4 ms·

>if we're going to think seriously about colonizing Mars, we ought to think seriously about colonizing the arctic and antarctic first. And with this you comple

by Nadya 11y ago

>if we're going to think seriously about colonizing Mars, we ought to think seriously about colonizing the arctic and antarctic first. And with this you completely miss the reason why we need to colonize away from our planet. What if a catastrophic event completely destroyed all life on Earth - the poles included? All of humanity. Wiped out in a single event. Getting people onto Mars is the first step to making sure humans can continue to exist in such an event.

mattstreet 11y ago
Why is that such a priority for people? Why can't we just worry about taking better care of the people we have NOW?
- Nadya 11y ago
  We could treat everyone like millionaires and that wouldn't make an ounce of difference to anyone if our entire species went extinct. Absolutely no treatment we can give to one another prevents a catastrophic event from wiping us all out. A catastrophic event isn't going to stop and think "Oh hey, humans are treating each other nicely. Maybe I shouldn't wipe them all out?"
  - Pinckney 11y ago
    Why is the perpetuation of Homo Sapiens a moral imperative?
    - lawpoop 11y ago
      The people who think going to Mars is a good idea will go to Mars, procreate, and slowly fill the galaxy. They will out-compete the Earth-bounders. Darwinian evolution.
      - Pinckney 11y ago
        And this should affect my behavior why? If I cared about perpetuating my DNA, I'd donate to sperm banks to produce more genetic offspring than I have any hope of supporting on my own. From the Darwinian perspective, I would be regarded as enormously successful.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Why is being nice to others a moral imperative? In fact - why should any decision be based off morals? The continuation and survival of the human race is the top priority among a large population of people. Some contribute by researching new medicines (Why do this?), others improve quality of life for others (Why do this?), others have children (Why do this?), and others look for a way to get us away from a potentially doomed planet in case of disaster scenarios. They all have the same reasoning - just different methods. Morals are subjective to a population. The majority population of humanity has decided that continuation of "us" is a "good thing". Of course, one could argue things would be better off if humanity went extinct. But that isn't in humanities' best interests (read: survival), so people generally wouldn't agree with you.
      - DarkTree 11y ago
        I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but I think there are some key differences with your analogy. The goal of colonizing another planet would give a small subset of people the ability to continue living if the people on Earth were to destroy themselves. This is a hypothetical situation that -if it happens- will kill off almost everyone, dragging hopes, dreams, money, infrastructure, standards of living (basically everything that makes life enjoyable) with it. So if that is destroyed, why does it matter if humans continue living as a species? Especially on an extremely harsh planet. Your analogous examples differ because all of those things -medicine, quality of life, children, even sustaining our environment- help us now. We do those things to make our own lives longer, improve our own children's lives, and make our quality of life greater, not some hypothetical future civilization away from Earth. You're right that humanity's best interest is survival, but I think way more people are concerned with their own survival and I think that's where the true incentives for those examples lie.
      - Pinckney 11y ago
        "The continuation and survival of the human race is the top priority among a large population of people. Some contribute by researching new medicines (Why do this?), others improve quality of life for others (Why do this?), others have children (Why do this?), and others look for a way to get us away from a potentially doomed planet in case of disaster scenarios." The vast majority of medical research goes to diseases that pose no existential threat to Homo Sapiens. Even Malaria, which kills upwards of 500,000/yr, does not pose any existential threat. Late-life diseases such as alzheimers have no effect whatsoever on Homo Sapiens, yet receive substantial funding. No, medical research largely serves to decrease human suffering, a goal which I do regard as noble. Likewise, why does increasing quality of life matter? Humans will continue to reproduce even in conditions of abject poverty. What does quality of life have to do with anything? (You, after all, seem to think putting humans in a thin metal tube and hurling them through space to live out their life on a cold, barren rock is important. Surely you don't think this would increase their quality of life). As for children, I have no clue what people see in them. But they seem to reproduce because having children makes them happy, not out of some perceived obligation to Homo Sapiens. My point isn't that you need to share my morals. My point is that you should acknowledge your morals are not universal.
crpatino 11y ago
Let's assume life insurance would cost half of my salary, and pay merely 5 years of my current salary in the case of my untimely demise. I feel healthy enough and confident enough to find a cheaper plan an put the difference in government bonds, so that my family is not 100% unprotected but have my future self - who will probably be still alive - collect most of the benefits in a decade or so. Colonizing the Artic/Antartic is way cheaper than Mars, and would help us pick most of the low hanging fruit research for a fraction of the cost. We can always do Mars later if that is the way history turned out. Not to mention that there are much more dire and certain risks today, which will likely cause huge loss of life and property (like climate change, or resource depletion, or geopolitical instability). But because those are not extinction level events, people do not freak out about them and little mitigation is being done.

by Nadya 11y ago

mattstreet 11y ago

Why is that such a priority for people? Why can't we just worry about taking better care of the people we have NOW?

