4 ms·
Except 8 billion starving desperate people trying to get it. For instance if people were starving or hiding from fallout, those doomsday shelters the rich are
by merpnderp 5y ago
Except 8 billion starving desperate people trying to get it.
For instance if people were starving or hiding from fallout, those doomsday shelters the rich are building for themselves would likely be overran by the locals who helped build them or heard all about them from town gossip.
- gambiting 5y agoHow are those 8 billion starving people getting into a base 10km below the surface of the ocean which requires a specialized submarine to get to? How is this any more realistic than 8 billion starving people getting to Mars? And finally - I hope you aren't suggesting that the base on Mars is a way to escape "8 billion starving people".
- ceejayoz 5y agoYou don't have to get to it to affect it. Eight billion very pissed off people can probably figure out how to drop rocks on the rich billionaire haven in an ocean trench.
- merpnderp 5y agoA few of those people getting access to a submarine or just building a robot to go down there is a lot more likely than them building a vehicle and equipment to land on Mars and assault the habitat there.
- gambiting 5y agoI think we're talking about different kinds of scale here. A habitat that could be destroyed by "a few people building a submarine" isn't a backup policy for humanity. Not here, not on Mars, not anywhere. I'm imagining a proper city-sized habitation for few million people - with industry and agriculture to support it. A truly separate colony that trades with the rest of Earth when it needs to, but can survive on its own. Also I really don't like how the arguments so far are about preventing the starving people from coming over and messing things up. It strikes me as very "we need to keep the pleb out" kind of thinking, no different than what some rich people are doing.