4 ms·

'''there was a public effort to try to select a broad representation of cultures, backgrounds, educations, nationalities etc to be astronauts.''' Oy vey... tha

'''there was a public effort to try to select a broad representation of cultures, backgrounds, educations, nationalities etc to be astronauts.''' Oy vey... that might be a sentiment which befits an established enterprise, but it is no way to reach for the stars. Do you think Magellan or Columbus tried to be inclusive when they were looking to crew their expeditions? Of course not, they selected on whatever capabilities or vices they deemed necessary for their purpose. Did the Vikings go for a multicultural crew when they tried to reach Vinland? Nope. What about Genghis Khan, did he choose his troops by looking at the colour of their skin or their cultural heritage? He probably did, the criteria being 'just as long as they look and talk like me'. Trying to be culturally sensitive and inclusive might work when trips to Mars are organised by the UN, based on technology and experience from pioneers like the current crop of 'commercial space access providers'. This is not where we are just now, however. Right now the selection criteria are altogether more practical: can you afford it, cope with the stress, have the right capabilities, can you function as a crew in a cramped environment for an extended period, can you handle the possibility of being left 'stranded' on a planet hostile to (our) life?

brooklyndavs 11y ago
It's not being culturally sensitive for sensitivities sake. It's about an equal chance of survival. Most fairly intelligent people acknowledge having one planet for the human species is risky right? What if an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth? We better spread out to hedge our bets. Which leads me to... > can you afford it Now, if all was fine and dandy on Earth and some rich people want to take the risk of starting a Mars colony with the idea that most of us will be able to travel back and forth in a hundred years go for it. The problem is, there is an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. Oh, and the asteroid was created with help from some of the people trying to now escape. The asteroid is global warming. I can go into great detail on how global warming is going to make things incredibly challenging for the 9+ billion of us around on Earth in 2050. At least to Elon's credit he's doing some things that might make living in a warmer world a little more sustainable before he jets off to Mars. Most people that will be able to pay the price won't be doing so. Wouldn't be more ethical to focus on saving the one planet most of us and our kids will live on? Lets say the Mars colony is successful. So successful that you and your families chances of surviving are actually better on Mars vs Earth. What gives you and your offspring the right for that greater chance of survival? Because you are rich? What about executive XYZ who lead company ABC for 20 years and used our air and water as a dumping ground for pollution. What gives them the right to leave? What gives them and their offspring the right to survive and thrive on another planet while us on earth deal with the cost of that pollution. As I said, it would be the ultimate FU to 99.9% of us.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  What is that fallacy where you draw a dichotomy where none exists? Of course we can do both.
- Yetanfou 11y ago
  '''It's about an equal chance of survival.''' I think a spaceship designed for and by those who have the means and will to design such will work just as well for those who lack either, or both [1]. [1] After all, the Golgafringians managed to put their entire middle-management layer, not to mention their telephone cleaners and hairdressers, on one...

brooklyndavs 11y ago

It's not being culturally sensitive for sensitivities sake. It's about an equal chance of survival. Most fairly intelligent people acknowledge having one planet for the human species is risky right? What if an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth? We better spread out to hedge our bets. Which leads me to... > can you afford it Now, if all was fine and dandy on Earth and some rich people want to take the risk of starting a Mars colony with the idea that most of us will be able to travel back and forth in a hundred years go for it. The problem is, there is an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. Oh, and the asteroid was created with help from some of the people trying to now escape. The asteroid is global warming. I can go into great detail on how global warming is going to make things incredibly challenging for the 9+ billion of us around on Earth in 2050. At least to Elon's credit he's doing some things that might make living in a warmer world a little more sustainable before he jets off to Mars. Most people that will be able to pay the price won't be doing so. Wouldn't be more ethical to focus on saving the one planet most of us and our kids will live on? Lets say the Mars colony is successful. So successful that you and your families chances of surviving are actually better on Mars vs Earth. What gives you and your offspring the right for that greater chance of survival? Because you are rich? What about executive XYZ who lead company ABC for 20 years and used our air and water as a dumping ground for pollution. What gives them the right to leave? What gives them and their offspring the right to survive and thrive on another planet while us on earth deal with the cost of that pollution. As I said, it would be the ultimate FU to 99.9% of us.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
What is that fallacy where you draw a dichotomy where none exists? Of course we can do both.
Yetanfou 11y ago
'''It's about an equal chance of survival.''' I think a spaceship designed for and by those who have the means and will to design such will work just as well for those who lack either, or both [1]. [1] After all, the Golgafringians managed to put their entire middle-management layer, not to mention their telephone cleaners and hairdressers, on one...