3 ms·

The benefit is, when Earth is polluted beyond help, Musk and his progeny can escape our planet and live on Mars.

skrowl 4y ago
We're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction Being on multiple planets (and eventually multiple solar systems) prevents a species from going extinct if something catastrophic happens to their home world
- vkou 4y ago
  > We're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction No, we're not. And whatever we end up doing to the Earth, it's still going to be vastly more suitable for human life than anywhere else in the solar system. If you care about preventing extinction, stop looking at the stars, and start digging bunkers. Or building undersea cities, or whatever.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    All true, but I say a backup plan is better than no backup plan, especially as this is one (admittedly rich) sci-fi nerd's hobby project. As even that specific nerd is also doing a big project to reduce environmental damage, this isn't an "either/or", it's an "and".
- jliptzin 4y ago
  The sun is gonna blow up anyway and eat the whole solar system
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Yeah, but even the sun getting too hot for complex life on Earth in particular is something like 2 billion years before that.
- timeon 4y ago
  Why is this important?
apendleton 4y ago
Even assuming an absolute worst-case scenario climate-wise (no mitigations whatsoever, massive sea-level rise, etc.), Earth will still be dramatically more hospitable to human life than Mars for the entirety of Musk's lifetime, and very likely his children's and grandchildren's lifetimes as well, barring some mass-extinction event like a nuclear war. Even if a colonization effort begins soon, living on Mars is likely to be extremely difficult for centuries -- we can't breathe the air or grow anything in the soil, our biology is likely ill-adapted to the gravity, there is no liquid surface water, etc. -- and the idea that there will come a point in the foreseeable future where it makes sense to escape there because it's easier than being here (because of pollution or whatever other reason) is difficult to fathom.
ben_w 4y ago
The minimum level of pollution where Mars looks good on that basis is: 1. killed literally, not metaphorically, everything 2. and literally boiled off all the oceans, rivers, and lakes, top the bottom 3. and strip mined literally, not metaphorically, everywhere to a depth of 3,000 km 4. and removed almost everything from the atmosphere except the current level of CO2/m^3
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  Yeah, I'll believe Mars colonization makes sense once the much closer and more hospitable environments of interior Antarctica and the ocean floor are settled.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Ocean floor is a different kind of problem, and Antarctica (and Greenland) have settlements. But for similar reasons, I think we should aim for the Moon before Mars: closer, so when (and it is "when" not "if") something goes fatally wrong, it will be easier to get help. That said, if Starship delivers on Musk's vision, we'll probably get both.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Yes, but if Earth suffers several unlikely global catastrophes at the same time, it might almost be harder to live here than on Mars!
Litost 4y ago
I guess it's always worth having a Plan B, but Nate Hagens and Kim Stanley Robinson (sci-fi writer of the Mars Trilogy) discuss this and don't necessarily agree, obviously depending on what definition of "polluted beyond help" you're using etc. [1] Nate Hagens (00:43:15): "And to me it's very smart and famous people, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk among them say, "We're screwing up Earth. Climate is going to be bad. We need to colonize outer space and head to Mars." And that makes just zero sense to me, because on the worst thermonuclear runaway-climate scenario, Earth is still going to be a paradise next to Mars. I mean-" Kim Stanley Robinson (00:43:43): "I agree with you completely. That is a case that has to be made. And the thing about people like Hawkings, the thing about people like Elon Musk is they're smart, they aren't that smart. They aren't wise, they aren't philosophers, and they're not ecologists. Very often physicists will assume that ecology is just physics in action, and that they've got it all sussed out because they know the rules of physics and they can do rocketry. But you can't do plant biology just knowing rocketry. It's more complex, it's more interconnected, it's a more-complex science. And many physicists will arrogantly say that, "Because I know the laws of physics, I know everything." But they don't know how a marsh works. They haven't studied biology enough to understand their own ignorance. So how smart are you if you don't know how ignorant you are?" [1] - https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanley-robinson https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanle...
pjscott 4y ago
Even a "polluted beyond help" Earth would be easier to live on than Mars. We have liquid water, a nice thick atmosphere that isn't 95% carbon dioxide, a better ionosphere, easy access to nitrogen as a synthetic fertilizer feedstock, and various other advantages. Musk knows this; he's not an idiot, nor is he a cartoon villain motivated by a desire to be Evil. It bothers me when people just make up outlandish accusations.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  Actually, the available evidence does suggest that Musk is an idiot.

