4 ms·

"If there aren’t enough people for Earth, then there definitely won’t be enough for Mars :(" Elon Musk. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/148348655933691085

by mrpopo 5y ago

"If there aren’t enough people for Earth, then there definitely won’t be enough for Mars :(" Elon Musk. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1483486559336910850 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1483486559336910850 How anyone can believe the future of humanity is to push ourselves to breed in order to fill in more planets is beyond me. EDIT: there are more humans and we are living longer than ever before. Our science helped us survive one of the trickiest virus ever with a death toll of barely 1/1000th of the world's population. Our technology allows us to monitor asteroids. And yet people are more worried that we might go extinct from that in a few thousand years, instead of the more obvious and glaring impacts on our for-now only planet that is undergoing the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, ocean fish depletion due to overfishing, chemical pollution, literal overpopulation of many countries in the sense that they cannot feed themselves within their nations' borders. We have millions of years to conquer space. But only 50 years to protect our cradle planet from becoming inhospitable.

i_heart_elon 5y ago
[dead]
newsbinator 5y ago
If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. Whether via asteroid, plague, grey goo, etc. We're keeping all our eggs in one basket and our number of eggs is shrinking. Planets like Mars are empty and waiting to be filled with life, as far as we can tell. I see no good reason why we should give up as a species and die. If other species have a right to exist, so does ours. If nobody is currently living on Mars, why don't we?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  The criticism isn't about the idea of spreading over multiple planets, it's at the idea that we need so many billions of people. If we go back down to 5 billion [per planet], the same number of people we had in 1985, that's not a bad thing. Edit: Okay, do people disagree with the first sentence or the second one?
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Many people do actively want to end their family lines, and they have a right to decide to do that. I don't know about colonizing other planets, but hey, it's also a choice to try to go do that. I was born on the earth, and I'd prefer to have children, and myself die on this earth. Maybe if I have some descendents, some of them will end up living on other planets or in outer space. I don't know. It's hard to overstate how gargantuan of a move leaving the planet we started on is, the emotional impact of it plus the immense challenges it will bring.
  - bendbro 5y ago
    Soft
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      Soft because I prefer not to go to space and deal with the hardships? Soft because I decide to allow other people to choose extinction instead of hoping to impose my own pro-natalism on them?
      - JetAlone 5y ago
        You didn't answer, so be it. On reconsideration I admit I was wrong and "soft" to use the word "right" - it's not their "right" because I don't actually think rights even really exist. It's their choice made with free will. I'd like it if they became pro-natalist like me, but it would be absurd to try and force them to. Best I can do is make an appeal: you'd be happier if you go live real, natural life. If that's on mars (which I doubt), so be it.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    People did the same thing leaving Europe for the Americas. For many it was a one-way trip with a high likelihood of death.
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. I don't feel that it's the risk I'm meant to take on, I've chosen other risks and challenges. But maybe it's someone else's?
- mrpopo 5y ago
  Our "number of eggs" is not shrinking. It's actually expanded by a factor of 4 in the span of 100 years, and by a factor of 400 in the span of 2000 years. Only once for a decade during the 14th century has the population actually decreased, during the Black Plague. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-po...
  - adrianN 5y ago
    The number of planets with humans on them has remained steady though.
- lm28469 5y ago
  > If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. The thing is we have an almost unlimited numbers of issues to solve right here and right now instead of anticipating the death of the sun or a on in a trillion chance asteroid collision. Problems which are easier and cheaper to solve and would have a direct measurable impact on billions of people.
temporalparts 5y ago
I mean the future of a lot of countries were decided by rulers pushing their citizens to breed in order to fill out more countries.
aeternum 5y ago
It's just a matter of time before every organism on earth dies if humans do not bring them to other planets. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and by most estimates has only 0.6 billion years left before the sun's light is insufficient to sustain photosynthesis. Even if some life survives that, earth will eventually burn up as the sun expands. Some catastrophic event, human-caused nuclear warfare, asteroid, bioweapon could easily destroy all intelligent life on earth. If that happens it is very unlikely intelligent life will have time to evolve before the earth is destroyed. Why gamble on an event like that not happening given how close we've come? The universe is vast, why don't humans have a duty to protect life and bring it to other planets asap? It's so strange that environmentalists want to preserve natural life but steadfastly oppose colonizing other planets (the only way to actually preserve it).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It's just a matter of time before every organism on earth dies if humans do not bring them to other planets. This sentence is equally true if you put a full stop after “dies” and delete everything following.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Modern humans have been around only 200-300k years. Industrialization started 130 years ago or so. Getting off the planet in the next 600 million years is a much, much smaller concern than how we can actually keep the species going in the immediate future. While, yes, at some point we need a 'plan B' to earth, the reality is we still first need a plan A; despite how far away we are from it, we are much closer to being able to maintain equilibrium on this planet than we are to colonizing another (and if we don't fix the first in a relatively short period, but somehow manage the second, we just doom two planets anyway).
- rob74 5y ago
  From that angle, it sounds strange. However, if you talk about colonizing other planets, it's not "preserving natural life" anymore, it's establishing several invasive species by either creating an ecosystem where there is none or (even worse) destroying a (hypothetical) extraterrestrial ecosystem to establish one that would be useful to humans. There are definitely some people who would refuse extending their own lifespan beyond its natural limits, so it's not surprising that some have the same opinion for the species as a whole...
karmakurtisaani 5y ago
I guess if you turn earth into an uninhabitable space rock, it's almost like colonizing Mars.

