4 ms·

Stop Building a Spaceship to Mars and Just Plant Some Damn Trees

24 points by smacktoward 7y ago

tluyben2 7y ago
Let’s do both.
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  I agree with the sentiment. It's worth pointing out that the articles title is highly click-baity as the actual article does not mention Mars, Elon Musk, or any investments in getting to Mars. The only mention of the word space is in the context of space for canopy. What I find interesting about the goal to get towards Mars is that it includes all sorts of plans for terra forming mars as we might find our selves having to terra form earth back to it's former glory. In order to do that, we could do worse than letting loose creative geniuses on all sorts of wacky ideas like getting to Mars, electrifying our vehicles, storing lots of energy, and mass deploying solar energy. At least a few of those things might help us reduce our carbon footprint. I'm all for plans that involve restoring ecosystems. Planting trees is sort of the simplistic version of that. It's a start; it won't be enough by itself. I'm afraid that in the minds of simpler people this turns into a "I can have my cake and eat it" kind of thing where planting trees means a free pass for burning gas, coal and oil. We need to stop doing that ASAP and we need technology to allow us to do that without reverting back to our per-industrial era selves. Courtesy of Elon Musk (and many others), that seems a lot more profitable and doable than it used to.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    Yeah, I think the tangential successes is what many people miss about technology. Computers are by far the best example of this. At one time they would have undoubtedly been seen by many, perhaps even the majority, as a waste. Governments were spending many millions of dollars (when that was a lot of money...) developing building-size machines that needed large teams of professionals to maintain and operate. Yet they were little more than glorified calculators. For instance the first general purpose 'super computer' was the ENIAC [1]. It was capable of a blistering 40 divisions per second! And it's literally impossible to even imagine all of the ramifications of creating a sustainable civilization on Mars. Being able to manage, and ideally control, atmospheric conditions is just scratching the surface. For instance it would signal the beginning of the end of scarcity since suddenly we now have effectively infinite land open up to colonization (as success on Mars would not be the end of planetary colonization efforts, but the beginning), infinite resources, and so much more. Again I think trying to imagine the implications of this is akin to trying to imagine the implications of computers - it's simply not possible in any meaningful way. But the great thing is that we live in a free society. So everybody is free to pursue their own vision. Plant a tree, build a spaceship, work on carbon scrubbing, or whatever else you personally think is a good idea. This is perhaps the one very good thing about the rise of mega-wealth. At one time you'd need governments to build and develop spaceships - governments whose ideology, views, and values tend to take a 180 every decade, if not less. For instance Nixon killed the space program in no small part because of a personal animosity he had with JFK, one that his death apparently did little to sate. And in modern times government space ships like the SLS are 90% pork barrel and 10% real. Yet now in an era where many private companies revenues exceeds the GDP of small nations (and accords corresponding private wealth), space is just becoming another industry. