5 ms·

This is the correct answer. War may spread to mars, but a massive volcanic eruption that blots out the sun (or other non-war mass events) is less of an issue if

by soared 5y ago

This is the correct answer. War may spread to mars, but a massive volcanic eruption that blots out the sun (or other non-war mass events) is less of an issue if you live on another planet.

ModernMech 5y ago
My issue with this is the definition of “you”. Yes, “humanity” will be in the universe, but they will not be one homogenous culture. What’s the probability that Martian humans will get jealous of Earth’s vast and plentiful resources in 100 - 200 years, and they wage open nuclear and biological war on Earth to wipe out all Earthling humans? Based on what I know about humans, the probability this happens approaches 1 as time moves forward. And how will they evolve? What will they look like in 1000 years? 1 million? We don’t know of any alien species now, but if we send humans out into the stars we will essentially be creating a new evolutionary branch of spacefaring humanoid aliens. What kind of aliens will they be? The friendly kind that sends scientists to other planets to study their ways? Or will they be warlike aliens from Independence Day, roaming the cosmos like Genghis Khan and consuming all in their path? Again, based on what I know about humanity, we will be both, but the latter could show up one day and just destroy Earth. Personally I think none of this will happen. We will wipe ourselves off Earth before we can support autonomous space colonies. Likely we will fuck things up here and then our space colonies will shrivel and die from lack of supplies.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > Based on what I know about humans, the probability this happens approaches 1 as time moves forward. Wouldn’t it be far cheaper for a Mars civilization to exploit the resources of the asteroids rather than bother earth? It’d be enormously uncomfortable for Mars adapted people to spend any time on earth. So if it’s neither economic to exploit earth resources nor would it be possible to enjoy a conquered earth, why ever bother? I guess if it’s possible for a 007 style mad scientist scenario to emerge it approaches 1 given enough time, however it could be so much time that the sun blows up or humanity spreads to other stars.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    And that mad scientist could just as easilly be from Earth as from Mars. Once you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads on escape velocity, you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads at earth. While such an individual could target Mars and Earth, the implication of the technology level of a self sustaining mars base is that mankind will be spread throughout the solarsystem (at least the asteroids, venus clouds, mars, moon and earth), and at that stage wiping out the species becomes even harder.
    - post_from_work 5y ago
      >>>Once you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads on escape velocity, you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads at earth. An important plot point in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Is-Harsh-Mistress-audiobook/dp/B000JJRW80 https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Is-Harsh-Mistress-audiobook/dp/B...
      - earleybird 5y ago
        Not forgetting "Mike" :-)
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > Wouldn’t it be far cheaper for a Mars civilization to exploit the resources of the asteroids rather than bother earth? Depends on the resource. If they want milk and chicken for example, it might be better to get that from Earth. > It’d be enormously uncomfortable for Mars adapted people to spend any time on earth. They could breed a race of human slaves to work on Earth. > I guess if it’s possible for a 007 style mad scientist scenario I’m thinking more along the lines of a Martian Hitler scenario.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      > They could breed a race of human slaves to work on Earth. Wouldn't just buying stuff they need from Earth be much cheaper than exterminating all people on Earth and then repopulated with some new genetically engineered human species?
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  The problem with pessimism is that it is usually wrong, always counterproductive, and almost never gets held accountable for either. History is chock full of wrong pessimists. Smarter ones than you or I, even -- but still wrong. Hopefully you will be another. Imagine an alternate history where Britain never let colonists go to the Americas on the assumption that either Britain would collapse before the colonies became self-sustaining or the colonies would become belligerent and conquer Britain. Now extrapolate out what the actual alternate-history would have likely been, and whether those concerns would have been wise or foolish.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lisper 5y ago
    > History is chock full of wrong pessimists You mean like the ones who were warning about how the world was woefully unprepared for a global pandemic? Or the ones who were warning about climate change?
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > The problem with pessimism is that it is usually wrong, always counterproductive, and almost never gets held accountable for either. History is chock full of wrong pessimists. History is filled with correct pessimists as well. Has anyone ever been wrong by predicting that humans competing for resources on a frontier will come into violent and deadly conflict with one another? I realize it’s not a particularly deep or insightful thing to say, but there seems but be an unchecked optimism in these threads, one that builds a narrative of humanity spreading to the stars and filling the universe with our light. Meanwhile on Earth Prime we have famine, genocide, war, and an unquenchable need to consume and multiply. If Corona were sapient it would be making the same argument - we must spread to the stars to continue our existence! No one really stops to ask “why?”. Why should we spread to the stars? Why is the continued existence of our species important to the universe? Doesn’t this line of reasoning make humanity no better than a virus? Imagine humanity coming across a planet filled with sapient alien trees. Completely defenseless and they have no concept of war. What would humans do at first chance? Slaughter them and use them for fuel or building materials. Is spreading the idea and practice of genocide across the universe really what’s best for anyone? What’s the other side of it? Is there an argument for why we should do this thing that isn’t grounded in selfishness?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > but they will not be one homogenous culture No, as Humanity is not a homogeneous culture here on Earth. We'll diverge as we make colonies a couple light-hours and we'll diverge a lot more when our worlds are separated by light-years and people and goods take centuries to go from one world to another. Hopefully we can invent some form of FTL travel or, at least, communication so we are less disconnected. OTOH, wars get really complicated when the fleet takes a century to arrive at its destination, carrying 100 year old weapons.
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  > Based on what I know about humans, the probability this happens approaches 1 as time moves forward. Yes given infinite time we know humans are extinct. We will not survive the heat death of the universe. But i don't think this truism says much about whether or not creating a self sustaining colony on Mars will increase the longevity of our species. The chances of some type of existential interplanetary war between Mars and earth is so much lower than than an existential earth war. It's really difficult to wage any type of meaningful war across planets. They're really far apart, and it's really expensive to leave Earth.
dogma1138 5y ago
Earth post a super volcano would still be far more habitable than mars, same thing goes for a major impact event, nuclear winter and pretty much anything else that doesn’t turn the atmosphere into a firestorm, boils the oceans and turns all land mass into lava… And if you get to the point in which you can terraform mars then fixing the earth would be again far easier unless all biomass somehow dies and there is no atmosphere left and earth somehow loses its magnetic field. At best mars might serve as a temporary lifeboat but even then if you have the technology to sustain life on mars you would be better off building protected habitats on earth.

