3 ms·
Mostly because it’s not a zero sum game. Yes it’s more achievable to build a pod on the antarctic (we’ve done that) or the ocean floor, but we should also see
by alex_young 6y ago
Mostly because it’s not a zero sum game.
Yes it’s more achievable to build a pod on the antarctic (we’ve done that) or the ocean floor, but we should also see what we can do outside of our bubble.
I personally think Venus cloud stations are a better target, but why not try them all?
We learn great things and enable wonderful tech like the internet and GPS when we do huge projects like this, so why not?
- badrabbit 6y agoWhy not? Because trillions and trillions of dollars. Even $2T is barely enough to feed america for a few months and it is barely afforded. My point also ws that it's not zero-sum. As in, "we" don't need to colonize mars,but I see no problem in doing so as long as it isn't done by sacrificing people's lives on earth.
- wastedhours 6y agoBut there's also a difference between $2T dollars invested over a long time horizon, dripping out of the collective budget of (hopefully) more than one country and spending it in one chunk across the whole of society. Again, a lot of it is forward planning - extra resources, hedging against future threats etc. I'd rather they start active planning in case we have to, rather than waiting until it's almost too late (like we have with some issues on Earth as it stands). Balancing investment at the expense of present day spending is a standard knife-edge for governments around the world. It's a sucky balance to have to strike though.