4 ms·

>vital for mankind to create a self-sustaining city on Mars to protect against human extinction, and also to inspire people. I think it inspires him, and many

>vital for mankind to create a self-sustaining city on Mars to protect against human extinction, and also to inspire people. I think it inspires him, and many others, but working toward the many earthly problems that cause human suffering right now would also be pretty inspiring. Of course we should all tackle whichever issues are most interesting to us, but in this regard I'm more of a Gates fan.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
You can have both, in my opinion. A huge Mars colonization project would yield tremendous technological spinoffs, not to mention employment for thousands of scientists and engineers, a national sense of purpose, a lot more research spending into disease and immunity (imagine the medical risks of being cooped up in a closed system with 50 other people for months at a time).
- fidget 11y ago
  Given how, you know, polio is still a thing, it seems to be the whole distribution area that we're struggling the most with, and less the raw scientific aspects.
epimetheus 11y ago
I'm personally convinced his long term, possibly unspoken, goal is mining asteroids. Getting a foothold on Mars seems like a logical, and necessary next step after SpaceX. He does have competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources
- Pinckney 11y ago
  Why Mars? If all you want to do is mine asteroids, what sense is there in clawing your way out of a deep gravity well, only to jump down to the bottom of another one? Why not Ceres or Hygiea or Vesta or any of the other minor solar system bodies?
  - epimetheus 11y ago
    I think it's more of an appeal - visiting and colonizing Mars is more alluring than mining. I think there's benefit to having a base there though, even at the bottom of a gravity well (1/3 that of Earth so not the same kind of fight). Some pros to having a base on Mars could be families of miners can live "close by" miners (or those that operate and/or maintain the telepresence or self driving mining equipment, and possibly a place to do any sort of processing. Also, there could be mining possibilities on Mars as well, and without all the environmental issues we'd have to consider on Earth. The "all of the eggs in one basket" aspect is certainly one I can get behind, but I think there's monetary gain is probably a more powerful motivator to those that have the most influence.
carleverett 11y ago
Think about how many people and resources are already devoted to those Earthly problems though. I'm not saying that they're not still huge problems, but Elon seems to be one of the only people that's seriously and realistically trying to tackle the the need for an interplanetary insurance policy. As someone else in this thread mentioned, solving hunger disease, and violence doesn't really do anything to address most of the extinction-level threats.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

You can have both, in my opinion. A huge Mars colonization project would yield tremendous technological spinoffs, not to mention employment for thousands of scientists and engineers, a national sense of purpose, a lot more research spending into disease and immunity (imagine the medical risks of being cooped up in a closed system with 50 other people for months at a time).

fidget 11y ago
Given how, you know, polio is still a thing, it seems to be the whole distribution area that we're struggling the most with, and less the raw scientific aspects.

epimetheus 11y ago

I'm personally convinced his long term, possibly unspoken, goal is mining asteroids. Getting a foothold on Mars seems like a logical, and necessary next step after SpaceX. He does have competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources

Pinckney 11y ago
Why Mars? If all you want to do is mine asteroids, what sense is there in clawing your way out of a deep gravity well, only to jump down to the bottom of another one? Why not Ceres or Hygiea or Vesta or any of the other minor solar system bodies?
- epimetheus 11y ago
  I think it's more of an appeal - visiting and colonizing Mars is more alluring than mining. I think there's benefit to having a base there though, even at the bottom of a gravity well (1/3 that of Earth so not the same kind of fight). Some pros to having a base on Mars could be families of miners can live "close by" miners (or those that operate and/or maintain the telepresence or self driving mining equipment, and possibly a place to do any sort of processing. Also, there could be mining possibilities on Mars as well, and without all the environmental issues we'd have to consider on Earth. The "all of the eggs in one basket" aspect is certainly one I can get behind, but I think there's monetary gain is probably a more powerful motivator to those that have the most influence.

carleverett 11y ago

Think about how many people and resources are already devoted to those Earthly problems though. I'm not saying that they're not still huge problems, but Elon seems to be one of the only people that's seriously and realistically trying to tackle the the need for an interplanetary insurance policy. As someone else in this thread mentioned, solving hunger disease, and violence doesn't really do anything to address most of the extinction-level threats.