3 ms·

That's missing the point. Our probability of going extinct by asteroid just got approximately squared (in practice, that's the upper bound) if we have a self su

That's missing the point. Our probability of going extinct by asteroid just got approximately squared (in practice, that's the upper bound) if we have a self sustaining colony outside of Earth. That's a dramatic reduction in that specific existential risk. If we remain only on Earth then we have the unsquared probability to face which isn't all that small.

throwawayboise 5y ago
I think the probabilty that humans can live on Mars long-term without support or resupply missions from Earth is effectively zero, certainly won't happen within the lifetime of anyone alive today. Don't misunderstand, I'm not against space exploration, I think it benefits us here on Earth. It's like F1 racing with a much bigger scope: little direct benefit to anyone, but many indirect benefits resulting from the effort.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "certainly won't happen within the lifetime of anyone alive today" Agreed, but even two lifetimes isn't that long if we're talking about a low probability but ever-present existential risk.
  - yread 5y ago
    But then you should compare to other ways how to minimize that risk. Multiple lifetimes of trying to estabilish a self-sustaining colony on Mars sounds more difficult than mapping all rocks in solar system larger than ~ 10km in diameter, monitoring their orbits and developing a technology to nudge them away/break them down. And it's also something that sci-fi nerds would enjoy. EDIT: it seems that we're quite well on our way to the first step, there are about 1000 near Earth asteroids larger than 1km, much less than previously thought https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa8036#ajaa8036s4 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa8036#...
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      > But then you should compare to other ways how to minimize that risk Agreed with this as well. I'm all for comparing those alternatives and weighing up costs and benefits. Just don't like the offhand dismissal we so often see (I'm not accusing the above poster of that) before that analysis has been done.

throwawayboise 5y ago

I think the probabilty that humans can live on Mars long-term without support or resupply missions from Earth is effectively zero, certainly won't happen within the lifetime of anyone alive today. Don't misunderstand, I'm not against space exploration, I think it benefits us here on Earth. It's like F1 racing with a much bigger scope: little direct benefit to anyone, but many indirect benefits resulting from the effort.

fighterpilot 5y ago
"certainly won't happen within the lifetime of anyone alive today" Agreed, but even two lifetimes isn't that long if we're talking about a low probability but ever-present existential risk.
- yread 5y ago
  But then you should compare to other ways how to minimize that risk. Multiple lifetimes of trying to estabilish a self-sustaining colony on Mars sounds more difficult than mapping all rocks in solar system larger than ~ 10km in diameter, monitoring their orbits and developing a technology to nudge them away/break them down. And it's also something that sci-fi nerds would enjoy. EDIT: it seems that we're quite well on our way to the first step, there are about 1000 near Earth asteroids larger than 1km, much less than previously thought https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa8036#ajaa8036s4 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa8036#...
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    > But then you should compare to other ways how to minimize that risk Agreed with this as well. I'm all for comparing those alternatives and weighing up costs and benefits. Just don't like the offhand dismissal we so often see (I'm not accusing the above poster of that) before that analysis has been done.