4 ms·

I love Werner Herzog - but he’s never been an optimist. As for the content of the complaint: habitable planets are too far away, Mars is very much not a nice pl

I love Werner Herzog - but he’s never been an optimist. As for the content of the complaint: habitable planets are too far away, Mars is very much not a nice place to live, and we must protect the earth instead of abandoning it: well - of course. Does anyone disagree? Just because mars isn’t great and the stars are far doesn’t mean inevitable failure. And as for “moving on like locusts” - there will most likely never be the means to get more than even a tiny fraction of a fraction of the human population off the planet. Becoming multi planetary isn’t some economic frontier - it isn’t a new world to colonize - it’s a required backup for the survival of life itself. Deer and trees stand little chance to reproduce if the early is destroyed (by us or by something else). We do have some chance - it’s our responsibility to life itself to not perish. Forget humanity - let’s save the penguins. Anyways - I can’t believe someone as clearly intelligent is Herzog does the “but we can’t just abandon earth!” Argument. No one is abandoning earth - we’re all stuck here - as if we’re all one mind and decided “eh, fuck it”. Thank god humanity takes thousands of different courses simultaneously. I hope one of those courses doesn’t go extinct. Let’s fix earth and get some folks off it just in case. If it’s testosterone that saves humanity - so be it - what’s so wrong with testosterone anyways?

datatrashfire 5y ago
So living on Mars would suck, and Alpha Centauri is too far away to be a real option. What's the point? So we can mine some asteroids? That seems so limited compared to the vision of people like Elon Musk and gang promoting the idea the survival of humanity depends on leaving Earth.
- erulabs 5y ago
  It wouldn’t matter if there were no resources in space (which obviously is not true). Nothing has to be brought back ever. It does not have to be profitable. What it has to do is allow life (maybe not even human life) to survive if either humans or anything else ends life on earth. It’s more than the survival of humanity - we’re the only life that has ever evolved to the point of being able to leave. It’s about the survival of life itself.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    Seems you'd have a better chance of surviving in a specialized bomb shelter on earth than pretty much any scenario on mars.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      There are people already living in pretty inhospitable places. We don't even need to go to bomb shelters. Just look at let's say Dubai or Middle-East... Hot and dry locations, still supporting people. Maybe not as many people, but still reasonably survivable.
      - azornathogron 5y ago
        I doubt Dubai is self-sufficient, so I'm not sure it's a good example of an extreme environment supporting people. Other parts of the middle-east though, yes.
- StellarTabi 5y ago
  I wish people would spend less time on Mars and more time in asteroid mining. Building capital in space will be a real game changer and the results will be far more useful and practical. Colonization might even look realistic afterwards.
coldtea 5y ago
>Becoming multi planetary isn’t some economic frontier - it isn’t a new world to colonize - it’s a required backup for the survival of life itself. That doesn't make it feasible - as said survical is not by any means signed in any contract with the universe, and has very slim chances (and even in the wildest scenario, it ends with the heat death of the universe anyway). Being "necessary for survival" just makes it stronger as a wishful dream. >Thank god humanity takes thousands of different courses simultaneously. I hope one of those courses doesn’t go extinct. Well, if huge resources are spend to send a few moguls, select personel, and other people in some shitty (compared to Earth) Mars colonies, while still continuing profitable (and destructive) business as usual on Earth, to the ultimate demise of billions and the half-arsed space-colony survival of said few, I wouldn't call it a win. Neither if dreams of "we'll just make it to space if needed" and other pipe dreams help downplay pressing actions needed on Earth.

datatrashfire 5y ago

So living on Mars would suck, and Alpha Centauri is too far away to be a real option. What's the point? So we can mine some asteroids? That seems so limited compared to the vision of people like Elon Musk and gang promoting the idea the survival of humanity depends on leaving Earth.

erulabs 5y ago
It wouldn’t matter if there were no resources in space (which obviously is not true). Nothing has to be brought back ever. It does not have to be profitable. What it has to do is allow life (maybe not even human life) to survive if either humans or anything else ends life on earth. It’s more than the survival of humanity - we’re the only life that has ever evolved to the point of being able to leave. It’s about the survival of life itself.
- staticman2 5y ago
  Seems you'd have a better chance of surviving in a specialized bomb shelter on earth than pretty much any scenario on mars.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    There are people already living in pretty inhospitable places. We don't even need to go to bomb shelters. Just look at let's say Dubai or Middle-East... Hot and dry locations, still supporting people. Maybe not as many people, but still reasonably survivable.
    - azornathogron 5y ago
      I doubt Dubai is self-sufficient, so I'm not sure it's a good example of an extreme environment supporting people. Other parts of the middle-east though, yes.
StellarTabi 5y ago
I wish people would spend less time on Mars and more time in asteroid mining. Building capital in space will be a real game changer and the results will be far more useful and practical. Colonization might even look realistic afterwards.

coldtea 5y ago

>Becoming multi planetary isn’t some economic frontier - it isn’t a new world to colonize - it’s a required backup for the survival of life itself. That doesn't make it feasible - as said survical is not by any means signed in any contract with the universe, and has very slim chances (and even in the wildest scenario, it ends with the heat death of the universe anyway). Being "necessary for survival" just makes it stronger as a wishful dream. >Thank god humanity takes thousands of different courses simultaneously. I hope one of those courses doesn’t go extinct. Well, if huge resources are spend to send a few moguls, select personel, and other people in some shitty (compared to Earth) Mars colonies, while still continuing profitable (and destructive) business as usual on Earth, to the ultimate demise of billions and the half-arsed space-colony survival of said few, I wouldn't call it a win. Neither if dreams of "we'll just make it to space if needed" and other pipe dreams help downplay pressing actions needed on Earth.