Loncon 3 Thoughts

[chris_gerrib]

I'm at Loncon3, using the free wifi to update. The weather continues rainy and cool, which means it's good to be inside. I've ran into a number of Chicago and KC fans I know, and several authors.

I did want to make a brief SF comment. In one of the panels today, the group (all SF writers except for a guy from the Royal Observatory) said that we shouldn't colonize other planets. (Tobias Buckell was on that panel.) To that, I say bollocks.

Well, I should amplify that. Asking whether we should or should not colonize other worlds is like asking whether or not we should breathe. We will do both. It is what humans, nay, life, does. Here on Earth, life expanded to fill every viable crack, which means the only lifeless place I know of is interior Antarctica, if you don't count humans.

Life expands. It only takes a small group of malcontent humans or organisms getting out-competed in their current habitat to "colonize" a new habitat. Life expands - that's what it does. So, if we can get there, wherever "there" is, we will colonize.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

When I first read "shouldn't colonize other planets" I thought the panel must be talking about plots for SF books. But the rest of your post implies that they were talking about hypothetical possibilities in the future for the real world. If that was the case, yeah I don't see why not, is someone else going to be using Mars?

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

If 'we' means 'life' and 'other planets' means 'lifeless planets' -- then sure. And we'd probably have to 'build space colonies', ie habitable bases, to do it.

If 'we' means 'humans' and 'colonize' means 'take over the natives and make them do things our way', or even 'terraform an existing biosphere to our liking' -- then not so much.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Again, whether we should is probably different from whether we would

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Unless the Federation takes us over first. ;-)