5 ms·

One simple counterargument to those who think that our planet dying is a rationale for driving their desire for going to mars is that the most habitable part of

by pama 3y ago

One simple counterargument to those who think that our planet dying is a rationale for driving their desire for going to mars is that the most habitable part of mars is incomparably worse/more dead than the worst possible place on earth, be it Antarctica, Death Valley, the Sahara, or next to an active volcano. One could argue that a post-nuclear-apocalypse earth would be more habitable than mars, but I think that all these arguments would get silly fast.

jvanderbot 3y ago
I think most of the appeal of going to Mars is a sense of "starting over" and or course not bringing "them" with, for your favorite definition of "them".
- timschmidt 3y ago
  I don't think so. I think everyone who considers the idea seriously is aware that Mars is much harsher than Earth, that many people will die there working to colonize it, and that society on Earth won't be going away any time soon (hence, nothing will start over). What makes Mars colonies (and moon colonies) interesting to me is a recognition that recorded civilization is only about 12,500 years old. That prior to that the entire planet was experiencing an ice age which lasted ~100,000 years, and prior to that people were already "behaviorally modern" in ways which left impressions in the archeological record. This suggests that our home planet could have a meteor or ice age shaped surprise for us any moment, and that it might not be a bad idea to have remote backups. I also think that working to live somewhere other than Earth will teach us much more about exactly why and how Earth is special.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    Ok, valid. But I don't see why you disagree with the sentiment that exploring and colonizing elsewhere is because of a desire for a "fresh start". You mention work, but that's part of it.
    - timschmidt 3y ago
      Fresh starts are available right here on Earth to anyone willing to hike into the woods, build a cabin, and hunt for food. It's a tough life, and very few choose it. Living on Mars, on the other hand, will require a much higher degree of dependence on others as there are no woods, no food to hunt or farm, and nothing but rock from which to make necessities. Colonizing Mars or a moon will require a great deal of interaction with all the social and technical constructs that anyone wanting to "start over" is seeking to distance themselves from.
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
        This (you can just build a cabin) was true in colonial Europe, and yet we had a lot of settlers in USA. I think it's an illogical desire, but one core to our being and based on the perceived reward of having "everything the light touches" rather than whatever you are left with, plus gov, etc. I only say this in case we weren't clear on each other's scale argument. Building a cabin and going for a hike is very different from building a new society from scratch. I do think both are desires but the second is the one I'm talking about.
        timschmidt 3y ago
        I agree with you. The comparison to sailing across oceans in wooden ships to the 6mo journey to Mars is one I've made before. But also people were encountered in the Americas in every trip over that I'm aware of, and in both the sailing and spacing varieties feels more to me like a society extending it's reach than starting over. Maybe I'm wrong.
      - quantified 3y ago
        If you want to be Martian, live in the woods, build a cabin, and eat yeast. Not enough game and wild resources to sustain many people anymore in many places.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    It's the last part I agree with more: if I wanted to advance, in a serious way, the cause of enviromental and ecological science, then the tasks of building and establishing off-world biospheres will do both those things in environments which (1) we can actually kind of afford to fail in and (2) which will drive home the absolute point that this biosphere is incredibly valuable. Give those ideas a run, and then you've made a compelling case for subsidizing and bootstrapping the move of dirty heavy industry and mining off-world: metals from the asteroid belt, manufacturing in high orbit - the ecological science to make it more sustainable. You then also get some economic benefits once you're up and running: off-world industry would find the products of the biosphere very valuable - more so then anything so simple as oil, metal or refined chemicals. Putting a distinct price on keeping the Earth's biodiversity alive and protected because people want to be able to buy "live soil" - to borrow from the expanse - would put us in a much better long term position as a species.
