5 ms·

I would say, given the state of politics and the general attitude to the climate and natural resources, our first priority should be colonising another planet.

I would say, given the state of politics and the general attitude to the climate and natural resources, our first priority should be colonising another planet. Putting some scientists on Mars for a few years is step 1 in that very important insurance scheme!

simias 9y ago
I don't know if I agree. Creating a self-sustainable colony on Mars will take a very long time and even if we manage to do it can we really afford to "lose" the earth? Mars is an inhospitable hell for humans and practical terraforming technology is still in the realm of science fiction. Maybe if we manage to destroy earth completely out of selfishness and hate we don't really deserve to spread the virus throughout the galaxy? And running away won't solve our problems. How long until our current earthly political and environmental issues are reproduced on Mars? We have "human" issues, not "earth" issues, simply moving the problem is not a solution. If we can't sustain our development in a civilized manner on a lush and hospitable planet I don't think we'll fare much better on Dune. Not that I'm against colonizing Mars but I'd prefer if we did it out of a shared dream of a trans-planetary humanity rather than out of fear of self-destruction.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Very unlikely that we could do anything on Earth that would make Mars look like a better place to live.
  - camiller 9y ago
    "Very unlikely that we could do anything on Earth that would make Mars look like a better place to live. " Humanity: Hold my beer....
    - vkou 9y ago
      Runaway global warming or global thermonuclear war will still leave many parts of the Earth far more habitable then Mars. Even if the biosphere were to go to hell, it would still have an atmosphere, and a magnetic field. Fantasists have wildly impractical ideas for fixing the former on Mars, but nothing for the latter.
      - mLuby 9y ago
        There is a solution to both, and it's not impractical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13796364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13796364
- jerrylives 9y ago
  >If we can't sustain our development in a civilized manner on a lush and hospitable planet I don't think we'll fare much better on Dune. Arrakis at least had an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    And a valuable natural resource to make the whole colonization thing worth it.
    - jerrylives 9y ago
      Well, heh, when you look at the events that unfold afterwards, "worth it" is debatable.
      - thehardsphere 9y ago
        True. I didn't read that series far after the first book, so I will not presume to debate you on that. :)
- nrb 9y ago
  I agree about self-created problems, but what about annihilation through any other "natural" mass extinction event? I'd argue that to be a good motivating factor.
  - simias 9y ago
    That's an interesting proposition, but how realistic is it really? If we're talking about something like a huge asteroid colliding with the earth and/or a huge volcanic episode that would trigger a mass instinction, wouldn't the pale blue dot still be more hospitable than Mars? We have access to technology the dinosaurs didn't have, our chances of survival would probably be much better overall. Even in case of man-made devastation, such as mass pollution or a nuclear winter I think it's safe to assume that Earth would still be more habitable than Mars. How about something even more destructive? Maybe something like a gamma ray burst? Well then Mars is probably not far away to put it out of harm's way, although maybe they would be more likely to be unaffected by it if it hit the other side of the planet due to its very thin atmosphere? I'm not sure.
    - AgentME 9y ago
      If an event happened that caused the Earth's atmosphere to not be breatheable in a number of hours, would anyone survive? We may have the technology but do there already exist any artificial independent self-sustaining human habitats on Earth that would survive? We could try to build such habitats now -- it would probably be cheaper than going to Mars -- but I think we would have trouble forcing ourselves to spend the money and effort on it and have trouble keeping it honest (avoiding any cheats where it's mostly independent but still dependent on the Earth's ecosystem for some specific uses) without a separate goal (being on another planet) and a hard forcing factor (an environment that doesn't allow any cheats).
- hfourm 9y ago
  The universe is full of planet destroying events, why single ourselves out and say we are a virus? Sure, we need to be better stewards of our environment, but I fail to see how our species is inherently worse then a meteor destroying a planet.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mr_overalls 9y ago
  The fear of self-destruction (or phrased as its complement, the drive for survival) is one of the most potent motivators that humans have. The argument could be made that Martian humans would be supremely motivated to move the environmental parameters there toward a survivable state for lightly-outfitted humans. Contrast this with Earth, where space exploration is a four-order or fifth-order concern for most people, and long-term environmental issues are treated as abstract exercises in reducing economic externalities. This is because Earthlings have (mostly) had it easy. We're biologically evolved and culturally adapted to survive here, and thus don't have a strong intrinsic motivation (yet) to maintain the long-term health of the biosphere.
menzoic 9y ago
If we could terraform a planet as barren as Mars, wouldn't fixing earth be significantly easier?
- vkou 9y ago
  Yes, it would be.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    The biggest problem to fixing earth is the people with politics that fly in the face of reality. Mars Doesn't have republicans, so I think it would be easier to terraform than earth.
    - vkou 9y ago
      Unless you're building better humans, we're going to have the exact same political problems on Mars that we do on Earth. Except in an environment where any small thing going wrong has the potential to kill everyone.
      - sqeaky 9y ago
        Doesn't that already describe Earth? We could accidentally fire nukes, accidentally let a GM smallpox strain out, accidentally start WW3, we could do so much as it is. That is beside the point anyway. Presumably the first people to go to Mars are going to be vetted for some level of education and skill. This will likely prevent the fear mongering, demagoguery and other forms of lying that allow some successful politicians argue against singularly true facts, at least for a little while. Likely until the mars colony is self sufficient. Even then it seems unlikely you will get an anti-global warming lobby on Mars, because it is good for every business (presuming breathable air is government utility/service).
      - gorkonsine 9y ago
        >Unless you're building better humans, we're going to have the exact same political problems on Mars that we do on Earth. No, not immediately. This isn't much different from other colonization missions in human history: humans from one place got sick of the people living there, and went somewhere (relatively) uninhabited so they could live the way they wanted without the political problems they had back home. Eventually, there were new political problems of course, but that took generations; for the initial travelers, it was a sensible move. And the political problems that came were likely different, as so much time had passed.

