4 ms·

What might plausibly happen to Earth that'd make it less appealing than Mars, even temporarily? You've gotta practically melt the whole planet's surface or stri

by ashark 9y ago

What might plausibly happen to Earth that'd make it less appealing than Mars, even temporarily? You've gotta practically melt the whole planet's surface or strip a bunch of its atmosphere or something wild like that to even maybe reach that point. Hell, all the oceans could simply vanish tomorrow and this place'd still be less awful than Mars (though obviously very, very bad—which just emphasizes how truly terrible a habitat Mars is, that we can go to such extremes and still not have made Earth as bad).

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Actually, there's at least one. There are essentially cosmic death rays that travel at the speed of light, undetectable until they reach us. I wish I could remember what they're called, but they're generated by black holes consuming stars, and they have far more energy than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. It's implausible that one will hit us, but if you're looking for a scientific and logical motivation, it's a possibility. Also, colonizing mars is a necessary step toward avoiding what happens when our star reaches the end of its life. May as well start while we have the opportunity.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Is it plausible that a cosmic death ray from afar could be so tightly focused that it didn't irradiate the entire inner solar system but only Earth?
  - grondilu 9y ago
    I'm no astrophysicist, but I think I can answer this one. No, it is not plausible. Most bodies in the solar system easily fit into a hundred astronomical unit radius sphere. The nearest star is four light-years away, and a light year is eighty-six thousand astronomical units. The ratio between those distances is 2530[1]. It'd be like hitting a meter size target from more than two and a half kilometer. Pretty good shot, and we're talking about Proxima centaury (which, last time I checked, won't go supernova anytime soon) and the distance between say Sedna and the Sun. If we were talking about an accuracy more of an astronomical unit, more like the distance between Earth and mars, then we're talking about a centimeter sized target. Thus a gamma-ray burst would have to be insanely narrow to hit Earth and not mars. Not to mention how ridiculously unlucky we would have to be then in order for it to be precisely aimed at us. 1. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=four+light-year+divided+one+hundred+astronomical+units https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=four+light-year+divide...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
gpm 9y ago
People and unpredictability. In any worldwide disaster on earth, there are going to be a lot of people competing to survive. Building large fragile structures to, e.g., keep the now poisonous atmosphere out because people outside of those structures will have a tendency to destroy them. On mars, you don't have that, you have a relatively stable society where everyone is in one boat together. If your on mars you also know exactly what you're going to face. The temperature, lack of significant atmosphere, and dust storms. That's pretty much it. You can prepare. On earth you don't know what's going to happen next. Significant die off of oxygen generating plants creating an unbreathable atmosphere? Lack of water? Too much water (flooding)? Hurricane? Nuclear war (or super volcano/asteroid, but those are less likely) throwing up dust and blocking out sun? Unmaintained dam breaking upstream? Unmaintained pipeline poisoning water supply? Earthquake? You can prepare for any one event, even in a post apocalyptic world, better on earth than on mars. But you can't necessarily prepare for them all as well. And even if you could, you won't be motivated to because you can cut corners.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  >If your on mars you also know exactly what you're going to face. The temperature, lack of significant atmosphere, and dust storms. That's pretty much it. You can prepare. On earth you don't know what's going to happen next... Is Mars somehow immune to volcanos and asteroids? Man some people really want to get off this planet! Earth has given birth and sustained life for so long, and now earth is "unpredictable"! No comments about your other "arguments".
  - gpm 9y ago
    Volcanoes, yes. There is no molten core. Asteroids, no, but it is likely more immune to long term dust clouds in the atmosphere as a result (since the atmosphere is so thin). On the other hand dust storms are similar.
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      > Volcanoes, yes. There is no molten core. Seems like we are not really sure about that... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11962-lab-study-indicates-mars-has-a-molten-core/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11962-lab-study-indic...
jamesrcole 9y ago
I think this is a case where Black Swans apply. You can't assume you know what the all the risks actually are, and in that case diversification is a good thing.
Nadya 9y ago
Mother Jupiter misses a catch and an asteroid hits the Earth, wiping out all life as we know it. Think world-ending events - as rare/far-fetched as they may be. Some people don't want all of our eggs in one basket. The chances a planet gets destroyed is a bit higher than a solar system or multiple planets. Also one counter-argument to this is "But then why not the Moon?" I don't have as strong of a counterargument for that other than without the Earth's gravitational pull keeping the Moon in orbit, maybe it will get knocked into the sun or something when Earth is destroyed. Also I'm pretty sure international treaties and such prevent colonization of the moon.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  The actual answer to "why not the Moon?" is - AFAICT - because it's less likely to be able to sustain a human population. Notably, there's a significant shortage of water compared to even Mars (though recent discoveries seem to indicate that there might be more water than previously thought).
- ashark 9y ago
  I'd think even a dinosaur-killer-stricken earth with all kinds of climate and other problems would still be a lot more pleasant to live on than Mars. I mean, if you imagine an Earth that's been totally ruined in every imaginable way you're basically describing Mars, but still better because at least there's 1G of gravity and a really good built-in radiation shield.

