3 ms·

> A much better plan to avoid extinction is multifold: (1) Stop destroying our own environment, duh. (2) Get rid of nuclear weapons. (3) Stop killing each other

> A much better plan to avoid extinction is multifold: (1) Stop destroying our own environment, duh. (2) Get rid of nuclear weapons. (3) Stop killing each other in general. (4) Invest in asteroid detection and deflection. (5) Build shelters on Earth capable of surviving disaster, such as underground. It also wouldn't hurt to (6) Stop being afraid of vaccination. That all sure sounds simple enough if you handwave over all the inherent complexity, but by that standard so does colonizing Mars, and yet colonizing Mars also sounds like a fun adventure. In particular, (2) and (3) are working at cross purposes here—nuclear deterrent is the primary thing that has prevented a great power war from happening since 1945. Also, (4)—asteroid deflection—could provide a safeguard for earth, but could just as easily be used as a weapon of mass destruction. (1) is a slogan and not a concrete plan. How do you plan to provide food, energy, housing, and health care to eight billion people? Environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits. Windmills are a hazard to birds, hydroelectric dams are a hazard to fish, solar and batteries require mining rare earth metals, and so forth.

lapcat 4y ago
> That all sure sounds simple enough if you handwave over all the inherent complexity I didn't say it was simple. I believe what I said: "we have no hope of long-term survival anywhere, because of our own stupidity." > nuclear deterrent is the primary thing that has prevented a great power war from happening since 1945. A sad statement about humanity. Which is why I said we need to get our shit together. Do we bring nationalism and nuclear weapons to Mars? How soon after settlement until the first Martian war starts? Could a Martian colony even survive a war, if the life-sustaining infrastructure is attacked? Or do they do it in the style of Star Trek "A Taste of Armageddon", with simulations and disintegration chambers? > How do you plan to provide food, energy, housing, and health care to eight billion people? How do you plan it? Hunger, power outages, homelessness, and lack of access to health care already exist. > Windmills are a hazard to birds, hydroelectric dams are a hazard to fish We're already killing birds and fish in many other ways more deadly.
- jboy55 4y ago
  >Do we bring nationalism and nuclear weapons to Mars? How soon after settlement until the first Martian war starts? Could a Martian colony even survive a war, if the life-sustaining infrastructure is attacked? Would a small Mars colony survive a single jilted lover aiming for the ultimate murder-suicide?
- philwelch 4y ago
  > I didn't say it was simple. I believe what I said: "we have no hope of long-term survival anywhere, because of our own stupidity." Then give up and cede the floor to the people who are actually trying to do something about the future of humanity. If you're really this defeatist about the whole thing, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation. Also, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation in general. You've managed to quote almost everything I wrote in my post except for one of the central points, which was: "Environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits." You ignore that while quoting just about everything else to provide snippy and dismissive comments that aren't really engaging with anything. Of course, why would you contribute anything of value if you're philosophically committed to dismissive doomsaying.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > If you're really this defeatist about the whole thing, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation. The truth? Are you concerned with truth, or just wishful thinking? Let's say you have a terminal illness, for example, ALS. Would you lie to everyone, including yourself, and say you're fine, that everything is going to be ok? Or would you admit the truth, and try to come to grips with it? Of course we would love to have a cure. Nobody welcomes a terminal illness. But the reality and gravity of the situation cannot be honestly denied. > Environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits In the large sense, they're really not, because there's a single planet that supports human life, namely Earth, and if we wreck it, making it inhospitable, then every other tradeoff becomes irrelevant. The livability of the Earth's environment is a precondition for every other human endeavor. You can't have economic activity without ecological activity. And if you aim to convince me to be quiet about that, then the last thing you want to do is claim that we can "trade" the environment for something else. This kind of attitude only reaffirms my pessimism about whether we can, as I put it, get our shit together. I am dismissive of concern trolling about windmills harming birds and dams harming fish when we're currently facing a period of mass animal species extinction due to human effects on the environment, such as global warming, chemical and physical pollution, deforestation, overfishing, etc. > if you're philosophically committed to dismissive doomsaying. I'm not philosophically committed to it, just empirically convinced of it. I don't know how it's going to go down in the end. What I do know is that humans are essentially less hairy, more talkative apes, and as a group we can't responsibly handle the technology that the cleverest (but not necessarily wisest) among us were able to create. We're like the sorcerer's apprentice, except there's no sorcerer to show up at the last minute to save ourselves from the disaster we created. We've known about global warming for many decades, yet we've done practically nothing about it, and now hardly anyone can deny that the consequences of it are starting to show. We're already past the point of no return. We allow amoral madmen to control world-threatening nuclear arsenals. We put anything and everything into the water, into the air, into the ground, without any apparent concern for the future. Millions of people are in near total denial of science, believing among other things that the world was literally created a few thousand years ago, and evolution did not occur. And by the way, these people dominate at least one of the two major political parties of the most powerful nation on Earth. I don't know why exactly I should be hopeful about all this. To whom am I supposed to cede the floor? The "pedo guy" guy?
foobarian 4y ago
> A much better plan to avoid extinction is multifold I don't think going extinct from the effects of any human capability is much of a concern. Humans have lived in stone age for tens of thousands of years. It's more that we wouldn't have nice things like houses, cars, and computers.

