this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
35 points (81.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43810 readers
1 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

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

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit: A bunch of yall don't seem to grasp the concept of a theoretical question

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 51 points 2 years ago

No. Slower than light travel will still enable a smaller amount of colonization of the local area. Where if we do anything that destroys the planet, that's kinda putting all your eggs in one basket. If that goes catastrophically wrong, as things sometimes do, then everything gets fucked up.

It's just an unnecessary risk.

[–] Spawn7586@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oddly specific... What are you doing OP? Should we be worried? Honestly "faster than light" travel is already too generic: do you mean going actually FTL or breaking the space barrier with wormholes or space displacement shenanigans that "look like" FTL? That said, Earth destroyed in a few decades because of the research or the PRODUCTION of such method? A little bit of context would made answering this question way more interesting...

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

The question is to make us think about the moral and practical aspects of advancing technology, leaving room for different interpretations to encourage diverse discussions. It's like a 'what if' scenario, helping us explore the consequences of scientific progress without prescribing a single answer.

[–] GONADS125@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

No. While faster than light travel might secure the human race's survival and intergalactic presence, is the human race more important than our planet? I don't think so..

While I value human life, we're just hairless apes that are both too smart for our own good and still incredibly simple-minded and tribal. Our importance is self-importance. What is the benefit of human-kind for the universe? So far we're making existence worse for other species. We're already destroying our planet.

Emotionally and selfishly I want us to continue going, but I think our existence has been far more detrimental than neutral, and certainly far from a positive impact on nature. We're parasites to this planet, and I think a life-supporting planet is more important than the selfish and detrimental endeavors carried out by one species.

The Earth is more important than our selfish asses.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What is the benefit of nature? Worth and importance are intrinsically human judgements, the universe doesn't give a damn about birds and plants any more than it does about us.

If you value life in general, humanity is the best chance life on earth has of ever getting off planet earth and into the galaxy before the sun dies.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

we’re just hairless apes that are both too smart for our own good

By that same logic the Earth is just a rock floating through space with self replicating molecules on it. What makes it any more or less important than us? It's all rather meaningless, no?

We're a virus on Earth, but just like viruses don't care about invading and killing the host - why should we care about killing the Earth? Don't misunderstand me - I think we should try and stop climate change from getting out of control from a practical standpoint. We're stuck here so rising temperatures will have serious long term impacts on our global society. But I think this idolization of nature argument falls flat - feels almost religious.

Main reason for me is that we are just as part of nature as anything else. To assume otherwise is arrogance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No way.

Earth is the homeland, it's the botanical gardens, the tribal reservation, it comes first.

Now, if you could do it on, say, mars, absolutely.

[–] anolemmi@lemmi.social 6 points 2 years ago

Yea, FTL travel implies that we have somewhere else to go.

Now while I assume there are plenty of other habitable planets out there, strictly speaking we don’t know that.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago

Personally no. There's so many other obstacles to overcome with populating other planets that getting there isn't worth destroying the only one we have.

If we had others then maybe.

[–] zacher_glachl@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I don't think a civilization which would destroy their home with the single-minded goal of spreading throughout the universe in the blink of an eye should be allowed to spread beyond their local star system at all. Maybe re-evaluate after giving them a few centuries to mature.

[–] TrustingZebra@lemmy.one 4 points 2 years ago

Where would we go? We don't know of any other planets that we could easily live on.

[–] kale@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago

Have you been playing Starfield? This is related to something in the game.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Where are we going to get the infinite energy required to move faster than light? ONSHORE WIND FARMS?!?!

Free wormhole with every ipad.

[–] moipe@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I feel like, maybe, you just watched Pandorum. As long as we don't let Dennis Quaid drive the ship, we should be okay.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

That's a very specific scenario.

I would say no. But there's going to be a lot of factors that go into that decision. That I don't have the data for.

I think it's far more likely The Earth is going to live just long enough for us to have multiple planets colonized. Once we have multiple planets destroying a single planet becomes a viable military strategy. So that's when the earth will die.

[–] ma11en@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Earth will be fine once it's got rid of us.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 years ago

Not if we hit it with a high velocity large mass!

[–] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yes, however we should wait about 500,000,000 years, cause the earth will be rendered uninhabitable by the sun around that time anyway.

Such a weird question, FTL would theoretically be a savior to the human race, but in what scenario would it be necessary to destroy the earth to make it work. Why couldn't you sacrifice Venus, or Neptune, or just fly for a decade or two out of the solar system before turning it on?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 2 points 2 years ago

If we'd ever discover FTL travel, the universe and causality would be broken. Earth might as well be a dragon at this point.

[–] banana_meccanica@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

No with just the speed of light, yes with a speed higher than that of light, so beyond space and time.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well the term faster-than-light does usually imply that it's faster than light

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

no lol, no amount of physics breaking scifi bs appealing to sfba nerds with too much vc money to care about external reality is worth pursuing

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

if this sounds weirdly specific, it's because it is. context: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/before-its-too-late-buddy/

[–] RovingFox 2 points 2 years ago

A vague answer for a vague question, yes.

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Depends what you mean by "destroy"

If you mean "make it uninhabitable for humans" ya sure, absolutely. It would mean we finally get off this rock and can leave it be. Earth will be fine without us and will soon enough (on the scale of time periods) return to business as usual.

Humans can move on like the parasites we are to new hosts, to extract and refuel and consume.

Starcraft tried to imply it was humans vs the zerg but we all have to accept the simple fact of the matter... we ARE the zerg

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You'd have to explain how it will be destroyed. Since FTL allows for time travel it seems like any such crisis could be averted with FTL travel.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If I remember correctly, this is an element of the three body problem series. Essentially some type of warp drive would leave long term effects on the surrounding space-time.

Sort of like nuclear fallout, but at the solar system level. Basically to use it safely, you would need to travel at normal lower than light speed to some empty place and then from there use the FTL warp drive.

[–] espentan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

That's ok. Like taking your car to the track.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

How would we know it will destroy the Earth without doing the research? Also, will more research allow us to not destroy the Earth?

[–] LeftRedditOnJul1@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Should we? No. Would we anyway?

... yeah, probably.

[–] espentan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Eh, the planet will be destroyed completely in a few billion years anyway. Let's go out for one truly blistering joyride before we call it quits.

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Sounds win win to me

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί