17 ms·

It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

• ekianjo 6y ago
  > Heidegger pointed out that the Nazis specifically invested in technology and sought to destroy intellectualism, books, and texts. Which is a ridiculous argument because it says a lot more about the cultural background of certain parts of Europe at a certain time than the relationship between technology and fascism. It's not like we have had technology for 3 million years to make a good correlation to begin with.
• GenerocUsername 6y ago
  I've seen more anti-space rhetoric in the last few weeks than ever before in my life. What gives? Great advancements have cost. That doesn't make them not worth doing
  • save_ferris 6y ago
    It's not that great advancements have cost. The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. If people start to think that space exploration could yield a solution to an increasingly uninhabitable climate on Earth, it could create a scenario where we spend even more on space exploration and less on addressing Earth's climate.
    • arcticbull 6y ago
      IMO there's 8 billion of us, we can do both.
      • samvher 6y ago
        Then let's do both, and not just space exploration.
        • dantheman 6y ago
          Do you honestly think people are focusing more on exploration than other things? We already do both.
          • samvher 6y ago
            Globally, no. In certain spheres (some influential), yes. And while I realize that my comment is (intentionally) pushing it a bit, I do think that when you look at the urgency of space exploration and climate issues that, per unit of urgency, space exploration is getting far more attention than climate issues.
      • bryanlarsen 6y ago
        Not only can we do both, but there is significant overlap. To give two examples among many: SpaceX's next major goal after making Starship capable of flying to Mars is to develop the infrastructure to refuel Starship on Mars. They plan to manufacture their fuel using the Sabatier process, which is also a form of carbon sequestration. Research and development into Martian food production pushes the envelope in many agricultural research areas like vertical farming, high efficiency production with few inputs, et cetera.
    • johnmorrison 6y ago
      If it weren't for what we already spent on space exploration, we wouldn't have nearly as much understanding of climate change, and we wouldn't have the variety of satellites we rely on to address the climate. Both is more than one.
    • MereInterest 6y ago
      I've posted this before, but I see terraforming other planets as a necessary step to learn how to take care of the Earth. Large-scale geoengineering will be necessary sooner or later on Earth. However, it almost certainly has failure modes that we don't know about, and won't know about until we can experiment with it. Testing the effects on Earth, with nearly 8 billion people, is wildly reckless. Testing the effects on Mars or Venus, though costlier to implement, has the advantage of not risking those 8 billion lives.
      • intuitionist 6y ago
        You’ve got it exactly backwards IMO. Terraforming Mars or Venus will take millennia at least, millennia that we don’t currently have the luxury of waiting around for. We need to terraform Earth first — restore some of the damage we’ve done over just the last century or two — before we can think about the much more difficult project of terraforming other planets.
        • peteradio 6y ago
          I understand we are at risk of large populations being displaced. But you seem to be under the impression we are facing a human extinction event, is that something backed up by science?
          • intuitionist 6y ago
            I think that’s a risk on the right tail, although not a very likely one. But even the modal outcomes — 2 or 3 K of warming relative to the preindustrial baseline — will likely kill hundreds of millions of humans and lead to the extinction of countless nonhuman plant and animal species. I’m comfortable saying that we should do whatever possible to mitigate that outcome instead of focusing on creating Martian bunkers for the 1% of the 1%.
            • dane-pgp 6y ago
              > even the modal outcomes ... will likely kill hundreds of millions of humans Once we are dealing with scenarios where hundreds of millions of humans are dying, it becomes harder to rule out the possibility of some desperate political or military leader resorting to using nuclear weapons. From there it is a small step to full nuclear war and the deaths of billions of humans. Perhaps the "optimistic" scenarios are ones in which the hundreds of millions of humans that die are located far away from any nuclear armed countries, or at least those countries aren't destabilised by the economic and migration consequences of those deaths. I can, unfortunately, imagine militaries being routinely used this century for wiping out the remaining civilian populations of failed states.
    • dqpb 6y ago
      The opposite is true. Investing in space exploration improves our ability to face climate change on our planet.
      • save_ferris 6y ago
        I think investing in space exploration improves some people's ability to face climate change on our planet. It's hard to see a scenario where everyone in the world would benefit from it, given the incredible advancement of private space flight. Don't get me wrong, it's amazing what those companies have been able to accomplish. But we can't pretend like the entirety of humanity benefits from it when access to that kind of technology is restricted to those with obscene amounts of wealth.
        • dqpb 6y ago
          You could make that argument about any new technology over the last couple hundred years, and it would prove to be a vacuous argument. A rising tide lifts all boats.
    • peteradio 6y ago
      Perhaps the intense focus is the only thing that drives the price. By focusing instead on a greater ambition you might deprive the "real problem" of the cancerous solutions that the political lime light brings.
    • res0nat0r 6y ago
      If Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk (while Elon isn't posting moronic nonsense on Twitter) would take all the money they've invested in their pet projects trying to colonize Mars and the like and directly invested it in local programs to get some of the worst areas in the USA affected by homelessness fixed, it would likely have a greater impact on more peoples lives than what they're doing now IMO.
      • bryanlarsen 6y ago
        I'd take the other side of that bet if it was possible. Just one of the many things that the money has enabled is 100Mbps internet to the entire globe.
        • dmix 6y ago
          SpaceX can also be highly profitable which generates tons of tax revenue and jobs (which were otherwise going to Russia or simply not launching into space at all due to cost). It also offers cheaper ways for all governments to launch satellites and other research/national defense, freeing up capital for other social things. And as you've mentioned it helps create new technology opportunities which also generate efficiency/value/taxes like space internet and in the longer term mining without destroying our planet. There are plenty of benefits to society. Although there will always be a contingent who thinks everything not an altruistic social giveout = bad use of excess capital.
      • Dig1t 6y ago
        The goal is not to impact the lives of individuals. The goal is to preserve intelligence in the event of a catastrophe. As far as we know, we are the only part of the universe that is capable of consciousness. The argument is that it is worth going to great lengths to insure against species-wide disasters (e.g. runaway global warming, giant meteor, World War 3) Its macro-level thinking versus micro-level.
        • res0nat0r 6y ago
          The earth becoming uninhabitable due to climate change is going to happen way sooner than any pipe dream of folks trying to live on Mars, if they were really concerned about preserving the human species they would be putting billions of dollars into that instead.
    • reader_mode 6y ago
      > it could create a scenario where we spend even more on space exploration and less on addressing Earth's climate And what exactly is "addressing Earth's climate" ? This naive hope that green parties keep pushing "if we cut carbon emissions it's all going to go back to the way it was" ? Carbon levels have already risen and climate change is already happening - nobody can realistically predict the specifics or the time scale. All existing predictions I've seen have been way out of error margins - and stuff like thawing ice and releasing trapped methane etc. can have huge non-linear contributions. Saying that X% cut in emissions is going to reduce temperature increase by Y on Z timescale is just wishful thinking, and we don't even have mechanisms to enforce X% cut across the world. Investing in technology that could help settle Mars is a way to protect from the inescapable negative climate effects we will have to live with, the sooner we start to deal with those the better (eg. start building for hurricanes/floods/large temperature differences, etc.)
