5 ms·

> We should be there already. Why? What purpose does a human presence on Mars have? Exploratory activity can, is and should be done by robotic drones. Mars has

> We should be there already. Why? What purpose does a human presence on Mars have? Exploratory activity can, is and should be done by robotic drones. Mars has zero resources Earth doesn't already have in abundance, is inimical to almost every lifeform on earth and confers no advantage as a launch platform for furture space exploration over the moon or a space station. > We're focusing everything on the easier planet that might not be livable after one year of bad politics. Fun fact: Even after a full-scale thermonuclear war, Earth would still be a more liveable planet than Mars. So what policy decisions could possibly make Mars attractive as a living space, or a "backup planet"?

thehappypm 3y ago
My sad take is that if we ruin Earth, we don’t deserve a second chance. We would just ruin Mars too.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > We would just ruin Mars too. Well, considering that Mars is currently a frozen, low-gravity, toxic, airless, irradiated, soil-less desert with barely any water, no nitrogen to speak of, very few options for energy generation, no protection from cosmic radiation and constantly wrecked by planet-wide duststorms, I honestly cannot imagine how we could possibly make it worse, even if we actively tried.
  - maxlin 3y ago
    This is the thing. Living on mars is something for the strong. Something that forces us to focus on what's important. With earth we may quickly swing from paradise to a total catastrophe. Which would be worse than mars and only reach mars-level after some time. Things that incentivize lazing away do not incentivize progress.
    - usrbinbash 3y ago
      > Something that forces us to focus on what's important. Primarily, it would be something that forces us to send rocket after rocket of supplies there, wasting countless resources in the process for very little, if any, practical benefit. Because, no, there is nothing to be gained on Mars that can't be gained much more effectively via robotic probes, and no, a Mars colony will not be self-sufficient. Investing resources for no good reason, is to me the exact opposite of "focusing on the important".
      - maxlin 3y ago
        Saying putting 1% of earth's resources to have a chance, of let's say super pessimistically, 15%, of actually surviving as a species through and beyond an otherwise species-ending catastrophe, to be "waste" is so stupid. This kind of thinking would have us never have gone to the moon or even have utilized the loom. Robotic probes are irrelevant to colonization. It's like saying why don't Russians stop at just fly drones to Ukraine lol
        usrbinbash 3y ago
        > 1% of earth's resources to have a chance, of let's say super pessimistically, 15%, of actually surviving as a species That would be a good investment, yes. Unfortunately, a Mars colony doesn't realize that investment. There wont be a self-sustainable colony on a planet, where even the planets gravity well (which we cannot change, unless someone has SG1-Asgard-level technology lying around) prohibits long term survivability of a species that evolved in a gravity well almost three times as strong.
adriancr 3y ago
> Why? What purpose does a human presence on Mars have? I bet some people said the same about america in 1400s. You never know what can come from this in the future. If we can we should. > So what policy decisions could possibly make Mars attractive as a living space, or a "backup planet"? Large asteroid impact might destroy us entirely like this: https://youtu.be/02S3_DEaQWA?si=urqC47r14cFxbNjD https://youtu.be/02S3_DEaQWA?si=urqC47r14cFxbNjD
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > I bet some people said the same about america in 1400s. Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: "Man, it sure would be nice if there was air, arable soil, and building materials in america." > If we can we should. Humans can do lots of things that they absolutely shouldn't. > Large asteroid impact Ah, so we moved on from policy decisions. Good. Okay, let's talk asteroids. a) I would be alot more worried about asteroids if I were on Mars. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt after all, and it's thin atmosphere is a lot less of a hurdle to evil space rocks than Earths. b) Humanity has already proven, that it has the technical capability to alter an asteroids course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... So far, humanity has NOT proven that it can build a self-sustaining colony on mars. As a matter of fact, we have not even done so in the Antarctic Dry Valleys, and they would at least have air there. So purely from the perspective of resource-allocation, it seems there are better ways to protect humanity from asteroid impacts, than trying to build a mars-colony.
  - adriancr 3y ago
    > Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: The point I made is you can never know the benefits. Asimov, end of eternity is a pretty nice book to see how your point of view might be flawed. > Humanity has already proven, that it has the technical capability to alter an asteroids course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... Sure... we can barely detect asteroids and you're saying we can deflect them, is the argument in good faith?, do you really believe we can detect and deflect a planet killer? > So purely from the perspective of resource-allocation, it seems there are better ways to protect humanity from asteroid impacts, than trying to build a mars-colony. So you don't want humanity to waste resources on space. That is your point of view which I hope is a minority at large. I disagree, but I doubt I can convince you otherwisr.