    - timschmidt 3y ago
      Most folks discount potential negative future outcomes - especially those which can't be controlled. It's called optimism bias. But something tells me that space rocks don't care and behave much more in line with natural distributions. Climactic history of Earth is nuts. WAY more extreme than our little 12,000 year slice of history would suggest. Which means we're in for surprises if we can avoid killing ourselves for long enough.
- sameerds 3y ago
  The pessimist in me thinks that the people going to Mars will end up bringing with them the same prejudices and the same ineffective laws anyway. It would be great if they could really "start over", as in build society from scratch, make it much more fluid the way David Graeber claimed it was way back in human history.
quantified 3y ago
There is no way that it will be easier to turn a completely lifeless planet into an inhabitable one. The Marsers may as well purchase some barren land on Earth and live in Mars colony structures, at least they'll have breathable air. If humanity makes Earth uninhabitable, how would a Martian civilization make Mars inhabitable? Better caring for the environment? Why not care for it here?
- zizee 3y ago
  The idea that "marsers" think mars is a liftraft to escape too from a dying earth is, as far as I can tell, an lie spread to discredit people interested in in mars colonization. No one believes that mars is going to be a better/easier place to live than earth. It's idiotic, and only spouted by people that don't like the idea of Mars, and said to make "marsers" look like idiots in association.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    This has been my experience. Nobody who has looked into Mars inhabitation at any depth considers it a “plan B”, at least not on any timescale relevant to those alive today — there’s maybe some value as insurance against a planet-killer asteroid or something similarly catastrophic, but that only comes into play once civilization has been thoroughly established on Mars, which is centuries into the future at soonest. The chief value of Mars has two parts. First, it opens up the first true frontier we’ve had in over a century and could serve as a sort of societal pressure relief valve. Second, as soon as there’s people living on Mars the impetus for developing technology to make living there (and in space) more safe, sustainable, and comfortable increases dramatically, which is a critical step in achieving true mastery of human spaceflight and ensuring that the species is not forever stuck in the bottom of Earth’s gravity well. Some may argue that the moon can serve these purposes as well and that may be true to a degree, but its proximity is a liability. Moon inhabitations are close enough to be well within the sphere of Earth’s political influence even if it achieves self-sustainability, which itself is unlikely because Earth is always there as a convenient source of supplies and escape hatch, just a week away. There’s a certain level of necessary commitment and autonomy that comes with building a civilization on Mars which I believe is key.
M95D 3y ago
It's about hope. There is no hope in sight that the Earth will get better in the next few generation's lifetimes. Life on Mars, if we choose to colonize it, will start bad but it will only get better and better.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
People's desire to "go to mars" is more about hope than it is actually thinking it's possible. This planet is fucked. Life is fucked. All for those quarterlies.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  > is more about hope People need to believe that the future will be better than the present, especially when the present sucks. If you don't have that, what is there?

