8 ms·

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 c

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.

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.