3 ms·

It would really suck if, in the next 100 years, we see some extinction-level comet or asteroid crash into the Earth when we might have done the "not all our egg

It would really suck if, in the next 100 years, we see some extinction-level comet or asteroid crash into the Earth when we might have done the "not all our eggs in one basket". Some kinds of caution aren't very careful at all.

kzrdude 3y ago
What timeframe do we need to setup a fully independent colony on Mars, so that we survive if Earth is not there? If you asked me to guess, it would be somewhere between impossible and 1000 years of terraforming.
jrd259 3y ago
Suppose we did get 100 year advance notice of some catastrophe. How many people would call it "fake news", or perhaps even interpret it as part of "God's plan"? Let's suppose, through some miracle, a substantial majority of the world agrees the catastrophe is coming, agrees to cooperate, to accept unlimited damage to the Earth (so e.g. we can use Project Orion style launchers) and to give up on all short-term profit. Our response to climate change (which, even if it's not at the level of total planetary extinction, is still quite serious) suggests we would instead obfuscate, dispute and quarrel. Realistically, what fraction of the world's people could we possibly move to Mars, and how would we even pick those people? How would we even come to agree on a fair way to choose? We probably could get enough breeding pairs there to preserve our species. There is evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the past. But 99% of humans would be left to die. Not to mention all other life forms. (Maybe we'll bring cats, too?) I'm not opposed to visiting Mars, but to do so under the claim that we could save humanity from disaster is utter folly.
Mechanical9 3y ago
Is it even remotely possible that a Mars colony could become self-sustaining within the next 100 years? It seems like surviving the loss of Earth is a long way off regardless.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  It certainly won't be if we don't build the infrastructure to send (temporarily, at least) people to Mars. Can we bootstrap up an energy economy there? Dunno, that's the first step. With a large enough energy budget, food's doable. Water is likely in situ. > It seems like surviving the loss of Earth is a long way off regardless. Even longer if you wait to try.
usrbinbash 3y ago
It would suck a lot more if we wasted money on a mars colony, that will take hundreds of years to become self sufficient, if it is possible at all (I am still waiting for a solution to human bodies deteriorating in low gravity that is actually workable at scale), instead of using these resources to further develop things that have already had successful experimental runs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63221577 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63221577 Added bonus: Investing resources into this saves Earth and everyone on it.

kzrdude 3y ago

What timeframe do we need to setup a fully independent colony on Mars, so that we survive if Earth is not there? If you asked me to guess, it would be somewhere between impossible and 1000 years of terraforming.

jrd259 3y ago

Suppose we did get 100 year advance notice of some catastrophe. How many people would call it "fake news", or perhaps even interpret it as part of "God's plan"? Let's suppose, through some miracle, a substantial majority of the world agrees the catastrophe is coming, agrees to cooperate, to accept unlimited damage to the Earth (so e.g. we can use Project Orion style launchers) and to give up on all short-term profit. Our response to climate change (which, even if it's not at the level of total planetary extinction, is still quite serious) suggests we would instead obfuscate, dispute and quarrel. Realistically, what fraction of the world's people could we possibly move to Mars, and how would we even pick those people? How would we even come to agree on a fair way to choose? We probably could get enough breeding pairs there to preserve our species. There is evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the past. But 99% of humans would be left to die. Not to mention all other life forms. (Maybe we'll bring cats, too?) I'm not opposed to visiting Mars, but to do so under the claim that we could save humanity from disaster is utter folly.

Mechanical9 3y ago

Is it even remotely possible that a Mars colony could become self-sustaining within the next 100 years? It seems like surviving the loss of Earth is a long way off regardless.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
It certainly won't be if we don't build the infrastructure to send (temporarily, at least) people to Mars. Can we bootstrap up an energy economy there? Dunno, that's the first step. With a large enough energy budget, food's doable. Water is likely in situ. > It seems like surviving the loss of Earth is a long way off regardless. Even longer if you wait to try.

usrbinbash 3y ago

It would suck a lot more if we wasted money on a mars colony, that will take hundreds of years to become self sufficient, if it is possible at all (I am still waiting for a solution to human bodies deteriorating in low gravity that is actually workable at scale), instead of using these resources to further develop things that have already had successful experimental runs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63221577 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63221577 Added bonus: Investing resources into this saves Earth and everyone on it.