Which type of colonization do you prefer. Earth type planets: Pros: less cost and needed at start. quick return of investment Cons: Some consider it immoral and repeat of colonization atrocities Rebellion: They might be local sapient species that would rebel and after few generation the colonist feel the need for independence Mere existing may cause damage to environment (invasive species including microbes, light terraforming would cause some that can't adapt Slow evacuation when the population reach a certain mark Terraforming Dead Planets: Pros: No danger of damaging local lifeforms cause there ain't any Cons: High cost and slow return of investment Rebellion: Although there is no local lifeforms the future inhabitants may want independence. Slow evacuation Space Nomads: Pros: Evacuating is fast (supernovas, etc) Low chance of rebellion as they are near . Cons: Claustrophobic Can still damage planets if their vast presence cause gravitational/orbital shift. Less freedom Their immune system may be compromised
Dyson sphere and strip mining all other bodies surrounding the star to build an armada and more dyson spheres
All of them. Space nomads works if it's like a space city/relay station. Earth colonization works if you want to get easy investment. Terraforming will not spark rebellion because you were the one who terraformed the planet and brought the inhabitants anyway.
Whichever one causes the most disappointment in any ethics teachers. I'd like to terraform an earth like planet inhabited by advanced beings into a dead world via orbital strikes, then terraform for human use while mining any tech the dead aliens had.
age of cosmic exploration was really fun to read mainly because they had to leave earth early as it was about to die so they managed to get into a secret alien ship, but the problem was they didn't have enough food nor could they control where they would warp to. finding food and quickly upgrading their technology became their priority or die or become enslaved if they are found by other alien races.
Space nomads are pretty much impossible if you look at it by resource availability. You can't expand the space stations without resources. Resources do not grow in space. Resources collected from meteors etc. would cause massive costs. So... You would have to salvage from planets and send it up into space. So... You would have to be colonizing to at least mining penal colony level for it to be something. My choice: Earth-like world
None of the above, in my opinion, the best choice would be a mix of both dead planet colonization and extraction of asteroids to conquer the solar system using mega structures. first, you need a planet with an atmosphere to be able to trap asteroids in orbit of said planet, but an orbit high enough so that it can easily be detached from the gravitational well of the planet. then from there, you can create space ships big enough to host human life without taking the risk to harm the passenger from solar radiation. from then on, it becomes quite easy to start colonizing every dead planet that is not too massive, in order to mine its resources, or even explode the planet entirely in order to mine the whole thing as most of the metals are in the core of planets, hence getting high profits from planet cores. in fact, in the long run, having planets is detrimental as it is a waste of resources that could be used to produces structures that would hold more population resource wise. thus we would get lots of O'Neill cylinder in orbit around the sun, getting as much energy out of its radiation for each cylinder. the rest of the resources would be used to create inter galactic vessels that would go from solar system to solar system and spread human colonies all around the galaxy. afterwards i would not be able to tell as the technology used would be out of our reach.
Using the world colonization is what sounds threatening. We could just be immigrants in Earth-like planets. If their conditions are better, then we can count on the fact that they're more technologically (or alternatively) advanced and have taken care of issues like waste and overpopulation. If the conditions are worse, then I see no point in moving there for any reason. If it's for some resource, it won't be much different than the pointless wars on Earth.
I`ve read that NASA wants to start a project where they are going to build floating platforms in the atmosphere of Venus in order to colonize it. Colonizing Venus makes no sense whatsoever. Who wants to live in a flotilla above a totally inhospitable environment? I mean if it were the only option for survival then yes, otherwise not worth it. Also completely unworkable from a colonization perspective. To be a colony it needs to have a significant if not total ability to be independent. There is no way that some flotilla in the atmosphere of Venus can supply its own raw material needs for manufacturing as mining the surface of Venus would be well beyond what a flotilla environment could manage. Perhaps might be feasible and reasonable for NASA or the like to put a floating research station there with rotating crews and regular supply runs, but that would be about it. IMO NASA puts out silly things like this just to keep the public's interest in space so they can continue to get funding. All pipe dream nonsense, but it captures the public's imagination.