6 ms·

Don't disagree but... "billions" not as much of money in general and I like the idea of potentially being multiplanetary despite how long it might take. Plan B

Don't disagree but... "billions" not as much of money in general and I like the idea of potentially being multiplanetary despite how long it might take. Plan B Sucks to think if everything we've achieved gets erased because it's all here. Why not both

chmod775 6y ago
> Why not both Because plan B takes way more effort than just avoiding the need for one.
- teraku 6y ago
  I think OP means, why can't we try to thrive and achieve Mars colony, eventually evolving into its own culture. It might take building a Dyson sphere and whatnot and thousands of years. But it might be worth trying. But Mars is not a Planet B, where we go once we destroyed earth.
- soperj 6y ago
  How many massive extinction events has the earth already gone through?
- cortesoft 6y ago
  We can avoid all possible extinction events?
  - chmod775 6y ago
    You can make any likely event and their aftermath survivable more easily than create a self-sustaining colony on mars. Yes. If a colony on mars could ever be self-sustainable without earth. If it can't, your point is moot.
    - antisol 6y ago
      Nobody who had done even a small amount of research on the subject would make such an absurd statement.
  - flukus 6y ago
    We could build colonies underground, under the Antarctic ice sheet and under water, that would be far easier and cheaper and allow us to survive just about any extinction event the universe is likely to throw our way in the next billion years. Those environments would be paradise compared to mars.
    - athms 6y ago
      There won't be an ice sheet, it will melt within the next ten thousand years due to global warming. Sea levels are expected to rise four meters during this period. Humans need to leave Earth long before the Sun turns into a red giant. We have about 300 million years to leave the planet or it is game over. Many distinct areas of Earth such as the Grand Canyon will have eroded away in about 2-3 million years. Mountain ranges like the Rockies will be gone in 50 million years. The Hawaiian Islands will disappear into the ocean in 80 millions years as the Pacific Plate recycles its land mass. In 300 millions years, the Sun will change its luminosity, increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. This will increase the mean solar temperature by 5C degrees. A little over 300 million years, give or take a few million years, all the continents are going to merge into one super continent. On the plus side, it is expected this will bring a new glacial period: increasing oxygen levels, lowering global temperatures, create new sea ice, and lowering sea levels due to global cooling. In 500 million years the Sun's luminosity will be so great that it will disrupt the carbonate–silicate cycle. The higher luminosity increases weathering of surface rocks, which traps carbon dioxide in the ground as carbonate. As water evaporates from the Earth's surface, rocks harden, causing plate tectonics to slow and eventually stop once the oceans evaporate completely. Without volcanoes to recycle carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels fall to the point where photosynthesis is no longer possible. Good luck in the bunker.
      - flukus 6y ago
        > Humans need to leave Earth long before the Sun turns into a red giant. We have billions of years for that. Everything else we can deal with much easier here than we can on mars. > Without volcanoes to recycle carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels fall to the point where photosynthesis is no longer possible. And after that the earth will still be more hospitable on mars. > Good luck in the bunker. We'd be living underground on mars, any sort of terraforming possibilities are in the far distant future, possibly never.
- lend000 6y ago
  This is lacking in vision and short sighted. There are countless scenarios where humanity inevitably, eventually dies on Earth even if we abandoned technology and nuclear stockpiles (unrealistic), and went back to living in agricultural communes and getting in touch with nature. In fact, Earth will be completely inhospitable to complex life as we know it in just a few hundred million years as the sun matures [0]. Other things that could wipe out the species at any time: - Gamma ray burst - Supernova - Meteors - Supervolcanic events [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth#:~:text=Once%20the%20solar%20luminosity%20is,runaway%20evaporation%20of%20the%20oceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth#:~:text=Once%2....
