5 ms·

The "Terra Ignota" series really gets into this question in a way that finally broke me out of what I agree to be a sort of "faith" in the Idea of Mars. For me,

The "Terra Ignota" series really gets into this question in a way that finally broke me out of what I agree to be a sort of "faith" in the Idea of Mars. For me, Mars has always been an obvious target for the reasons discussed here re: inspiration, but also because I feel terror at the idea of all of our species on one planet with no backup. In Terra Ignota, there's a "nation" (the novel has a radically different concept of sovereign states an nationhood than our world today) composed of people who many here I think would identify with: they take a vow both of productivity and leisure so as to maximize their potential ability to contribute to the betterment of the human race, and their national obsession is the eventual (500 year timeline) colonization of Mars. (spoilers) A critical ideological revelation in the novel is that despite the fact that basically the entire nation is obsessed with the eventual colonization of Mars (they send their bodily remains there so as to increase the organic biomass), when push came to shove for the idea of actually putting people on the planet, it was realized by many in the nation that they don't actually want to abandon all of humanity on Earth for a life sentence of scrabbling out a hard life on Mars. Not because they don't want to put in the work, they are arguably the hardest working society in the series, but more like, it would just separate them for the remainder of their lives from all of humanity, and they have to acknowledge to themselves that they don't want that. As cool as you can make Mars with improving colonization technologies,I think that for a ticket to Mars to be economical from a labor, safety, equipment, and resources standpoint, it has to be one way. It has to be you telling yourself that you will die on Mars, away from all of humanity but the smallest slice. I think that's a pill too bitter to swallow.