by pama 3y ago

jvanderbot 3y ago

I think most of the appeal of going to Mars is a sense of "starting over" and or course not bringing "them" with, for your favorite definition of "them".

timschmidt 3y ago
I don't think so. I think everyone who considers the idea seriously is aware that Mars is much harsher than Earth, that many people will die there working to colonize it, and that society on Earth won't be going away any time soon (hence, nothing will start over). What makes Mars colonies (and moon colonies) interesting to me is a recognition that recorded civilization is only about 12,500 years old. That prior to that the entire planet was experiencing an ice age which lasted ~100,000 years, and prior to that people were already "behaviorally modern" in ways which left impressions in the archeological record. This suggests that our home planet could have a meteor or ice age shaped surprise for us any moment, and that it might not be a bad idea to have remote backups. I also think that working to live somewhere other than Earth will teach us much more about exactly why and how Earth is special.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  Ok, valid. But I don't see why you disagree with the sentiment that exploring and colonizing elsewhere is because of a desire for a "fresh start". You mention work, but that's part of it.
  - timschmidt 3y ago
    Fresh starts are available right here on Earth to anyone willing to hike into the woods, build a cabin, and hunt for food. It's a tough life, and very few choose it. Living on Mars, on the other hand, will require a much higher degree of dependence on others as there are no woods, no food to hunt or farm, and nothing but rock from which to make necessities. Colonizing Mars or a moon will require a great deal of interaction with all the social and technical constructs that anyone wanting to "start over" is seeking to distance themselves from.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      This (you can just build a cabin) was true in colonial Europe, and yet we had a lot of settlers in USA. I think it's an illogical desire, but one core to our being and based on the perceived reward of having "everything the light touches" rather than whatever you are left with, plus gov, etc. I only say this in case we weren't clear on each other's scale argument. Building a cabin and going for a hike is very different from building a new society from scratch. I do think both are desires but the second is the one I'm talking about.
      - timschmidt 3y ago
        I agree with you. The comparison to sailing across oceans in wooden ships to the 6mo journey to Mars is one I've made before. But also people were encountered in the Americas in every trip over that I'm aware of, and in both the sailing and spacing varieties feels more to me like a society extending it's reach than starting over. Maybe I'm wrong.
    - quantified 3y ago
      If you want to be Martian, live in the woods, build a cabin, and eat yeast. Not enough game and wild resources to sustain many people anymore in many places.
- XorNot 3y ago
  It's the last part I agree with more: if I wanted to advance, in a serious way, the cause of enviromental and ecological science, then the tasks of building and establishing off-world biospheres will do both those things in environments which (1) we can actually kind of afford to fail in and (2) which will drive home the absolute point that this biosphere is incredibly valuable. Give those ideas a run, and then you've made a compelling case for subsidizing and bootstrapping the move of dirty heavy industry and mining off-world: metals from the asteroid belt, manufacturing in high orbit - the ecological science to make it more sustainable. You then also get some economic benefits once you're up and running: off-world industry would find the products of the biosphere very valuable - more so then anything so simple as oil, metal or refined chemicals. Putting a distinct price on keeping the Earth's biodiversity alive and protected because people want to be able to buy "live soil" - to borrow from the expanse - would put us in a much better long term position as a species.
  - timschmidt 3y ago
    Most folks discount potential negative future outcomes - especially those which can't be controlled. It's called optimism bias. But something tells me that space rocks don't care and behave much more in line with natural distributions. Climactic history of Earth is nuts. WAY more extreme than our little 12,000 year slice of history would suggest. Which means we're in for surprises if we can avoid killing ourselves for long enough.
sameerds 3y ago
The pessimist in me thinks that the people going to Mars will end up bringing with them the same prejudices and the same ineffective laws anyway. It would be great if they could really "start over", as in build society from scratch, make it much more fluid the way David Graeber claimed it was way back in human history.

quantified 3y ago

There is no way that it will be easier to turn a completely lifeless planet into an inhabitable one. The Marsers may as well purchase some barren land on Earth and live in Mars colony structures, at least they'll have breathable air. If humanity makes Earth uninhabitable, how would a Martian civilization make Mars inhabitable? Better caring for the environment? Why not care for it here?

zizee 3y ago
The idea that "marsers" think mars is a liftraft to escape too from a dying earth is, as far as I can tell, an lie spread to discredit people interested in in mars colonization. No one believes that mars is going to be a better/easier place to live than earth. It's idiotic, and only spouted by people that don't like the idea of Mars, and said to make "marsers" look like idiots in association.
- jwells89 3y ago
  This has been my experience. Nobody who has looked into Mars inhabitation at any depth considers it a “plan B”, at least not on any timescale relevant to those alive today — there’s maybe some value as insurance against a planet-killer asteroid or something similarly catastrophic, but that only comes into play once civilization has been thoroughly established on Mars, which is centuries into the future at soonest. The chief value of Mars has two parts. First, it opens up the first true frontier we’ve had in over a century and could serve as a sort of societal pressure relief valve. Second, as soon as there’s people living on Mars the impetus for developing technology to make living there (and in space) more safe, sustainable, and comfortable increases dramatically, which is a critical step in achieving true mastery of human spaceflight and ensuring that the species is not forever stuck in the bottom of Earth’s gravity well. Some may argue that the moon can serve these purposes as well and that may be true to a degree, but its proximity is a liability. Moon inhabitations are close enough to be well within the sphere of Earth’s political influence even if it achieves self-sustainability, which itself is unlikely because Earth is always there as a convenient source of supplies and escape hatch, just a week away. There’s a certain level of necessary commitment and autonomy that comes with building a civilization on Mars which I believe is key.

M95D 3y ago

It's about hope. There is no hope in sight that the Earth will get better in the next few generation's lifetimes. Life on Mars, if we choose to colonize it, will start bad but it will only get better and better.

HumblyTossed 3y ago

People's desire to "go to mars" is more about hope than it is actually thinking it's possible. This planet is fucked. Life is fucked. All for those quarterlies.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
> is more about hope People need to believe that the future will be better than the present, especially when the present sucks. If you don't have that, what is there?