Space Colonization: Fact or Fantasy?

[Strix]

Putting aside any debates and arguments about the possibility of finding habitable planets, developing proper spacecraft, surviving the long voyage, etc, and so on...

Do you believe it is even possible to successfully create a colony somewhere in space? I have my doubts based on human nature and world history. Colonies just don't work out in the long run, at least for the founding country. Star Trek has always proclaimed the idea that expansion into space is what ultimately saves the Earth from itself. I have also read this in various other fiction novels.

I am coming to feel that a space colony would probably end up being the reason for the demise of the Earth ala "It's safer to Nuke them from orbit just to be sure" school of thought.

What do you think?

[Caliga]

I find it difficult to speculate on something that, if it ever happens at all, won't happen for many hundreds of years.  At the same time I also find it difficult to make a blanket statement such as "it would never work".

[Slargos]

That's an interesting axiom, if I'm allowed to run a tangent before the thread has even begun catching speed.

"Colonies just don't work out" is a common statement, but it is so obviously wrong.

Every human habitat on Earth started out as a colony in some form or other.

That the image of success of a colony should hinge on the pecuniary profits of the originating social body seems to me utter balderdash.

Examples of colonies that have turned a profit for the enterprising citizens of the mother country in addition to said country itself should be relatively numerous, even if we discount colonies that were money sinks but later successful in their own right.

The question is in addition not "will we as a nation profit from it" but rather "will we as a species profit from it".

[DontSayBanana]

Actually, Slarg's got a point- it's less that colonies are doomed to failure than that they never remain simply colonies; they either become sovereignties or fail spectacularly.

[Faeelin]

I can't see why you would ever use meat puppets rather than robots.

[Darth Wagtaros]

They'd have to be self-sustainable and at a reasonable cost.  Otherwise I can't see anything beyond scientific or military outposts being maintained.

[MadImmortalMan]

Yes. They'd need to be economically viable at the very least. Something like an asteroid or offworld mining operation maybe. Or an orbital power generation station.

[KRonn]

I would think that at some point in the future, probably a hundred years at the earliest but likely much longer than that, aside from a colony of some kind on the moon or Mars, that colonies further out would become objectives. At least for research at first, especially if less hostile environments are found. Obviously it depends on being able to travel outside our Solar system in reasonable time frames, and that's a big if. But even if space travel is quite lengthy, perhaps in a couple hundred years or more some people would volunteer to take on a very long journey anyways, to try a distant colony on a reasonably favorable planet.

I'd think a colony would have to seen as commercially profitable at some point, kind of similar to the reasons some of the colonies were started in N. America, Africa, etc. Or nations could pool finances and resources to set up a colony. As others say, I also agree that at some point a successful colony would desire to become independent.

[Josquius]

Do you believe it is even possible to successfully create a colony somewhere in space? I have my doubts based on human nature and world history. Colonies just don't work out in the long run, at least for the founding country. Star Trek has always proclaimed the idea that expansion into space is what ultimately saves the Earth from itself. I have also read this in various other fiction novels

1: Many colonies have been very very profitable for the founding country in history.
2: Colonies have certainly worked out well for those who founded them. Colonisation is one of the core things in human history.
3: Looking at the future from the perspective of historical analogy is a big mistake which should not be done. History does not repeat itself.

[Strix]

1: Many colonies have been very very profitable for the founding country in history.
2: Colonies have certainly worked out well for those who founded them. Colonisation is one of the core things in human history.
3: Looking at the future from the perspective of historical analogy is a big mistake which should not be done. History does not repeat itself.

1: Yes, for a time a colony can be very profitable. History seems to show, however, that the more profitable the colony than the faster it will seek independence.

2: I would disagree on this point. What colonies have worked out well for those who founded them? I also believe you are confusing immigration with colonization. Immigration is one of the core things in human history. 

3: Of course history doesn't repeat itself. There are too many variables involved. I would say rather that certain themes and patterns of history tend to repeat themselves.

I assume that when you are discussing who "founded" them that you mean the parent country. If not than, yes, colonies have often worked out for the settlers.

[Berkut]

The American colonies have certainly worked out well for the Brits, in both the short and long runs.

[DisturbedPervert]

Other than the Space Chinks I don't really see anyone setting up colonies

[Caliga]

the Space Chinks

That sounds like a good name for a band.

[Josquius]

1: Yes, for a time a colony can be very profitable. History seems to show, however, that the more profitable the colony than the faster it will seek independence.

2: I would disagree on this point. What colonies have worked out well for those who founded them? I also believe you are confusing immigration with colonization. Immigration is one of the core things in human history. 

1: Which is a good thing. It removes all financial burden of the colony but still lets you trade with it (which is where the actual money is to be made). The US after independance was a lot more profitable for the UK than before.
2: Immigration is where people go to a already existing colony.
What colonies have worked out well for those who founded them? The US, Canada, England, Germany,
etc...


Edit

Assuming that when you are discussing who "founded" them that you mean the parent country. If not than, yes, colonies have often worked out for the settlers.

As said again the US.
Excluding Africa and those colonies which soon failed I struggle to think of many colonies which didn;t work out well for the home nation.

[Queequeg]

I think profitability could happen reasonably quickly, due to mineral wealth and the possibility of scientific testing.  Just find a planet with a ton of valuable rocks (presumably not all THAT difficult), find some way to make it sustainable in terms of food (if you can travel across solar systems, presumably not that hard, as we'd have probably developed terraforming in our own system).

I think it is the inevitable future.  Getting off this planet is more than an insurance against Earth-specifc catastrophe, it allows humans to continue having families even after our average lifespan is 100-1000 years, with most of that presumably being productive.