So a knowledge of classic science fiction is critical to discussing the plausibility of colonizing space? Very telling. I guess you have to be into make-believe to think that people could actually make a life in a place with no atmosphere to speak of, only trace amounts of water, toxic regolith in place of soil, no magnetosphere, and no resources. Good to know.
And FWIW, I read some of Asimov when I was little, but I've never read Foundation. The premise (that human behavior in the aggregate could be predicted for millennia into the future with mathematics) is too extreme for me to be able to suspend disbelief. I prefer my science to be actual science, and my fantasy to make no claims of being science.
And this is the distraction I was referring to. Thank you for proving that you're not interested in an actual discussion and only here to spread your "knowledge".
You still didn't accept/refute my point that regardless of humanity's worth, the preservation of it calls for a backup (regardless of whether or not it's even possible).
This thread starts from the answer that a backup is indeed needed, and we're discussing the how/possibilities.
You are stuck on the first answer and don't seem to think humanity is worth saving. With that viewpoint, what is there for you to discuss on this thread?