4 ms·

Offtopic but I just read that in reality frogs do jump :)

by harperlee 7y ago

andy_ppp 7y ago
There’s nowhere for us to jump as far as I’m aware...
- carlmr 7y ago
  Mars is cold, and could be reached (by some humans) in a lifetime. However habitable is another thing.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    Yeah we can't even stop ourselves from destroying working ecosystems but we're apparently going to terraform systems which are currently not livable at all. That sounds likely.
    - jsharf 7y ago
      It does to me.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        Why would you go to a new planet that requires artificial habitats instead of setting those habitats up on earth?
        est31 7y ago
        Yeah, even if climate change is really bad and means 10 degrees increase, Earth will still be more habitable than Mars. And reversing climate change, while a huge project, will be easier than terraforming Mars (at least from a technological perspective, political perspective is a different question). As much as I think that global warming is a major threat to humanity, Mars won't be more habitable than Earth for a long time. There are already quite hostile places on Earth that require lots of technology to be habitable, like Antarctica, or the surface of the oceans. But both places are far more habitable than Mars is. And if something goes wrong you can send help far more easily.
        masklinn 7y ago
        This mars bullshit is basically the Bioshock plan. If you assume it's to "save humanity" it makes no sense whatsoever, there's no way you'll terraform mars and be able to send thousands of people there let alone millions let alone billions before it all goes down. If you assume it's a bunch of libertarian brolionaires who want to skedaddle when shit hits the fan it still makes no sense but it fits with the same folks building doomsday bunkers in NZ.
        est31 7y ago
        > If you assume it's to "save humanity" it makes no sense whatsoever, there's no way you'll terraform mars and be able to send thousands of people there let alone millions let alone billions before it all goes down. It's meant as a long term plan to save us when earth goes down for whatever reason, be it a meteorite or a global war, or whatever. With long term I mean 100-2000 years, until you basically could erect a self sufficient martian colony that needs no help from earth. Climate change on the other hand is mainly a short term threat, i.e. if we can deal with it in 500 years, we can also deal with it in 5000 years. > bunch of libertarian brolionaires who want to skedaddle Wow, calm down buddy. Also, I'm new here but is such vitrolic/hateful language welcome on this site?
        masklinn 7y ago
        > It's meant as a long term plan to save us when earth goes down for whatever reason It's literally being advertised as a workaround to global warming upthread… When Bezos gives literally not a single lonely shit about global warming and pours his billions into space crap, it's not with a 2ky term plan. > Climate change on the other hand is mainly a short term threat, i.e. if we can deal with it in 500 years Climate change is not something we'll have to deal with 500 years from now, it's something we're already 50 years late on. Space isn't going away, and in dealing with AGW we'll likely have learned a lot about sustainable systems and ecosystems, and have innovated a bunch of useful things for long-term enclosed systems with no backup. > Wow, calm down buddy. Not sure why you're projecting that I'm anything but calm? Does it bother you that not everybody prostrates for the overclass? Does it make you feel uncomfortable to read such thoughts being written? > such vitrolic/hateful language Hahaha yeah right.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Much like throwing away a large legacy codebase and rewriting the product from scratch, it may seem easier to "do it the right way this time", until you start discovering, one by one, all the little corner cases the old codebase solved...
      - masklinn 7y ago
        At least with the legacy v existing codebase you know you've solved the problems once so you can solve them again. That's not the case here, we've never come close to building self-sustaining ecosystems, we're just (ab)using existing ones we're barely starting to understand.

Offtopic but I just read that in reality frogs do jump :)

andy_ppp 7y ago

There’s nowhere for us to jump as far as I’m aware...

carlmr 7y ago
Mars is cold, and could be reached (by some humans) in a lifetime. However habitable is another thing.
- masklinn 7y ago
  Yeah we can't even stop ourselves from destroying working ecosystems but we're apparently going to terraform systems which are currently not livable at all. That sounds likely.
  - jsharf 7y ago
    It does to me.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      Why would you go to a new planet that requires artificial habitats instead of setting those habitats up on earth?
      - est31 7y ago
        Yeah, even if climate change is really bad and means 10 degrees increase, Earth will still be more habitable than Mars. And reversing climate change, while a huge project, will be easier than terraforming Mars (at least from a technological perspective, political perspective is a different question). As much as I think that global warming is a major threat to humanity, Mars won't be more habitable than Earth for a long time. There are already quite hostile places on Earth that require lots of technology to be habitable, like Antarctica, or the surface of the oceans. But both places are far more habitable than Mars is. And if something goes wrong you can send help far more easily.
        masklinn 7y ago
        This mars bullshit is basically the Bioshock plan. If you assume it's to "save humanity" it makes no sense whatsoever, there's no way you'll terraform mars and be able to send thousands of people there let alone millions let alone billions before it all goes down. If you assume it's a bunch of libertarian brolionaires who want to skedaddle when shit hits the fan it still makes no sense but it fits with the same folks building doomsday bunkers in NZ.
        est31 7y ago
        > If you assume it's to "save humanity" it makes no sense whatsoever, there's no way you'll terraform mars and be able to send thousands of people there let alone millions let alone billions before it all goes down. It's meant as a long term plan to save us when earth goes down for whatever reason, be it a meteorite or a global war, or whatever. With long term I mean 100-2000 years, until you basically could erect a self sufficient martian colony that needs no help from earth. Climate change on the other hand is mainly a short term threat, i.e. if we can deal with it in 500 years, we can also deal with it in 5000 years. > bunch of libertarian brolionaires who want to skedaddle Wow, calm down buddy. Also, I'm new here but is such vitrolic/hateful language welcome on this site?
        masklinn 7y ago
        > It's meant as a long term plan to save us when earth goes down for whatever reason It's literally being advertised as a workaround to global warming upthread… When Bezos gives literally not a single lonely shit about global warming and pours his billions into space crap, it's not with a 2ky term plan. > Climate change on the other hand is mainly a short term threat, i.e. if we can deal with it in 500 years Climate change is not something we'll have to deal with 500 years from now, it's something we're already 50 years late on. Space isn't going away, and in dealing with AGW we'll likely have learned a lot about sustainable systems and ecosystems, and have innovated a bunch of useful things for long-term enclosed systems with no backup. > Wow, calm down buddy. Not sure why you're projecting that I'm anything but calm? Does it bother you that not everybody prostrates for the overclass? Does it make you feel uncomfortable to read such thoughts being written? > such vitrolic/hateful language Hahaha yeah right.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Much like throwing away a large legacy codebase and rewriting the product from scratch, it may seem easier to "do it the right way this time", until you start discovering, one by one, all the little corner cases the old codebase solved...
    - masklinn 7y ago
      At least with the legacy v existing codebase you know you've solved the problems once so you can solve them again. That's not the case here, we've never come close to building self-sustaining ecosystems, we're just (ab)using existing ones we're barely starting to understand.