simias 9y ago

I don't know if I agree. Creating a self-sustainable colony on Mars will take a very long time and even if we manage to do it can we really afford to "lose" the earth? Mars is an inhospitable hell for humans and practical terraforming technology is still in the realm of science fiction. Maybe if we manage to destroy earth completely out of selfishness and hate we don't really deserve to spread the virus throughout the galaxy? And running away won't solve our problems. How long until our current earthly political and environmental issues are reproduced on Mars? We have "human" issues, not "earth" issues, simply moving the problem is not a solution. If we can't sustain our development in a civilized manner on a lush and hospitable planet I don't think we'll fare much better on Dune. Not that I'm against colonizing Mars but I'd prefer if we did it out of a shared dream of a trans-planetary humanity rather than out of fear of self-destruction.

ams6110 9y ago
Very unlikely that we could do anything on Earth that would make Mars look like a better place to live.
- camiller 9y ago
  "Very unlikely that we could do anything on Earth that would make Mars look like a better place to live. " Humanity: Hold my beer....
  - vkou 9y ago
    Runaway global warming or global thermonuclear war will still leave many parts of the Earth far more habitable then Mars. Even if the biosphere were to go to hell, it would still have an atmosphere, and a magnetic field. Fantasists have wildly impractical ideas for fixing the former on Mars, but nothing for the latter.
    - mLuby 9y ago
      There is a solution to both, and it's not impractical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13796364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13796364
jerrylives 9y ago
>If we can't sustain our development in a civilized manner on a lush and hospitable planet I don't think we'll fare much better on Dune. Arrakis at least had an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  And a valuable natural resource to make the whole colonization thing worth it.
  - jerrylives 9y ago
    Well, heh, when you look at the events that unfold afterwards, "worth it" is debatable.
    - thehardsphere 9y ago
      True. I didn't read that series far after the first book, so I will not presume to debate you on that. :)
nrb 9y ago
I agree about self-created problems, but what about annihilation through any other "natural" mass extinction event? I'd argue that to be a good motivating factor.
- simias 9y ago
  That's an interesting proposition, but how realistic is it really? If we're talking about something like a huge asteroid colliding with the earth and/or a huge volcanic episode that would trigger a mass instinction, wouldn't the pale blue dot still be more hospitable than Mars? We have access to technology the dinosaurs didn't have, our chances of survival would probably be much better overall. Even in case of man-made devastation, such as mass pollution or a nuclear winter I think it's safe to assume that Earth would still be more habitable than Mars. How about something even more destructive? Maybe something like a gamma ray burst? Well then Mars is probably not far away to put it out of harm's way, although maybe they would be more likely to be unaffected by it if it hit the other side of the planet due to its very thin atmosphere? I'm not sure.
  - AgentME 9y ago
    If an event happened that caused the Earth's atmosphere to not be breatheable in a number of hours, would anyone survive? We may have the technology but do there already exist any artificial independent self-sustaining human habitats on Earth that would survive? We could try to build such habitats now -- it would probably be cheaper than going to Mars -- but I think we would have trouble forcing ourselves to spend the money and effort on it and have trouble keeping it honest (avoiding any cheats where it's mostly independent but still dependent on the Earth's ecosystem for some specific uses) without a separate goal (being on another planet) and a hard forcing factor (an environment that doesn't allow any cheats).
hfourm 9y ago
The universe is full of planet destroying events, why single ourselves out and say we are a virus? Sure, we need to be better stewards of our environment, but I fail to see how our species is inherently worse then a meteor destroying a planet.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mr_overalls 9y ago
The fear of self-destruction (or phrased as its complement, the drive for survival) is one of the most potent motivators that humans have. The argument could be made that Martian humans would be supremely motivated to move the environmental parameters there toward a survivable state for lightly-outfitted humans. Contrast this with Earth, where space exploration is a four-order or fifth-order concern for most people, and long-term environmental issues are treated as abstract exercises in reducing economic externalities. This is because Earthlings have (mostly) had it easy. We're biologically evolved and culturally adapted to survive here, and thus don't have a strong intrinsic motivation (yet) to maintain the long-term health of the biosphere.

menzoic 9y ago

If we could terraform a planet as barren as Mars, wouldn't fixing earth be significantly easier?

vkou 9y ago
Yes, it would be.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  The biggest problem to fixing earth is the people with politics that fly in the face of reality. Mars Doesn't have republicans, so I think it would be easier to terraform than earth.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Unless you're building better humans, we're going to have the exact same political problems on Mars that we do on Earth. Except in an environment where any small thing going wrong has the potential to kill everyone.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      Doesn't that already describe Earth? We could accidentally fire nukes, accidentally let a GM smallpox strain out, accidentally start WW3, we could do so much as it is. That is beside the point anyway. Presumably the first people to go to Mars are going to be vetted for some level of education and skill. This will likely prevent the fear mongering, demagoguery and other forms of lying that allow some successful politicians argue against singularly true facts, at least for a little while. Likely until the mars colony is self sufficient. Even then it seems unlikely you will get an anti-global warming lobby on Mars, because it is good for every business (presuming breathable air is government utility/service).
    - gorkonsine 9y ago
      >Unless you're building better humans, we're going to have the exact same political problems on Mars that we do on Earth. No, not immediately. This isn't much different from other colonization missions in human history: humans from one place got sick of the people living there, and went somewhere (relatively) uninhabited so they could live the way they wanted without the political problems they had back home. Eventually, there were new political problems of course, but that took generations; for the initial travelers, it was a sensible move. And the political problems that came were likely different, as so much time had passed.