lapcat 4y ago
> I think that's a pill too bitter to swallow. And what a fate to impose on your children. You personally may choose the hardest road, but your unborn children would have no choice in the matter, and those future children would be essential to a permanent colony. Moral dilemma: What if children conceived and born on Mars (if that's even medically viable) decide that Mars totally sucks, and they want to migrate to Earth? Do we build a wall around Earth and stop them as "illegal aliens"? Seriously, life on Earth is likely to be much better, much easier than life on Mars, so there's going to be a desire among a significant number of Martians to leave, just as there's a desire among Earthlings to move for a better life. Then what? In order to keep the Mars colony sufficiently "staffed", do you turn it into a totalitarian regime, where nobody can leave? No personal freedom? How many of us want to sacrifice our lives and our happiness just to be a "backup plan"? I rarely if ever hear space enthusiasts talk about the morality of a Mars colony. They act like it's just a technological problem, and it's somehow a given that we can put large numbers of humans wherever we want, whether or not the humans themselves would want that.
- unlikelymordant 4y ago
  Moral dilemma: What if children conceived and born on Earth decide that Earth totally sucks, and they want to migrate to Mars? Do we build a wall around Mars and tell them their shitty life on earth is all they get, and they should be happy with antarctica? I think your moral argument can easily be flipped, why do you get to decide that we shouldnt do something because there exist people who dont want to do it? What of the the people who do? If you dont want to go, then dont go...
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Do we build a wall around Mars and tell them their shitty life on earth is all they get, and they should be happy with antarctica? I'm not personally in favor of the "colonize Antarctica" approach. It's true that if we can't figure out how to colonize someplace like Antarctica first, then it's unlikely we'd be successful on Mars, but I'm not advocating the colonization of Mars anyway. > If you dont want to go, then dont go... This completely ignores what I said, which was "You personally may choose the hardest road, but your unborn children would have no choice in the matter".
    - unlikelymordant 4y ago
      I guess i see children having to deal with choices their parents made a part of life. Would the offer of a trip back to earth for any child born on mars go any way to overcoming your concerns?
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > I guess i see children having to deal with choices their parents made a part of life. Most responsible parents strive to make the lives of their children better rather than worse. Not always successfully of course, but it's the goal, and going to Mars is predictably worse. > Would the offer of a trip back to earth for any child born on mars go any way to overcoming your concerns? It might allay the moral dilemma, but it would increase the concerns about the long-term viability of the colony.
baron816 4y ago
> I feel terror at the idea of all of our species on one planet with no backup. While I would like to live out the rest of my life as best as I could, and I hope everyone alive and not yet alive gets that chance too, I don't think it would be that great a tragedy if humankind no longer existed. Imagine a world where everyone is hooked up to a simulation that feels as real as real life and everyone gets to live out the best possible life (or even lives) for them. They can have as many (AI) children they want in the simulation and never even know they weren't real. In that world, where no one ever had real children again and humanity naturally died out, would that be a bad thing? Humanity is not providing any benefit except to itself.
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  That seems pretty bad, yeah. I care about humanity. I care about myself! You're welcome to sterilize yourself, but i don't think I'll follow. The scenario you describe doesn't involve pain, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. An empty, dead universe seems worse to me than one teeming with thought.
  - drewm1980 4y ago
    The thought experiment wasn't to end sentient life in a glorious generation of virtual hedonism, just humanity. Let the octopi build their ~own VR escapism pods.
    - m4rtink 4y ago
      I think people really underestimate resources needed to run these VR paradises - it needs mass and energy! I can fully imagine a totally disconnected VR dwelling civilization that still has hordes or self replicating bots of doom that dismantle planets and stars only to make more memory and compute. Might very well be more dangerous than a "normal" space faring civilization.
      - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
        Yes, that's the good future, except the overwhelming majority of people are virtual (keeping meat alive is expensive!)
8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
a one way trip to Mars is the least of the problems. many have volunteered already.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Anybody who volunteers for a one-way trip is not sane enough to want to have along. They might not object to going with equally insane incels, but do I want to spend to send and maintain them? The best that could be said is they wouldn't be here anymore.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    Unnecessary comment. 200 000 people applied to Mars One and the ones I read about of the 700 that were accepted were definitely not "insane incels".
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      So what is the legality? AFAIK, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not legal in a lot of jurisdictions. An actual Mars mission may set a precedent, for, uhm, voluntary short-term underwater scientific missions for geriatrics and hospice patience with challenging pain management situations.
      - lucumo 4y ago
        For the law, intent usually matters. If you help someone who has the intention to die, then that's assisted suicide. But people can accept any level of danger they please, as long as they intent to survive the ordeal. The actions might be the same, but the intent is different.
        anticensor 4y ago
        In certain jurisdictions, assisted suicide is an intentless offence.
    - 4y ago
Kiro 4y ago
> I think that's a pill too bitter to swallow. No-one that wants to go to Mars has any expectations to go back. It's not even a factor.
hoseja 4y ago
It's really not required to be one-way. Starship is explicitly designed to refuel and return. It's way harder (in rocketry terms) to go from Earth to Mars than the other way around.

lapcat 4y ago

> I think that's a pill too bitter to swallow. And what a fate to impose on your children. You personally may choose the hardest road, but your unborn children would have no choice in the matter, and those future children would be essential to a permanent colony. Moral dilemma: What if children conceived and born on Mars (if that's even medically viable) decide that Mars totally sucks, and they want to migrate to Earth? Do we build a wall around Earth and stop them as "illegal aliens"? Seriously, life on Earth is likely to be much better, much easier than life on Mars, so there's going to be a desire among a significant number of Martians to leave, just as there's a desire among Earthlings to move for a better life. Then what? In order to keep the Mars colony sufficiently "staffed", do you turn it into a totalitarian regime, where nobody can leave? No personal freedom? How many of us want to sacrifice our lives and our happiness just to be a "backup plan"? I rarely if ever hear space enthusiasts talk about the morality of a Mars colony. They act like it's just a technological problem, and it's somehow a given that we can put large numbers of humans wherever we want, whether or not the humans themselves would want that.

