01-17-2017, 02:36 PM
1) Sure, we have the means to destroy our civilization and the odds are nonzero. But by creating a population that would not be destroyed you create a population that would have less incentive to refrain from using it. Good for the human race as a whole, in terms of survival - but not good for the people on the original world who are making the decision about whether to let anyone leave. IOW, even if you increase the odds of civilization surviving, letting anyone out would be lowering the odds of your own descendants or your own home surviving.
2) Sure there's already a chance of being invaded by others on earth. Why would that make it a good idea for anyone to make the chances worse?
3) Sure, there's a significant risk that a GRB, supernova, colliding neutron star, etc, could sterilize earth. But the decisions are being made in the interests of existing nations, not in the interests of the survival of life as a whole. Adding human beings to the set of potentially hostile forces away from Earth is still adding to the set of potentially hostile forces that can attack Earth. The calculus of nations doesn't care if someone *ELSE* survives.
4) Yes, eventually Earth will be destroyed. But A, that's a long time from now, and B, considering the time scales involved the narrow-sighted little buggers probably see earth being subject to destruction in 1% or less of the time that would take as a result of releasing humans from here. So, from the 'Dr. Strangelove' perspective Earth survives 100 times as long if they don't let anyone go, and the fact that this dooms humankind to extinction is merely collateral damage.
5) Creating a real, definite, new existential threat in order to deal with a hypothetical and potentially nonexistent threat? Let's ask Dr. Strangelove again. The answer isn't just no, it's Hell no.
I hate this, but if you take the short-sighted, narrow view of preserving Earth and her existence over all else, the logic is pretty damn compelling. And our decision makers have always been all about short-sighted and narrow.
2) Sure there's already a chance of being invaded by others on earth. Why would that make it a good idea for anyone to make the chances worse?
3) Sure, there's a significant risk that a GRB, supernova, colliding neutron star, etc, could sterilize earth. But the decisions are being made in the interests of existing nations, not in the interests of the survival of life as a whole. Adding human beings to the set of potentially hostile forces away from Earth is still adding to the set of potentially hostile forces that can attack Earth. The calculus of nations doesn't care if someone *ELSE* survives.
4) Yes, eventually Earth will be destroyed. But A, that's a long time from now, and B, considering the time scales involved the narrow-sighted little buggers probably see earth being subject to destruction in 1% or less of the time that would take as a result of releasing humans from here. So, from the 'Dr. Strangelove' perspective Earth survives 100 times as long if they don't let anyone go, and the fact that this dooms humankind to extinction is merely collateral damage.
5) Creating a real, definite, new existential threat in order to deal with a hypothetical and potentially nonexistent threat? Let's ask Dr. Strangelove again. The answer isn't just no, it's Hell no.
I hate this, but if you take the short-sighted, narrow view of preserving Earth and her existence over all else, the logic is pretty damn compelling. And our decision makers have always been all about short-sighted and narrow.