3 ms·
Antarctica is more hospitable than Mars. The average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees F. The South Pole is generally -76 F during the Southern Winter. On top
by gamblor956 6y ago
Antarctica is more hospitable than Mars. The average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees F. The South Pole is generally -76 F during the Southern Winter.
On top of that, Antarctica has a breathable atmosphere, and water. Mars does not have a breathable atmosphere, and if it has water, it does not have water in an easily accessible form. Mars also has 2.5x the radiation one would experience orbiting the Earth, or approximately 35x the radiation one would generally experience on Earth.
We would literally have to destroy Earth before Mars becomes a more viable option for continued human existence.
- memorysafety 6y agoGood points. But dare you doubt human's destruction ability?.. Note also, that destroying just the thin tender habitable layer of Earth would suffice.
- nicoburns 6y ago> dare you doubt human's destruction ability?.. I don't doubt human's ability. Which is why I fight those who don't seem to care about preserving earth. Who seem to overlap quite strongly woth those who believe that other planets may provide a viable alternative. I don't doubt our ability to destroy earth, but I do doubt our ability to successfully live somewhere else.
- memorysafety 6y agoI might be a counterexample to your perceived overlap. 3 points: * It seems that, as a species, we have deep issues rooted in our tribal upbringing. Reaching a global actionable consensus seems as hard (if not harder) as colonizing another planet. The internet only catalyzes the "us vs they" thinking people struggle to get rid of. In one of its many incarnations, it's a nurture of horribly mistaken worldviews — and here I imply climate change denialism, in context. But also flat earth, etc. * Viewed independently from antropogenic climate change catastrophy -- living on another planet would be extraordinary achievement, would you disagree? Launching a "toy" helicopter is kinda cool, but... living? For some of our greatest ancestors, the coolest achievement has been building millenia-lasting megastructures. Our generations are building fusion testbeds, orbital telescopes & commsat constellations; why wouldn't, say, a giant Earth-shaped globe monument on Mars be great? Perhaps not a globe, yea... but a Statue Of Liberty? Dao temple maybe? A hammer-and-sickle impact crater giga-egraving? Whatever. * Both viewed together, rationally, Mars colonization is an option to escape extinction on Earth. Not a priority, sure; more like, a backup-of-backup-of-backup plan -- for when all else failed (see point 1). It's not like we can do it soon, either; advance preparations and long practice needed. I won't express any judgement of viability. I do see, however, how ambition and inter-tribe competition can drive this plan to a ready state (see point 2) -- sooner than fossil fuel combustion stops across the world.
- gamblor956 6y agoMars is not a viable safety hatch for continued human existence. It will simply be too dependent on resupply from the Earth for the foreseeable future (on a timescale measured in generations). All of the following are easier to accomplish than colonizing Mars: solving global warming, colonizing the ocean floor, colonizing the Moon. Indeed, the technologies we would need to terraform or colonize Mars to a sufficient level to be an escape hatch would necessarily involve solving all of those first.
- Cyberdog 6y agoI do not yet think that humanity's capability to destroy is stronger than nature's capability to heal and grow. But ask me again in a couple decades.