    • nobody9999 6y ago
      >The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. Does it? It's not an either/or proposition. Researching and developing technologies to allow humans to live in space in a sustainable way seems like it would almost certainly also create applications of such technology that can benefit us on Earth. Whether that's methods to scrub the atmosphere of a space-based habitat of toxins/pollutants, utilize waste in productive ways and a raft of other stuff would be incredibly useful on Earth. As an aside, I'd point out that even if we start colonizing space habitats, other planets and/or even planets around other stars, there are no technologies available or imagined that could transport colonists from the Earth faster than birth rates would replace them and continue population growth.
      • m4rtink 6y ago
        >As an aside, I'd point out that even if we start colonizing space habitats, other planets and/or even planets around other stars, there are no technologies available or imagined that could transport colonists from the Earth faster than birth rates would replace them and continue population growth. Yeah, you should avoid needing that but it is certainly not impossible given high enough tech level & in-space infrastructure. Launch loops and orbital elevators should have more than enough capacity to enable that. For a science-fiction-backed-by-real-science account of it might go, see this Orions Arm article: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/49b46fd2198ed https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/49b46fd2198ed Much bigger problem actually is where to put those billions once you have to move them in a hurry off a planet.
        • nobody9999 6y ago
          >Yeah, you should avoid needing that but it is certainly not impossible given high enough tech level & in-space infrastructure. Launch loops and orbital elevators should have more than enough capacity to enable that. I think you're underestimating the effort, resources and logistics something like this would require. In 2016, there were ~256 live births per minute[0]. That works out to ~369,000/day. Even multiple space elevators couldn't hope to come anywhere close to that, but perhaps with launch loops as well we might be able to approach that. But even if we could, how much of global production of, well everything, would need to be dedicated to getting even 350,000 people and the stuff they need off the earth every single day? >Much bigger problem actually is where to put those billions once you have to move them in a hurry off a planet. An excellent point. Even if you didn't need to hurry, the resources required just to stage such a migration are staggering and would likely exceed the production capabilities of the planet. But as you point out, we don't really have any place to send all those "colonists" so the point is moot. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate
    • travisoneill1 6y ago
      Addressing global warming is not a cost in the long run, but the opposite. Technology that doesn't consume fossil fuel is inherently superior to what we have now and will generate enormous profits once the engineering is there. Don't believe me? Just look at Tesla's stock price. Furthermore, cheap space travel does solve global warming because it makes the solution of orbital sun blocking feasible, which unlike currently available geoengineering tech, is instantly reversible.
    • pjmorris 6y ago
      Why do you see climate change and space exploration as orthogonal? It would seem to me that moving energy-intensive processes off the planet surface might ease the climate burden. In the early 70's, physicist Gerard K. O'Neil asked the question "Is the surface of a planet really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?" [0] You would seem to answer this question with 'Yes.' Why? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill
    • ogre_codes 6y ago
      > The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. In order to make this argument, you have to first figure out what percentage of NASA's budget is spent on space exploration versus things like GPS systems, weather satellites, climate monitoring, solar monitoring, physics experiments, etc etc, which have direct or indirect benefits to things happening here on earth. NASA's budget for entire actual space exploration would be more-or-less a rounding error on our defense budget which routinely has $5b projects which benefits very few people and arguably makes the quality of life worse on our planet.
      • frank2 6y ago
        Maybe the US should spend less on defense and should refrain from sending humans to Mars.
        • ogre_codes 6y ago
          As far as I'm concerned, this is akin to suggesting you shouldn't back up the data on your computer because it distracts from protecting your working installation. You can do both—invest in a back-up strategy, while investing more money and vigilance in protecting the primary source. Space exploration is more though, because not only is space exploration an investment in a back-up plan, it brings very real benefits home to earth. The whole point of exploration is that you don't know what you are going to find or what the repercussions of what you find will be.
      • Rebelgecko 6y ago
        Not that this negates any of your other points, but GPS comes from the US defense budget, the Space Force is spending a few billion per year on it
    • goatlover 6y ago
      The world and the US are hardly focusing on space travel. It’s a fraction of government budgets and resources. Militaries have a far larger focus, as do various economic activities.
  • lkbm 6y ago
    It's because of the recent RNC tweet[0] with a list of some of Trump's priorities for the next term, and the firs two listed were a permanent presence on the moon and sending a manned mission to Mars. It did not mention the pandemic. Most people who already considered these were a waste of resources probably didn't bother talking about it much. Now they are, because they have a clear rallying point to shout about. I'm very pro-space exploration, and I think highlighting those priorities right now is absurd. Imagine being someone who already thought they were a distraction from more immediate needs seeing this tweet. EDIT: I should clarify, their first reply to that tweet went on to mentioning a vaccine, but most people just saw the first tweet. [0] https://twitter.com/gop/status/1319715289328766980 https://twitter.com/gop/status/1319715289328766980
    • save_ferris 6y ago
      This is the nature of political strategy. The pandemic is a really hard thing for the current administration to spin, so they're probably better off talking about "hopes and dreams" types of things. They're trying as hard as possible to look good right now in order to get reelected.
      • dingaling 6y ago
        Or you could consider that whilst this global pandemic hasn't been particularly lethal or existence-threatening, the next one might be. And having off-site backup for humanity is wise in that context.
        • save_ferris 6y ago
          We as a society can’t even agree to guarantee basic fundamentals needed to live in the US. Flint, MI still has tainted water, millions are unemployed, homelessness is rising and some are starving. We can’t take care of our people on this planet, what makes you think everyone, or even most people, would be the ones chosen to be on the ships headed for a new life? Just look at what billionaires spend on private doomsday shelters, you think they’re willing to accommodate the masses? Migration from Earth under those circumstances would look a whole lot like the Titanic tragedy: life boats for the rich and powerful and certain death for everyone else.
  • viburnum 6y ago
    It absolutely does make them not worth doing.
  • slg 6y ago
    Maybe the last several months of what is going on here on Earth has made people reconsider if the massive investments required for space exploration would be better spent on something else.
    • tingol 6y ago
      Really? The first thought they had was fuck NASA and they completely ignored the trillions being spent on the US military complex?
      • slg 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you are forcing a choice between the two. People can be against spending on both NASA and the military. Also NASA isn't completely separate from the military industrial complex.
      • happytoexplain 6y ago
        This is a false dichotomy.
        • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
          I think he's using the false dichotomy to point out that there's a hell of a lot of other bigger, less popular things than NASA that jump to mind if one's goal is to free up resources for solving more local problems.
        • tingol 6y ago
          I was mocking a false dichotomy... Covid crisis -> we have to cut space funding.
          • slg 6y ago
            I wasn't even presenting a dichotomy let alone a false one. There have been a number of issues that have shown an increased urgency over the last several months, not just COVID. As those other issues become more urgent, space exploration falls further and further down many people's list of priorities for funding.
  • ncal 6y ago
    Agreed. People are having a hard time when orange man does or says something that they actually agree with. They need to find a glass half empty way of looking at it.
    • happytoexplain 6y ago
      You have no way of knowing that a significant portion of people who criticise this priority would not have done so if it came at the same moment but under a different administration. You're assuming so as a form of broad insult against your political enemies.
