4 ms·

Breathing long spiky mineral bits seems extra bad for you. They might get you a head start on warming the planet, but there's a lot of order stuff you have to d

Breathing long spiky mineral bits seems extra bad for you. They might get you a head start on warming the planet, but there's a lot of order stuff you have to do anyway before Mars is remotely viable, and these spiky particles will then be lying on the ground forever. Is that worth it?

sabbaticaldev 2y ago
when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable
- joshmarinacci 2y ago
  That will never happen. We won’t even reach 10 billion. We are leveling off already.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >That will never happen. Using natural reproduction you're correct. Never say never, though: we could massively boost the birthrate and the population by turning to artificial methods. Aldous Huxley's visionary utopian novel "Brave New World" discussed how this could be done back in 1935. Once we develop the technology to make "artificial wombs", we won't need natural reproduction any more and can create as many new people as we want.
    - defrost 2y ago
      But why ? Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population, particularly when they'll need to be supported with supply pipelines so well crafted there's no margin of error that doesn't kill a few million (less than 1 percent!!). I get the techno sci fi "because we can" argument, where's the grounded rationale?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Buy why ? The only reason I can come up with is a dictator raising an army. In that sense, a human is a cheaper drone.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        In today's world, you wouldn't want an increasing population unless you're very short-sighted. You might, however, want an artificial boost to the birthrate just to maintain a constant population. Growing populations are good for the economy, but bad for the environment. Shrinking populations are really bad for the economy. But a stable population might be a good compromise that economies and social systems can adapt to. However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people, we would need to expand as a species, not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Of course, it might not come to this at all: perhaps we'll perfect anti-aging technologies (so greatly reducing the death rate), and technology to allow people to have kids at almost any age instead of needing to do it before they're 40.
        defrost 2y ago
        > However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? > we would need to expand as a species, Why? > not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Why would birthrates stay as they are? Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Saying "we need to" and "would have to" does not in any way address the "why" of the question asked, it's merely restating a belief that "that's the way things should(?) go".
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        >> However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people >Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? When did I ever say anything about having a hundred billion (or any number) on Earth? >> we would need to expand as a species, >Why? It's human nature to expand. Besides, more people means more art, more science, more innovation, etc. And of course an expanding economy. Plus what if something really bad happens? Having more people scattered around is more insurance against extinction. If something awful happens on Earth, having billions in space means humanity will continue. >Why would birthrates stay as they are? Birthrates are continuously falling, in case you haven't noticed. They're not going to stay the same as they are now, they're going to decrease even more. >Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Why would birthrates increase? Every single piece of data we have has shown that when women have choice and agency and people have access to contraception, birthrates fall. So for birthrates to increase, we either have to make women into slaves (I don't support this), or we need another solution.
- yongjik 2y ago
  There's no way it would work out economically: compared to Mars, it would be literally cheaper to build every one of these 100 billion people a US style suburban house with all the power, water, and sewage connected. Probably by an order of magnitude or two.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
fragmede 2y ago
to have an entirely new planet to live on? I'd be okay with wearing a respirator all day long if I'm living on Mars.
- dylan604 2y ago
  People couldn't handle wearing a mask for any period of time without losing their damn minds, so I really don't see this as a viable solution
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    No, Americans can't handle wearing a mask without losing their minds. Over here in Japan, people wear masks all the time (normally when they're sick, or have hay fever); it's no big deal.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > People couldn't handle wearing a mask for any period of time without losing their damn minds There is zero overlap between people who can't wear a mask and people we'd even consider sending to Mars.
    - pavlov 2y ago
      That will greatly disappoint Elon Musk.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Breathing long spiky mineral bits seems extra bad for you Mars' surface is covered in fine silicates [1] and other goodies (e.g. cadmium, arsenic and perchlorates [2]). [1] https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2024/pdf/1333.pdf https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2024/pdf/1333.pdf [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04910-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04910-3
- api 2y ago
  The more I think about a human future in space the more I wonder whether settling space itself is a better idea than trying to settle a planet. None of them are habitable. All of them have too little gravity for us. So build factories on the Moon, which has only 1/6 gravity, and use those to build huge stations with rotational gravity that we can launch from the Moon (with its low gravity) and live in those. Use ion engines or solar sails to slowly push them around the solar system if we want. Eventually the Lunar and asteroid-based mining and factories would be mostly robotic. We would live in things that look like the giant stations in The Expanse or O'Neill Cylinders. Life support on such a station is not substantially harder than it would be on the surface of the Moon or Mars. It could be easier due to the absence of things like nasty abrasive dust, storms, etc. Over millennia eventually our solar system ends up with something like a living/inhabited Dyson swarm. We become actually spacefaring, not just living on another planet.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > more I think about a human future in space the more I wonder whether settling space itself is a better idea than trying to settle a planet It's explored in A City on Mars [1]. It's technologically more remote than planetary habitation. Mars gives you some gravity, some pressure, some protection from radiation (less from the atmosphere than from the planet) and asteroids and plenty of ISRUs, from water to CO2 to dry mass. With a space station you have to do all of that yourself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars
    - api 2y ago

