I’m guessing you’re getting downvoted for not expanding on:
> Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left until our carbon cycles grind to a halt and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.
As far as I understand, the habitable zone in our system is not stable. It’s shifting. Between 500m and 800m years from now it’ll have moved sufficiently where our carbon cycles start grinding to a halt.
I disagree, my guess is the downvotes is for the idea that the CURRENT trajectory of industry and technology -- largely focused on converting non-renewable sources into luxuries and trinkets for humans currently alive -- has to continue uninterrupted to be the one shot humans have to go to the starts.
If we had to go to the stars in the next 50 years, sure, current industry would be our best bet.
If we (or whatever is evolved) have 500 million years, why would not environmentalists be RIGHT that we need to focus on sustainability first, and improve the odds of society not getting a huge setback?
> Life has been here for 4Bn years and we have about 500m left until our carbon cycles grind to a halt and all life on earth starts it’s final, and ultimate, extinction event.