Asklemmy

43989 readers

1472 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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If we discover the means to travel faster than light, but researching and developing the technology means that the Earth is destroyed in just a few decades, should the technology still be pursued? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ArchmageAzor to c/[email protected]

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Edit: A bunch of yall don't seem to grasp the concept of a theoretical question

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

[–] Candelestine 57 points 1 year ago

No. Slower than light travel will still enable a smaller amount of colonization of the local area. Where if we do anything that destroys the planet, that's kinda putting all your eggs in one basket. If that goes catastrophically wrong, as things sometimes do, then everything gets fucked up.

It's just an unnecessary risk.