Venting "Nobody really wants to die, they just want the suffering to stop"

[Majin K.]

With respect, it appears you don't actually know much about stellar habitation beyond what you've [presumably] seen in Star Wars or Star Trek. It is entirely possible to artificially construct habitable environments that are even more habitable than Earth is. this isn't even pontificating about technology we might have one day, this is actually possible right now with modern technology(well, 15+ year old technology). A simple 1.5km diameter 5km long cylinder has over 20km^2 of internal surface area and all you have to do is make it spin to get gravity. Our local star system has the material and space to build enough habitats hundreds of km apart for quadrillions of people as our solar system is almost 2 light years from one end to the other. There is no shortage of materials and there is no shortage of space.

As I said, we can force our environment to suit us at our whim. We don't because of the startup costs and politics.

Even if what you're saying comes true, it doesn't even matter. We wouldn't be alive to witness it. We could continue to live on this planet for millions of years to come if we solved our overpopulation problem. It does sadden me that humanity would rather go through the ridiculous efforts necessary to populate different planets than fix it's over population problem which should be much easier to achieve. Will humanity have the same quality of life on other planets as they do on Earth? From a skeptical perspective I'm leaning towards no, but either way I'm no fortune teller.

Continuing our species only for the sake of continuing it is utterly meaningless. If you disagree then you're merely following your biological programming. Our genes are nothing more than a self replicating script for absolutely no purpose. Only someone who views life as a gift (which makes no sense from an atheist perspective) or is a slave to his/her instincts sees any meaning in ensuring our species survival.

I would have to disagree with this if I'm honest. Yes, in the past of our society this was true, but it really isn't and hasn't been for a long time, but especially in the last 50 or so years. Natural selection is only one factor of many when you look at the grand scope of evolution. We've even removed natural selection from the factors directly effecting us for the most part. In the past 300 years we've proven we don't have to adapt to our environment, we can force our environment to adapt to us. Sexual selection isn't even a factor anymore as surrogate births and and sperm donor selection are now easy and relatively cheep to do, made even easier by our rapidly increasing knowledge of genetics and capability for artificial gene selection. in approximately 100 years, as we expand out into our solar system and utilize the vast resources of the system, resource scarcity will become a thing of the past and the only reasons for competition will be almost entirely traditional and ideological.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding here. I meant survival of the strongest as in mentally strong. Those who're too mentally weak to endure this life end up taking their own lives possibly before breading and/or might become anti natalists. So those are essentially being sorted out of the gene pool (natural selection) and only those who're mentally strong aka find life worth fighting for despite all the negatives pass on their genes. I hope you get the basic idea. Pretty much (almost) anyone not wanting to have children is being sorted out by natural selection. So only people who want to have children are passing on their genes on purpose.