2 ms·
It's also worth mentioning that coming back isn't necessarily a fixed requirement. I would happily live a shorter live on Mars - with the risk overhead of being
by helldritch 6y ago
It's also worth mentioning that coming back isn't necessarily a fixed requirement. I would happily live a shorter live on Mars - with the risk overhead of being stranded in the event of a catastrophic failure - for the chance to be one of the first Martian settlers.
Foreign colonists in the Americas (ignoring any political aspect of this) faced disease, starvation and attacks from natives but still colonised America because of a dream they had.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoWasn't it more that trying things in [the continent of] America seemed more likely to yield success than staying with what they had where failure was relatively certain. Like religious persecution at home was certain for the Pilgrim Fathers, but in all likelihood they could form colonies where they could freely practice their religion by risking it in North America. For others it was abject poverty at home, or try carving out a piece of frontier. Seems like colonising Mars is the other way around, we stand more chance of fulfilment on Earth and failure going to Mars? Some of us have an explorational spirit, a desire to be pioneers at all costs - isn't that why we want to go? Maybe it's toxoplasmosis.
- gfodor 6y agoNot how things are going. Being able to eject oneself from the political and cultural norms of Earth is becoming more and more attractive concept. All of the technology and knowledge, but, potentially, with none of the baggage. One critical junction will be how much the Mars colony can avoid the smuggling in of bad ideas and ideologies. If done well, this could result in a radical divergence between the cultures, and wealth, of the two planets.