Asklemmy

43945 readers

1070 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

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

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by KevinFromSpace@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] eugenia@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Huge sci-fi lover here. But at the same time, colonization of space for humans is possibly impossible without avatars. The human body evolved here, and it's a vessel that works here the best. To colonize other worlds, it's more economically viable to send machines, create biologically synthesized new species (taking dna from local species there), and then transfer consciousness to them. Similar with Avatar, but without having to have the spaceships arrive in the planet full of humans. Humans remain on earth, and they project their consciousness somewhere else, in an instant due to entanglement.

[–] m532@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

That's not how entanglement works