3 ms·

Also, the psychology of spending hundreds of billions to build a colony that becomes a tomb is probably too creepy for politicians and voters to contemplate. M

by pavlov 3y ago

Also, the psychology of spending hundreds of billions to build a colony that becomes a tomb is probably too creepy for politicians and voters to contemplate. Many cultures have a concept of sanctity of the grave, or right of sepulchre. From that point of view, what happens to the Mars habitat where those people died? Does it become a mausoleum forever? Anything else seems very fraught. It would be a bizarre spectacle to send another trillion-dollar crew whose first task is to clear out the corpses...

mulmen 3y ago
You just keep sending more people to the colony. This is how humans do. We will do whatever we did the last time we explored a new frontier. How many European colonies failed in the new world? What did they do? Nothing new under the sun.
- pavlov 3y ago
  Some important differences: - Sailing to New England didn’t cost a trillion dollars. - The expedition wasn’t live-streamed to every pocket back in England. - People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure. In contrast, we know what’s on Mars and the answer is basically “nothing”.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    No single journey to New England cost a trillion dollars but neither does a single manned trip to Mars. Over time hundreds of ships brought thousands of people to dozens of colonies. Ships kept bringing people even after the colonies were self-sustaining. How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? History is full of people selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? Not a lot. People actually paid to move there because it resulted in a significant improvement in living conditions/income/etc. on average (besides the few earliest attempts). Colonization and exploration was almost entirely driven by profit union at least the 1800s or so. Colonizing Mars wouldn’t be even remotely comparable in almost any way to what happened in the Americas/Australia/etc. > selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier. Yeah, because there was a lot of free land there/natural resources/high demand for labor etc.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure To be fair they kind of did. Or rather they never expected to finding anything extremely different to what they have experienced in Europe (besides very low population density and all the benefits resulting from that).
- ben_w 3y ago
  > How many European colonies failed in the new world? In at least one case the failure of the colony resulted in the country which founded it being forced into a slightly one-sided merger with its nearest neighbour, which is why the British flag now has blue in it. Modern nations may be mindful of this and wish to avoid repeating the mistake. On the other hand, they may have a case of the FOMOs after looking at how successful the USA became… at least if they convince themselves their new space colony won't also declare independence just like the USA did.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > Modern nations may be mindful of this and wish to avoid repeating the mistake Considering that colonies on Mars are extremely unlikely to ever be self-sustainable that’s hardly a concern (in fact the opposite might be preferable). Comparing the US (or any country or place that’s inhabited on Earth, besides maybe Antarctica but even that is not even remotely close) to a potential colony on Mars is beyond absurd.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      When you say "extremely unlikely" and "beyond absurd", the mistake you're clearly making is to assume tech doesn't change much if at all. "The ability to colonise Mars does not currently exist" is true, but tells us next to nothing about what will be possible if we put effort into the attempt, just as the fact that the ability to achieve the goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" did not exist on May 25, 1961, but the attempt taught us many things including that (and how) we could. Likewise for colonies, when Columbus set sail everyone knew the world was round, and almost everyone even knew how big it was (except, ironically, Columbus). What nobody knew was that America existed, and if America had not existed then none of the ships that existed at that time could make it all the way to where Columbus thought he was going. It's the unknowns that hold us back from Mars, but at the moment the only reasons I have to suspect a Mars colony would fail are the black swans, not the problems currently being worked on.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > the new world How is that relevant at all? The only thing that comes close to mars are mostly self-sustainable colonies (not a thing) in Antarctica (which is still a more habitable place than Mars by several magnitudes). > we did the last time we explored a new frontier Because the cost was relatively extremely low and there were practical reasons to do that?
stereolambda 3y ago
I would imagine that people willing to go to Mars permanently would be among the more scientifically minded and they wouldn't be stopped by concerns about what happens with dead matter left after them. The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons. We have bodies laying frozen on Mount Everest today. But I expect that either civilization would be able to resupply them with people or even connect them back eventually, or alternatively (if we do decline) too much stuff would be happening on Earth for people to really notice the fate of Martians.
- pavlov 3y ago
  > "The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons." But then, if we can send automatons that are able to operate a station to such a high degree that they could be trusted to cremate the humans, why send the humans at all...?