thehappypm 3y ago

My sad take is that if we ruin Earth, we don’t deserve a second chance. We would just ruin Mars too.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> We would just ruin Mars too. Well, considering that Mars is currently a frozen, low-gravity, toxic, airless, irradiated, soil-less desert with barely any water, no nitrogen to speak of, very few options for energy generation, no protection from cosmic radiation and constantly wrecked by planet-wide duststorms, I honestly cannot imagine how we could possibly make it worse, even if we actively tried.
- maxlin 3y ago
  This is the thing. Living on mars is something for the strong. Something that forces us to focus on what's important. With earth we may quickly swing from paradise to a total catastrophe. Which would be worse than mars and only reach mars-level after some time. Things that incentivize lazing away do not incentivize progress.
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > Something that forces us to focus on what's important. Primarily, it would be something that forces us to send rocket after rocket of supplies there, wasting countless resources in the process for very little, if any, practical benefit. Because, no, there is nothing to be gained on Mars that can't be gained much more effectively via robotic probes, and no, a Mars colony will not be self-sufficient. Investing resources for no good reason, is to me the exact opposite of "focusing on the important".
    - maxlin 3y ago
      Saying putting 1% of earth's resources to have a chance, of let's say super pessimistically, 15%, of actually surviving as a species through and beyond an otherwise species-ending catastrophe, to be "waste" is so stupid. This kind of thinking would have us never have gone to the moon or even have utilized the loom. Robotic probes are irrelevant to colonization. It's like saying why don't Russians stop at just fly drones to Ukraine lol
      - usrbinbash 3y ago
        > 1% of earth's resources to have a chance, of let's say super pessimistically, 15%, of actually surviving as a species That would be a good investment, yes. Unfortunately, a Mars colony doesn't realize that investment. There wont be a self-sustainable colony on a planet, where even the planets gravity well (which we cannot change, unless someone has SG1-Asgard-level technology lying around) prohibits long term survivability of a species that evolved in a gravity well almost three times as strong.

adriancr 3y ago

> Why? What purpose does a human presence on Mars have? I bet some people said the same about america in 1400s. You never know what can come from this in the future. If we can we should. > So what policy decisions could possibly make Mars attractive as a living space, or a "backup planet"? Large asteroid impact might destroy us entirely like this: https://youtu.be/02S3_DEaQWA?si=urqC47r14cFxbNjD https://youtu.be/02S3_DEaQWA?si=urqC47r14cFxbNjD

usrbinbash 3y ago
> I bet some people said the same about america in 1400s. Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: "Man, it sure would be nice if there was air, arable soil, and building materials in america." > If we can we should. Humans can do lots of things that they absolutely shouldn't. > Large asteroid impact Ah, so we moved on from policy decisions. Good. Okay, let's talk asteroids. a) I would be alot more worried about asteroids if I were on Mars. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt after all, and it's thin atmosphere is a lot less of a hurdle to evil space rocks than Earths. b) Humanity has already proven, that it has the technical capability to alter an asteroids course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... So far, humanity has NOT proven that it can build a self-sustaining colony on mars. As a matter of fact, we have not even done so in the Antarctic Dry Valleys, and they would at least have air there. So purely from the perspective of resource-allocation, it seems there are better ways to protect humanity from asteroid impacts, than trying to build a mars-colony.
- adriancr 3y ago
  > Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: The point I made is you can never know the benefits. Asimov, end of eternity is a pretty nice book to see how your point of view might be flawed. > Humanity has already proven, that it has the technical capability to alter an asteroids course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... Sure... we can barely detect asteroids and you're saying we can deflect them, is the argument in good faith?, do you really believe we can detect and deflect a planet killer? > So purely from the perspective of resource-allocation, it seems there are better ways to protect humanity from asteroid impacts, than trying to build a mars-colony. So you don't want humanity to waste resources on space. That is your point of view which I hope is a minority at large. I disagree, but I doubt I can convince you otherwisr.