  • jcrubino 6y ago
    You would think Trump & Company could capitalize on "This Earth First". Technology has a cost in that people expect to be paid for their participation in the sector. Economies built on "defense" have huge technology capital in terms of knowledge and skill workers. This begs existential questions on the goals of productivity shared as nations and humans. Tangentially, if the captains of Space really believed in life on mars or the moon, why aren't terraforming efforts being undertaken as center peices to the master plans to inhabit the moon or mars?
  • grillvogel 6y ago
    the bad orange man said something about wanting to go to space
  • jimbob45 6y ago
    Trump tweeted that he wants to go to space. The anti-Trump crowd is conjuring reasons of why that’s bad now. In reality, NASA’s budget is a rounding error in the context of the US budget - 0.4% of the federal budget. Further, SpaceX presents a realistic path forward to privatizing Mars travel, trivializing the budgetary concerns anyway.
  • gmuslera 6y ago
    Space exploration and research is necessary for our long term survival (1000+ years) as species, provided that us and our civilization survives short term threats like global warming and ecosystems destruction. Space exploration is not a fix for local and urgent problems, nor is a contingency plan. That is an idea that should be eradicated. Something that may blow off, at least partially, this century, can't wait the hundreds to thousands of years for the backup plan that may provide the space exploration. Yes, it is something that we should keep researching. But it won't be a solution for our urgent problems.
    • UnFleshedOne 6y ago
      Exactly, and if we do the research and tech development at a reasonable pace, it might be ready when it _is_ needed for an urgent problem.
  • EasyTiger_ 6y ago
    I agree and it’s starting to feel like there’s an agenda behind it
    • Viliam1234 6y ago
      The agenda is quite simple: the West should give up, and leave space exploration to China. Or maybe it's the aliens who noticed Elon Musk and finally started taking the risk of space colonization by humans seriously.
  • raptor99 6y ago
    It's right there in the 2nd paragraph of the article: "Just three days earlier, the Republican Party announced some of President Donald Trump’s priorities for a potential second term. The first two priorities listed were to “Establish Permanent Manned Presence on The Moon” and to “Send the 1st Manned Mission to Mars,” coming in ahead of “Develop a Vaccine by The End Of 2020” and “Cover All Pre-Existing Conditions” in health care." Orange man like space travel. Orange man bad. So space travel bad.
  • trevyn 6y ago
    >I've seen more anti-space rhetoric in the last few weeks than ever before in my life. What gives? Who would benefit from English-language anti-space rhetoric?
• wait_a_minute 6y ago
  The investments we make into space exploration technology improve technology we use on earth too. It also employs a lot of people in good-paying jobs with benefits. And there is no version of a post-capitalist future that does not involve space travel - we will need more resources and more space as the species grows. It's also a fraction of a percentage of total spending to invest into space. Even if it was 1% of our total spending, it wouldn't meaningfully move the needle on improving and protecting Earth. Earth will always need to be our home base, but there are virtually no negatives to moving onto the moon and then to Mars and beyond.
• TaupeRanger 6y ago
  It's more dangerous to think we don't.
• andymoe 6y ago
  The problem with this line of thinking (besides it being an obvious tactic of rehashing without rigor a well trod argument to boost your views on substack... I wish you luck!) is it’s wrong. Governments and populations can and should walk and chew gum at the same time. Trump appointing a competent NASA administrator who just put a competent woman in charge of crewed space flight and who is also deftly bringing on international partners and trying to show progress with the Artemis program so the next administration does not change course and waste resources does not mean we can’t and shouldn’t address climate change or any other problems on earth. Hell the tech we put up in space is critical to the science of climate change. In any case the ship is going with or without the US government given the resources being poured into commercial space flight and the progress made the last ten years.
• brundolf 6y ago
  "He’d captured strange and distant worlds in greater detail than ever before. They were beautiful, magnificent, full of awe and wonder. But beneath their sublime surfaces, there was nothing. No love or hate. No light or dark. He could only see what was not there, and miss what was right in front of him."
  • m4rtink 6y ago
    Nothing busy settlers with space habitats can't fix. Wait a few hundred years and you might get a place even more vile than Tatooine! ;-)
• wrkronmiller 6y ago
  > The problem with this line of thinking — and the Trump administration’s ideological and monetary support for NASA exploring the solar system — is that it perpetuates the myth that, through technological developments, humans are destined to leave Earth and find a utopia elsewhere. I haven't heard anyone make this argument in earnest. What I have heard are arguments to the effect that we _must_ expand past the Earth because it will inevitably become uninhabitable, probably due to human intervention. Even if we reversed climate change, that still would leave: bio/nuclear terrorism, rogue states, threats from asteroids (let's not forget the Dinosaurs), etc... Most species on this planet last only a geological blink-of-an-eye before something wipes them out. Why should we think we are so special in that regard? Space exploration is about survival and advancement, not utopia.
  • bryanlarsen 6y ago
    > I haven't heard anyone make this argument in earnest. What I have heard are arguments to the effect that we _must_ expand past the Earth because it will inevitably become uninhabitable, probably due to human intervention. The counter-argument is that even after a nuclear Armageddon or the zombie apocalypse, Earth will still be more habitable than Mars for humans. Also, Mars will be much more susceptible to events like war or asteroids than Earth is. Musk's point is that even if losing all humans (or just civilization) on Earth is much less likely than losing all humans on Mars, losing humans from both is still less likely.
    • wrkronmiller 6y ago
      > even after a nuclear Armageddon or the zombie apocalypse, Earth will still be more habitable than Mars for humans Yes, but we don't live in radiation-hardened bunkers on Earth. The effect of a Martian environment on Earth would be billions of deaths and the total collapse of society. The effect of the Martian environment on Mars is...people have to wear space suits. One is a normal state of affairs, and the other is a cataclysmic event that society is not prepared to survive.
  • johnmorrison 6y ago
    Completely agree. The only people I've ever heard mention the space utopia argument are people who are pushing anti-space ideology.
• MattGaiser 6y ago
  >He believed that humans and technology had a fascist relationship, tracing a particular wave of destruction to the Nazis. Heidegger pointed out that the Nazis specifically invested in technology and sought to destroy intellectualism, books, and texts. It is rare that Godwin's Law proves true right from the start.
  • tdsamardzhiev 6y ago
    Saw the subtitle starts with "The President", searched for "nazi", and surely enough, there it was. I think writing politically-charged articles should be the next challenge for AlphaZero.
• kstenerud 6y ago
  > Indeed, the idea that technological developments will solve all of our problems —eventually allowing us to leave Earth — is instrumental to political mobilization on behalf of the powers that be. It helps to perpetuate the current socio-economic system that is designed for the one percent to stay in power and the working class to stay working. Sorry to say, but almost EVERYTHING big that happens on this planet helps to perpetuate the current socio-economic system that is designed for the one percent to stay in power and the working class to stay working. > After all, it’s easier to sell American citizens on space exploration — and the $22.6 billion dollar budget afforded to NASA in 2020 alone — when there is a promise of a future utopia. What future utopia? They're selling Americans on future American prestige in the world, during an election cycle. You're reading far too much into this. > American citizens need to decide what they prioritize. Is it space exploration or is it a decent standard of living at home? Is it the moon, Mars, or Earth? All three. They have the capability, just not the equality.
