4 ms·

> A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. > I can live with the odds. Y

> A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. > I can live with the odds. You may be able to, but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. You may also live with the odds of no backup to a database, but others here will attest to the importance... > Let's face it: space exploration is cool, that's all. No need to find excuses :) Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason. But yes, I agree, space exploration is cool all on it's own, so I don't see what the complaint is.

palata 4y ago
> There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. There's evidence that many more humans have died from pollution. Then we could question whether the solution to the asteroid threat is to try to send a few humans on Mars or to prepare autonomous missions that would reach the asteroid and prevent it from reaching the Earth (e.g. by changing its course). > but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. Sure. If the asteroid was one of the higher risks on the list, it would make sense. But right now the biggest risk to humans, by a very wide margin, is human activity. > Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason. It was not me asking, but I think this is a bad reason. It is probably much easier to prevent the hypothetical asteroid from colliding with Earth than to go live in space.
poulpy123 4y ago
> There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. And there is also evidence that life was able to survive despite it while not even able to start on mars

palata 4y ago

> There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. There's evidence that many more humans have died from pollution. Then we could question whether the solution to the asteroid threat is to try to send a few humans on Mars or to prepare autonomous missions that would reach the asteroid and prevent it from reaching the Earth (e.g. by changing its course). > but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. Sure. If the asteroid was one of the higher risks on the list, it would make sense. But right now the biggest risk to humans, by a very wide margin, is human activity. > Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason. It was not me asking, but I think this is a bad reason. It is probably much easier to prevent the hypothetical asteroid from colliding with Earth than to go live in space.

poulpy123 4y ago

> There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. And there is also evidence that life was able to survive despite it while not even able to start on mars