  - chmod775 6y ago
    Most of these are still more survivable than Mars, or would kill anything that lives anywhere in the solar system.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - antisol 6y ago
      No. When the sun expands and earth gets too hot, Mars will become just the right temperature for a period on the order of the millions of years. Assuming we haven't already terraformed it by then. And even when the sun is in full Red Giant mode there will still be a habitable zone, it'll just be further out.
      - chmod775 6y ago
        What do you mean "No"? Did you read and comprehend what you're replying to? Edit: Removed the other half of my response. I don't event want to go down this route. Others in this tree of comments have done it better.
        antisol 6y ago
        It's a negative response. As in "your statement is incorrect".
- midasuni 6y ago
  Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
  - kaba0 6y ago
    We do know when will it happen, and definitely not anywhere close to reasonable care about it. We have much much much more urgent things to worry about. Hell, space invasion by aliens is a bigger threat than the goddamn Sun.
    - antisol 6y ago
      "not anywhere close to reasonable care about it" I know right. And this whole climate change thing that everybody is freaking out about. It's probably like 50-100 years away! I won't live that long. It's definitely not anywhere close to reasonable to care about it.
      - kaba0 6y ago
        This is a really bad take. Do you honestly compare something that WILL happen 1 BILLION years later to a slope on which we are already sliding down that will cause massive real catastrophes all around the Earth? Being so close that you will likely experience it, and your children will definitively.
        antisol 6y ago
        "a slope on which we are already sliding down that will cause massive real catastrophes all around the Earth" You're referring to the sun expanding into a red giant here, right? I thought climate change was closer than a billion years away. But I guess I must have been wrong. Thanks for letting me know, I'm much less concerned about it now. "you will likely experience it, and your children will definitively" I'm old, and not a breeder. By your own logic it's not reasonable for me to care about it. (the actual point here, in case it's unclear, is that if you're rallying for action on climate change while simultaneously saying that other existential threats are not worth worrying about because they're "too far away", you're guilty of doing exactly the same thing as people who said 30 years ago that climate change was some distant far-off thing, and only speculative, and blah blah blah. You know the people I'm talking about. They're the exact same people who you hold up as an example, saying "how will our kids forgive us?". The same applies to our grandkids. And their great-great-great-great-(4 billion years worth)-grandkids.)
raffraffraff 6y ago
All life, that we know of, evolved on earth. Over billions of years. Life forms have complex interdependencies. You can't take one life form out of its environment and have it thrive. We can't even save threatened ecosystems here on earth most of the time. So why the does anyone think we can create functioning ecosystems on a barren planet that we can't transport more than a few tons of raw material to? It's a delusion.
- throwawayfeaxcz 6y ago
  You are focusing on now, it's not about now and it's not about us, it's about the species, if our ancestors gave up in the face on every obstacle we would still number about 1000 in a small valley in Africa or most likely we would be extinct. Life expands and to quote Jurassic park life finds a way.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    As I have already mentioned, even a nuclear warfare-ridden Earth is much much much more habitable than anything else in the Solar system. And frankly, with current tendencies we will simply not live to see the day where living on another planet becomes a possibility, that’s just fantasy. Also, I don’t really see how “saving” the top 100 billionaires is a good thing. Unless the spacecraft explodes with them onboard or something...
