We won't live on either anytime soon. Start by asking: Why don't people live in mountains more? Basically, it takes a lot of effort and expense to get up there, it takes a lot of effort and expense to live there, and there are a whole lot of people things that people want to be able to do that you can't easily do there.So basically, living up in mountains is for a few people that have a special reason to be there... tribes that have no place else to live, people that love the wilderness, ski-resort workers, astronomical observatory staff and the like.
And a lot of those people don't even live up in the mountains full-time. Now re the sea floor... At depth there is a) very high water pressure and b) not much of interest to normal people.So there is not a lot of point in living there permanently. The people that need to do stuff down there, like oil companies and people that work on deep sea cables, do it with robots and submersibles.
At shallow depths, there are interesting things like coral reefs. But you can get to shallow depths pretty easily from the land, so why would you want to live down there all the time with all the hassles involved, rather than just go scuba dive when you want? Re other planets.... Well it is phenomenally more expensive to go there than to the sea floor.
The International Space Station has cost a cool $100 billion dollars to date, and that is the kind of ballpark you'd have to think about.So again, the only people likely to have the motivation and funding to do it are a handful of astronauts on science and exploration missions. So with both the sea-floor or other planets, it's hard to imagine there will be many if any people living there even semi-permanently. However we might see a semi-permanent base on another planet (aka Mars) before one on the sea-floor.
The reason being... well the sea-floor is comparatively easy to get to so there is not really a need to stay down there for great lenghs of time or build any permanent facilities. Mars is so hard to get to that if you take the trouble to do it, quite likely you'd want to spend some time there. And you would not want to ship your infrastructure back and forth with you on every Mars mission,so you would likely leave a good deal of your Mars base behind, available for re-use.So if that is your idea of "living on another planet", that might happen first.
This is an interesting question. I'd say that living on the sea floor is a much more attainable goal which is probably possible now. So in that respect I would have to say that living on the sea floor would be possible first.
But will it happen first (assuming to a reasonable scale, ie. A town or city in space/the sea), probably not. The question is, what will make us want to go under the sea to live?
There aren't particularly any advantages to moving under the sea other than for the increased living area. There is generally one reason man colonises new places, and that is for resources. The living under the sea wouldn't offer any particularly useful resources we don't already utilise.
Space isn't always a large concern, we are constantly finding new ways to increase the living capacities of our cities, and it is likely we will keep expanding in this way for a long time before we are forced underwater. Space on the other hand is probably a long way off. To drive us out their we first have to have a strong need for the resources, followed by finding a suitable location.
The level of advancement that needs to be achieved for us to establish a viable extra terrestrial colony would be great as it is likely the colony would either need to be completely self reliant or fast methods of transport for supply would need to be available. In the end I think it would be more likely, at least in the short term that we start ocean reclamation projects, expanding our land mass or building artificial land on top of the water. Living in the dark depths just isn't that attractive of a prospect.
None of the other planets in our solar system can support our form of life, and it takes so long to get to any of them, let alone a habitable planet somewhere else that it seems highly unlikely we will live on another planet before we live on the sea floor. The sea is so deep the pressure on the bottom is tremendous. So I am not saying I think this will happen any time soon either.It's more likely we'll make artificial land.
You want what you can see. The whole world looks up into the heavens and wonders, marvels, and dreams of meeting something heavenly. When you go underwater thoughts are associated with drowning, and death.
Mankind seems to have this mentality that we have done all we can here. Dispite the fact we learn new things about our home planet everyday we think the only place to explore is outside our planet, it is easier to look elsewhere for inspiration. We know so little about what lies beneath our feet.
We won't live on either anytime soon. Start by asking: Why don't people live in mountains more? Basically, it takes a lot of effort and expense to get up there, it takes a lot of effort and expense to live there, and there are a whole lot of people things that people want to be able to do that you can't easily do there.
So basically, living up in mountains is for a few people that have a special reason to be there... tribes that have no place else to live, people that love the wilderness, ski-resort workers, astronomical observatory staff and the like. And a lot of those people don't even live up in the mountains full-time. Now re the sea floor... At depth there is a) very high water pressure and b) not much of interest to normal people.
So there is not a lot of point in living there permanently. The people that need to do stuff down there, like oil companies and people that work on deep sea cables, do it with robots and submersibles. At shallow depths, there are interesting things like coral reefs.
But you can get to shallow depths pretty easily from the land, so why would you want to live down there all the time with all the hassles involved, rather than just go scuba dive when you want? Re other planets.... Well it is phenomenally more expensive to go there than to the sea floor. The International Space Station has cost a cool $100 billion dollars to date, and that is the kind of ballpark you'd have to think about.
So again, the only people likely to have the motivation and funding to do it are a handful of astronauts on science and exploration missions. So with both the sea-floor or other planets, it's hard to imagine there will be many if any people living there even semi-permanently. However we might see a semi-permanent base on another planet (aka Mars) before one on the sea-floor.
The reason being... well the sea-floor is comparatively easy to get to so there is not really a need to stay down there for great lenghs of time or build any permanent facilities. Mars is so hard to get to that if you take the trouble to do it, quite likely you'd want to spend some time there. And you would not want to ship your infrastructure back and forth with you on every Mars mission,so you would likely leave a good deal of your Mars base behind, available for re-use.
So if that is your idea of "living on another planet", that might happen first. We won't live on either anytime soon. Start by asking: Why don't people live in mountains more?
Basically, it takes a lot of effort and expense to get up there, it takes a lot of effort and expense to live there, and there are a whole lot of people things that people want to be able to do that you can't easily do there. So basically, living up in mountains is for a few people that have a special reason to be there... tribes that have no place else to live, people that love the wilderness, ski-resort workers, astronomical observatory staff and the like. And a lot of those people don't even live up in the mountains full-time.
At depth there is a) very high water pressure and b) not much of interest to normal people. So there is not a lot of point in living there permanently. The people that need to do stuff down there, like oil companies and people that work on deep sea cables, do it with robots and submersibles.
At shallow depths, there are interesting things like coral reefs. But you can get to shallow depths pretty easily from the land, so why would you want to live down there all the time with all the hassles involved, rather than just go scuba dive when you want? Well it is phenomenally more expensive to go there than to the sea floor.
The International Space Station has cost a cool $100 billion dollars to date, and that is the kind of ballpark you'd have to think about. So again, the only people likely to have the motivation and funding to do it are a handful of astronauts on science and exploration missions. So with both the sea-floor or other planets, it's hard to imagine there will be many if any people living there even semi-permanently.
However we might see a semi-permanent base on another planet (aka Mars) before one on the sea-floor. The reason being... well the sea-floor is comparatively easy to get to so there is not really a need to stay down there for great lenghs of time or build any permanent facilities. Mars is so hard to get to that if you take the trouble to do it, quite likely you'd want to spend some time there.
And you would not want to ship your infrastructure back and forth with you on every Mars mission,so you would likely leave a good deal of your Mars base behind, available for re-use. So if that is your idea of "living on another planet", that might happen first.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.