Doomsday is not just a fantasy; it might come to pass given the complex conditions of life on Earth. This has motivated some to argue that we should consider allocating budget to exploring space for a new planet because one day we might need a new home. This proposal does have appeal, but it should be carefully examined.
On a surface level, the argument resonates. Exploring other planets is an existential assurance given the fact that our planet might become uninhabitable because of major climatic issues, environmental problems, and the threats of nuclear war, which necessitate having a backup planet. There is also the issue of intergenerational ethics. In the long run, the Earth will be home to our future children, which is a valid reason to spend money in search of another planet to make sure humanity survives for millions of years in case the Earth is hit and destroyed by a meteor.
On a deeper level, the argument collapses under close scrutiny. One issue with it is that it is too speculative. The idea that we ‘need’ to live on another planet is not certain because the catastrophes that are predicted to destroy life on Earth are considered inevitable, which might not be the case. We should also consider that, morally, we should allocate large sums to address the current problems that threaten life on Earth, such as global warming, before investing billions in space exploration for future generations.
These discussions suggest that simply accepting the need to invest billions in finding other planets, because one day humanity might need a new home, seems naïve, although the proposal may be existentially and morally justified. We must prioritize saving Mother Earth with the resources we have available and hold hope that one day this blue planet can restore itself. That is why I think space exploration programs should be funded, but not to the point of ignoring our current predicaments; there needs to be a balance.
