My thinking is that a technological species either goes into ecological overshoot so badly that it kills itself (or at least its capacity to conquer space) ((this is what we’re doing currently)), or then it learns to live harmoniously as a functioning part of the wider planetary system, and thus has no need to spread into space.
Space exploration necessitates a technological industrial civilization. So they/we would somehow have to figure out how to first do #2 (so as to not die), while still maintaining the industrial capacity to spread out into space. That sounds like an even more improbable subset of the already improbable scenario #2.
Climate change is just one of six planetary boundaries that we’ve crossed, out of a total of nine. The choice of rocket fuel is largely inconsequential compared to the effects of maintaining the industrial capacity necessary for such endeavours.
I think it’s a variant of #2: the ozone layer is much more susceptible to damage from space flight than we yet realize, and it’s a trade-off between keeping a hospitable home world and interstellar travel. By the time a species is scientifically advanced enough to be technologically capable of it, they learn the risks and decide it’s not worth it.
My thinking is that a technological species either goes into ecological overshoot so badly that it kills itself (or at least its capacity to conquer space) ((this is what we’re doing currently)), or then it learns to live harmoniously as a functioning part of the wider planetary system, and thus has no need to spread into space.
3rd option: they want to explore
3rd Plus: Facehuggers in the cargo bay.
Space exploration necessitates a technological industrial civilization. So they/we would somehow have to figure out how to first do #2 (so as to not die), while still maintaining the industrial capacity to spread out into space. That sounds like an even more improbable subset of the already improbable scenario #2.
It’s obvious that stars provide obscene, unimaginable amounts of energy. It’s also clear that this energy can be captured and stored.
We, currently, can’t exit our orbit without using oil, but that does not mean it’s theoretically impossible.
Climate change is just one of six planetary boundaries that we’ve crossed, out of a total of nine. The choice of rocket fuel is largely inconsequential compared to the effects of maintaining the industrial capacity necessary for such endeavours.
Don’t most rockets use hydrogen oxygen reaction? Separating hydrogen from oxygen requires only electricity, which we can produce renewably.
I think it’s a variant of #2: the ozone layer is much more susceptible to damage from space flight than we yet realize, and it’s a trade-off between keeping a hospitable home world and interstellar travel. By the time a species is scientifically advanced enough to be technologically capable of it, they learn the risks and decide it’s not worth it.