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    The tree planting idea could use more money from somewhere, I mean; if only a few well-off people (like I'm trying to create a dark, wet little forest (I use trees and plants that use very little water; I already have spots that have climbing plants over trees which are much cooler in the hot summers + hold dampness after watering much much longer than the rest) in a very arid part of Spain on my own dime, but I have the land and money to do that) do it, it won't help at all (besides other people thinking; crazy foreigners planting useless aka fruitless trees!). For most people it's simplistic but not feasible; however, if you would state sponsor the farmers here to plant trees between their fruit trees, it would fill entire south of Spain in no-time as fruit simply does not make that much and it doesn't make for 'forest' material, but they plant nothing else than the basic necessary trees to get fruit (and cut + replant years later if another fruit makes more money, which is really horrible to see, especially with older olive trees), which simply is not enough. The entire coast here would be forest, now only a sliver is left; everything was cut and used to fuel steam boats. But we know it's possible, just no-one wants to invest in it. I guess that's the case in many parts of the world. I think both ideas are kind of 'simplistic' in a way; the one because theoretically anyone can plant trees and so people think ; 'that's a solution! let the state/others do it!'. Which makes sense; that's what taxes could be used for and billionaires can sink their philanthropy money into. And the other is 'let's just bugger off this planet before it dies and reboot on Mars! Let the state/others do it!'. And both will give way to what you say; planting trees or going to Mars probably will give people the idea that now it's solved so we can just do whatever. I mean; I hear it from people with gas(well, Diesel)-guzzlers already; a lot of energy is from renewables and many cars don't polite as much / are electric, so 'my car is fine, the rest is compensating for it'. We need people tinkering with several things; actually with some different perspectives; a) making renewables even more effective b) getting us off the surface of the planet if/when we need to (Mars, computer brain upload, brains in vats, whatever) c) try to cure the earth and it's atmosphere. We need smart people and a lot of money to do these things, as none of them will 'just' work or be enough to fix everything fast enough. Problem is, we are, as humanity, not nearly focused enough of any of them. In movies (funnily enough, usually in heavily Chinese invested Hollywood movies) you always see that we need a common enemy bent on our destruction to unite humanity. We have one, but the uniting isn't happening; I guess it's not in-your-face enough yet.
atoav 7y ago
Know what? Let’s cut CEO bonuses and salaries back to the level they had in the 50s and use that money to do both.
- solveit 7y ago
  How?
  - atoav 7y ago
    Limit it by law to a multiple of the lowest wage any worker or subcontractor earns.
aaron695 7y ago
> Stop Building a Spaceship to Mars and Just Plant Some Damn Trees (motherjones.com) Or you could just get off your lazy ass and planet trees? Anyone can do it today, with minimal money. Or a really crazy suggestion, since you're too lazy, don't attack the people actually doing things in the world moving it forward and nicely ask for their help.
deogeo 7y ago
Why is it only space exploration that is targeted this way? The entertainment industry has $97 billion/year revenue, despite the existence of more movies/games than one could watch/play in a lifetime. Meanwhile, SpaceX had a $1 billion budget for all of 2002-2012, and NASA's entire yearly budget is $21.5 billion - just 0.49% of US government spending. So lets "Stop Making New Movies and Just Plant Some Damn Trees"
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dasKrokodil 7y ago
  Very true, and let's not even get started about the defense industry...
  - deogeo 7y ago
    I think redirecting the defense industry to make space rockets instead of death rockets is one of the more feasible ways to improve the world. Because reducing their budget is politically challenging, to say the least - they are exceedingly good lobbyists.
    - dasKrokodil 7y ago
      I like that. Sort of like swords to plowshares.
scarejunba 7y ago
Article has very little to do with title. The title is clearly intended to be clickbait.

