4 ms·
> We 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 d
by elsonrodriguez 10y ago
> We 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?
Is a magnetosphere the only way to shield from radiation?
> 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.
Supply ships are essential for the bootstrapping of any colony, but Mars does have everything we need long term.
> 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.
It's not simple, it's actually quite complex and interesting. Read up on Mars exploration, everything has been addressed except for the will of the people.
- acqq 10y ago> Mars does have everything we need long term. Earth doesn't have it for the long-term high-tech life under our current ways of life. We use hydrocarbons as the main source of energy, and we used up half of them in just 100 years. The other significant source of energy is liquid water in the atmospheric cycle, completely not existing on Mars, due to the lack of the comparable atmosphere. We have problems with the small changes in weather here on Earth, consider the weather conditions there if we would try to mess up with the atmosphere there. If you tell me "nuclear energy" - look how fragile it is on Earth. In Mars environment it's even more. The life on Mars is not self-sustainable. Having a colony there won't allow us to discover the solutions which we lack right now on the Earth.
- adrianN 10y agoSolar works on Mars. Nuclear energy is not fragile.