unlikelymordant 4y ago
Moral dilemma: What if children conceived and born on Earth decide that Earth totally sucks, and they want to migrate to Mars? Do we build a wall around Mars and tell them their shitty life on earth is all they get, and they should be happy with antarctica? I think your moral argument can easily be flipped, why do you get to decide that we shouldnt do something because there exist people who dont want to do it? What of the the people who do? If you dont want to go, then dont go...
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Do we build a wall around Mars and tell them their shitty life on earth is all they get, and they should be happy with antarctica? I'm not personally in favor of the "colonize Antarctica" approach. It's true that if we can't figure out how to colonize someplace like Antarctica first, then it's unlikely we'd be successful on Mars, but I'm not advocating the colonization of Mars anyway. > If you dont want to go, then dont go... This completely ignores what I said, which was "You personally may choose the hardest road, but your unborn children would have no choice in the matter".
  - unlikelymordant 4y ago
    I guess i see children having to deal with choices their parents made a part of life. Would the offer of a trip back to earth for any child born on mars go any way to overcoming your concerns?
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > I guess i see children having to deal with choices their parents made a part of life. Most responsible parents strive to make the lives of their children better rather than worse. Not always successfully of course, but it's the goal, and going to Mars is predictably worse. > Would the offer of a trip back to earth for any child born on mars go any way to overcoming your concerns? It might allay the moral dilemma, but it would increase the concerns about the long-term viability of the colony.

baron816 4y ago

> I feel terror at the idea of all of our species on one planet with no backup. While I would like to live out the rest of my life as best as I could, and I hope everyone alive and not yet alive gets that chance too, I don't think it would be that great a tragedy if humankind no longer existed. Imagine a world where everyone is hooked up to a simulation that feels as real as real life and everyone gets to live out the best possible life (or even lives) for them. They can have as many (AI) children they want in the simulation and never even know they weren't real. In that world, where no one ever had real children again and humanity naturally died out, would that be a bad thing? Humanity is not providing any benefit except to itself.

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
That seems pretty bad, yeah. I care about humanity. I care about myself! You're welcome to sterilize yourself, but i don't think I'll follow. The scenario you describe doesn't involve pain, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. An empty, dead universe seems worse to me than one teeming with thought.
- drewm1980 4y ago
  The thought experiment wasn't to end sentient life in a glorious generation of virtual hedonism, just humanity. Let the octopi build their ~own VR escapism pods.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    I think people really underestimate resources needed to run these VR paradises - it needs mass and energy! I can fully imagine a totally disconnected VR dwelling civilization that still has hordes or self replicating bots of doom that dismantle planets and stars only to make more memory and compute. Might very well be more dangerous than a "normal" space faring civilization.
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      Yes, that's the good future, except the overwhelming majority of people are virtual (keeping meat alive is expensive!)

8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago

a one way trip to Mars is the least of the problems. many have volunteered already.

moloch-hai 4y ago
Anybody who volunteers for a one-way trip is not sane enough to want to have along. They might not object to going with equally insane incels, but do I want to spend to send and maintain them? The best that could be said is they wouldn't be here anymore.
- Kiro 4y ago
  Unnecessary comment. 200 000 people applied to Mars One and the ones I read about of the 700 that were accepted were definitely not "insane incels".
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    So what is the legality? AFAIK, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not legal in a lot of jurisdictions. An actual Mars mission may set a precedent, for, uhm, voluntary short-term underwater scientific missions for geriatrics and hospice patience with challenging pain management situations.
    - lucumo 4y ago
      For the law, intent usually matters. If you help someone who has the intention to die, then that's assisted suicide. But people can accept any level of danger they please, as long as they intent to survive the ordeal. The actions might be the same, but the intent is different.
      - anticensor 4y ago
        In certain jurisdictions, assisted suicide is an intentless offence.
  - 4y ago

Kiro 4y ago

> I think that's a pill too bitter to swallow. No-one that wants to go to Mars has any expectations to go back. It's not even a factor.

hoseja 4y ago

It's really not required to be one-way. Starship is explicitly designed to refuel and return. It's way harder (in rocketry terms) to go from Earth to Mars than the other way around.