  • brundolf 6y ago
    I agree that they made some big leaps when turning this into a narrative, but I think there's truth to the basic premise that focusing too much on a hypothetical future amongst the stars - which at best would be harsh, difficult, and miserable - serves as a distraction against the very real and very urgent and very solvable problems facing our species and habitat as it exists right now. Even if we managed interstellar travel (and that's a big if), it's highly unlikely we would ever find anything remotely as good as Earth, when it comes to being tuned precisely for our human needs. Evolution has geared us for this world. We might be able to cobble together a survival elsewhere, but I doubt we could ever thrive. Beyond that: space exploration and research obviously still has value. It's just that it's a very long-term and theoretical value, and at this particular moment in history there are much more pressing concerns.
    • laverya 6y ago
      > Evolution has geared us for this world. We might be able to cobble together a survival elsewhere, but I doubt we could ever thrive. People on Earth thrived in the Arctic, which is incredibly far from the savannas of Africa, and did this with the technology of 10,000 years ago. Saying that people with the technology of 1000 years from now can't possibly thrive on an airless rock is a little pessimistic to me. And that's ignoring space habitats, which would plausibly be better tuned to our human needs than Earth is.
• ENOTTY 6y ago
  This reminds me of the debates in the Three Body Problem series (fictional) around 'Escapism'
  • bj0 6y ago
    It reminds me of the attitude of the totalitarian party in charge of the US in Larry Niven's Fallen Angels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Angels_(Niven,_Pournelle,_and_Flynn_novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Angels_(Niven,_Pournell...
• johnmorrison 6y ago
  This is frankly a blatantly wrong and quite foolish argument. Space exploration has already created many significant benefits for humanity on Earth, by advancing hundreds of new technologies with terrestrial applications and launching satellite networks that support a safer, more peaceful world for humans, with improved agricultural efficiencies as well as advanced warning and a better understanding of extreme weather events and climate trends. Also, spending on space continues to be and has been a very small expense, not only smaller than cosmetics, but entirely dwarfed by military spending and welfare, both of which are highly contested as to whether they provide net benefit at all to the people of Earth. You'd have to be ideologically possessed or completely ignorant of reality to believe this anti-space bs. > American citizens need to decide what they prioritize. Is it space exploration or is it a decent standard of living at home? Is it the moon, Mars, or Earth? No they don't. We can prioritize both, and frankly, life on Earth will be better the more we priotitize space exploration, not worse.
  • ButWhatFor 6y ago
    Came here to say this - this has been the difficulty with things like science and research since the dawn of time... you study one thing and then hopefully if you have a lot of people studying multiple things one hugely amazing thing eventually falls out when one person gets lucky. It leads to a very delayed gratification despite very real near term costs. So it’s easy to attack the costs and focus and prioritization... But if you don’t invest in science as a whole, eventually you start running out of new things that improve life generally. Space exploration is one of those areas where we learn and continuously bring back learnings to the rest of society.
    • jschwartzi 6y ago
      It's also a tool to pacify people with empty promises of a better future. The way that it's being used as a distant future utopia is like the way promises of Heaven are used in Abrahamic religions to convince people to suffer in the here and now. A lot of people would choose to suffer some now in order to go to some peaceful space colony where they don't have to live with any of the consequences for our biosphere. They'll just get to go live in a different one. The reality is that if we continue to ignore the very real problems on our planet we won't ever see the day that we're living on other planets. It doesn't matter that there are real, quantifiable benefits to space exploration. Most people who believe it's important don't know anything about those benefits, and they don't think it's important because of that. It's all about the promise of a "heaven" in the sky in which they won't have to struggle anymore.
• tahoeskibum 6y ago
  It is dangerous to think fish have a destiny outside Ocean, said a vocal member in a school of fish 400 million years ago.
  • coldcode 6y ago
    Columbus had a hard time finding anyone to fund his idea of traveling west to seek India until the new monarchs in Spain decided it was cheap enough to risk and he found a whole new land mass (sadly to loot). People have always taken risks and gone to new places and found things not imagined by others. Space will be no different; the only difference is we already know a lot about it. Whether governments or industry or some crackpot does it, it will happen because someone wants to try.
    • laverya 6y ago
      Columbus had a hard time finding anyone to fund his suicide expedition. Everyone (well, everyone sufficiently well educated) knew the Earth was round, and knew the approximate size. Columbus mistranslated units and ended up with a world about half the circumference of Earth, putting the far east in easy reach. NASA actually has an article on this [0]. Had the Americas not existed, Columbus would have had had to make his way back with no fresh water or food, and a high risk of scurvy. 0: https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm
    • Udik 6y ago
      > Space will be no different Space is different. The analogy between the discoveries of new continents and the exploration of space is terribly naive. I would understand if it came from a 12 years old with his bedroom full of sci-fi novels, but not from grown ups.
  • jellicle 6y ago
    If humanity survives for the next 400 million years, undoubtedly space will be part of our future. Currently organized human civilization as we know it has a much less than 1% chance of surviving the next 400 years.
  • 6y ago
• Santosh83 6y ago
  Unfortunately it looks like when we finally make it as a space-borne species, we won't be going as humans or Earthlings but as Americans or Chinese or Russians or... and carry our conflicts out into the solar system as well.
  • pedroma 6y ago
    My guess is it stops mattering the further civilizations stray from Earth. You'd more likely to be treated as an Earthling or Martian or whatever once you zoom out.
    • m4rtink 6y ago
      Longer term you might even meet aliens - completely foreign and different from yourself! Only to find out afterwards it's just some other human colonists that have adapted to their favorite environment.
• Causality1 6y ago
  Is he really whining about NASA's tiny budget? they didn’t think a lot of Americans actually cared about colonizing space, which they do. This is incredibly misleading. A high proportion of Americans say they care when you ask them. Most don't think about it between days they see news headlines. When's the last time you saw a president get elected based on space policy? When's the last time space policy was even a presidential debate question? Not to mention that at the end of the day, we either get off this planet or we die with it when the sun becomes a red giant.
• ovi256 6y ago
  This is a restatement of the "we shouldn't do anything in Space until we solve (all/most/the most important) problems on Earth" argument. If our ancestors would have used this they'd never would have, say, colonized the Americas, or even left Africa. Because there's always something broken at home. Has there been a single moment in history that would have satisfied that argument ?
  • zekrioca 6y ago
    There were people living in the Americas before your ancestors arrived there.
    • avz 6y ago
      Not the OP, but I suppose one can read their comment as referring to the original colonizers who crossed the Bering strait, not those who crossed the Atlantic.
      • Udik 6y ago
        You can read as what you want, when people arrived to the Americas, the continents were covered in lush vegetation and had plenty of water, food and space. When we'll arrive to the only planet in reach where it is even vaguely conceivable to survive for more than a couple of hours, we'll find a freezing desert with high radiation levels and no air where every cubic centimetre of living space will need to be created from scratch and maintained.
