4 ms·

> 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 perp

> 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.
Isamu 6y ago
Agreed, and really Trump is not interested in ideology, but rather the recent successes of SpaceX and the potential of others are inspiring to a lot of people and point the way to potential new space business sectors. He is just pro business.
jfengel 6y ago
Thing is, I can't imagine anything that will happen to earth that will render it less habitable than Mars. Not nuclear weapons, not rogue states, not even asteroids. We could "colonize" an uninhabitable Earth more easily than any other planet. The fact that we could colonize a different planet makes us different from past species in mass extinction events. That's not to say we shouldn't do it (though I personally would really like to get a chance to study Mars in its pristine state for a few centuries before we literally crap all over it). "Advancement" is a fine reason to go to space. But the extinction argument doesn't hold water to me, and that makes me suspicious. If it's just a matter of increasing the urgency from the people who really want to go, I get that. I'd just like to be honest about it.
- wrkronmiller 6y ago
  > I can't imagine anything that will happen to earth that will render it less habitable than Mars. Not nuclear weapons, not rogue states, not even asteroids. We could "colonize" an uninhabitable Earth more easily than any other planet. The fact that we could colonize a different planet makes us different from past species in mass extinction events. Human civilization on Earth is founded on the assumption that the environment will be Earth-like. Yes, if we had all of the resources/organization we have now, we could "'colonize' an uninhabitable Earth" but following a cataclysmic event, we wouldn't. As a species, we _might_ survive but even just a nuclear war between say the US and Russia would probably set civilization back by, say, a thousand years. That's with current military technology. Weapons don't get less dangerous or harder to use over time.

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.

Isamu 6y ago

Agreed, and really Trump is not interested in ideology, but rather the recent successes of SpaceX and the potential of others are inspiring to a lot of people and point the way to potential new space business sectors. He is just pro business.

jfengel 6y ago

Thing is, I can't imagine anything that will happen to earth that will render it less habitable than Mars. Not nuclear weapons, not rogue states, not even asteroids. We could "colonize" an uninhabitable Earth more easily than any other planet. The fact that we could colonize a different planet makes us different from past species in mass extinction events. That's not to say we shouldn't do it (though I personally would really like to get a chance to study Mars in its pristine state for a few centuries before we literally crap all over it). "Advancement" is a fine reason to go to space. But the extinction argument doesn't hold water to me, and that makes me suspicious. If it's just a matter of increasing the urgency from the people who really want to go, I get that. I'd just like to be honest about it.

wrkronmiller 6y ago
> I can't imagine anything that will happen to earth that will render it less habitable than Mars. Not nuclear weapons, not rogue states, not even asteroids. We could "colonize" an uninhabitable Earth more easily than any other planet. The fact that we could colonize a different planet makes us different from past species in mass extinction events. Human civilization on Earth is founded on the assumption that the environment will be Earth-like. Yes, if we had all of the resources/organization we have now, we could "'colonize' an uninhabitable Earth" but following a cataclysmic event, we wouldn't. As a species, we _might_ survive but even just a nuclear war between say the US and Russia would probably set civilization back by, say, a thousand years. That's with current military technology. Weapons don't get less dangerous or harder to use over time.