4 ms·
The scientists from 1963 were right even then: the robots were enough to explore the Moon, transporting human flesh and bones around and keeping them alive is n
by acqq 10y ago
The scientists from 1963 were right even then: the robots were enough to explore the Moon, transporting human flesh and bones around and keeping them alive is not something that directly increases our knowledge of the Universe. The "man on the Moon" was a political, not a scientific project.
The worst place on Earth is still better suited for human life than either Moon or Mars or any other object in the Solar system. We depend on almost all, compared to the other objects, unique properties of the Earth. And the other stars, which could have the planets more suited for us are many light years away. The humanity must learn to respect the Earth. We won't get a way to easily survive without Earth no matter how we'd like to.
Global warming or a nuclear weapon "accident" are too probable to wipe out what the humanity achieved up to now for us to ignore the necessity of urgently solving these. Not to mention even more "inconvenient" questions of the whole approach to the use of all the Earth resources.
We still have to clean up our own backyard first. There is no known reachable second Earth waiting for us and we won't discover it by experimenting with the survival of a few persons on Mars. The human life is not self-sustainable there and it won't be even if we create some "colony."
- Pigo 10y agoI've been wondering why we don't focus on getting 3D visuals of the surface of Mars that can then be distributed the same way Hubble images are. Even a low quality 3D experience would transport all of us to the surface of Mars for a moment.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> Global warming or a nuclear weapon "accident" are too probable to wipe out what the humanity achieved up to now > We still have to clean up our own backyard first > We won't discover [a second Earth] by experimenting with the survival of a few persons on Mars > Human life is not self-sustainable [on Mars] and it won't be even if we create some "colony" These are assumptions. If colonizing Mars and mastering terrestrial civilization were mutually exclusive, I'd agree with you. But there is a lot of spending between those poles. If the Apollo programs offer us any lessons, it's that space travel and better living on Earth are more complementary than competitive.
- adrianN 10y agoWhat makes you think human life on Mars is not sustainable? Mars has everything we need to live.
- rimliu 10y agoExcept air, water, food and protection from space radiation?
- adrianN 10y agoIt has oxygen, water is relatively abundant, food can grow on Mars (in greenhouses or underground), dirt is excellent for shielding radiation.
- Neliquat 10y agoWe can generate/recycle most if not all of these from or on mars. Surely not trivial, but possible. Air, water, food are a loop we already know well, and structures arent new...
- acqq 10y agoWe don't have even sustainable use of the Earth resources, even if the Earth is actually suited for human life, but you somehow imagine that we'd be able to do better on Mars, which isn't suited for life at all, having no magnetosphere? Please study where the energy on Earth comes from and how the rare materials are obtained. The basic assumption of all "Mars colonies work" theories is the functioning Earth civilization that supports it, paying a lot for it (at least in resources and work) to support it. The argument for having a Mars colony is "in case something happens to Earth." But "in case something happens to Earth" the Mars colony dies. It's that simple.
- btkramer9 10y agoLiving on mars forces everything you do to be considered sustainable from first principles. It's like removing the standard library and every 3rd-party library from a project. You would never do it because it's a waste of time, but if you were forced to then you'd see things from a new perspective. You would probably change quite a few things along the way. Everything you learn would be able to benefit us back on Earth.
- rimliu 10y ago"We won't discover second Europe, let's just stay there". Human curiosity brought us where we are now, it would be kind of sad to ditch that with the excuse that it's "not practical".
- mark_edward 10y agoIt would have been better for untold millions if Europeans had indeed "just stayed there".
- throwanem 10y agoNo one lives on the moon, or on Mars - in the latter case, not for many millions of years at least; in the former, not ever.
- acqq 10y agoIf you refer to the American continent, the people lived there and that the civilizations as Columbus arrived. They had from our point of view unpleasant religions but otherwise were very able to live without the input from other continents. The continent allowed self sustainable human life. Compare Mars. If you want to implement Mars colony because of a possible nuclear catastrophe, the Earth after one would be more suitable for human life than Mars is now! Ditto for most "end of civilization as we know it" scenarios. All the concepts of "building a colony on Mars" assume the healthy Earth with a functioning high-tech civilization.
- throwanem 10y agoKnowledge isn't the only consideration here. This moment in history is the first in which our species has been without a frontier. Early evidence suggests rather strongly that we're not at our best that way.
- acqq 10y agoFor the most of its existence Euroasian civilizations didn't function based on the existence of inhabited lands which are to be conquered, quite the opposite, it was known the other humans are there and the conquering involved military actions. And there were other civilizations on the American continent too at the time it was "discovered" by the Europeans. Still, the whole Earth is Earth-life-friendly due to so many aspects not present on Mars, including the magnetosphere and air.