To be honest, even with the film "Interstellar" I never understood why humanity should be better accommodated on space stations than on Earth. Even if, as "Interstellar" suggests, the Earth is hostile to humanity: On space stations, a sustainable ecosystem has to be built up to provide for the (mostly urbanised) crew. All this is much easier to do on a planet, especially Earth, even if it becomes completely barren and unbreathable.
Yeah, I see this as an economic problem: if, say, there is enough money in mining the asteroid belt, which implies that technologically we can do it at a profit, then maybe we will go there (or build unmanned stations that do this), but otherwise we will not. In this setting, my assumption is that most people still live on earth, but enough people live on space stations (say 300 millions) that they created their own distinctive "spacer" culture, and most of them never go on Earth (or maybe once or twice in their life, as tourists).
Othosmops at 3:46PM, Aug. 11, 2023
To be honest, even with the film "Interstellar" I never understood why humanity should be better accommodated on space stations than on Earth. Even if, as "Interstellar" suggests, the Earth is hostile to humanity: On space stations, a sustainable ecosystem has to be built up to provide for the (mostly urbanised) crew. All this is much easier to do on a planet, especially Earth, even if it becomes completely barren and unbreathable.
marcorossi at 11:06PM, Aug. 11, 2023
Yeah, I see this as an economic problem: if, say, there is enough money in mining the asteroid belt, which implies that technologically we can do it at a profit, then maybe we will go there (or build unmanned stations that do this), but otherwise we will not. In this setting, my assumption is that most people still live on earth, but enough people live on space stations (say 300 millions) that they created their own distinctive "spacer" culture, and most of them never go on Earth (or maybe once or twice in their life, as tourists).