lapcat 4y ago

> That all sure sounds simple enough if you handwave over all the inherent complexity I didn't say it was simple. I believe what I said: "we have no hope of long-term survival anywhere, because of our own stupidity." > nuclear deterrent is the primary thing that has prevented a great power war from happening since 1945. A sad statement about humanity. Which is why I said we need to get our shit together. Do we bring nationalism and nuclear weapons to Mars? How soon after settlement until the first Martian war starts? Could a Martian colony even survive a war, if the life-sustaining infrastructure is attacked? Or do they do it in the style of Star Trek "A Taste of Armageddon", with simulations and disintegration chambers? > How do you plan to provide food, energy, housing, and health care to eight billion people? How do you plan it? Hunger, power outages, homelessness, and lack of access to health care already exist. > Windmills are a hazard to birds, hydroelectric dams are a hazard to fish We're already killing birds and fish in many other ways more deadly.

jboy55 4y ago
>Do we bring nationalism and nuclear weapons to Mars? How soon after settlement until the first Martian war starts? Could a Martian colony even survive a war, if the life-sustaining infrastructure is attacked? Would a small Mars colony survive a single jilted lover aiming for the ultimate murder-suicide?
philwelch 4y ago
> I didn't say it was simple. I believe what I said: "we have no hope of long-term survival anywhere, because of our own stupidity." Then give up and cede the floor to the people who are actually trying to do something about the future of humanity. If you're really this defeatist about the whole thing, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation. Also, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation in general. You've managed to quote almost everything I wrote in my post except for one of the central points, which was: "Environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits." You ignore that while quoting just about everything else to provide snippy and dismissive comments that aren't really engaging with anything. Of course, why would you contribute anything of value if you're philosophically committed to dismissive doomsaying.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > If you're really this defeatist about the whole thing, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation. The truth? Are you concerned with truth, or just wishful thinking? Let's say you have a terminal illness, for example, ALS. Would you lie to everyone, including yourself, and say you're fine, that everything is going to be ok? Or would you admit the truth, and try to come to grips with it? Of course we would love to have a cure. Nobody welcomes a terminal illness. But the reality and gravity of the situation cannot be honestly denied. > Environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits In the large sense, they're really not, because there's a single planet that supports human life, namely Earth, and if we wreck it, making it inhospitable, then every other tradeoff becomes irrelevant. The livability of the Earth's environment is a precondition for every other human endeavor. You can't have economic activity without ecological activity. And if you aim to convince me to be quiet about that, then the last thing you want to do is claim that we can "trade" the environment for something else. This kind of attitude only reaffirms my pessimism about whether we can, as I put it, get our shit together. I am dismissive of concern trolling about windmills harming birds and dams harming fish when we're currently facing a period of mass animal species extinction due to human effects on the environment, such as global warming, chemical and physical pollution, deforestation, overfishing, etc. > if you're philosophically committed to dismissive doomsaying. I'm not philosophically committed to it, just empirically convinced of it. I don't know how it's going to go down in the end. What I do know is that humans are essentially less hairy, more talkative apes, and as a group we can't responsibly handle the technology that the cleverest (but not necessarily wisest) among us were able to create. We're like the sorcerer's apprentice, except there's no sorcerer to show up at the last minute to save ourselves from the disaster we created. We've known about global warming for many decades, yet we've done practically nothing about it, and now hardly anyone can deny that the consequences of it are starting to show. We're already past the point of no return. We allow amoral madmen to control world-threatening nuclear arsenals. We put anything and everything into the water, into the air, into the ground, without any apparent concern for the future. Millions of people are in near total denial of science, believing among other things that the world was literally created a few thousand years ago, and evolution did not occur. And by the way, these people dominate at least one of the two major political parties of the most powerful nation on Earth. I don't know why exactly I should be hopeful about all this. To whom am I supposed to cede the floor? The "pedo guy" guy?

foobarian 4y ago

> A much better plan to avoid extinction is multifold I don't think going extinct from the effects of any human capability is much of a concern. Humans have lived in stone age for tens of thousands of years. It's more that we wouldn't have nice things like houses, cars, and computers.