by pavlov 3y ago

mulmen 3y ago

You just keep sending more people to the colony. This is how humans do. We will do whatever we did the last time we explored a new frontier. How many European colonies failed in the new world? What did they do? Nothing new under the sun.

pavlov 3y ago
Some important differences: - Sailing to New England didn’t cost a trillion dollars. - The expedition wasn’t live-streamed to every pocket back in England. - People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure. In contrast, we know what’s on Mars and the answer is basically “nothing”.
- mulmen 3y ago
  No single journey to New England cost a trillion dollars but neither does a single manned trip to Mars. Over time hundreds of ships brought thousands of people to dozens of colonies. Ships kept bringing people even after the colonies were self-sustaining. How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? History is full of people selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? Not a lot. People actually paid to move there because it resulted in a significant improvement in living conditions/income/etc. on average (besides the few earliest attempts). Colonization and exploration was almost entirely driven by profit union at least the 1800s or so. Colonizing Mars wouldn’t be even remotely comparable in almost any way to what happened in the Americas/Australia/etc. > selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier. Yeah, because there was a lot of free land there/natural resources/high demand for labor etc.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure To be fair they kind of did. Or rather they never expected to finding anything extremely different to what they have experienced in Europe (besides very low population density and all the benefits resulting from that).
ben_w 3y ago
> How many European colonies failed in the new world? In at least one case the failure of the colony resulted in the country which founded it being forced into a slightly one-sided merger with its nearest neighbour, which is why the British flag now has blue in it. Modern nations may be mindful of this and wish to avoid repeating the mistake. On the other hand, they may have a case of the FOMOs after looking at how successful the USA became… at least if they convince themselves their new space colony won't also declare independence just like the USA did.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Modern nations may be mindful of this and wish to avoid repeating the mistake Considering that colonies on Mars are extremely unlikely to ever be self-sustainable that’s hardly a concern (in fact the opposite might be preferable). Comparing the US (or any country or place that’s inhabited on Earth, besides maybe Antarctica but even that is not even remotely close) to a potential colony on Mars is beyond absurd.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    When you say "extremely unlikely" and "beyond absurd", the mistake you're clearly making is to assume tech doesn't change much if at all. "The ability to colonise Mars does not currently exist" is true, but tells us next to nothing about what will be possible if we put effort into the attempt, just as the fact that the ability to achieve the goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" did not exist on May 25, 1961, but the attempt taught us many things including that (and how) we could. Likewise for colonies, when Columbus set sail everyone knew the world was round, and almost everyone even knew how big it was (except, ironically, Columbus). What nobody knew was that America existed, and if America had not existed then none of the ships that existed at that time could make it all the way to where Columbus thought he was going. It's the unknowns that hold us back from Mars, but at the moment the only reasons I have to suspect a Mars colony would fail are the black swans, not the problems currently being worked on.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> the new world How is that relevant at all? The only thing that comes close to mars are mostly self-sustainable colonies (not a thing) in Antarctica (which is still a more habitable place than Mars by several magnitudes). > we did the last time we explored a new frontier Because the cost was relatively extremely low and there were practical reasons to do that?

stereolambda 3y ago

I would imagine that people willing to go to Mars permanently would be among the more scientifically minded and they wouldn't be stopped by concerns about what happens with dead matter left after them. The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons. We have bodies laying frozen on Mount Everest today. But I expect that either civilization would be able to resupply them with people or even connect them back eventually, or alternatively (if we do decline) too much stuff would be happening on Earth for people to really notice the fate of Martians.

pavlov 3y ago
> "The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons." But then, if we can send automatons that are able to operate a station to such a high degree that they could be trusted to cremate the humans, why send the humans at all...?