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

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes.

    Why not extend our environmental destruction into the farthest reaches of the universe? The heat death of the universe will be humanity extracting every last bit of energy from it to sell ads for the most trivial bullshit imaginable.

    • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love the idea of our expansion being dependant on destroying our own home planet.

      I’d nuke all of you in a second to get to travel the stars. Maybe carve “Later, bitches!” Into siberia with my motherfucking space lasers.

  • taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. FTL travel does not mean we have the means to transport billions of people and the entire ecology around us including specific conditions of Earth’s orbit in terms of temperature, day, month and year length and many other parameters each of those plants, animals,… requires to another place within a few decades.

  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      FTL in general and FTL that can evacuate entire planets worth of even a single species are very, very different scales of technology.

      • TrustingZebra@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unless FTL travel is significantly faster than light, it’s usefulness would be limited. Kepler-452 is located about 1,800 light-years from Earth, which means it would take light 1,800 years to travel that distance. Even if our theoritical FTL travel was twice as fast as light, it would still take us 900 years to get there…

        Once we get there, it is still unlikely that the planet would be habitable for humans. Quoting Wikipedia:

        However, it is unknown if it is entirely habitable, as it is receiving slightly more energy than Earth and could be subjected to a runaway greenhouse effect.

        There are closer exoplanets (closest one we know about is Proxima Centauri b), but even those are likely to be poorly suited for humans since we evolved to live specifically on Earth.

        • DrRatso@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It would depend on the flavour of FTL, if it means physically moving through space at supraluminal speeds (which would of course be impossible according to our current understanding), time would be flowing backwards.

          Even traveling at the speed of light would be sufficient as it would mean getting to the destination the instant you achieved that speed.

          But we do not even have to go as fast. Even doing constant 1G acceleration half the way with subsequent 1G deceleration for the other would enable us to reach the edge of the obervable universe withing the span of a human lifetime iirc.

  • Illegal_Prime@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we can build facilities to research it off-world, it’s likely to be a good idea. Though it may have to be left on the back burner for a while.