        • jodrellblank 6y ago
          Not only that, but Mars is smaller than the Earth. Even best case for teraforming all of it into paradise and shipping half the world's population there gives ~one more population doubling time to being "full" again. Planets are not an efficient way to make surface living space with all that matter inside them. Whatever you think of the difficulty or possibility of it, it will be easier to work out how to support 2x or 5x the current human population on Earth, compared to the effort and difficulty involved in supporting 0.001x the population (~8 million people) on Mars.
• FooHentai 6y ago
  Wherever you go, there you are. If we as a species can't successfully fulfil our caretaker role on the one planet we currently occupy, expansion would be happening with the wrong motivations and the end result will be perpetuating the same patterns of harm on an even larger scale. Article chooses to frame the question in an American political context which reduces a wide philosophical issue worthy of discussion to a narrow partisan hack piece that only feeds petty argument and division. The USA doesn't have a monopoly on space exploration, so should we/shouldn't we hand wringing is irrelevant.
• blueblisters 6y ago
  State funded space programs are going to run into national and geopolitical friction sooner rather than later. Privately funded space programs are probably going to be the best progress towards further exploration and colonization. Reminds me of The Expanse: Mars could become the utopia Libertarians are looking for.
• wow_yes 6y ago
  This is a political puff piece mostly about Twitter
• dwheeler 6y ago
  What a garbage argument. We can do both. We can look outside Earth, and take care of what we have. There is no reason we can't do both, so let's do both.
• White_Wolf 6y ago
  At one point it was dangerous to think the Earth revolves around the Sun. It's good to think that we should be able to leave Earth at some point. The problem is not that line of thinking. The problem is that we're spending money on military eq instead of medicine, proper education and development. I think we'd be a lot further than we are now. For now we are still "savages" in the grand scheme of things.
  • DannyB2 6y ago
    We are spending plenty on space, just see SLS.
• sto_hristo 6y ago
  The author is that very special type that will probably burn you at the stakes 300 years ago if you said that humans will fly like the birds one day. Physics today are incomplete and very flawed, with major theories being incompatible with one another and failing to answer basic questions. Even though they describe certain aspects of reality with some accuracy, it's universally agreed that they are a far cry from a grand unified theory that describes everything consistently. Everyone is still looking for that one. So realistically whether we have a destiny outside Earth or not is a very open question we will still be looking the answer of. The choice of whether to set a Moon base or not will bare 0 effect on those that wish to stay in the cave.
  • happytoexplain 6y ago
    >The author is that very special type that will probably burn you at the stakes 300 years ago Your comment easily stands on its own without first committing such a dramatic, emotional insult. It's quite easy to accuse people of being violent murderers of you just frame it as "N hundreds of years ago".
  • kwhitefoot 6y ago
    > they describe certain aspects of reality with some accuracy What point are you trying to make with this statement? Most of physics that is well understood and agreed upon has been verified to the limits of the instruments that we can currently create. See, for instance, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200409100338.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200409100338.h... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
    • sto_hristo 6y ago
      It's exactly that - special relativity for example does great at the big scale but fails at the small scales where quantum physics take over. This disparity between the two signals there is lots still to discover that will paint the whole picture. Similarly Newtonian physics was also well understood and worked great, and still does; but as it turned out, there is a bigger story. The way things go, i think it's reasonable to suggest that current physics is just another stepping stone on our way to something even better that will unlock much more capabilities. It's been what - ~300 or so years since Newton and ~100 since quantum mechanics. We're basically in our infancy, can't draw ultimate conclusions about what is possible for our destiny. What will happen in the next 200 years?
• mortenjorck 6y ago
  Life has spent 3.5 billion years adapting to the peculiarities of this planet. There’s undoubtedly much we have yet to learn about the universe, and exploring it is the obvious way to learn. Yet I have long seen it as the height of hubris to think we could replace this planet from which we arose. Everything from gravity to day length to soil composition, never mind the atmosphere which is at least theoretically reproducible, is something with millions of years of adaptation encoded into our genes, and has no compatible world within our known universe. We can and should explore, and some will choose to make their home among the stars, but as a species, nothing can replace our Earth.
  • criddell 6y ago
    You don't think over the next, say, hundred million years our descendants could adapt equally well to other worlds?
  • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    We can already change 'our species'. It's changed more in the last 50,000 years than the 3 million before that, just because we started living in close societies. And now we can do it deliberately. Never mind genetics, a large part of our makeup is now mental models, which can simply be taught. "Don't go outside without taking your anti-fungals and putting on sunscreen!"
• avz 6y ago
  Earth is a graveyard of species. Looking at the geological record, more than 99% of species that ever existed here have gone extinct [1]. Overwhelming majority of them long before we showed up. And in any case, this planet will not support life forever [2]. Believing we have no destiny outside Earth is believing we have no destiny at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth
  • schrijver 6y ago
    I mean, if 99% of species go extinct it would be fair enough to expect that our species goes extinct too at some point. You could call that destiny as well, or you could call it entropy. For sure it’s not “no destiny at all”.
  • GrayTextIsTruth 6y ago
    Everything ends. Say we end up spreading throughout the universe. Well the universe is just another cell in a larger organism, another node on the tree. It will die too, and so will the body that the universe is inside of. But if we start "universe hopping" maybe it will take a very long time before we run out of hosts.
• sebow 6y ago
  For the moment, sure, but i think the issue here is that people do not realise the power of our planet and rush to conclusions such as "this planet is doomed in X years" etc. I would make the guess the planet itself can sustain human life at least for hundreds if not thousands of years more from now on. Of course, this is assuming people become more & remain responsible.But if history taught us anything i would also say that looks to be happening. Lastly, ironically the people who are the most alarmists about climate change are the ones who don't abide by their own words(See hollywood for example).This doesn't mean should postpone efficiency on earth & the growth of life(which sadly has happened a lot in modern history).
• steve76 6y ago
  Space exploration is much more than colonization. I think of Hume. Our reality is made from our senses. On it's own, the sun doesn't shine. It needs what it's hitting as much as it's own internal state. You have the sun at the center of our solar system. You have instruments at the outside we built, as well as telescopes imaging black holes millions of light years away. In between there's us. It will be nice to make use of all that for particle pair production in regards to coherent control of quantum biology. In order for the cancer to grow back or the arterial lesions to rupture, they need to disrupt the surface of a super massive black hole. Individuals only need to move in inches to improve their lives: - First step out of bed early in the morning to work. - Opening a clenched fist. - Shutting their mouths. That's all it takes and you have a decent life. Nations and states must move light years just to tread water: - Gravitational singularities must be modeled and observed to build positron emitters to lower the cost of cancer treatments at a bill of trillions a year. - Russian communists on the run from all the horrible murders they committed launch the space race while the USA was focused on building highways and celebrity presidents. - The public has seen and done everything and grown coarse so we are looking at AR and even controlling the weather just to entertain and tell a story. Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis just doesn't exist. More brute force than anything. The free market caps violence. Finance and production instead of butchering one another. Leaders can mess up, like China with covid. Leaders don't get to tell everyone what to do and are subject to the rules too. You do it. If it works, I'll do it too. In the deepest depths of depression, and at the stressful heights of mania, what never fails to bring a smile to my face is the job the greatest generation, my grandparents, did to the monsters and criminals of Europe long ago. Remember when they held a state address just to laugh at FDR? A few short years later, everything's bombed out and they are watching their children die of cyanide before they shoot themselves. You are right to be disgusted by them. Instead you should look at the hand that destroyed them. It is much more horrible than you can ever imagine.
• jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  I would argue that only when society is expanding does life get better for most people. When societies start to contract, people start trying to get control of as much of the shrinking pie as possible, and the people least able or with the least power struggle the most. If you want an equitable society, and you don't want an authoritarian state forcing equity on everyone, then you need society to expand to space. Edit: fixed some typos that messed up the meaning.
  • Hokusai 6y ago
    > When societies start to contract people start trying to get control of as much of the shrinking pie as possible and the people least able or with the least power struggle the least. As right as you are, contraction is inevitable. Even if colonize space, it is not going to happen in any significant scale the next 100 years. So, maybe we are doomed because people in power will always want more power and that creates a downwards spiral for non-growing societies. Maybe that is the "great filter" that await for us. I believe that societies will accommodate for the new situation. Not only Americans, but humans, always do the right thing after trying everything else.
    • jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      Yep, I agree. It seems like progress comes in waves. We have periods of advance and periods of stagnation or regress. From about 1000CE to 2000CE was mostly advance, although there were some questionable periods where arguably that was not true (late 1700s-early 1800s, 1914-1945, for example). It looks like we're now entering a period of regression, but it could turn out to be another temporary period of stagnation/reorganization followed by renewed growth.
• bovermyer 6y ago
  My argument for colonizing other worlds has nothing to do with finding a "new utopia" and everything to do with not having all of our eggs in one basket. Earth is going to get annihilated at some point. It would be nice if our species didn't go with it.
  • onecommentman 6y ago
    “It would be nice if our species didn’t go with it?” On a semi-facetious note, why would it be nice? If the species did the annihilation, isn’t that just good galactic hygiene? Or perhaps humans are just a beta version of a dodgy app. It goes down the “why is there something rather than nothing” rabbit hole, but the post started it...
    • bovermyer 6y ago
      Call it an intrinsic loyalty to my species. Or, more charitably in the case of humanity actually ending Earth, further opportunity for learning. Even if it's because of humanity that Earth ceases to be a viable life-bearing world, if our species learns from that and doesn't do it again, then what's one planet in the grand scheme of things?
• aeturnum 6y ago
  I agree that for every resource we need, getting that resource on earth (if it exists on earth) will always make more sense than seeking it in space. Humanity should always seek to fulfill its needs from terrestrial sources. We shouldn't mistake space exploration for infrastructure building. At the same time - this doesn't mean we shouldn't explore space! Just that we should understand that exploration as low-to-no-return investigations, not investments in the foreseeable future. I also don't think we've reached the limit for that kind of research. Our society could safely tolerate much higher levels of investment in space exploration (as long as it remains a very small proportion of all investments). We have many other "pure research" fields which are key to long-term health, but do not meaningfully contribute to our current survival. Like Roko's Basilisk, this is a good reminder of the dangers of using resources that we have today to try to reach a future we may never see. The human ability to plan for an imagined future is key to our humanity, but so is our ability to deceive ourselves.
  • freeqaz 6y ago
    If we captured an asteroid we would immediately double or triple the world's supply of metals like platinum. They simply are not plentiful for us on the crust. I like to believe that we can achieve this within our lifetime. Having the price of certain rarer metals come down significantly would be amazing!
    • aeturnum 6y ago
      Are there projects that required more rare metals than exist on earth? I agree that it would be nice to have more things, but I'm skeptical of the numbers working out. The Apollo program brought back ~850lbs of moon rocks and cost ~$150bn. Obviously the primary purpose of the program wasn't mining, but I think what I said above applies. It might work out and we might get a lot, but we should make investment choices with the assumption that it won't. If we are ever in a situation where civilization makes asteroid mining work or it falls apart it would be very bad because asteroid mining is hard! It's likely easier to use platinum more efficiently.
      • 6y ago
• keiferski 6y ago
  I don't know, I can't help but feel like nearly all of our solutions to contemporary problems involve space travel, specifically self-contained space travel (i.e., when spaceships become within an order of magnitude as affordable as houses or automobiles.) The universe is essentially limitless from a human point of view, so to be perpetually stuck on Earth seems like a failure of perspective. - Oppressive government controlling you or your land? Move elsewhere in the solar system. - Resource extraction destroying natural environments on Earth? Asteroids and other planets have far more natural resources and long term, it is inevitable that mining will be off-planet. - Overpopulation? On a universal scale, there is no such thing. Obviously most of these won't be solvable in 20, or 50, or even 100 years. But, they seem conceivably doable in 200, or even 150. In the greater scheme of things, this is a very small amount of time.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    I like your way of thinking. But remember, even with sublight travel, to populate the entire galaxy would take only a few million years. Including say a thousand years to rebuild the capability in each new colony. It grows geometrically you see, and there's no beating that. So on a Galactic scale its certainly possible to overpopulate, and in the blink of a cosmic eye (a million years). In fact that's a powerful argument for 'we must be alone', since it hasn't happened already (not getting radio signals from every star system everywhere).
    • phizy 6y ago
      It's not a powerful argument for 'we must be alone', because it's an equally powerful argument for 'space colonization is nearly impossible.' You're saying things are "certainly possible" but you don't have a shred of evidence to support that belief. It's more likely that you're vastly underestimating the cost of maintaining a life-supporting ecosystem independent of the benefits of a billions of years of evolutionary adaptation.
• dreamcompiler 6y ago
  It's at least 10x harder to build a human-staffed base on the Moon than to build one at the bottom of the ocean. And it's 10x harder still to build one on Mars. (And that's optimistic; those numbers probably need more zeros.) Likewise Level 5 self-driving cars. Every level is at least one more zero on the hardness multiplier. Neither is gonna happen soon. They will happen some day, and none of this means we shouldn't work on them now, but yeah, the hype is ridiculous.
  • machiaweliczny 6y ago
    Why do you think moon is harder than bottom of the ocean?
    • dreamcompiler 6y ago
      Mostly because it's so much more expensive to move supplies there to build and sustain infrastructure.
• xlm1717 6y ago
  How bizarre to try to make space exploration a Republican issue. The author posted stats that 72% of Americans say it's essential for the US to remain a world leader in space exploration. That is definitely higher than the percentage of Americans who are registered Republicans. Everything has to be politicized these days.
• vkou 6y ago
  Belief in a human destiny outside Earth seems like a religion promising an afterlife to the faithfil for mostly secular technologists.
• Apocryphon 6y ago
  Why does space colonization have to entail far-flung visions of the moon and Mars? (never mind the moon is three days away) It could also mean building orbital colonies. Or even taking the technology and knowledge gained from space exploration and using it to colonize Earth, should we need to- building undersea, underground, or polar bases.
• lucb1e 6y ago
  It's also dangerous to think humans have a destiny on earth, in the sense that our planet will just keep providing. Sooner or later, it'll become equally hard to survive here as it would be in space if our processes do not become circular. We still have a long time to get there in many regards, it's only energy whose methods we need to change asap (which is relatively easy, we have the tech and means; we don't have the tech by any means to be circular in many other ways).