by mrpopo 5y ago

i_heart_elon 5y ago

[dead]

newsbinator 5y ago

If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. Whether via asteroid, plague, grey goo, etc. We're keeping all our eggs in one basket and our number of eggs is shrinking. Planets like Mars are empty and waiting to be filled with life, as far as we can tell. I see no good reason why we should give up as a species and die. If other species have a right to exist, so does ours. If nobody is currently living on Mars, why don't we?

Dylan16807 5y ago
The criticism isn't about the idea of spreading over multiple planets, it's at the idea that we need so many billions of people. If we go back down to 5 billion [per planet], the same number of people we had in 1985, that's not a bad thing. Edit: Okay, do people disagree with the first sentence or the second one?
JetAlone 5y ago
Many people do actively want to end their family lines, and they have a right to decide to do that. I don't know about colonizing other planets, but hey, it's also a choice to try to go do that. I was born on the earth, and I'd prefer to have children, and myself die on this earth. Maybe if I have some descendents, some of them will end up living on other planets or in outer space. I don't know. It's hard to overstate how gargantuan of a move leaving the planet we started on is, the emotional impact of it plus the immense challenges it will bring.
- bendbro 5y ago
  Soft
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Soft because I prefer not to go to space and deal with the hardships? Soft because I decide to allow other people to choose extinction instead of hoping to impose my own pro-natalism on them?
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      You didn't answer, so be it. On reconsideration I admit I was wrong and "soft" to use the word "right" - it's not their "right" because I don't actually think rights even really exist. It's their choice made with free will. I'd like it if they became pro-natalist like me, but it would be absurd to try and force them to. Best I can do is make an appeal: you'd be happier if you go live real, natural life. If that's on mars (which I doubt), so be it.
- kortilla 5y ago
  People did the same thing leaving Europe for the Americas. For many it was a one-way trip with a high likelihood of death.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. I don't feel that it's the risk I'm meant to take on, I've chosen other risks and challenges. But maybe it's someone else's?
mrpopo 5y ago
Our "number of eggs" is not shrinking. It's actually expanded by a factor of 4 in the span of 100 years, and by a factor of 400 in the span of 2000 years. Only once for a decade during the 14th century has the population actually decreased, during the Black Plague. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/World-po...
- adrianN 5y ago
  The number of planets with humans on them has remained steady though.
lm28469 5y ago
> If we don't fill more planets, eventually we will die out. The thing is we have an almost unlimited numbers of issues to solve right here and right now instead of anticipating the death of the sun or a on in a trillion chance asteroid collision. Problems which are easier and cheaper to solve and would have a direct measurable impact on billions of people.

temporalparts 5y ago

I mean the future of a lot of countries were decided by rulers pushing their citizens to breed in order to fill out more countries.

aeternum 5y ago

It's just a matter of time before every organism on earth dies if humans do not bring them to other planets. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and by most estimates has only 0.6 billion years left before the sun's light is insufficient to sustain photosynthesis. Even if some life survives that, earth will eventually burn up as the sun expands. Some catastrophic event, human-caused nuclear warfare, asteroid, bioweapon could easily destroy all intelligent life on earth. If that happens it is very unlikely intelligent life will have time to evolve before the earth is destroyed. Why gamble on an event like that not happening given how close we've come? The universe is vast, why don't humans have a duty to protect life and bring it to other planets asap? It's so strange that environmentalists want to preserve natural life but steadfastly oppose colonizing other planets (the only way to actually preserve it).

dragonwriter 5y ago
> It's just a matter of time before every organism on earth dies if humans do not bring them to other planets. This sentence is equally true if you put a full stop after “dies” and delete everything following.
lostcolony 5y ago
Modern humans have been around only 200-300k years. Industrialization started 130 years ago or so. Getting off the planet in the next 600 million years is a much, much smaller concern than how we can actually keep the species going in the immediate future. While, yes, at some point we need a 'plan B' to earth, the reality is we still first need a plan A; despite how far away we are from it, we are much closer to being able to maintain equilibrium on this planet than we are to colonizing another (and if we don't fix the first in a relatively short period, but somehow manage the second, we just doom two planets anyway).
rob74 5y ago
From that angle, it sounds strange. However, if you talk about colonizing other planets, it's not "preserving natural life" anymore, it's establishing several invasive species by either creating an ecosystem where there is none or (even worse) destroying a (hypothetical) extraterrestrial ecosystem to establish one that would be useful to humans. There are definitely some people who would refuse extending their own lifespan beyond its natural limits, so it's not surprising that some have the same opinion for the species as a whole...

karmakurtisaani 5y ago

I guess if you turn earth into an uninhabitable space rock, it's almost like colonizing Mars.