4 ms·

I never understand why some people are so gung ho about colonizing Mars while ours is still the most hospitable planet in the observable universe. It may be tha

I never understand why some people are so gung ho about colonizing Mars while ours is still the most hospitable planet in the observable universe. It may be that their thoughts are driven by a survivalist instinct and they are using Mars as a crutch.

bmer 9y ago
I am afraid it might be a bit more nefarious than that. Let Earth be for the rich, let the poor struggle in the wastes of space, as they mine resources for the elite on Earth. They think they're killing two birds with one stone: 1) "overpopulation" and 2) new resource pools to exploit.
- bryananderson 9y ago
  No one thinks this. Even if people were this nefarious, there’s no chance of moving more than a small portion of humankind to Mars.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    So he got it somewhat backwards. A more likely scenario is a grossly overpopulated, polluted Earth supplying a minute fraction of the population who live money off world. The major hole in either argument is that we’re about as close to thriving offworld as we are to flying by flapping our arms. The list of unsolved problems to make self-sustaining human presences offeorld are staggering and multigenerational. Barring some really impressive and rapid breakthroughs in materials science, energy production and storage, and so much more, it’s just sci-fi with a coat of paint. Of course those same breakthroughs which would make Mars colonies possible (aneutronic fusion, new battery tech, superior robotics, AI, real understanding of our immune systems and bioflora, lightweight radiation shielding, something more than chemical rockets, and more) would be cheaper to use and more effective on Earth. Mars isn’t going anywhere, but I tend to agree with GP that pretendimg our species is about to leave Earth in a real sense is dangerous fantasizing. It’s a worthy and necessary long term goal for the species, but we’re far from that accomplishment. I think it scares people that we have messes to solve here which we can’t run from, whether that’s overpopulation or an extinction event like an asteroid. Well have rockets to get us there, but why? We’re not backing up the species by going to another planet unless we can survive without Earth. We should try to make it offworld, but we need to keep this world from dying as the primary focus. There is as yet, no escape.
    - extropy 9y ago
      Mars will show us what keeping us from dying truly takes. Right now we have no idea how to do that on Earth. Both practically and politically.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > The major hole in either argument is that we’re about as close to thriving offworld as we are to flying by flapping our arms. The list of unsolved problems to make self-sustaining human presences offeorld are staggering and multigenerational. And yet, disregarding the brief forays into world of balloons, we went from flapping our arms to not flapping our arms to powered flight to landing men on the Moon in the span of less than 100 years. This is how fast progress moves when people care. There is a staggering list of unsolved problems to make a self-sustaining human presence off-world, yes, but instead of solving it, we're bitching about one person driving few billion $ to be spent on it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at works. It's sci-fi, so let's ridicule people working on it and make spending money on it unsexy, hence forever dooming it into being sci-fi. That's the essence of what you are - maybe unintentionally - suggesting. You write: > Of course those same breakthroughs which would make Mars colonies possible (aneutronic fusion, new battery tech, superior robotics, AI, real understanding of our immune systems and bioflora, lightweight radiation shielding, something more than chemical rockets, and more) would be cheaper to use and more effective on Earth. But the market has only so much incentive to pursue those (after all, things we already have work well enough, and nowadays, spending money on marketing has better ROI than spending it on R&D). It's implicitly understood that for all space-related tech breakthroughs, their biggest impact will be planetside. And that's a very good reason to doubling down on space - the conditions are ripe for rapid technological development there. -- Related: it's my belief that a lot of issues we're facing here, downwell, are essentially caused by people not having anything better to do. There's no grand vision, there's nothing to capture imagination, to motivate effort - so we're all just picking up on whatever injustice happens to us this week, and as a result of doing that, dooming the planet and ourselves with it. Space is one of the few things that don't involve people killing each other, which could be presented as "something greater" than us; I feel the world is in dire need of that kind of project.
      - 9y ago
dwaltrip 9y ago
The drive for novelty and exploration is deeply rooted in the human psyche. So it really isn't that surprising at all. As a plus, tons of beneficial technology and research directly resulted from previous efforts in space. It seems highly likely this would also be the case for efforts to get to Mars or any other space exploration programs. I think the strongest case against Mars is simply that we should do it, but not now, and instead in several decades. However, my guess is that we have capability to do it now, in an effective manner and for a reasonable cost. Someone has to pave the way for humanity to spread out into solar system. It will certainly happen in the coming centuries, one way or another. The incredibly rich energy sources available are by themselves such a compelling reason that I think it is inevitable. Of course, assuming some sort of terrible catastrophe of our own making doesn't set us back a few thousand years...
- earenndil 9y ago
  > Someone has to pave the way for humanity to spread out into solar system This is less interesting, I think, than spreading out into the galaxy, and the rest of the universe. Now, is this realistic? Absolutely, it's just important to remember that it's not happenning soon or over a short period of time. It'll probably take millions of years. But, ultimately, mars is just a jumping-off point, and past that it's much more interesting to attempt to get to and terraform other planets on other stars.
- rapnie 9y ago
  > I think the strongest case against Mars is simply that we should do it, but not now, and instead in several decades. yes, this is my feeling on this as well
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

bmer 9y ago

I am afraid it might be a bit more nefarious than that. Let Earth be for the rich, let the poor struggle in the wastes of space, as they mine resources for the elite on Earth. They think they're killing two birds with one stone: 1) "overpopulation" and 2) new resource pools to exploit.