by ashark 9y ago

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Actually, there's at least one. There are essentially cosmic death rays that travel at the speed of light, undetectable until they reach us. I wish I could remember what they're called, but they're generated by black holes consuming stars, and they have far more energy than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. It's implausible that one will hit us, but if you're looking for a scientific and logical motivation, it's a possibility. Also, colonizing mars is a necessary step toward avoiding what happens when our star reaches the end of its life. May as well start while we have the opportunity.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Is it plausible that a cosmic death ray from afar could be so tightly focused that it didn't irradiate the entire inner solar system but only Earth?
- grondilu 9y ago
  I'm no astrophysicist, but I think I can answer this one. No, it is not plausible. Most bodies in the solar system easily fit into a hundred astronomical unit radius sphere. The nearest star is four light-years away, and a light year is eighty-six thousand astronomical units. The ratio between those distances is 2530[1]. It'd be like hitting a meter size target from more than two and a half kilometer. Pretty good shot, and we're talking about Proxima centaury (which, last time I checked, won't go supernova anytime soon) and the distance between say Sedna and the Sun. If we were talking about an accuracy more of an astronomical unit, more like the distance between Earth and mars, then we're talking about a centimeter sized target. Thus a gamma-ray burst would have to be insanely narrow to hit Earth and not mars. Not to mention how ridiculously unlucky we would have to be then in order for it to be precisely aimed at us. 1. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=four+light-year+divided+one+hundred+astronomical+units https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=four+light-year+divide...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

gpm 9y ago

People and unpredictability. In any worldwide disaster on earth, there are going to be a lot of people competing to survive. Building large fragile structures to, e.g., keep the now poisonous atmosphere out because people outside of those structures will have a tendency to destroy them. On mars, you don't have that, you have a relatively stable society where everyone is in one boat together. If your on mars you also know exactly what you're going to face. The temperature, lack of significant atmosphere, and dust storms. That's pretty much it. You can prepare. On earth you don't know what's going to happen next. Significant die off of oxygen generating plants creating an unbreathable atmosphere? Lack of water? Too much water (flooding)? Hurricane? Nuclear war (or super volcano/asteroid, but those are less likely) throwing up dust and blocking out sun? Unmaintained dam breaking upstream? Unmaintained pipeline poisoning water supply? Earthquake? You can prepare for any one event, even in a post apocalyptic world, better on earth than on mars. But you can't necessarily prepare for them all as well. And even if you could, you won't be motivated to because you can cut corners.

babyrainbow 9y ago
>If your on mars you also know exactly what you're going to face. The temperature, lack of significant atmosphere, and dust storms. That's pretty much it. You can prepare. On earth you don't know what's going to happen next... Is Mars somehow immune to volcanos and asteroids? Man some people really want to get off this planet! Earth has given birth and sustained life for so long, and now earth is "unpredictable"! No comments about your other "arguments".
- gpm 9y ago
  Volcanoes, yes. There is no molten core. Asteroids, no, but it is likely more immune to long term dust clouds in the atmosphere as a result (since the atmosphere is so thin). On the other hand dust storms are similar.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    > Volcanoes, yes. There is no molten core. Seems like we are not really sure about that... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11962-lab-study-indicates-mars-has-a-molten-core/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11962-lab-study-indic...

jamesrcole 9y ago

I think this is a case where Black Swans apply. You can't assume you know what the all the risks actually are, and in that case diversification is a good thing.

Nadya 9y ago

Mother Jupiter misses a catch and an asteroid hits the Earth, wiping out all life as we know it. Think world-ending events - as rare/far-fetched as they may be. Some people don't want all of our eggs in one basket. The chances a planet gets destroyed is a bit higher than a solar system or multiple planets. Also one counter-argument to this is "But then why not the Moon?" I don't have as strong of a counterargument for that other than without the Earth's gravitational pull keeping the Moon in orbit, maybe it will get knocked into the sun or something when Earth is destroyed. Also I'm pretty sure international treaties and such prevent colonization of the moon.

yellowapple 9y ago
The actual answer to "why not the Moon?" is - AFAICT - because it's less likely to be able to sustain a human population. Notably, there's a significant shortage of water compared to even Mars (though recent discoveries seem to indicate that there might be more water than previously thought).
ashark 9y ago
I'd think even a dinosaur-killer-stricken earth with all kinds of climate and other problems would still be a lot more pleasant to live on than Mars. I mean, if you imagine an Earth that's been totally ruined in every imaginable way you're basically describing Mars, but still better because at least there's 1G of gravity and a really good built-in radiation shield.