4 ms·

What is the point in focusing on terraforming Mars, when: 1. The moon is closer. 2. We can't even take care of Earth. I'm no expert but I have to believe it w

What is the point in focusing on terraforming Mars, when: 1. The moon is closer. 2. We can't even take care of Earth. I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems.

jaredhansen 3y ago
> 2. We can't even take care of Earth. I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems. This is a popular view but I think it is wrong. Yes, we have problems on Earth. But if you compare Earth today, in terms of "carrying capacity for human beings", or "utils generated per day" or some other metric you like, vs pre-human Earth, I don't think it's a close contest. The few early humans were hungry, naked and vulnerable to all manner of dangers. Now there are billions of us, and most live in relative safety, comfort and material luxury. If we can do for Mars what we did for Earth, that will be the best thing that has ever happened to Mars.
- kevindamm 3y ago
  ..and allows our species to (eventually) hedge our bets over multiple accommodating environments. As for why not moon, I'm not a terraforming expert but my understanding is that the more massive planet will be capable of retaining an atmosphere more easily than our small satellite would.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  We also are directly causing a mass extinction event as well as knowingly destroying our only habitat. I don't know if we can make Mars worse than it is but I would bet good money we'd find a way.
- Thrymr 3y ago
  > if you compare Earth today, in terms of "carrying capacity for human beings", or "utils generated per day" or some other metric you like, vs pre-human Earth, I don't think it's a close contest. Maybe let's turn down the optimization on a single metric before we're all turned into paper clips.
slibhb 3y ago
The moon doesn't have enough mass to hold onto an atmosphere. Still, I think we should build a moon base for the same reason we should go to Mars: even if these projects don't yield direct benefits, they are probably necessary steps to exploring the solar system and beyond. In terms of your "why explore space at all while children are dying in Africa?" argument -- we can do multiple things at once! Anyway, people's interests aren't fungible: you can't force the people who want to dedicate their lives to exploring space to instead dedicate their lives to curing malaria. Even if you could, people should be allowed to do what they like. And complaining that person X is doing prosocial activity A rather than prosocial activity B is stupid and antisocial.
- jwells89 3y ago
  I agree that we should be putting bases on the Moon, but not at the cost of doing the same on Mars (do both). Doing it on Mars has value in being a forcing function for attaining efficiency and self-sustainability that the Moon can’t due to its ease of accessibility, which can then be used to help grow our Moon presence to something larger than antarctic-style science outposts into something more permanent that can’t have the rug pulled out from under it by myopic politicians.
- terminous 3y ago
  > people's interests aren't fungible But financial capital, political capital, and public attention are fungible and directly trade off. Want a space program at the top of a national political party platform? What are priorities are you going to give up fighting for to prioritize that?
  - slibhb 3y ago
    > But financial capital, political capital, and public attention are fungible and directly trade off. I'm not sure that's true in any simple way. As far as the government goes, it has a role, but this isn't the 60s. SpaceX has shown that a company can launch rockets. As long as there are people willing to work on the necessary problems and people willing to take the necessary risks, I see no reason (that isn't degenerate) why anyone would want to obstruct those efforts. It's not like making SpaceX illegal is going to somehow fix climate change or cure malaria.
grandiego 3y ago
> I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems. Nor I, but maybe the Earth's problems can't be solved at all, so -at least some people think- the next best thing would be to have an alternative for saving the human species.
- dangerwill 3y ago
  I think by alternative you mean an escape route for the uber wealthy.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I think this robot would be filling tanks for use in a sealed habitat. Not exactly what I'd call terraforming.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jaredhansen 3y ago

> 2. We can't even take care of Earth. I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems. This is a popular view but I think it is wrong. Yes, we have problems on Earth. But if you compare Earth today, in terms of "carrying capacity for human beings", or "utils generated per day" or some other metric you like, vs pre-human Earth, I don't think it's a close contest. The few early humans were hungry, naked and vulnerable to all manner of dangers. Now there are billions of us, and most live in relative safety, comfort and material luxury. If we can do for Mars what we did for Earth, that will be the best thing that has ever happened to Mars.

kevindamm 3y ago
..and allows our species to (eventually) hedge our bets over multiple accommodating environments. As for why not moon, I'm not a terraforming expert but my understanding is that the more massive planet will be capable of retaining an atmosphere more easily than our small satellite would.
thinkingtoilet 3y ago
We also are directly causing a mass extinction event as well as knowingly destroying our only habitat. I don't know if we can make Mars worse than it is but I would bet good money we'd find a way.
Thrymr 3y ago
> if you compare Earth today, in terms of "carrying capacity for human beings", or "utils generated per day" or some other metric you like, vs pre-human Earth, I don't think it's a close contest. Maybe let's turn down the optimization on a single metric before we're all turned into paper clips.

slibhb 3y ago

The moon doesn't have enough mass to hold onto an atmosphere. Still, I think we should build a moon base for the same reason we should go to Mars: even if these projects don't yield direct benefits, they are probably necessary steps to exploring the solar system and beyond. In terms of your "why explore space at all while children are dying in Africa?" argument -- we can do multiple things at once! Anyway, people's interests aren't fungible: you can't force the people who want to dedicate their lives to exploring space to instead dedicate their lives to curing malaria. Even if you could, people should be allowed to do what they like. And complaining that person X is doing prosocial activity A rather than prosocial activity B is stupid and antisocial.

jwells89 3y ago
I agree that we should be putting bases on the Moon, but not at the cost of doing the same on Mars (do both). Doing it on Mars has value in being a forcing function for attaining efficiency and self-sustainability that the Moon can’t due to its ease of accessibility, which can then be used to help grow our Moon presence to something larger than antarctic-style science outposts into something more permanent that can’t have the rug pulled out from under it by myopic politicians.
terminous 3y ago
> people's interests aren't fungible But financial capital, political capital, and public attention are fungible and directly trade off. Want a space program at the top of a national political party platform? What are priorities are you going to give up fighting for to prioritize that?
- slibhb 3y ago
  > But financial capital, political capital, and public attention are fungible and directly trade off. I'm not sure that's true in any simple way. As far as the government goes, it has a role, but this isn't the 60s. SpaceX has shown that a company can launch rockets. As long as there are people willing to work on the necessary problems and people willing to take the necessary risks, I see no reason (that isn't degenerate) why anyone would want to obstruct those efforts. It's not like making SpaceX illegal is going to somehow fix climate change or cure malaria.

grandiego 3y ago

> I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems. Nor I, but maybe the Earth's problems can't be solved at all, so -at least some people think- the next best thing would be to have an alternative for saving the human species.

dangerwill 3y ago
I think by alternative you mean an escape route for the uber wealthy.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

I think this robot would be filling tanks for use in a sealed habitat. Not exactly what I'd call terraforming.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]