by soared 5y ago

This is the correct answer. War may spread to mars, but a massive volcanic eruption that blots out the sun (or other non-war mass events) is less of an issue if you live on another planet.

ModernMech 5y ago

My issue with this is the definition of “you”. Yes, “humanity” will be in the universe, but they will not be one homogenous culture. What’s the probability that Martian humans will get jealous of Earth’s vast and plentiful resources in 100 - 200 years, and they wage open nuclear and biological war on Earth to wipe out all Earthling humans? Based on what I know about humans, the probability this happens approaches 1 as time moves forward. And how will they evolve? What will they look like in 1000 years? 1 million? We don’t know of any alien species now, but if we send humans out into the stars we will essentially be creating a new evolutionary branch of spacefaring humanoid aliens. What kind of aliens will they be? The friendly kind that sends scientists to other planets to study their ways? Or will they be warlike aliens from Independence Day, roaming the cosmos like Genghis Khan and consuming all in their path? Again, based on what I know about humanity, we will be both, but the latter could show up one day and just destroy Earth. Personally I think none of this will happen. We will wipe ourselves off Earth before we can support autonomous space colonies. Likely we will fuck things up here and then our space colonies will shrivel and die from lack of supplies.

nyokodo 5y ago
> Based on what I know about humans, the probability this happens approaches 1 as time moves forward. Wouldn’t it be far cheaper for a Mars civilization to exploit the resources of the asteroids rather than bother earth? It’d be enormously uncomfortable for Mars adapted people to spend any time on earth. So if it’s neither economic to exploit earth resources nor would it be possible to enjoy a conquered earth, why ever bother? I guess if it’s possible for a 007 style mad scientist scenario to emerge it approaches 1 given enough time, however it could be so much time that the sun blows up or humanity spreads to other stars.
- iso1210 5y ago
  And that mad scientist could just as easilly be from Earth as from Mars. Once you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads on escape velocity, you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads at earth. While such an individual could target Mars and Earth, the implication of the technology level of a self sustaining mars base is that mankind will be spread throughout the solarsystem (at least the asteroids, venus clouds, mars, moon and earth), and at that stage wiping out the species becomes even harder.
  - post_from_work 5y ago
    >>>Once you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads on escape velocity, you have the ability for individuals to launch multi ton payloads at earth. An important plot point in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Is-Harsh-Mistress-audiobook/dp/B000JJRW80 https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Is-Harsh-Mistress-audiobook/dp/B...
    - earleybird 5y ago
      Not forgetting "Mike" :-)
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > Wouldn’t it be far cheaper for a Mars civilization to exploit the resources of the asteroids rather than bother earth? Depends on the resource. If they want milk and chicken for example, it might be better to get that from Earth. > It’d be enormously uncomfortable for Mars adapted people to spend any time on earth. They could breed a race of human slaves to work on Earth. > I guess if it’s possible for a 007 style mad scientist scenario I’m thinking more along the lines of a Martian Hitler scenario.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    > They could breed a race of human slaves to work on Earth. Wouldn't just buying stuff they need from Earth be much cheaper than exterminating all people on Earth and then repopulated with some new genetically engineered human species?
jjoonathan 5y ago
