4 ms·

> If there's even a small chance of success in establishing a self-sustaining colony [...] then any degree of personal risks levied on individual colonists are

> If there's even a small chance of success in establishing a self-sustaining colony [...] then any degree of personal risks levied on individual colonists are "worth it" from the species level No, the risk v reward curve has to be better than an equivalent risk v reward curve for a terrestrial species survival project to justify the mission. I would argue that just about any PhD in epidemiology, disaster relief, or geopolitics will have a risk/reward curve far better than any Mars mission. People keep making this argument that, absent any other information, a two planet species is more robust than a one planet species. But that's not the choice we're facing. The choice is a two-planet species versus a more prepared one-planet species.

carleverett 10y ago
> The choice is a two-planet species versus a more prepared one-planet species. That's not the choice. Those two options are not mutually exclusive.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Sure they are. Every engineer working on a Mars mission is not working on sustainability/stability engineering.
  - i2amsam 10y ago
    Well, there are a couple engineers currently working on things which are not sustainability/stability engineering.
  - XorNot 10y ago
    Those problems on earth stopped being engineering issues a long time ago. See the current US election.
lmm 10y ago
I think no amount of geopolitics PhDs will reduce the chance of wiping out humanity through nuclear war more than Mars colonization does. I think it may take some time - centuries even - for colonizing Mars to "pay off" in terms of reduced extinction risk. But I think in the long term - say 500 years from now - we will indisputably be safer as a species if we started colonizing Mars 500 years ago than if we didn't. And if we don't start now, then when?
- sgt101 10y ago
  There's a big failure of game theory (and ists) with respect to MAD; unwinding it as a dominant game would be a Ph.D for sure...
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  There is no vaguely plausible scenario where humanity goes extinct through deployment of the current nuclear arsenal. I would put the probability at zero. I would increase that number if someone could tell a story with even a whiff of truth about how it could happen.

carleverett 10y ago

> The choice is a two-planet species versus a more prepared one-planet species. That's not the choice. Those two options are not mutually exclusive.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Sure they are. Every engineer working on a Mars mission is not working on sustainability/stability engineering.
- i2amsam 10y ago
  Well, there are a couple engineers currently working on things which are not sustainability/stability engineering.
- XorNot 10y ago
  Those problems on earth stopped being engineering issues a long time ago. See the current US election.

lmm 10y ago

I think no amount of geopolitics PhDs will reduce the chance of wiping out humanity through nuclear war more than Mars colonization does. I think it may take some time - centuries even - for colonizing Mars to "pay off" in terms of reduced extinction risk. But I think in the long term - say 500 years from now - we will indisputably be safer as a species if we started colonizing Mars 500 years ago than if we didn't. And if we don't start now, then when?

sgt101 10y ago
There's a big failure of game theory (and ists) with respect to MAD; unwinding it as a dominant game would be a Ph.D for sure...
erikpukinskis 10y ago
There is no vaguely plausible scenario where humanity goes extinct through deployment of the current nuclear arsenal. I would put the probability at zero. I would increase that number if someone could tell a story with even a whiff of truth about how it could happen.