Talk:Space and survival

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Extinction Mid‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

List of doomsday scenarios[edit]

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Far more likely, an independent colony may revolt and pursue its independent self interest. In terrestrial civilizations, this frequently occurs on the order of 10 to 100 years. Even a loyal colony may decide that it is against its economic or political interests to aid a troubled Earth, or to recolonize Earth."
How is this an "objection" if the goal is simply survival of the species? One would hope many independent colonies could be established, collectively forming a safeguard against one person or government amassing too much power over the fate of the human race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.206.189 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of natural selection[edit]

I have removed speciation as a reason for space colonisation. Natural selection occurs when a species is challenged, when there is a threat to its survival, a threat to the continued existence of fertile descendants. Simply sending humans to Mars and waiting 100 000 years does not necessarily yield a different species. Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have not been subject to any significant evolutionary pressure. With the use of tools and fire, humans have not been genetically adapted to their environment, but rather have adapted their environment to them, by using the resources of nature to ensure not just survival, but abundance and comfort. If we colonise distant worlds, we are likely to settle more hostile places, like Mars or Europa, than Earth-like places, which must be rare in the universe. Humans, humans' pets, humans' parasites and complex life in general are unlikely to be able to adapt to the 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere of Mars or to the -160 ºC temperature of Europa. In colonising space, humans will not have direct contact with the hostile worlds they inhabit; instead, they will live inside domes and use space suits to work on the outside. Therefore, there is no reason to believe Martian humans 100 000 years from now will be much physically different from us, ordinary Earthlings.Halfleaf (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the merger of this article into Human Planetary Habitability[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed in 2013; no consensus for merge. Archived by Moonraker12 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space and survival is directly related to the limits placed on people in inhabiting other worlds.
To complete the (proposed) article I recommend merger with Human Planetary Habitability
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment deleted by proposer, 4 September 2009 contrary to MOS:TALK; link added 3 July 2020)

I agree, this is a good idea. Kevinmon•talk•trib 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been a procedural close in 2009 as the target isn’t even an article. It was re-targetted in December 2010, and that was closed in April 2013 as No consensus. So I have archived it, to avoid any further confusion. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objections[edit]

I placed a Wikify tag on this article, because the Objections section has no links to other articles. It should be removed once this has been done. Thanks, Kevinmon•talk•trib 01:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sentence?[edit]

"Although human beings are currently the dominant species, the likelihood of humanity's continued survival on Earth alone." The article currently ends as such. Does anyone know how it should end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.224.52 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, but this entire article reads more like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry. Definitely needs a good revamp. Arrowhead2006 (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Signature and comment replaced (Deleted Nov 2011): The original issue was resolved with this edit in February 2010. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)][reply]

Transwikied to Wikibooks[edit]

This article has been transwikied to Wikibooks for inclusion on the project Colonizing Outer Space. Merge has now been finished. Participation is welcomed. --79.168.11.181 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space and survival. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040925015230/http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spaceguide/space_prog/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spaceguide/space_prog/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]