• tehchromic 6y ago
  I can appreciate that no one wants to hear cautionary words about our loftiest ambitions. However, I believe it's worth reflecting carefully on the topic. One way to look at the dream of escaping the planet and colonizing space is in mythological terms. One comparison in particular is good and this is the idea of the afterlife or heaven which for centuries were as real and attainable as a Mars colony to you and I. For advanced technocultural civilizations and the religious institutions that hold them together it seems that an imaginary place of escape automatically becomes normalized into existence. The illusion grows proportionally to the sense of futility that individuals feel as a social structure calcifies around the protection of class hierarchy. The consequent protective buffer against meaningful experience of complex ecology and culture that results is the proverbial bottle which constrains the human spirit, until it is ready to explode in unrealistic directions. So the suffering and anxiety of individuals trapped in a top-heavy social structure lends energy and reality to unrealistic visions. Thus we dream of terraforming mars while in the midst of terrastroying earth into an unlivable nightmare, mass extinction, unbalanced population growth, global chemistry change, etc. Like, we can't even prevent our rainforests from being raised, losing countless complex organic systems forever, yet we imagine ourselves spawning new life on distant planets. And the destruction of our own planet is made possible with only the tiny drops of energy we can dig out of the ground. What will become of our planet surface when we have tapped the energy of the sun in earnest? That said, if we do survive the current paradigm, and do manage to protect our surface biofilm or otherwise survive the next few hundred years, nothing will prevent us from colonizing the solar system and beyond. But we are ahead of ourselves, and that's the result of poor social/cultural order. There's some irony there. The engine of malcontent that destroys us also propels is forward. However it's safe to say that most of the energy and excitement we feel for terraforming planets and exploring space right now ought to be redirected towards building a conservationist earth culture that can support slow technological accretion and a long-term template for extra planetary adventures. Heaven is real but it takes real work to get there.
  • defterGoose 6y ago
    This is much more reasoned than the invective that both poles are throwing out. Incidentally, you come to the conclusion I myself agree with, which is that right now (and when one is learned about the science involved), it is hard to see investment in space travel as much more than a distraction from our real problems. In other words, let's not jump out of the raft and into the ocean with a life preserver until we can see a ship approaching.
• tpoacher 6y ago
  Well well, someone's been busy in the month leading to election: https://techeffect.substack.com/people/13010150-oren-weisfeld https://techeffect.substack.com/people/13010150-oren-weisfel...
• WhompingWindows 6y ago
  "[this thinking] perpetuates the myth that, through technological developments, humans are destined to leave Earth and find a utopia elsewhere. After all, who cares about sustaining the planet when our destiny is to leave it?" This is a straw man argument, and further more the OP makes the straw-man look like Trump, saying it's Trump's priority to do these things. Step back, and we see spending money on space exploration and NASA has led to numerous innovations useful here on Earth. There's also the inspiration, the joy, the passion, that space exploration will bring. This should be a priority; definitely not the top priority, but we should spend more on space exploration than we do on baseball or cosmetics or rims for our cars.
• babesh 6y ago
  This point of view is moot. Private companies seem to be rapidly advancing in capability and in some cases have already surpassed the capabilities of nation states. SpaceX seems to be the dominant player in the launch market with RocketLab quickly eating up the small satellite market. BlueOrigin is supplying the rocket engines for the NASA rocket to the moon. NASA is contracting private companies for the moon landing. Unless this point of view advocates banning space colonization, private companies will take people to space, the Moon, and Mars. I wonder if this person’s position is really to ban colonization of other worlds and habitats in space.
• WhompingWindows 6y ago
  This is an extremely poorly structured and stream-of-consciousness rant by the OP. They mention Trump, Heidegger, the Nazis, Flint Michigan, Seth Rogen, and all in just a short blog post. There's nothing good of substance to be found, just rambling opposition without solid logic.
• lhorie 6y ago
  > The problem with this line of thinking — and the Trump administration’s ideological and monetary support for NASA exploring the solar system — is that it perpetuates the myth that, through technological developments, humans are destined to leave Earth and find a utopia elsewhere This seems like a strawman. The myth of flat earth, for example, is also perpetuated by some social media circles. That doesn't make it a primary factor for driving policy or anything at all, for that matter. IMHO, the real danger here is the idea that some high priority problem on earth can be solved by just diverting funds from one thing and throwing more money at said problem. Not just because that often doesn't work (e.g. the classical "nine women to make a baby in a month" analogy in project management), but also because of the underlying mentality that analytical/scientific work is a second class cog that can and ought to be coerced and discarded willy nilly by the whims of whoever has the reins on financial support. This mentality shows a deep disdain for intellectual endeavor and due diligence, which are critical to solve the very issues the author claims are important.
• deepnotderp 6y ago
  "It's dangerous to think humans have a destiny in the Americas"
• deepnotderp 6y ago
  "The Wright Brothers should stop wasting their time trying to make airplanes and donate their meager dollars to <insert my political favorite problem>"
• tagami 6y ago
  It's not either/or. We currently do research in micro-g aboard the ISS in food security and soil health.
• gumby 6y ago
  Never send a human to do a robot's job. If you want more space exploration (and I do) then pour more work into robots. Humans carry an ocean around with them everywhere (in their veins) in order to function, and in space need to drag a bunch of atmosphere and gravity with them (well, muscle machines). That should be the special case, not the general one.
• worik 6y ago
  The point of the article is that space exploration is a spectacle to distract people from hard problems. It is not about whether space colonisation is possible. Perhaps it is possible, perhaps not. Who cares? The Earth is dying, humans are responsible, stop it with being distracted! Surely it is time that we started to deal with the existential hard problems and stop the "pie in the sky"?
  • ogre_codes 6y ago
    I don't see these two ideas being remotely related. The world is filled with distractions, space exploration is way down the list in terms of money and time spent by individuals. I don't see anyone suggesting we should focus on space exploration instead of fighting climate change.
    • worik 6y ago
      That is exactly the point of the spectacle. Exactly. Look over there at that, OMG it is soo interesting....
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• root_axis 6y ago
  Ugh. I hate this political framing. Forget about the president. Ultimately, why I find the substance of this argument compelling is because the masses, even on this website, very greatly underestimate the engineering challenges involved in colonizing another planet. This is a problem so far beyond our current capabilities that we can't even project a timeline on when such a thing might be possible. It's also very possible it may never be practical to achieve. For these reasons, it's foolish to propagate the idea that colonizing another planet is a realistic solution for any problems we're facing on this planet. With all that stated, I still think it's worthwhile to try for a variety of reasons; we are natural explorers, we are curious, there are huge boons to research and technology as a side effect of this work and as far as Trump goes this is one of the least worthwhile aspects of his presidency to complain about.
