Edit: it's from a student newspaper from back in 2020, that explains a bit about the content but not why it's being upvoted. My guess is a bunch of people read the headline and confirmed their own beliefs.
I don't get it. You can make a ship big enough to house an entire civilization, for tens of thousands of years, but you can't spin it?
I suppose this also involves mass-balancing the inhabitants!
What does the Coriolis effect mean in this context?
As far as I can tell, there's no reason to believe that Coriolis will be harmful to humans beyond nausea and disorientation. If you ran quickly through the station it might cause you to fall. Possibly it might make machinery that deals with fluids more difficult to deal with. I would chalk it up as a relatively minor concern compared to other issues.
If humans would be able to settle Mars and asteroid belt, there is no limit to how far you can expand onwards.
You could keep launching them from solar system. But well might need lot of them.
It really does get complicated when you start thinking of details and how mechanics work.
Arguments in favor of not destroying our home planet are a good thing, but the article is shallow enough to hurt the author's cause.
I don't think that was intentional, but it might as well have been.
Humans will never see the edge of the Earth Humans will never fly Humans will never get to space
they don't even know how to keep astronauts from going blind or losing muscle function
space and space travel really really wants to kill life
even Mars is going to be a one-way trip with very very short lifespan after that from all the radiation
really makes you appreciate Earth's protective atmosphere and magnetosphere (and gravity)
only clever idea I've seen is basically taking all the water you'd have to bring with you and turning it into a shield around the ship and using insane levels of recycling to maintain it
Take each reason supporting why humans cannot leave the solar system, and ask, over time, through obviously controversial modifications, why we couldn't mangle ourselves sufficiently to challenge each of these reasons.
And on the energy side, can we really predict that? We have government officials testifying on witnessing UAP, with a high probability that if they did really see anything at all, it was of human origin. Whatever that tech is, if we are not factoring it, then the "never" becomes a bit subject to questioning.
What is fringe today, and either taken for granted, dismissed, or simply overlooked, can quickly change, especially with colossal compute behind it. I often imagine how far we'd be if we actually gave that whole 'capitalism' thing a chance, without all the putrid patent slop, and other little complicating factors eg, Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (35 U.S.C. §§ 181–188), 28 U.S.C. § 1498, etc, not to mention greed, monopolies, and dozens of equally formidable factors.
Even a subtle difference of governance can offer a subtle, but reasonable example of how development is effected by policy, as seen with China.