Final answer:
Life on Earth and the space frontier are fundamentally different, with space lacking the natural resources and forgiving environment of Earth. The depiction of space as a harsh, unforgiving frontier is depicted realistically in literature, though it is often romanticized as a new territory for expansion despite significant challenges.
Step-by-step explanation:
The settings of life on Earth and the space frontier offer a stark contrast, with the latter presenting unique challenges and an entirely different environment to contend with. Earth's atmosphere, gravity, and abundant resources support life as we know it. In contrast, the hostile and barren landscapes of space lack these essential supports, requiring advanced technology and life-support systems to sustain human activities.
Regarding believability, Tom Godwin's The Cold Equations is often found to be a realistic depiction of the space frontier's unyielding nature. The story's portrayal of space as an environment where small mistakes can have fatal consequences is consistent with what we understand about the dangers of space exploration. The cold rationality of space contrasts sharply with the more forgiving nature of Earth.
Moreover, the discussion of space as a new frontier indicates that while it may provide resources useful for Earth through avenues such as asteroid mining, it is an unlikely solution for population overflow due to the sheer logistics of space colonization. Additionally, the frontier ethic—a belief in endless expansion and exploitation of new territory—faces challenges in the context of space, where the harsh realities differ significantly from those on Earth.
Ultimately, despite some narratives that romanticize space as the next frontier, there is a recognition that life beyond our planet represents a divergent version of reality, not merely an extension of Earthly life and conveniences.