3 ms·
We haven't done it yet, but even if we had it's not a comparable analogy. We have a plan to get a few people to Mars that (while not exactly cheap) could conce
by Jweb_Guru 5y ago
We haven't done it yet, but even if we had it's not a comparable analogy. We have a plan to get a few people to Mars that (while not exactly cheap) could conceivably happen. Similarly we already have lab-grown meat at very small scales, at a fairly high markup.
What would be a comparable analogy would be maintaining a stable, economically sustainable colony on Mars with similar population growth to what we might experience on Earth. Nobody has any remotely realistic proposal for how we are going to get there, just as no one has a remotely viable proposal for how to scale up current lab grown meat production to even an appreciable fraction of current meat consumption.
- mixmastamyk 5y agoThe article is as hand wavy with defeatism as enthusiasts. Mars would never support current levels of population on it, it’s too small and tech can’t change that.
- pas 5y agoHow is it too small?
- mixmastamyk 5y agoSize affects everything. Area, gravity, atmosphere, radiation, all related.
- knownjorbist 5y agoThey said population growth like we see on Earth, not the total population. It's only too small for the total population if we assume the current inputs and outputs of humanity on Earth.
- mixmastamyk 5y agoNot a useful distinction.