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      The risk is Earth being hit by a meteorite that kills all humans. It'll still be habitable but with nobody left to inhabit it if we don't have another colony.
    - throwawayfeaxcz 6y ago
      I think we can all agree that the resources on earth are finite, I think we can also all agree that our population is increasing in an exponential rate (not that it should, but that it is). As long as we dismiss the possibility of using our technology to use resources outside of earth we will be stuck fighting for a greater share of the diminishing resources on earth. No matter how much you recycle there is only a finite amount of everything on earth. Living on mars is less of a fantasy now than going to the moon was just 90 years ago. We have people living for extended periods of time in orbit, we already have the technology, we just don't have the economic base. We expand or we go extinct that's how it is, you might not like it but that's how it is. As far as the billionaires, dude, the billionaires have it awesome here on earth i don't think they will be moving.
harryf 6y ago
Think the point of the website is implicit in the "Let's get to Mars" vision is that "Earth is an unsolvable mess and will be inevitably become uninhabitable". In other words we're failing to envision some kind of future for ourselves on Earth. There's a great interview with Alan Moore (Watchmen, Walking Dead and much more) on YouTube that is highly underrated - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBc71ROdGxU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBc71ROdGxU - the whole thing is great but at 4m32s he puts it beautifully... "We tend to think, at this juncture of the 21st century, that there are only two possibilities regarding the future. One is the future will be exactly the same as today, only with smaller radios and smaller cars. So if the future is going to be the same as today, why bother preparing for it? The other alternative is there isn't a future. That is all ends in some kind of massive environmental collapse or a series of mushroom clouds. In which case why bother preparing for the future, if there isn't going to be one? Neither of these mindsets are actually doing anything to prepare us for the world in which we will almost certainly be living. Or which our descendants will almost certainly be living in. If you don't imagine a future, there's a fair chance you're not going to have one." Elon's whole argument for Mars is based on the belief we don't have a future on Earth and that some kind of Dark Age is coming - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk-colonise-mars-third-world-war https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk... "If there’s a third world war we want to make sure there’s enough of a seed of human civilisation somewhere else to bring it back and shorten the length of the dark ages" Personally think we should regard it with the same level skepticism we have for door-to-door salesmen. It's a great pitch to sell SpaceX...
- jcun4128 6y ago
  Well even if life on Earth is all jolly I would still like to extend beyond/general science advancement... arguable "it's pointless" with regard to how massive space is. But that's my opinion
  - weare138 6y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing against space exploration or developing technologies to aid us in that endeavor. It's the idea that it's a viable solution to our immediate problems here on Earth, problems we're currently experiencing. I'm all for space exploration and the advancement of science in general but I'm also pretty keen on this whole having food, water and breathable air thing too. I have to say I've grown somewhat accustom to it. Besides if we can't solve the sustainability problem here on Earth with all the natural resources we have what chance would we have someplace markedly worse? If we can't even figure out how to make our current situation work here we're not going to stand a chance anyplace else in our solar system.