Nadya 11y ago
We could treat everyone like millionaires and that wouldn't make an ounce of difference to anyone if our entire species went extinct. Absolutely no treatment we can give to one another prevents a catastrophic event from wiping us all out. A catastrophic event isn't going to stop and think "Oh hey, humans are treating each other nicely. Maybe I shouldn't wipe them all out?"
- Pinckney 11y ago
  Why is the perpetuation of Homo Sapiens a moral imperative?
  - lawpoop 11y ago
    The people who think going to Mars is a good idea will go to Mars, procreate, and slowly fill the galaxy. They will out-compete the Earth-bounders. Darwinian evolution.
    - Pinckney 11y ago
      And this should affect my behavior why? If I cared about perpetuating my DNA, I'd donate to sperm banks to produce more genetic offspring than I have any hope of supporting on my own. From the Darwinian perspective, I would be regarded as enormously successful.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Why is being nice to others a moral imperative? In fact - why should any decision be based off morals? The continuation and survival of the human race is the top priority among a large population of people. Some contribute by researching new medicines (Why do this?), others improve quality of life for others (Why do this?), others have children (Why do this?), and others look for a way to get us away from a potentially doomed planet in case of disaster scenarios. They all have the same reasoning - just different methods. Morals are subjective to a population. The majority population of humanity has decided that continuation of "us" is a "good thing". Of course, one could argue things would be better off if humanity went extinct. But that isn't in humanities' best interests (read: survival), so people generally wouldn't agree with you.
    - DarkTree 11y ago
      I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but I think there are some key differences with your analogy. The goal of colonizing another planet would give a small subset of people the ability to continue living if the people on Earth were to destroy themselves. This is a hypothetical situation that -if it happens- will kill off almost everyone, dragging hopes, dreams, money, infrastructure, standards of living (basically everything that makes life enjoyable) with it. So if that is destroyed, why does it matter if humans continue living as a species? Especially on an extremely harsh planet. Your analogous examples differ because all of those things -medicine, quality of life, children, even sustaining our environment- help us now. We do those things to make our own lives longer, improve our own children's lives, and make our quality of life greater, not some hypothetical future civilization away from Earth. You're right that humanity's best interest is survival, but I think way more people are concerned with their own survival and I think that's where the true incentives for those examples lie.
    - Pinckney 11y ago
      "The continuation and survival of the human race is the top priority among a large population of people. Some contribute by researching new medicines (Why do this?), others improve quality of life for others (Why do this?), others have children (Why do this?), and others look for a way to get us away from a potentially doomed planet in case of disaster scenarios." The vast majority of medical research goes to diseases that pose no existential threat to Homo Sapiens. Even Malaria, which kills upwards of 500,000/yr, does not pose any existential threat. Late-life diseases such as alzheimers have no effect whatsoever on Homo Sapiens, yet receive substantial funding. No, medical research largely serves to decrease human suffering, a goal which I do regard as noble. Likewise, why does increasing quality of life matter? Humans will continue to reproduce even in conditions of abject poverty. What does quality of life have to do with anything? (You, after all, seem to think putting humans in a thin metal tube and hurling them through space to live out their life on a cold, barren rock is important. Surely you don't think this would increase their quality of life). As for children, I have no clue what people see in them. But they seem to reproduce because having children makes them happy, not out of some perceived obligation to Homo Sapiens. My point isn't that you need to share my morals. My point is that you should acknowledge your morals are not universal.

crpatino 11y ago

Let's assume life insurance would cost half of my salary, and pay merely 5 years of my current salary in the case of my untimely demise. I feel healthy enough and confident enough to find a cheaper plan an put the difference in government bonds, so that my family is not 100% unprotected but have my future self - who will probably be still alive - collect most of the benefits in a decade or so. Colonizing the Artic/Antartic is way cheaper than Mars, and would help us pick most of the low hanging fruit research for a fraction of the cost. We can always do Mars later if that is the way history turned out. Not to mention that there are much more dire and certain risks today, which will likely cause huge loss of life and property (like climate change, or resource depletion, or geopolitical instability). But because those are not extinction level events, people do not freak out about them and little mitigation is being done.