5 ms·

I think the article points out the main reason. It is more profitable to build Facebook than put a man on mars.

• Irene 7y ago
  Connectivity-driven innovation is cheaper. Science is becoming harder and is getting less bang for its buck. We saw great progress in AI over the past few years but even this has taken far more effort and money than building social networks. Perhaps connectivity-driven innovation could help to speed up applied science innovation if power of the crowd is more efficiently utilized?
  • jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    I don't agree that connectivity and applied science are two separate things. We don't get to netflix without applied sciences: encryption, compression, networking, neural networks. I don't know why the author said that. He has a degree in computer science
• randomsearch 7y ago
  Maybe that’s not true, in the long term? But certainly easier and more profitable in the short.
  • skybrian 7y ago
    I doubt it would be any more profitable in the long run. A Mars colony would have extremely high barriers to trade. It's like a permanent trade embargo. Countries don't do well without trade. An entirely self-sufficient, technically advanced community hasn't been done, even on Earth. Antarctica would be much easier and cheaper in comparison.
    • pfdietz 7y ago
      I don't understand why some people say they want to live on Mars. They'd be confined in small metal boxes, surrounded by things that would kill them in a moment. The cost of everything would be enormous, if it was available at all. If you want that experience, you can get it now on Earth in places we call "prisons".