4 ms·

I don’t get the point 1) we are plain in the middle of a mass extinction event, expected to get much worst in a decade or two. Wouldn’t it be good to solve tha

I don’t get the point 1) we are plain in the middle of a mass extinction event, expected to get much worst in a decade or two. Wouldn’t it be good to solve that first? 2) we need a 4th industrial revolution to survive global warming as a civilization. Wouldn’t be better to fix that first? (No, electric cars won’t suffice) 3) is it really necessary to spoil astronomy/night sky to finance one’s dream? (No, vantablack won’t solve the issue) 4) our technology presently rely on mining 100+ elements. Does anyone here believe one can mine all of those on an a planet that misses an atmosphere? Using Earth ressources for a “colony” seems a dubious idea. 5) has anyone an idea of the CO2 equivalent cost of bringing one person to mars? 6) there is growing evidence that there is life in the Martian underground. Should we take the risk of destroying another biosphere?

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
1) we are plain in the middle of a mass extinction event, expected to get much worst in a decade or two. Wouldn’t it be good to solve that first? I don't see why we can't do both. Maybe if you come up with an actionable plan you can start your own company like Elon and tackle that problem. 2) we need a 4th industrial revolution to survive global warming as a civilization. Wouldn’t be better to fix that first? (No, electric cars won’t suffice) No electric cars won't suffice, but they are a start. As is an increase in nuclear, and renewables in areas it makes sense. Again I don't see how this detracts, especially looking at Elon's other ventures. Maybe you can create a company that tackles the concrete problem, that's a big one. 3) is it really necessary to spoil astronomy/night sky to finance one’s dream? (No, vantablack won’t solve the issue) That's subjective and you don't know if it can be solved or not, seems they are working on it. Why do you think a non-reflective coating won't work? 4) our technology presently rely on mining 100+ elements. Does anyone here believe one can mine all of those on an a planet that misses an atmosphere? Using Earth ressources for a “colony” seems a dubious idea. We don't have to mine all of them at first. Look where we started here on Earth, from scratch. 5) has anyone an idea of the CO2 equivalent cost of bringing one person to mars? I'm sure it's negligible relatively. Was that rhetorical or do you have a number? 6) there is growing evidence that there is life in the Martian underground. Should we take the risk of destroying another biosphere? Are you talking about the ice found? The martian biosphere is already destroyed, terraforming it would bring life to the surface and if there is life it's underground and must be pretty hardy.
- giantrobot 7y ago
  You can't start from "scratch" on Mars with respect to mining or industry. Cavemen wearing mammoth pelts won't work on Mars. In order to simply survive people would need high levels of technology. Even the most basic living on Mars would need steel and glass and equipment to machine both. Making a steel or glass plate requires a lot of industrial capability and a capable supply chain to say nothing of raw materials. Both are cheap on Earth because we've built that infrastructure over the past two hundred years. That infrastructure was relatively easy to construct because the workers could wear overalls and hard hats rather than space suits. Taking a lunch break doesn't mean disrobing and piling into a pressure vessel. Go camping for a weekend in the desert or in the snow sometime. Consider all the crap you need to take with you to not die of exposure or thirst. In those environments where you've got air for free and usually water if you know where to look, you've still got a fair bit of equipment. If you forget anything or lose it you could end up seriously injured or even dead. That's somewhere that's lousy with breathable atmosphere, protection from most ionizing solar radiation, and an average temperature high enough your lungs won't freeze. Surviving inhospitable environments on Earth requires effort and technology. Surviving outside of Earth is several orders of magnitude more difficult. Thriving outside of Earth is more orders of magnitude beyond mere survival.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    You're taking it too literally. No one is suggesting we wear mammoth pelts, only that our efforts will have to be gradual. If we want to survive as a race in the long long term, we have to start colonizing at some point. I just don't see why you're so pessimistic. Let these people go after their dream.
    - immmmmm 7y ago
      I am not pessimistic, I am a scientist that just read the literature. We have now extinction levels 1000-10000 higher than background, this more than previous mass extinctions and expected to go 10 fold worst in the next decades. Moreover we are just a few years to enter a truly non linear regime in the Earth climate dynamics. These are our life support systems on earth and they are about to fall. Swift global action on these points is therefore required for our short term survival. These people propose solutions for the wealthy. They are BTW ruining my dream of seeing more stars than satellites in the sky. (I’m a material scientist, coatings won’t work) Therefore I heavily disagree with you: short term survival requires protecting our life support systems here on earth, namely climate and biodiversity (the Earth-System). I am also very disappointed that people use the word “colonisation” so often, a brief look at history support my doubts. I don’t mind exploring the solar system when the above issues are fixed, but this has to be done in a scientific way, I.e. exploration, not for a blind colonialist purpose.
UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Re your 4th point, this is exactly why you want a working space presence -- if you move all your mining off the planet you just remove one future failure point. Also, there are lots of people, humanity can walk and chew gum at the same time. On best of the days anyway.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

