3 ms·

> Seems like the best risk mitigation strategy is to become multi-planetary. No, scifi fanboi. That doesn't follow at all.

perl4ever 6y ago
Since I agree, but you didn't bother to give a counter argument... Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today, I think it's entirely possible to establish colonies on other planets, that are maintained indefinitely, as long as the will to do it exists. However, I don't think in the foreseeable future, that these colonies could make an iota of difference to the probability of the human species surviving, until they can incorporate a completely independent supply chain of everything needed for human existence, and some kind of adequate ecosystem as well. Where do you get the nuts and bolts, the potting soil, the hypodermic needles, the aluminum and steel, the fertilizer...? Shipping everything from earth means you're no different from an Antarctic research station. I don't think people who believe in near term colonization of space have grappled with the necessity of earth and its billions of inhabitants to support the lifestyle of the most well off. Anything, again, in the foreseeable future is going to be like a bigger, better ISS. My guess is building up a sustainable colony from the ground up has to start with biotech and/or nanotech way beyond anything we have now. To live elsewhere, we'll have to become the indigenous aliens that don't already exist there. You have to have the ability to fall back to stone age tech, before your high tech is firmly rooted.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today With a limitless budget, you could send dozens of people to live on Mars. But they would likely die from a thousand little cuts (rocket failures, vitamin deficiencies, air leaks, primitive medical help, it's endless) since you're basically duplicating an earth environment. Or they could just sit around waiting for the next supply ship. We like to think that people are hardy pioneers, but most Americans stopped being tough farmers after WW2. (The press interviews with the Mars volunteers showed they were maladjusted on earth, and probably mentally ill.) I personally don't care if astronauts die on missions, because that's the risk they signed up for, but apparently other people do. And sending people on what is likely a one-way trip is something to be discussed beforehand. As an example, Shuttle engineers estimated the loss likelihood at 1/100 per mission, but managers 1/10,000 and couldn't justify manned flights with the engineers' estimate. The actual number was 1.6/100. The Biosphere project, the Space Shuttle, our lack of oceanic exploration all don't bode well for our readiness to colonize another planet. Reading scifi about going to Mars isn't the same as reality.

perl4ever 6y ago

Since I agree, but you didn't bother to give a counter argument... Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today, I think it's entirely possible to establish colonies on other planets, that are maintained indefinitely, as long as the will to do it exists. However, I don't think in the foreseeable future, that these colonies could make an iota of difference to the probability of the human species surviving, until they can incorporate a completely independent supply chain of everything needed for human existence, and some kind of adequate ecosystem as well. Where do you get the nuts and bolts, the potting soil, the hypodermic needles, the aluminum and steel, the fertilizer...? Shipping everything from earth means you're no different from an Antarctic research station. I don't think people who believe in near term colonization of space have grappled with the necessity of earth and its billions of inhabitants to support the lifestyle of the most well off. Anything, again, in the foreseeable future is going to be like a bigger, better ISS. My guess is building up a sustainable colony from the ground up has to start with biotech and/or nanotech way beyond anything we have now. To live elsewhere, we'll have to become the indigenous aliens that don't already exist there. You have to have the ability to fall back to stone age tech, before your high tech is firmly rooted.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> Given the wealth and power of the richest nations on earth today With a limitless budget, you could send dozens of people to live on Mars. But they would likely die from a thousand little cuts (rocket failures, vitamin deficiencies, air leaks, primitive medical help, it's endless) since you're basically duplicating an earth environment. Or they could just sit around waiting for the next supply ship. We like to think that people are hardy pioneers, but most Americans stopped being tough farmers after WW2. (The press interviews with the Mars volunteers showed they were maladjusted on earth, and probably mentally ill.) I personally don't care if astronauts die on missions, because that's the risk they signed up for, but apparently other people do. And sending people on what is likely a one-way trip is something to be discussed beforehand. As an example, Shuttle engineers estimated the loss likelihood at 1/100 per mission, but managers 1/10,000 and couldn't justify manned flights with the engineers' estimate. The actual number was 1.6/100. The Biosphere project, the Space Shuttle, our lack of oceanic exploration all don't bode well for our readiness to colonize another planet. Reading scifi about going to Mars isn't the same as reality.