From a humanistic species survival perspective, we should conserve nuclear energy for interstellar travel.

If interstellar travel ever becomes possible you'd already have access to all the resources of the solar system as well as the output of the entire sun.

The scale of the problem l, technologically simply renders earthbound resource constraints irrelevant.

Like you're into "synthesize antimatter with solar power" at that point.

▲

DoctorOetker 3 days ago | parent [-]

> If interstellar travel ever becomes possible you'd already have access to all the resources of the solar system as well as the output of the entire sun.

I'm not going to argue circular conditions, this is precisely why we should preserve dense energy sources, first an alternative abundant energy source must be demonstrated, before squandering it locally.

> The scale of the problem l, technologically simply renders earthbound resource constraints irrelevant.

Hidden in such statements is the implicit assumption that mining the solar system for fissile materials is less energy intensive than mining them locally.

We should make sure interstellar travel remains affordable by the time we decide to afford seeding other star systems.

Nothing prevents interstellar travel with current technology, it would just take a long time. We should keep this mode of travel, where survival on the ship is powered with known feasible technology (nuclear fission) on the table and conserve fissile materials until we succeed in compact fusion plants, in that case this constraint no longer is an argument to preserve fissile materials.

Speculating other energy storage technology like "antimatter storage as a battery to store solar power" before launching to another star is just that: speculation. We shouldn't squander fissile materials on the basis of feel-good speculation.

	▲	XorNot 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No the assumption is that the magnitude of energy involved in interstellar travel is so large that it dwarfs all other considerations. If you can't afford to expend the energy to travel around the solar system to acquire resources, you definitely can't afford to engage in interstellar travel. And then of course, if you can't afford the energy to sustain a human population on Earth in decent conditions, you also definitely can't afford interstellar travel. Because implicit in your assumption is that somehow the extremely limited number of people who could be put on a slow ship (and by slow we're talking thousands of actual years minimum at "current technology" levels) will somehow be able to command and control all of Earth's fissile resources.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

9dev 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Interstellar travel to… where? It’s like saving your money for an immortality treatment that’ll eventually hit the market. Well yes it might, someday in the far far future. Practically speaking, this money should better be invested in your health now instead, aka. preservation of the only spaceship we have right now—Earth.

	▲	DoctorOetker 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		To different star systems obviously. Short of discovering portals or wormholes (natural or artificial), we should only assume demonstrated space propulsion technology to make the trip. With current technology its a long trip, and its cold and dark inbetween 2 stars. We should definitely conserve fissile materials until we demonstrate fusible materials for reliable power generation.