The problem with pessimism is that it is usually wrong, always counterproductive, and almost never gets held accountable for either. History is chock full of wrong pessimists. Smarter ones than you or I, even -- but still wrong. Hopefully you will be another. Imagine an alternate history where Britain never let colonists go to the Americas on the assumption that either Britain would collapse before the colonies became self-sustaining or the colonies would become belligerent and conquer Britain. Now extrapolate out what the actual alternate-history would have likely been, and whether those concerns would have been wise or foolish.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lisper 5y ago
  > History is chock full of wrong pessimists You mean like the ones who were warning about how the world was woefully unprepared for a global pandemic? Or the ones who were warning about climate change?
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > The problem with pessimism is that it is usually wrong, always counterproductive, and almost never gets held accountable for either. History is chock full of wrong pessimists. History is filled with correct pessimists as well. Has anyone ever been wrong by predicting that humans competing for resources on a frontier will come into violent and deadly conflict with one another? I realize it’s not a particularly deep or insightful thing to say, but there seems but be an unchecked optimism in these threads, one that builds a narrative of humanity spreading to the stars and filling the universe with our light. Meanwhile on Earth Prime we have famine, genocide, war, and an unquenchable need to consume and multiply. If Corona were sapient it would be making the same argument - we must spread to the stars to continue our existence! No one really stops to ask “why?”. Why should we spread to the stars? Why is the continued existence of our species important to the universe? Doesn’t this line of reasoning make humanity no better than a virus? Imagine humanity coming across a planet filled with sapient alien trees. Completely defenseless and they have no concept of war. What would humans do at first chance? Slaughter them and use them for fuel or building materials. Is spreading the idea and practice of genocide across the universe really what’s best for anyone? What’s the other side of it? Is there an argument for why we should do this thing that isn’t grounded in selfishness?
rbanffy 5y ago
> but they will not be one homogenous culture No, as Humanity is not a homogeneous culture here on Earth. We'll diverge as we make colonies a couple light-hours and we'll diverge a lot more when our worlds are separated by light-years and people and goods take centuries to go from one world to another. Hopefully we can invent some form of FTL travel or, at least, communication so we are less disconnected. OTOH, wars get really complicated when the fleet takes a century to arrive at its destination, carrying 100 year old weapons.
JamesBarney 5y ago
> Based on what I know about humans, the probability this happens approaches 1 as time moves forward. Yes given infinite time we know humans are extinct. We will not survive the heat death of the universe. But i don't think this truism says much about whether or not creating a self sustaining colony on Mars will increase the longevity of our species. The chances of some type of existential interplanetary war between Mars and earth is so much lower than than an existential earth war. It's really difficult to wage any type of meaningful war across planets. They're really far apart, and it's really expensive to leave Earth.

dogma1138 5y ago

Earth post a super volcano would still be far more habitable than mars, same thing goes for a major impact event, nuclear winter and pretty much anything else that doesn’t turn the atmosphere into a firestorm, boils the oceans and turns all land mass into lava… And if you get to the point in which you can terraform mars then fixing the earth would be again far easier unless all biomass somehow dies and there is no atmosphere left and earth somehow loses its magnetic field. At best mars might serve as a temporary lifeboat but even then if you have the technology to sustain life on mars you would be better off building protected habitats on earth.