this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
705 points (99.2% liked)
Comic Strips
20838 readers
3041 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Flying cars was a scifi delusion that didn't consider all the problems that come with it. What would be a more rational "this was predicted and never came about" would be social constructs like safety nets and betterment of society for all, as well as improving our management and use of the Earth. That should make us mad, not that we don't have flying cars buzzing (and falling) in the sky.
It just hit me that we did for flying what we should have done for ground. Make it almost all mass transit.
Yeah, screw flying cars and parts falling off them due to disrepair.
The real sci-fi future is trains. Numerous and fast.
Same with living in space. Especially on space boats.
Maybe. We never got far enough to really test the waters that much. I think that it's more possible than flying cars or living on Mars, but it would take huge effort, and my opinion is the window of opportunity is all but shut now. But why should we? If for no other reason than because of the "eggs in one basket" metaphor. Even past climate change and impacts, this Sun won't last forever, and if we don't find ways to move on, all life that we know of is gone.
Maybe that doesn't matter in the end, after all the universe also ends some way too. I think even if life is everywhere, it's all unique, and so are we, good and bad. But we obviously don't treasure what we have much, and maybe it's better we don't spread the same bad we do to Earth and ourselves elsewhere. It's possible we simply advanced before we were mature enough to understand what we could stand to lose.
No. It's not.
It'd be easier to colonize the bottom of the ocean, or under kilometers of ice, or in an active lava pit. Orders of magnitude easier. As longs as humans are still "flesh and blood" humans, that's the scale of impracticality we're talking about.
As much as I love Start Trek and such, it paints a widly inaccurate picture of the sheer difficulty of human space habitation, and spawned the idea that there's an escape from the “all eggs in one basket” thing. There is not. Until we're bio-engineered uploads with space elevators or whatever (and the habitation issues we have now are basically irrelevant), Earth is all we got to live on en masse.
Now, can nations come together and keep a few dedicated scientists alive in space for awhile? For a science mission? Absolutely. And they should.
But colonies that can sustain themselves are a whole different animal.
Your list of other places to colonize are easier than a difference of one atmosphere and controllable environment? That's funny. I never implied it would be easy, I said the opposite, and getting into space is a big part of that. And there are dangers to figure out. But a hull leak in space is far safer than even a few hundred meters under water.