We're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction Being on multiple planets (and eventually multiple solar systems) prevents a species from going extinct if something catastrophic happens to their home world

vkou 4y ago
> We're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction No, we're not. And whatever we end up doing to the Earth, it's still going to be vastly more suitable for human life than anywhere else in the solar system. If you care about preventing extinction, stop looking at the stars, and start digging bunkers. Or building undersea cities, or whatever.
- ben_w 4y ago
  All true, but I say a backup plan is better than no backup plan, especially as this is one (admittedly rich) sci-fi nerd's hobby project. As even that specific nerd is also doing a big project to reduce environmental damage, this isn't an "either/or", it's an "and".
jliptzin 4y ago
The sun is gonna blow up anyway and eat the whole solar system
- ben_w 4y ago
  Yeah, but even the sun getting too hot for complex life on Earth in particular is something like 2 billion years before that.
timeon 4y ago
Why is this important?

apendleton 4y ago

Even assuming an absolute worst-case scenario climate-wise (no mitigations whatsoever, massive sea-level rise, etc.), Earth will still be dramatically more hospitable to human life than Mars for the entirety of Musk's lifetime, and very likely his children's and grandchildren's lifetimes as well, barring some mass-extinction event like a nuclear war. Even if a colonization effort begins soon, living on Mars is likely to be extremely difficult for centuries -- we can't breathe the air or grow anything in the soil, our biology is likely ill-adapted to the gravity, there is no liquid surface water, etc. -- and the idea that there will come a point in the foreseeable future where it makes sense to escape there because it's easier than being here (because of pollution or whatever other reason) is difficult to fathom.

ben_w 4y ago

The minimum level of pollution where Mars looks good on that basis is: 1. killed literally, not metaphorically, everything 2. and literally boiled off all the oceans, rivers, and lakes, top the bottom 3. and strip mined literally, not metaphorically, everywhere to a depth of 3,000 km 4. and removed almost everything from the atmosphere except the current level of CO2/m^3

NoGravitas 4y ago
Yeah, I'll believe Mars colonization makes sense once the much closer and more hospitable environments of interior Antarctica and the ocean floor are settled.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Ocean floor is a different kind of problem, and Antarctica (and Greenland) have settlements. But for similar reasons, I think we should aim for the Moon before Mars: closer, so when (and it is "when" not "if") something goes fatally wrong, it will be easier to get help. That said, if Starship delivers on Musk's vision, we'll probably get both.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Yes, but if Earth suffers several unlikely global catastrophes at the same time, it might almost be harder to live here than on Mars!

Litost 4y ago

I guess it's always worth having a Plan B, but Nate Hagens and Kim Stanley Robinson (sci-fi writer of the Mars Trilogy) discuss this and don't necessarily agree, obviously depending on what definition of "polluted beyond help" you're using etc. [1] Nate Hagens (00:43:15): "And to me it's very smart and famous people, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk among them say, "We're screwing up Earth. Climate is going to be bad. We need to colonize outer space and head to Mars." And that makes just zero sense to me, because on the worst thermonuclear runaway-climate scenario, Earth is still going to be a paradise next to Mars. I mean-" Kim Stanley Robinson (00:43:43): "I agree with you completely. That is a case that has to be made. And the thing about people like Hawkings, the thing about people like Elon Musk is they're smart, they aren't that smart. They aren't wise, they aren't philosophers, and they're not ecologists. Very often physicists will assume that ecology is just physics in action, and that they've got it all sussed out because they know the rules of physics and they can do rocketry. But you can't do plant biology just knowing rocketry. It's more complex, it's more interconnected, it's a more-complex science. And many physicists will arrogantly say that, "Because I know the laws of physics, I know everything." But they don't know how a marsh works. They haven't studied biology enough to understand their own ignorance. So how smart are you if you don't know how ignorant you are?" [1] - https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanley-robinson https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanle...

pjscott 4y ago

Even a "polluted beyond help" Earth would be easier to live on than Mars. We have liquid water, a nice thick atmosphere that isn't 95% carbon dioxide, a better ionosphere, easy access to nitrogen as a synthetic fertilizer feedstock, and various other advantages. Musk knows this; he's not an idiot, nor is he a cartoon villain motivated by a desire to be Evil. It bothers me when people just make up outlandish accusations.

NoGravitas 4y ago
Actually, the available evidence does suggest that Musk is an idiot.