Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Should we terraform Venus?" video.

  1. You're underestimating what you can fit into an O'Neal cylinder.
    9
  2. Why WOULDN'T someone want to live in an O'Neil cylinder as opposed to a planet (especially excluding Earth)?
    8
  3. ​ @Cipher71 Kessler syndrome is about low orbit debris, not what happens at Lagrange points (which is where you'd ideally want to put said mirrors)
    8
  4. I mean, we COULD. We're just choosing to do the opposite.
    5
  5. @michaelvelez902 it's WAY easier to build space habitats than it is to terraform other planets. Likewise, even if we were to assume infinite population growth (which as mentioned is a big stretch), it would be better to disassemble planets to build O'Neal cylinders out of that material than to try and make the planets Earth-like.
    4
  6. It doesn't get much more "resort" than a luxury climate-controlled O'Neal cylinder, though.
    3
  7. Alternatively, use all those mirrors to blast away it's atmosphere maybe? Haven't done the math on that, but just heating the upper atmosphere 'till it reaches escape velocity (even if only 1 point at a time like a giant magnifying glass) would theoretically work.
    3
  8. ​ @Majorwindy that or just dig into it and live under the surface. The whole point of going there is mining the abundant resources that we wouldn't need to haul up Earth's gravity well. If we just need living room, nothing (except maybe Earth) is going to beat a good O'Neal cylinder.
    3
  9. We gonna need to terraform Earth just to reclaim the regions climate change will render uninhabitable. Whether we should remove deserts on top of that is a whole other conversation.
    3
  10. ​ @rockprime1136 flat-out taxing carbon WOULD affect the Earth's climate.
    3
  11. Those were less "to prove that we can" and more propaganda pieces to reinforce the perception that certain humans were actually gods (or at least close to it) to keep the entire system of government from collapsing under its own weight.
    2
  12. ​ @arkcliref floating habitats means they're held aloft through buoyancy, not burning fuel. You're thinking of hovering. Not the same thing
    2
  13.  @jige1225  it unironically is. I don't thing you're appreciating how hard terraforming actually is whereas disassembling planets is just a matter of mining and launching what you mine into orbit over time.
    2
  14.  @macher2266  O'Neil cylinders are far from cramped. We're talking about a rotating cylinder with dimensions measured in kilometers. They also are able to get far more Earth-like than any realistic terra forming project.
    2
  15.  @LuisLopez-iw5zx  debatable.
    1
  16.  @WinVisten  no, it couldn't.
    1
  17. We can only have 1 of those. Either we get runaway climate change that melts the antarctic ice cap and renders the Sahara uninhabitable for human life OR we get climate change under control and leave the Sahara inhabitable but the Antarctic covered in ice.
    1
  18. O'Neil cylinders>terraforming
    1