3 ms·

If only we could put a colony on Mars...

by influx 3y ago

Viliam1234 3y ago
I think that Mars is overrated. It is smaller than Earth, and way more difficult to live there, so we would get like 30% extra space for 1000 times the cost per square meter. And then what? We do not have a third planet like that nearby. Mercury and Venus are too hot. Jupiter and Saturn are gas with no solid surface. Uranus and Neptune are ice. The next solar system is way too far. I suspect that if we ever get the ability to travel to the next solar system, it will probably be easier to just stay in space, and only use the planets to mine the resources. Even for that, asteroids may be more convenient. So, from this perspective, Earth is, and will remain, unique.
appplication 3y ago
Putting a colony on Mars won’t save us from our rather unredeemable quality of being human. If we ruined one planet, we can ruin two. Realistically, terraforming mars for sustained independent settlements is likely not within our technological horizon before we wipe ourselves off this planet.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Life will survive us. I think we think too highly of ourselves. I don’t think we will end human civilization either though. The fact we could inhabit the moon and eventually mars at all means we could adapt to a inhospitable earth pretty easily. Maybe there will be much fewer of us and we wouldn’t like that life, but our future descendants would know nothing different and would be adapted to that civilization. But in the time spans of geology life will be resilient to whatever we do.
  - hex4def6 3y ago
    >The fact we could inhabit the moon and eventually mars at all means we could adapt to a inhospitable earth pretty easily. Hmm, not so fast. I don't think we've proved that at all. We can "inhabit" those in the same way that I can "inhabit" the bottom of a pool. In fact, as a numbers game: we've been on the moon during all the Apollo missions for ~3.5 days. Modern humanoids are about 200,000 years old. Or in other words, we've inhabited the moon for 5e-8 % of humanities' existence. The record for holding one's breath is ~25 minutes by a guy called Budimir Šobat. Say their lifespan is 85 years. That's about 5e-7 % of their life. Or in other words, they've "inhabited" the bottom of the pool for 10x longer than humanity as a species has "inhabited" the moon. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying his record proves we can inhabit the bottom of a pool, and I think the same has to be applied to the moon. We have to consider self-sufficiency as a condition of whether or not we're really considered as native inhabitants of a place, or just a temporary extension of the mother planet. In that regard, we honestly can't even really prove equilibrium with our home planet's resources, let alone an inhospitable one like mars or the moon. I'm sure we could sustain a colony of 50 people on mars for the rest of their natural lives. Pack them enough air and snacks, and I'm sure it's doable today. However, I'm much more skeptical that we could do that without constant resupply for an indefinite period. Yeah, we might be able to conceivably generate electricity, purify water, oxygen, grow food, etc on-site, but what happens when those solar panels start to fail at 50 years, or the mechanical interlocks on the airlocks start to become excessively leaky, or the HVAC systems fail? None of that equipment can be regenerated on mars.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      right these are the extremes. But my point is life on earth no matter how inhospitable we make the planet would be strictly easier than on the moon, or mars. I don’t think we will go extinct, but we may become greatly diminished.

If only we could put a colony on Mars...

by influx 3y ago

If only we could put a colony on Mars...

I think that Mars is overrated. It is smaller than Earth, and way more difficult to live there, so we would get like 30% extra space for 1000 times the cost per square meter. And then what? We do not have a third planet like that nearby. Mercury and Venus are too hot. Jupiter and Saturn are gas with no solid surface. Uranus and Neptune are ice. The next solar system is way too far. I suspect that if we ever get the ability to travel to the next solar system, it will probably be easier to just stay in space, and only use the planets to mine the resources. Even for that, asteroids may be more convenient. So, from this perspective, Earth is, and will remain, unique.

appplication 3y ago

Putting a colony on Mars won’t save us from our rather unredeemable quality of being human. If we ruined one planet, we can ruin two. Realistically, terraforming mars for sustained independent settlements is likely not within our technological horizon before we wipe ourselves off this planet.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Life will survive us. I think we think too highly of ourselves. I don’t think we will end human civilization either though. The fact we could inhabit the moon and eventually mars at all means we could adapt to a inhospitable earth pretty easily. Maybe there will be much fewer of us and we wouldn’t like that life, but our future descendants would know nothing different and would be adapted to that civilization. But in the time spans of geology life will be resilient to whatever we do.
- hex4def6 3y ago
  >The fact we could inhabit the moon and eventually mars at all means we could adapt to a inhospitable earth pretty easily. Hmm, not so fast. I don't think we've proved that at all. We can "inhabit" those in the same way that I can "inhabit" the bottom of a pool. In fact, as a numbers game: we've been on the moon during all the Apollo missions for ~3.5 days. Modern humanoids are about 200,000 years old. Or in other words, we've inhabited the moon for 5e-8 % of humanities' existence. The record for holding one's breath is ~25 minutes by a guy called Budimir Šobat. Say their lifespan is 85 years. That's about 5e-7 % of their life. Or in other words, they've "inhabited" the bottom of the pool for 10x longer than humanity as a species has "inhabited" the moon. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying his record proves we can inhabit the bottom of a pool, and I think the same has to be applied to the moon. We have to consider self-sufficiency as a condition of whether or not we're really considered as native inhabitants of a place, or just a temporary extension of the mother planet. In that regard, we honestly can't even really prove equilibrium with our home planet's resources, let alone an inhospitable one like mars or the moon. I'm sure we could sustain a colony of 50 people on mars for the rest of their natural lives. Pack them enough air and snacks, and I'm sure it's doable today. However, I'm much more skeptical that we could do that without constant resupply for an indefinite period. Yeah, we might be able to conceivably generate electricity, purify water, oxygen, grow food, etc on-site, but what happens when those solar panels start to fail at 50 years, or the mechanical interlocks on the airlocks start to become excessively leaky, or the HVAC systems fail? None of that equipment can be regenerated on mars.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    right these are the extremes. But my point is life on earth no matter how inhospitable we make the planet would be strictly easier than on the moon, or mars. I don’t think we will go extinct, but we may become greatly diminished.