11 ms·

That doesn't solve the scenario where everyone on earth gets wiped out.

by nonethewiser 4y ago

thelamest 4y ago
Mars is on (or above) a wiped out Earth level of difficulty already
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Mars is more habitable than Earth would be during an extinction event. After the event the wiped out Earth would certainly be more habitable, but if there aren't any humans available to repopulate...
  - droopyEyelids 4y ago
    What extinction event could possibly make Earth less habitable than Mars?
  - legel 4y ago
    There is a broad range of possible human extinction events, e.g. asteroid impact, large-scale volcanism, viral epidemic, nuclear annihilation, biological warfare, ecological collapse, and autonomous robots [1]. Humans actively monitor and defend against each threat. In the U.S., NASA is committed to detecting asteroids, and recently successfully altered the course of one [2]. I believe we are most powerful to overcome extinction events as a united species on the planet we’ve evolved to live on over billions of years. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction [2] https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2022/9/22/the-science-behind-nasas-first-attempt-at-redirecting-an-asteroid/ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2022/9/22/the-science-behi...
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Without humans. Redundancy is important.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  True, but irrelevant to the point that it's a different basket.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It's not irrelevant. Virtually the only conceivable thing that could make Earth even temporarily as inhospitable to humans as Mars is today is an impact close to the one that created the Moon. For any other scenario, some places on Earth will continue to be more inhabitable to humans even during the event itself than Mars is today. So, having humans on Earth + Mars at best only marginally improved the chances of humanity surviving long term than only having humans on Earth, by a tiny amount.
- mlinsey 4y ago
  the "eggs in one basket" argument only makes sense if Martian colonization is itself just step 1 on a list of dozens of similarly-difficult leaps to get us to terraforming and interstellar colonization. It's a very exciting, multi-generational project to think about. Though frankly I think we're going to get AGI + brain/computer interfaces + cloud mind uploads before we get martian terraforming; and dropping the bag-of-meat related requirements would make extraterrestrial colonization much easier.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    I think we will do both - and everything in between! Even just because you can never get all people top agree on something. :) That's also the best option, not betting on a single idea or technology.
Retric 4y ago
Depends on what would kill everyone on earth. More importantly, if everyone on earth dies having a 100,000 people living on Mars isn’t enough they also all die.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  If they're self-sufficient, they could survive. Human population on Earth has bottlenecked to less than 100,000 in the past and we recovered.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    Are we sure that getting to 100,000 self-sufficient humans on Mars will take less time than getting to 100,000 self-sufficient humans on the Moon? The conditions on the Moon are harsher, but our ability to move people and supplies there seems much greater. And what exactly is the extinction event that would threaten both Earth and a self-sufficient Moon colony?
    - magicalhippo 4y ago
      Self-sufficient seems like quite the bar though. I guess they wouldn't need fancy electronics etc, but I imagine they'd still need non-trivial metallurgy, chemistry and similar in order to survive. That is, they can bring a lot of fancy stuff with them, but to be self-sufficient they'd have to be able to maintain, repair and ideally rebuild what they need indefinitely without resupplies from Earth.
    - mcbits 4y ago
      If we ever get to the point where thousands of people are moving to Mars, thousands will also be moving to the Moon, and vice versa. I don't see it as being just one or the other because the problems that need to be solved are approximately the same, and the cost of shuttling people and supplies is far from the hardest.
      - Retric 4y ago

That doesn't solve the scenario where everyone on earth gets wiped out.

thelamest 4y ago

Mars is on (or above) a wiped out Earth level of difficulty already

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Mars is more habitable than Earth would be during an extinction event. After the event the wiped out Earth would certainly be more habitable, but if there aren't any humans available to repopulate...
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  What extinction event could possibly make Earth less habitable than Mars?
- legel 4y ago
  There is a broad range of possible human extinction events, e.g. asteroid impact, large-scale volcanism, viral epidemic, nuclear annihilation, biological warfare, ecological collapse, and autonomous robots [1]. Humans actively monitor and defend against each threat. In the U.S., NASA is committed to detecting asteroids, and recently successfully altered the course of one [2]. I believe we are most powerful to overcome extinction events as a united species on the planet we’ve evolved to live on over billions of years. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction [2] https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2022/9/22/the-science-behind-nasas-first-attempt-at-redirecting-an-asteroid/ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2022/9/22/the-science-behi...
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Without humans. Redundancy is important.
nonethewiser 4y ago
True, but irrelevant to the point that it's a different basket.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It's not irrelevant. Virtually the only conceivable thing that could make Earth even temporarily as inhospitable to humans as Mars is today is an impact close to the one that created the Moon. For any other scenario, some places on Earth will continue to be more inhabitable to humans even during the event itself than Mars is today. So, having humans on Earth + Mars at best only marginally improved the chances of humanity surviving long term than only having humans on Earth, by a tiny amount.
mlinsey 4y ago
the "eggs in one basket" argument only makes sense if Martian colonization is itself just step 1 on a list of dozens of similarly-difficult leaps to get us to terraforming and interstellar colonization. It's a very exciting, multi-generational project to think about. Though frankly I think we're going to get AGI + brain/computer interfaces + cloud mind uploads before we get martian terraforming; and dropping the bag-of-meat related requirements would make extraterrestrial colonization much easier.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  I think we will do both - and everything in between! Even just because you can never get all people top agree on something. :) That's also the best option, not betting on a single idea or technology.

Retric 4y ago

Depends on what would kill everyone on earth. More importantly, if everyone on earth dies having a 100,000 people living on Mars isn’t enough they also all die.

sacrosancty 4y ago
If they're self-sufficient, they could survive. Human population on Earth has bottlenecked to less than 100,000 in the past and we recovered.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Are we sure that getting to 100,000 self-sufficient humans on Mars will take less time than getting to 100,000 self-sufficient humans on the Moon? The conditions on the Moon are harsher, but our ability to move people and supplies there seems much greater. And what exactly is the extinction event that would threaten both Earth and a self-sufficient Moon colony?
  - magicalhippo 4y ago
    Self-sufficient seems like quite the bar though. I guess they wouldn't need fancy electronics etc, but I imagine they'd still need non-trivial metallurgy, chemistry and similar in order to survive. That is, they can bring a lot of fancy stuff with them, but to be self-sufficient they'd have to be able to maintain, repair and ideally rebuild what they need indefinitely without resupplies from Earth.
  - mcbits 4y ago
    If we ever get to the point where thousands of people are moving to Mars, thousands will also be moving to the Moon, and vice versa. I don't see it as being just one or the other because the problems that need to be solved are approximately the same, and the cost of shuttling people and supplies is far from the hardest.
    - Retric 4y ago