3 ms·

I'd argue that there are many problems endemic to the way we've structured society that spell out our doom on Earth, and if they aren't fixed here, will spell o

I'd argue that there are many problems endemic to the way we've structured society that spell out our doom on Earth, and if they aren't fixed here, will spell out our doom on other planets. We should fix our problems here, today, before exporting them elsewhere. Nevermind the fact that the after almost any type of disaster, the bottom of the ocean is infinitely more habitable than Mars. Mars as a holdout for humanity is truly a moonshot.

kbenson 8y ago
> We should fix our problems here, today, before exporting them elsewhere. Although, if we export them, that's that many different places to try out solutions in semi-isolation in an attempt to find one that works. If we can parallelize the process, and also get cleaner starting conditions to test, why shouldn't we do so?
- pc86 8y ago
  This is the cosmic equivalent of "laboratories of democracy"[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
  - wytian 8y ago
    The problem I see with this is that each independent laboratory cannot be easily configured to the same initial conditions. Especially not one on Mars and one on Earth. It would take a tremendous effort to turn Mars into Earth and then use it in parallel to carry out experiments. If the two laboratories are vastly different, comparisons between the two won't have much backing.
pc86 8y ago
Aside from us killing ourselves in myriad spectacular ways, the most looming threats are cosmic. The sun is on a timeline and asteroids hit planets with some measure of regularity. Any cosmic extinction-level event will render the bottom of the ocean just as inhospitable as the south of France or the Midwest US. An ELE on Earth in the short term future wipes out the human race, full stop. The only thing that can continue our species is having that species on more than one rock in space.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  Yet, given the last asteroid induced extinction event, the south of France, the midwest US, and the bottom of the ocean would still have been more habitable than Mars.
  - pixelbash 8y ago
    Not for the ones that experienced it first hand.
    - darpa_escapee 8y ago
      Our ancestors got through it, somehow.
      - pc86 8y ago
        Human would not have. The point is not to ensure that any life on Earth survives, the point is to ensure that human life survives. An ELE of similar size today wipes out the human race. There is no coming back from it and without a generation or more of warning there is no surviving it. At least having colonies on other planets and moons would give us more of a chance.
    - posting2fast 8y ago
      Right. What about those who die of hunger or thirst? Every fucking day? What about those who die from the results of war profiteering, wars of aggression? Agent Orange? Depleted Uranium? "Hey, cancer sucks" "ohhhh, of course an oncologist would say that".... how come in that case of someone dying of cancer, the person who experiences it first hand isn't a concern? Many talk about the species because they can't even look a single human in the eye, and aren't very alive in the first place, that's the pattern I see. And I learned from Woody Allen that you should never trust a naked bus driver. Here's the thing, the things humans do to other people, that we don't prevent because hey, it's easier to ignore them, and something like an asteroid or exploding star, are in completely different leagues. You need to deal with the first to even be a human, and you will not be able to avoid some form of the latter either way, at the latest with the heat death of the universe. For that to be a loss, you have to have faced the first part. Otherwise, it's a blessing, both for those who go extinct as well as for the rest of the universe who is spared their company. Going to Mars (and being thorougly distracted by it, like war with less destruction of property) to "save the species" is beyond cute, it's deranged. It's like running without pants to work because "time is money". That may be true, but when you spend the day in a cell for running around without pants, you're not saving money.
freehunter 8y ago
You could say pretty much the same thing about other cities, other states, other countries, other continents. Why did mankind leave Africa if they just repeated the same mistakes in Europe and Asia? Why did they leave Europe to go to the US if they just did the same thing over there? Why would someone leave New England and go west across America if they're just bringing the same thing? All of that ignores, of course, that the culture of mankind evolved dramatically between and during those big migrations, and then again ignoring that Africa, Asia, Europe, and America all have wildly, wildly different belief systems, cultures, politics, and people. Who is saying that we'd take our same problems to Mars? The kind of people who were willing to move from Europe to America were not the same kind of people who wanted support the system in Europe at the time, and the kind of people who want to move to Mars aren't going to be the same people who want to continue the same system we have on Earth. "Fix our problems here"... but what if "here" is the problem? If the Pilgrims had stayed in England and the Netherlands, they wouldn't have been able to fix what they considered to be "the problem" no matter how hard they tried. It was only by starting a new life that they could solve their problems.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  Europe certainly brought their problems to their colonies: they exported their religious extremists, criminals and brought their need to profit, proselytize and conquer with them. Considering the same pressures are behind space colonization as were behind colonization of old, I find your concerns as merely speculation based in fantasy and not history. > but what if "here" is the problem? The same "here" that is humanity's proverbial garden of Eden? Food grows out of the ground, an atmosphere can exist and it's breathable and, until relatively recently, we didn't have to worry too much about the Sun's radiation destroying our own biological processes. If "here" is the problem, and the solution is a dry, cold rock that's millions of miles away without any signs of life, we're truly doomed. > If the Pilgrims had stayed in England and the Netherlands, they wouldn't have been able to fix what they considered to be "the problem" no matter how hard they tried The problems pilgrims face were those of religious persecution. The problems we face as whole are truly existential, we're in the process of changing our planet for the worse. The same forces that are driving the destruction of our planet are driving space colonization. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
posting2fast 8y ago
You get downvoted because you are 100% correct, and it's kind of shameful for adults to even need this pointed out to them. Without knowing, you're uncovering years, sometimes decades of self-deception. "why Mars? because it's next", "exploration if a survival trait" and all such stuff is what kids tell to each under under the bed cover -- you just turned on the light, and only the best of them don't resent that.