bryananderson 9y ago
No one thinks this. Even if people were this nefarious, there’s no chance of moving more than a small portion of humankind to Mars.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  So he got it somewhat backwards. A more likely scenario is a grossly overpopulated, polluted Earth supplying a minute fraction of the population who live money off world. The major hole in either argument is that we’re about as close to thriving offworld as we are to flying by flapping our arms. The list of unsolved problems to make self-sustaining human presences offeorld are staggering and multigenerational. Barring some really impressive and rapid breakthroughs in materials science, energy production and storage, and so much more, it’s just sci-fi with a coat of paint. Of course those same breakthroughs which would make Mars colonies possible (aneutronic fusion, new battery tech, superior robotics, AI, real understanding of our immune systems and bioflora, lightweight radiation shielding, something more than chemical rockets, and more) would be cheaper to use and more effective on Earth. Mars isn’t going anywhere, but I tend to agree with GP that pretendimg our species is about to leave Earth in a real sense is dangerous fantasizing. It’s a worthy and necessary long term goal for the species, but we’re far from that accomplishment. I think it scares people that we have messes to solve here which we can’t run from, whether that’s overpopulation or an extinction event like an asteroid. Well have rockets to get us there, but why? We’re not backing up the species by going to another planet unless we can survive without Earth. We should try to make it offworld, but we need to keep this world from dying as the primary focus. There is as yet, no escape.
  - extropy 9y ago
    Mars will show us what keeping us from dying truly takes. Right now we have no idea how to do that on Earth. Both practically and politically.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > The major hole in either argument is that we’re about as close to thriving offworld as we are to flying by flapping our arms. The list of unsolved problems to make self-sustaining human presences offeorld are staggering and multigenerational. And yet, disregarding the brief forays into world of balloons, we went from flapping our arms to not flapping our arms to powered flight to landing men on the Moon in the span of less than 100 years. This is how fast progress moves when people care. There is a staggering list of unsolved problems to make a self-sustaining human presence off-world, yes, but instead of solving it, we're bitching about one person driving few billion $ to be spent on it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at works. It's sci-fi, so let's ridicule people working on it and make spending money on it unsexy, hence forever dooming it into being sci-fi. That's the essence of what you are - maybe unintentionally - suggesting. You write: > Of course those same breakthroughs which would make Mars colonies possible (aneutronic fusion, new battery tech, superior robotics, AI, real understanding of our immune systems and bioflora, lightweight radiation shielding, something more than chemical rockets, and more) would be cheaper to use and more effective on Earth. But the market has only so much incentive to pursue those (after all, things we already have work well enough, and nowadays, spending money on marketing has better ROI than spending it on R&D). It's implicitly understood that for all space-related tech breakthroughs, their biggest impact will be planetside. And that's a very good reason to doubling down on space - the conditions are ripe for rapid technological development there. -- Related: it's my belief that a lot of issues we're facing here, downwell, are essentially caused by people not having anything better to do. There's no grand vision, there's nothing to capture imagination, to motivate effort - so we're all just picking up on whatever injustice happens to us this week, and as a result of doing that, dooming the planet and ourselves with it. Space is one of the few things that don't involve people killing each other, which could be presented as "something greater" than us; I feel the world is in dire need of that kind of project.
    - 9y ago

dwaltrip 9y ago

The drive for novelty and exploration is deeply rooted in the human psyche. So it really isn't that surprising at all. As a plus, tons of beneficial technology and research directly resulted from previous efforts in space. It seems highly likely this would also be the case for efforts to get to Mars or any other space exploration programs. I think the strongest case against Mars is simply that we should do it, but not now, and instead in several decades. However, my guess is that we have capability to do it now, in an effective manner and for a reasonable cost. Someone has to pave the way for humanity to spread out into solar system. It will certainly happen in the coming centuries, one way or another. The incredibly rich energy sources available are by themselves such a compelling reason that I think it is inevitable. Of course, assuming some sort of terrible catastrophe of our own making doesn't set us back a few thousand years...

earenndil 9y ago
> Someone has to pave the way for humanity to spread out into solar system This is less interesting, I think, than spreading out into the galaxy, and the rest of the universe. Now, is this realistic? Absolutely, it's just important to remember that it's not happenning soon or over a short period of time. It'll probably take millions of years. But, ultimately, mars is just a jumping-off point, and past that it's much more interesting to attempt to get to and terraform other planets on other stars.
rapnie 9y ago
> I think the strongest case against Mars is simply that we should do it, but not now, and instead in several decades. yes, this is my feeling on this as well
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]