chmod775 6y ago

> Why not both Because plan B takes way more effort than just avoiding the need for one.

teraku 6y ago
I think OP means, why can't we try to thrive and achieve Mars colony, eventually evolving into its own culture. It might take building a Dyson sphere and whatnot and thousands of years. But it might be worth trying. But Mars is not a Planet B, where we go once we destroyed earth.
soperj 6y ago
How many massive extinction events has the earth already gone through?
cortesoft 6y ago
We can avoid all possible extinction events?
- chmod775 6y ago
  You can make any likely event and their aftermath survivable more easily than create a self-sustaining colony on mars. Yes. If a colony on mars could ever be self-sustainable without earth. If it can't, your point is moot.
  - antisol 6y ago
    Nobody who had done even a small amount of research on the subject would make such an absurd statement.
- flukus 6y ago
  We could build colonies underground, under the Antarctic ice sheet and under water, that would be far easier and cheaper and allow us to survive just about any extinction event the universe is likely to throw our way in the next billion years. Those environments would be paradise compared to mars.
  - athms 6y ago
    There won't be an ice sheet, it will melt within the next ten thousand years due to global warming. Sea levels are expected to rise four meters during this period. Humans need to leave Earth long before the Sun turns into a red giant. We have about 300 million years to leave the planet or it is game over. Many distinct areas of Earth such as the Grand Canyon will have eroded away in about 2-3 million years. Mountain ranges like the Rockies will be gone in 50 million years. The Hawaiian Islands will disappear into the ocean in 80 millions years as the Pacific Plate recycles its land mass. In 300 millions years, the Sun will change its luminosity, increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. This will increase the mean solar temperature by 5C degrees. A little over 300 million years, give or take a few million years, all the continents are going to merge into one super continent. On the plus side, it is expected this will bring a new glacial period: increasing oxygen levels, lowering global temperatures, create new sea ice, and lowering sea levels due to global cooling. In 500 million years the Sun's luminosity will be so great that it will disrupt the carbonate–silicate cycle. The higher luminosity increases weathering of surface rocks, which traps carbon dioxide in the ground as carbonate. As water evaporates from the Earth's surface, rocks harden, causing plate tectonics to slow and eventually stop once the oceans evaporate completely. Without volcanoes to recycle carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels fall to the point where photosynthesis is no longer possible. Good luck in the bunker.
    - flukus 6y ago
      > Humans need to leave Earth long before the Sun turns into a red giant. We have billions of years for that. Everything else we can deal with much easier here than we can on mars. > Without volcanoes to recycle carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels fall to the point where photosynthesis is no longer possible. And after that the earth will still be more hospitable on mars. > Good luck in the bunker. We'd be living underground on mars, any sort of terraforming possibilities are in the far distant future, possibly never.
lend000 6y ago
This is lacking in vision and short sighted. There are countless scenarios where humanity inevitably, eventually dies on Earth even if we abandoned technology and nuclear stockpiles (unrealistic), and went back to living in agricultural communes and getting in touch with nature. In fact, Earth will be completely inhospitable to complex life as we know it in just a few hundred million years as the sun matures [0]. Other things that could wipe out the species at any time: - Gamma ray burst - Supernova - Meteors - Supervolcanic events [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth#:~:text=Once%20the%20solar%20luminosity%20is,runaway%20evaporation%20of%20the%20oceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth#:~:text=Once%2....
- chmod775 6y ago
  Most of these are still more survivable than Mars, or would kill anything that lives anywhere in the solar system.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - antisol 6y ago
    No. When the sun expands and earth gets too hot, Mars will become just the right temperature for a period on the order of the millions of years. Assuming we haven't already terraformed it by then. And even when the sun is in full Red Giant mode there will still be a habitable zone, it'll just be further out.
    - chmod775 6y ago
      What do you mean "No"? Did you read and comprehend what you're replying to? Edit: Removed the other half of my response. I don't event want to go down this route. Others in this tree of comments have done it better.
      - antisol 6y ago
        It's a negative response. As in "your statement is incorrect".
midasuni 6y ago
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
- kaba0 6y ago
  We do know when will it happen, and definitely not anywhere close to reasonable care about it. We have much much much more urgent things to worry about. Hell, space invasion by aliens is a bigger threat than the goddamn Sun.
  - antisol 6y ago
    "not anywhere close to reasonable care about it" I know right. And this whole climate change thing that everybody is freaking out about. It's probably like 50-100 years away! I won't live that long. It's definitely not anywhere close to reasonable to care about it.
    - kaba0 6y ago
      This is a really bad take. Do you honestly compare something that WILL happen 1 BILLION years later to a slope on which we are already sliding down that will cause massive real catastrophes all around the Earth? Being so close that you will likely experience it, and your children will definitively.
      - antisol 6y ago
        "a slope on which we are already sliding down that will cause massive real catastrophes all around the Earth" You're referring to the sun expanding into a red giant here, right? I thought climate change was closer than a billion years away. But I guess I must have been wrong. Thanks for letting me know, I'm much less concerned about it now. "you will likely experience it, and your children will definitively" I'm old, and not a breeder. By your own logic it's not reasonable for me to care about it. (the actual point here, in case it's unclear, is that if you're rallying for action on climate change while simultaneously saying that other existential threats are not worth worrying about because they're "too far away", you're guilty of doing exactly the same thing as people who said 30 years ago that climate change was some distant far-off thing, and only speculative, and blah blah blah. You know the people I'm talking about. They're the exact same people who you hold up as an example, saying "how will our kids forgive us?". The same applies to our grandkids. And their great-great-great-great-(4 billion years worth)-grandkids.)