1) we are plain in the middle of a mass extinction event, expected to get much worst in a decade or two. Wouldn’t it be good to solve that first? I don't see why we can't do both. Maybe if you come up with an actionable plan you can start your own company like Elon and tackle that problem. 2) we need a 4th industrial revolution to survive global warming as a civilization. Wouldn’t be better to fix that first? (No, electric cars won’t suffice) No electric cars won't suffice, but they are a start. As is an increase in nuclear, and renewables in areas it makes sense. Again I don't see how this detracts, especially looking at Elon's other ventures. Maybe you can create a company that tackles the concrete problem, that's a big one. 3) is it really necessary to spoil astronomy/night sky to finance one’s dream? (No, vantablack won’t solve the issue) That's subjective and you don't know if it can be solved or not, seems they are working on it. Why do you think a non-reflective coating won't work? 4) our technology presently rely on mining 100+ elements. Does anyone here believe one can mine all of those on an a planet that misses an atmosphere? Using Earth ressources for a “colony” seems a dubious idea. We don't have to mine all of them at first. Look where we started here on Earth, from scratch. 5) has anyone an idea of the CO2 equivalent cost of bringing one person to mars? I'm sure it's negligible relatively. Was that rhetorical or do you have a number? 6) there is growing evidence that there is life in the Martian underground. Should we take the risk of destroying another biosphere? Are you talking about the ice found? The martian biosphere is already destroyed, terraforming it would bring life to the surface and if there is life it's underground and must be pretty hardy.

giantrobot 7y ago
You can't start from "scratch" on Mars with respect to mining or industry. Cavemen wearing mammoth pelts won't work on Mars. In order to simply survive people would need high levels of technology. Even the most basic living on Mars would need steel and glass and equipment to machine both. Making a steel or glass plate requires a lot of industrial capability and a capable supply chain to say nothing of raw materials. Both are cheap on Earth because we've built that infrastructure over the past two hundred years. That infrastructure was relatively easy to construct because the workers could wear overalls and hard hats rather than space suits. Taking a lunch break doesn't mean disrobing and piling into a pressure vessel. Go camping for a weekend in the desert or in the snow sometime. Consider all the crap you need to take with you to not die of exposure or thirst. In those environments where you've got air for free and usually water if you know where to look, you've still got a fair bit of equipment. If you forget anything or lose it you could end up seriously injured or even dead. That's somewhere that's lousy with breathable atmosphere, protection from most ionizing solar radiation, and an average temperature high enough your lungs won't freeze. Surviving inhospitable environments on Earth requires effort and technology. Surviving outside of Earth is several orders of magnitude more difficult. Thriving outside of Earth is more orders of magnitude beyond mere survival.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  You're taking it too literally. No one is suggesting we wear mammoth pelts, only that our efforts will have to be gradual. If we want to survive as a race in the long long term, we have to start colonizing at some point. I just don't see why you're so pessimistic. Let these people go after their dream.
  - immmmmm 7y ago
    I am not pessimistic, I am a scientist that just read the literature. We have now extinction levels 1000-10000 higher than background, this more than previous mass extinctions and expected to go 10 fold worst in the next decades. Moreover we are just a few years to enter a truly non linear regime in the Earth climate dynamics. These are our life support systems on earth and they are about to fall. Swift global action on these points is therefore required for our short term survival. These people propose solutions for the wealthy. They are BTW ruining my dream of seeing more stars than satellites in the sky. (I’m a material scientist, coatings won’t work) Therefore I heavily disagree with you: short term survival requires protecting our life support systems here on earth, namely climate and biodiversity (the Earth-System). I am also very disappointed that people use the word “colonisation” so often, a brief look at history support my doubts. I don’t mind exploring the solar system when the above issues are fixed, but this has to be done in a scientific way, I.e. exploration, not for a blind colonialist purpose.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago

Re your 4th point, this is exactly why you want a working space presence -- if you move all your mining off the planet you just remove one future failure point. Also, there are lots of people, humanity can walk and chew gum at the same time. On best of the days anyway.