4 ms·

> there is no future event that would make earth as uninhabitable as Mars is today. Wouldn't that imply if we can make Mars habitable, then we'll be capable of

• AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  The costs involved in turning Mars into an experimental environment, call it a "twin", would likely eclipse the sum total of human activity to date (300k years worth) by several orders of magnitude.
  • 34679 7y ago
    That's fine, unless we have something better to do. If it takes 10,000 years or 100,000 years, it doesn't matter, unless the work being done is detracting from more important work. Many people, myself included, would struggle to think of more impactful goals for humanity to accomplish. Feeding, clothing, and housing everyone would be nice, but those things are still far more personal than any project that aims to prolong our very existence as a species.
    • AndrewKemendo 7y ago
      I argue we should be building a more capable and survivable successor to biological intelligence that can survive beyond traditional biological extinction periods (M of years).
      • cgriswald 7y ago
        It's a bit of a false dichotomy to suggest we have to choose between the two, but... If we must choose, we should choose to colonize Mars. Statistically speaking, an asteroid impact is inevitable. Time is the relevant variable. The sooner humanity can be a multi-world species, the sooner we are more robust against that threat. The same will be true of our successors who will necessarily have less time than we to spread from Earth. If we manage to spread to other worlds and Earth is destroyed, we will still be around to develop our successors (and will also have a leg up on spreading to ever more worlds). If we manage to create our successors and the Earth is destroyed before we get to other worlds, it's game over.
        • AndrewKemendo 7y ago
          You're just re-stating the original argument for colinization (an asteroid/event would make the earth less inhabitable than mars is currently) that I disagree with and originally addressed.
          • cgriswald 7y ago
            I don't think so. For most asteroid impacts, we wouldn't even need to build subterranean shelters for the species to survive. It isn't enough for the species to survive. Our civilization, particularly our very technological civilization, must survive as well. Without such a civilization, we'll be trapped here until the Earth itself dies. Our long term survival depends on the short term survival of our civilization. The relative habitability of Earth and Mars may actually have a converse effect on the survival of a technological civilization. On Mars, such a civilization would be necessary for continued individual survival for what may be geological time scales. On a recovering Earth, humans may salvage civilization, devolve into a new and indefinite dark ages, or give up on civilization entirely and the species will still go on.
    • cgriswald 7y ago
      It's nearly impossible to define 'something better to do.' Solutions to Martian needs could have applicability to problems here on Earth. Feeding, clothing, and housing are definitely problems Martians would have. What lessons might be learned in their relatively small, closed ecosystem that we're completely blind to here with Earth's abundance? In my personal opinion, if humanity has any purpose or meaning at all, it's to spread Earth life. For all the faux human exceptionalism people like to extol, the one thing we can do that no other life form can do at any scale, is spread Earth life. (Panspermia seems incredibly unlikely to me and probably requires a near-perfect match between initial conditions on the planet and the organism(s) that happen to find themselves there.)
    • leetcrew 7y ago
      why care about the long-term existence of our species? certainly we should strive to leave a better world for our children, their children, and their children's children, but past a certain point it seems very abstract to me. even 10,000 years is about three times as long as the totality of recorded history. in 100,000 years, our genome may have diverged enough that whatever humans live at that point in the future wouldn't be the same species anyway. why should I, a sentient sack of meat living in the year 2020 care about these things? more to the point: why should I sacrifice improving the lives of any currently living beings for the sake of ones that may live in future millennia?
      • UnFleshedOne 7y ago
        You can tell that to the Biomaterial Processing Courts when they queue you up for utilization for the betterment of humanity. But for now I don't think anybody asks you to personally care about anything, much less do anything. Or would you like to ask somebody else to work on things you do care about?
  • keanzu 7y ago
    The sum total of human activity in the last 100 years also eclipses the sum total of all human activity prior (300k years worth). Humanity didn't do a lot for a long time. But yes, Mars would be a mega project. Isaac Arthur does great stuff on Youtube which gives an idea of the magnitude of the works necessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFOBoy2MZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFOBoy2MZ8
  • hfourm 7y ago
    I guess that makes sense, and by most measures makes it seem "impossible". But the flip side is, why not? What else do we have to do...
  • dwild 7y ago
    > The costs involved in turning Mars into an experimental environment I think it would be more realistic to say, if we are able to live on Mars instead of making Mars livable. Being able to live on Mars won't require "the sum total of human activity to date (300k years worth)"
• gbrown 7y ago
  > Wouldn't that imply if we can make Mars habitable We can't (excluding domes etc.). We won't be able to unless we acquire such powerful planetary engineering technology that we could much more easily build enormous orbital cities complete with functioning biospheres. It may work to live in enclosed environments on Mars, but the scale of actually terraforming it puts it in the realm of fantasy.