24 points by smacktoward 7y ago

tluyben2 7y ago

Let’s do both.

jillesvangurp 7y ago
I agree with the sentiment. It's worth pointing out that the articles title is highly click-baity as the actual article does not mention Mars, Elon Musk, or any investments in getting to Mars. The only mention of the word space is in the context of space for canopy. What I find interesting about the goal to get towards Mars is that it includes all sorts of plans for terra forming mars as we might find our selves having to terra form earth back to it's former glory. In order to do that, we could do worse than letting loose creative geniuses on all sorts of wacky ideas like getting to Mars, electrifying our vehicles, storing lots of energy, and mass deploying solar energy. At least a few of those things might help us reduce our carbon footprint. I'm all for plans that involve restoring ecosystems. Planting trees is sort of the simplistic version of that. It's a start; it won't be enough by itself. I'm afraid that in the minds of simpler people this turns into a "I can have my cake and eat it" kind of thing where planting trees means a free pass for burning gas, coal and oil. We need to stop doing that ASAP and we need technology to allow us to do that without reverting back to our per-industrial era selves. Courtesy of Elon Musk (and many others), that seems a lot more profitable and doable than it used to.
- rjf72 7y ago
  Yeah, I think the tangential successes is what many people miss about technology. Computers are by far the best example of this. At one time they would have undoubtedly been seen by many, perhaps even the majority, as a waste. Governments were spending many millions of dollars (when that was a lot of money...) developing building-size machines that needed large teams of professionals to maintain and operate. Yet they were little more than glorified calculators. For instance the first general purpose 'super computer' was the ENIAC [1]. It was capable of a blistering 40 divisions per second! And it's literally impossible to even imagine all of the ramifications of creating a sustainable civilization on Mars. Being able to manage, and ideally control, atmospheric conditions is just scratching the surface. For instance it would signal the beginning of the end of scarcity since suddenly we now have effectively infinite land open up to colonization (as success on Mars would not be the end of planetary colonization efforts, but the beginning), infinite resources, and so much more. Again I think trying to imagine the implications of this is akin to trying to imagine the implications of computers - it's simply not possible in any meaningful way. But the great thing is that we live in a free society. So everybody is free to pursue their own vision. Plant a tree, build a spaceship, work on carbon scrubbing, or whatever else you personally think is a good idea. This is perhaps the one very good thing about the rise of mega-wealth. At one time you'd need governments to build and develop spaceships - governments whose ideology, views, and values tend to take a 180 every decade, if not less. For instance Nixon killed the space program in no small part because of a personal animosity he had with JFK, one that his death apparently did little to sate. And in modern times government space ships like the SLS are 90% pork barrel and 10% real. Yet now in an era where many private companies revenues exceeds the GDP of small nations (and accords corresponding private wealth), space is just becoming another industry. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
- tluyben2 7y ago
  The tree planting idea could use more money from somewhere, I mean; if only a few well-off people (like I'm trying to create a dark, wet little forest (I use trees and plants that use very little water; I already have spots that have climbing plants over trees which are much cooler in the hot summers + hold dampness after watering much much longer than the rest) in a very arid part of Spain on my own dime, but I have the land and money to do that) do it, it won't help at all (besides other people thinking; crazy foreigners planting useless aka fruitless trees!). For most people it's simplistic but not feasible; however, if you would state sponsor the farmers here to plant trees between their fruit trees, it would fill entire south of Spain in no-time as fruit simply does not make that much and it doesn't make for 'forest' material, but they plant nothing else than the basic necessary trees to get fruit (and cut + replant years later if another fruit makes more money, which is really horrible to see, especially with older olive trees), which simply is not enough. The entire coast here would be forest, now only a sliver is left; everything was cut and used to fuel steam boats. But we know it's possible, just no-one wants to invest in it. I guess that's the case in many parts of the world. I think both ideas are kind of 'simplistic' in a way; the one because theoretically anyone can plant trees and so people think ; 'that's a solution! let the state/others do it!'. Which makes sense; that's what taxes could be used for and billionaires can sink their philanthropy money into. And the other is 'let's just bugger off this planet before it dies and reboot on Mars! Let the state/others do it!'. And both will give way to what you say; planting trees or going to Mars probably will give people the idea that now it's solved so we can just do whatever. I mean; I hear it from people with gas(well, Diesel)-guzzlers already; a lot of energy is from renewables and many cars don't polite as much / are electric, so 'my car is fine, the rest is compensating for it'. We need people tinkering with several things; actually with some different perspectives; a) making renewables even more effective b) getting us off the surface of the planet if/when we need to (Mars, computer brain upload, brains in vats, whatever) c) try to cure the earth and it's atmosphere. We need smart people and a lot of money to do these things, as none of them will 'just' work or be enough to fix everything fast enough. Problem is, we are, as humanity, not nearly focused enough of any of them. In movies (funnily enough, usually in heavily Chinese invested Hollywood movies) you always see that we need a common enemy bent on our destruction to unite humanity. We have one, but the uniting isn't happening; I guess it's not in-your-face enough yet.

atoav 7y ago

Know what? Let’s cut CEO bonuses and salaries back to the level they had in the 50s and use that money to do both.

solveit 7y ago
How?
- atoav 7y ago
  Limit it by law to a multiple of the lowest wage any worker or subcontractor earns.

aaron695 7y ago

> Stop Building a Spaceship to Mars and Just Plant Some Damn Trees (motherjones.com) Or you could just get off your lazy ass and planet trees? Anyone can do it today, with minimal money. Or a really crazy suggestion, since you're too lazy, don't attack the people actually doing things in the world moving it forward and nicely ask for their help.

deogeo 7y ago

Why is it only space exploration that is targeted this way? The entertainment industry has $97 billion/year revenue, despite the existence of more movies/games than one could watch/play in a lifetime. Meanwhile, SpaceX had a $1 billion budget for all of 2002-2012, and NASA's entire yearly budget is $21.5 billion - just 0.49% of US government spending. So lets "Stop Making New Movies and Just Plant Some Damn Trees"

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dasKrokodil 7y ago
Very true, and let's not even get started about the defense industry...
- deogeo 7y ago
  I think redirecting the defense industry to make space rockets instead of death rockets is one of the more feasible ways to improve the world. Because reducing their budget is politically challenging, to say the least - they are exceedingly good lobbyists.
  - dasKrokodil 7y ago
    I like that. Sort of like swords to plowshares.

scarejunba 7y ago

Article has very little to do with title. The title is clearly intended to be clickbait.