biologically speaking, birds are dinosaurs too.

But the species tyrannosaurus rex has disappeared completely, and the last homo teter (for a while at least) is leaving the White House today.  Admittedly the definition of species is itself not defined but it's pretty clear that the gallus gallus in my garden would not be interfertile with  any member of the diplodocus genus. I think homo will be unrecognisable as sapiens in a thousand years at the observed rate of growth of stupidity, and the genus is unlikely to survive a million.

[hamdani yusuf]

But the species tyrannosaurus rex has disappeared completely, and the last homo teter (for a while at least) is leaving the White House today.  Admittedly the definition of species is itself not defined but it's pretty clear that the gallus gallus in my garden would not be interfertile with  any member of the diplodocus genus. I think homo will be unrecognisable as sapiens in a thousand years at the observed rate of growth of stupidity, and the genus is unlikely to survive a million.

The effectiveness of democracy relies on the assumption that majority of its citizen are rational thinkers, hence their decisions would be mostly taken rationally. Citizens who think irrationally are minority, and must follow the decision made by their fellow majority who are rational.
The good thing about democracy is that it amplifies the effect of decisions made by majority of its citizens. When they make bad decisions, e.g. majority of them are being irrational, some possibilities can follow. Majority of the citizen can learn from their mistakes, change their mind and make better decisions in the future. Alternatively, they keep making the same mistakes, and if they are severe enough, the consequence can shuffle the composition of population, either by birth, death, and/or migration. It could repeat indefinitely until rational citizens control the government. Although still possible, I think it's unlikely that they keep being irrational until the population go completely extinct.

[axscientist]

Not now, we don't. We've got Earth for now and until its demise, we probably won't be leaving anytime soon. So colonization on other planets is not so necessary right now.

[hamdani yusuf]

Not now, we don't. We've got Earth for now and until its demise, we probably won't be leaving anytime soon. So colonization on other planets is not so necessary right now.

Even if you don't want to, someone else will do it, just because they can.