• SubiculumCode 6y ago
  This trash should not be on HN.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Rebelgecko 6y ago
  >the reality is that the GOP wouldn’t make these things a priority... The author seems to be mixing up a tweet with the actual party platform. You can't say that they're making it a priority until we start to see NASA budget increases of the magnitude we saw during the Apollo era. Until they put their money where their mouth is, the tweet is just marketing fluff >This myth not only allows the government to ignore the ongoing climate crisis on Earth, which scientists say could reach an irreversible tipping point in less than 10 years Bullshit. No one thinks that humanity is going to have self-sustaining colonies on the moon or Mars within 10 years. Our government may be ignoring climate issues here on Earth, but it's not because they expect to leave the planet >At a time when American unemployment the worst since the depression era This article was published today. Why is the author citing unemployment statistics that were published 7 months ago? It seems like intentional cherrypicking >It might or might not be a coincidence that the news of SOFIA discovering water on the moon came just days after the GOP announced their otherworldly priorities for a second term. Is there any evidence that it's not a coincidence, or is the author just trying to spread FUD? How much influence does Donald Trump have over Nature's publication schedule? >Is it space exploration or is it a decent standard of living at home? Is it the moon, Mars, or Earth? This is a false dichotomy if there ever was one. For a decade, the US military spent more money on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan than we did on NASA. Imagine what NASA could have accomplished if our military only occupied temperate regions Edit: another thing that bugs me is this implication that NASA spending is orthogonal to quality of life here on Earth, as if they were just launching billions of dollars into the ether. What would communities like Huntsville AL look like if NASA's budget was 0'd out? How much of the climate science they quote earlier in the article would have happened without NASA funding?
  • autokad 6y ago
    yeah, this bs article doesnt deserve to be on hn. and lastly, who the f cares what Seth Rogan thinks? besides being an actor, isnt he Canadian?
• zelias 6y ago
  If we figure out how to efficiently extract resources from space, it seems likely that we can stop extracting resources from Earth
  • m4rtink 6y ago
    And there is also much much more resources that we have on Earth - space is big!
• novalis78 6y ago
  It's dangerous, for some, it seems, for naked apes to leave the trees. Yes! Fire was the first step in the wrong direction... Why don't these self professed 'saviors of planet Earth' strip themselves of all technological advancement and return to the true and original and sinless first habitat of homo 'sapiens sapiens' - but leave those of us who dream of the stars alone.
• janee 6y ago
  > American citizens need to decide what they prioritize. Is it space exploration or is it a decent standard of living at home? It's not like we're going to wake up one day, realize everything's awesome and say "HEY LETS EXPLORE SPACE"...it's a long term investment! An article on gov. spending could better source the question, how to better a "decent standard of living at home"...I have a strong feeling spending on space exploration wouldn't move the needle in the greater scheme of things https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg/800px-NASA-Budget-Federal.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/NA...
• mcguire 6y ago
  "The problem with this line of thinking — and the Trump administration’s ideological and monetary support for NASA exploring the solar system — is that it perpetuates the myth that, through technological developments, humans are destined to leave Earth and find a utopia elsewhere." No, the problem with this is the "monetary support" line. NASA's budget has been relatively flat and was increased by Congress over the requested budget in 2018, IIRC.
• cwhiz 6y ago
  This person seems upset that NASA has a budget of $22.6 billion. Apparently he or she has never seen the US annual budget. $22 billion is a rounding error. The US spends $3.6 trillion per year on health care expenditures. If we shut NASA down, and diverted all of their budget to health care, we could pay for ~2.5 days of health care for everyone in the US. I mention health care only because the article also laments that a GOP "priority" is not "cover all pre-existing conditions." Perfect is not the enemy of good.
• carapace 6y ago
  I am against the over-romanticizing of space colonization. It's not going to be like Star Wars or Star Trek. It's going to be like living and working deep in a mine that you can never leave. But this is garbage. Never mind the "space travel takes away from solving Earth problems" B.S. which was old and stupid when I was a kid, the "technology = fascism" Godwin's Law dig is infra dig.
• Out_of_Characte 6y ago
  Awfull article. There might have been a nuanced point in there if it wasn't infested with politics beyond the scope of the article. To talk about Trump and his plans for NASA are relevant, so are the effects of severe technological progress on our daily lives. Yet to then reference Trumps relationship with the media and to claim he has destroyed trust in american insitutions and link an article about how "This has led to a wholly new and different, but still very real, wave of destruction [reffering to coronavirus misinformation]." is so completely sidestepping any usefull discussion about space exploration. (Yes, there are also references to Nazi's) nonetheless I feel like pointing out some actual claims. "Indeed, the idea that technological developments will solve all of our problems —eventually allowing us to leave Earth — is instrumental to political mobilization on behalf of the powers that be. It [the idea of technological developments] helps to perpetuate the current socio-economic system that is designed for the one percent to stay in power and the working class to stay working." Technological developments have been awfull at 'keeping the 1% in power'. If technological developments truly made sure that 'the 1%' would stay in power then Bill gates as an example wouldn't have been able to go from his 'working class' status to the top 0.0001% using technological developments. The author's statement couldn't be further from the truth, unless you are of the opinion that the 1% ought to be so immoral that they dont deserve to exist in the new world of technology. "the wealth divide between the global billionaires and the bottom half of humanity is steadily growing" When has this NOT been the case? If I manage to aquire any wealth or influence in this world I would give it to those I know that deserve it. This probaly means someone close to me rather than an unknown person who might have needed it more. If parents want anything it is to give their kids the best oppertunities to prosper. What more could you ask for than a millionaire willing to pay a piano teacher for their kid?
• credit_guy 6y ago
  About 250 years ago a bunch of guys on a remote land, far, far away from the "civilized world" came up with a wild idea that all men are created equal and are endowed with some inalienable rights, and started a big social experiment that turned out to be quite successful. And then Europe took notice and copied it eventually. The main thing that Europe got from America was not cheap tobacco, or cotton or rum. It was an idea. Those who think there's nothing of value on Mars to bring back to Earth, don't realize that ideas have more values than minerals or crops. The colonists that we'll send to Mars will form societies that will experiment with new social contracts. They'll come up with new solutions to social dilemmas. And some of these solutions will just be good. And we'll benefit tremendously from them back here on Earth. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer.
• dsq 6y ago
  The industrial revolution and the technological progress that followed it were driven and accelerated by the opening of new frontiers, mainly in the Americas (admittedly at terrible cost to those peoples already there or those brought against their will). The same holds here: true major progress will only occur when driven by external imperatives and incentives. Restriction will bring decay and eventual collapse. Expanding into space will provide first world prosperity to all peoples on Earth while also protecting the irreplaceable biosphere.
• OrderlyTiamat 6y ago
  The blog title doesn't fit the content. Were it changed to "it's dangerous to think humans will leave earth" it would be more fitting and at the same time less divisive (and less wrong, in my view). Arguments in these comments are great defenders of space exploration in the now, but even in the distant future we should realise that a destiny among the stars and space travel doesn't mean leaving earth behind.
• zeepzeep 6y ago
  > American citizens need to decide what they prioritize. Is it space exploration or is it a decent standard of living at home? OR we could start to think about future generations.
• orenweisfeld 6y ago
  Thank you all so much for reading and for your comments. If you enjoyed the piece — or if it at least made you think twice — subscribe to the newsletter and follow me on Twitter @orenweisfeld