raffraffraff 6y ago

All life, that we know of, evolved on earth. Over billions of years. Life forms have complex interdependencies. You can't take one life form out of its environment and have it thrive. We can't even save threatened ecosystems here on earth most of the time. So why the does anyone think we can create functioning ecosystems on a barren planet that we can't transport more than a few tons of raw material to? It's a delusion.

throwawayfeaxcz 6y ago
You are focusing on now, it's not about now and it's not about us, it's about the species, if our ancestors gave up in the face on every obstacle we would still number about 1000 in a small valley in Africa or most likely we would be extinct. Life expands and to quote Jurassic park life finds a way.
- kaba0 6y ago
  As I have already mentioned, even a nuclear warfare-ridden Earth is much much much more habitable than anything else in the Solar system. And frankly, with current tendencies we will simply not live to see the day where living on another planet becomes a possibility, that’s just fantasy. Also, I don’t really see how “saving” the top 100 billionaires is a good thing. Unless the spacecraft explodes with them onboard or something...
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    The risk is Earth being hit by a meteorite that kills all humans. It'll still be habitable but with nobody left to inhabit it if we don't have another colony.
  - throwawayfeaxcz 6y ago
    I think we can all agree that the resources on earth are finite, I think we can also all agree that our population is increasing in an exponential rate (not that it should, but that it is). As long as we dismiss the possibility of using our technology to use resources outside of earth we will be stuck fighting for a greater share of the diminishing resources on earth. No matter how much you recycle there is only a finite amount of everything on earth. Living on mars is less of a fantasy now than going to the moon was just 90 years ago. We have people living for extended periods of time in orbit, we already have the technology, we just don't have the economic base. We expand or we go extinct that's how it is, you might not like it but that's how it is. As far as the billionaires, dude, the billionaires have it awesome here on earth i don't think they will be moving.

harryf 6y ago

Think the point of the website is implicit in the "Let's get to Mars" vision is that "Earth is an unsolvable mess and will be inevitably become uninhabitable". In other words we're failing to envision some kind of future for ourselves on Earth. There's a great interview with Alan Moore (Watchmen, Walking Dead and much more) on YouTube that is highly underrated - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBc71ROdGxU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBc71ROdGxU - the whole thing is great but at 4m32s he puts it beautifully... "We tend to think, at this juncture of the 21st century, that there are only two possibilities regarding the future. One is the future will be exactly the same as today, only with smaller radios and smaller cars. So if the future is going to be the same as today, why bother preparing for it? The other alternative is there isn't a future. That is all ends in some kind of massive environmental collapse or a series of mushroom clouds. In which case why bother preparing for the future, if there isn't going to be one? Neither of these mindsets are actually doing anything to prepare us for the world in which we will almost certainly be living. Or which our descendants will almost certainly be living in. If you don't imagine a future, there's a fair chance you're not going to have one." Elon's whole argument for Mars is based on the belief we don't have a future on Earth and that some kind of Dark Age is coming - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk-colonise-mars-third-world-war https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk... "If there’s a third world war we want to make sure there’s enough of a seed of human civilisation somewhere else to bring it back and shorten the length of the dark ages" Personally think we should regard it with the same level skepticism we have for door-to-door salesmen. It's a great pitch to sell SpaceX...

jcun4128 6y ago
Well even if life on Earth is all jolly I would still like to extend beyond/general science advancement... arguable "it's pointless" with regard to how massive space is. But that's my opinion
- weare138 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing against space exploration or developing technologies to aid us in that endeavor. It's the idea that it's a viable solution to our immediate problems here on Earth, problems we're currently experiencing. I'm all for space exploration and the advancement of science in general but I'm also pretty keen on this whole having food, water and breathable air thing too. I have to say I've grown somewhat accustom to it. Besides if we can't solve the sustainability problem here on Earth with all the natural resources we have what chance would we have someplace markedly worse? If we can't even figure out how to make our current situation work here we're not going to stand a chance anyplace else in our solar system.