kbenson 8y ago

> We should fix our problems here, today, before exporting them elsewhere. Although, if we export them, that's that many different places to try out solutions in semi-isolation in an attempt to find one that works. If we can parallelize the process, and also get cleaner starting conditions to test, why shouldn't we do so?

pc86 8y ago
This is the cosmic equivalent of "laboratories of democracy"[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
- wytian 8y ago
  The problem I see with this is that each independent laboratory cannot be easily configured to the same initial conditions. Especially not one on Mars and one on Earth. It would take a tremendous effort to turn Mars into Earth and then use it in parallel to carry out experiments. If the two laboratories are vastly different, comparisons between the two won't have much backing.

pc86 8y ago

Aside from us killing ourselves in myriad spectacular ways, the most looming threats are cosmic. The sun is on a timeline and asteroids hit planets with some measure of regularity. Any cosmic extinction-level event will render the bottom of the ocean just as inhospitable as the south of France or the Midwest US. An ELE on Earth in the short term future wipes out the human race, full stop. The only thing that can continue our species is having that species on more than one rock in space.

darpa_escapee 8y ago
Yet, given the last asteroid induced extinction event, the south of France, the midwest US, and the bottom of the ocean would still have been more habitable than Mars.
- pixelbash 8y ago
  Not for the ones that experienced it first hand.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
    Our ancestors got through it, somehow.
    - pc86 8y ago
      Human would not have. The point is not to ensure that any life on Earth survives, the point is to ensure that human life survives. An ELE of similar size today wipes out the human race. There is no coming back from it and without a generation or more of warning there is no surviving it. At least having colonies on other planets and moons would give us more of a chance.
  - posting2fast 8y ago
    Right. What about those who die of hunger or thirst? Every fucking day? What about those who die from the results of war profiteering, wars of aggression? Agent Orange? Depleted Uranium? "Hey, cancer sucks" "ohhhh, of course an oncologist would say that".... how come in that case of someone dying of cancer, the person who experiences it first hand isn't a concern? Many talk about the species because they can't even look a single human in the eye, and aren't very alive in the first place, that's the pattern I see. And I learned from Woody Allen that you should never trust a naked bus driver. Here's the thing, the things humans do to other people, that we don't prevent because hey, it's easier to ignore them, and something like an asteroid or exploding star, are in completely different leagues. You need to deal with the first to even be a human, and you will not be able to avoid some form of the latter either way, at the latest with the heat death of the universe. For that to be a loss, you have to have faced the first part. Otherwise, it's a blessing, both for those who go extinct as well as for the rest of the universe who is spared their company. Going to Mars (and being thorougly distracted by it, like war with less destruction of property) to "save the species" is beyond cute, it's deranged. It's like running without pants to work because "time is money". That may be true, but when you spend the day in a cell for running around without pants, you're not saving money.

freehunter 8y ago

You could say pretty much the same thing about other cities, other states, other countries, other continents. Why did mankind leave Africa if they just repeated the same mistakes in Europe and Asia? Why did they leave Europe to go to the US if they just did the same thing over there? Why would someone leave New England and go west across America if they're just bringing the same thing? All of that ignores, of course, that the culture of mankind evolved dramatically between and during those big migrations, and then again ignoring that Africa, Asia, Europe, and America all have wildly, wildly different belief systems, cultures, politics, and people. Who is saying that we'd take our same problems to Mars? The kind of people who were willing to move from Europe to America were not the same kind of people who wanted support the system in Europe at the time, and the kind of people who want to move to Mars aren't going to be the same people who want to continue the same system we have on Earth. "Fix our problems here"... but what if "here" is the problem? If the Pilgrims had stayed in England and the Netherlands, they wouldn't have been able to fix what they considered to be "the problem" no matter how hard they tried. It was only by starting a new life that they could solve their problems.

darpa_escapee 8y ago
Europe certainly brought their problems to their colonies: they exported their religious extremists, criminals and brought their need to profit, proselytize and conquer with them. Considering the same pressures are behind space colonization as were behind colonization of old, I find your concerns as merely speculation based in fantasy and not history. > but what if "here" is the problem? The same "here" that is humanity's proverbial garden of Eden? Food grows out of the ground, an atmosphere can exist and it's breathable and, until relatively recently, we didn't have to worry too much about the Sun's radiation destroying our own biological processes. If "here" is the problem, and the solution is a dry, cold rock that's millions of miles away without any signs of life, we're truly doomed. > If the Pilgrims had stayed in England and the Netherlands, they wouldn't have been able to fix what they considered to be "the problem" no matter how hard they tried The problems pilgrims face were those of religious persecution. The problems we face as whole are truly existential, we're in the process of changing our planet for the worse. The same forces that are driving the destruction of our planet are driving space colonization. I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

posting2fast 8y ago

You get downvoted because you are 100% correct, and it's kind of shameful for adults to even need this pointed out to them. Without knowing, you're uncovering years, sometimes decades of self-deception. "why Mars? because it's next", "exploration if a survival trait" and all such stuff is what kids tell to each under under the bed cover -- you just turned on the light, and only the best of them don't resent that.