sabbaticaldev 2y ago

when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable

joshmarinacci 2y ago
That will never happen. We won’t even reach 10 billion. We are leveling off already.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >That will never happen. Using natural reproduction you're correct. Never say never, though: we could massively boost the birthrate and the population by turning to artificial methods. Aldous Huxley's visionary utopian novel "Brave New World" discussed how this could be done back in 1935. Once we develop the technology to make "artificial wombs", we won't need natural reproduction any more and can create as many new people as we want.
  - defrost 2y ago
    But why ? Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population, particularly when they'll need to be supported with supply pipelines so well crafted there's no margin of error that doesn't kill a few million (less than 1 percent!!). I get the techno sci fi "because we can" argument, where's the grounded rationale?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Buy why ? The only reason I can come up with is a dictator raising an army. In that sense, a human is a cheaper drone.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      In today's world, you wouldn't want an increasing population unless you're very short-sighted. You might, however, want an artificial boost to the birthrate just to maintain a constant population. Growing populations are good for the economy, but bad for the environment. Shrinking populations are really bad for the economy. But a stable population might be a good compromise that economies and social systems can adapt to. However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people, we would need to expand as a species, not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Of course, it might not come to this at all: perhaps we'll perfect anti-aging technologies (so greatly reducing the death rate), and technology to allow people to have kids at almost any age instead of needing to do it before they're 40.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? > we would need to expand as a species, Why? > not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Why would birthrates stay as they are? Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Saying "we need to" and "would have to" does not in any way address the "why" of the question asked, it's merely restating a belief that "that's the way things should(?) go".
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        >> However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people >Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? When did I ever say anything about having a hundred billion (or any number) on Earth? >> we would need to expand as a species, >Why? It's human nature to expand. Besides, more people means more art, more science, more innovation, etc. And of course an expanding economy. Plus what if something really bad happens? Having more people scattered around is more insurance against extinction. If something awful happens on Earth, having billions in space means humanity will continue. >Why would birthrates stay as they are? Birthrates are continuously falling, in case you haven't noticed. They're not going to stay the same as they are now, they're going to decrease even more. >Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Why would birthrates increase? Every single piece of data we have has shown that when women have choice and agency and people have access to contraception, birthrates fall. So for birthrates to increase, we either have to make women into slaves (I don't support this), or we need another solution.
yongjik 2y ago
There's no way it would work out economically: compared to Mars, it would be literally cheaper to build every one of these 100 billion people a US style suburban house with all the power, water, and sewage connected. Probably by an order of magnitude or two.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

fragmede 2y ago

to have an entirely new planet to live on? I'd be okay with wearing a respirator all day long if I'm living on Mars.

dylan604 2y ago
People couldn't handle wearing a mask for any period of time without losing their damn minds, so I really don't see this as a viable solution
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  No, Americans can't handle wearing a mask without losing their minds. Over here in Japan, people wear masks all the time (normally when they're sick, or have hay fever); it's no big deal.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > People couldn't handle wearing a mask for any period of time without losing their damn minds There is zero overlap between people who can't wear a mask and people we'd even consider sending to Mars.
  - pavlov 2y ago
    That will greatly disappoint Elon Musk.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Breathing long spiky mineral bits seems extra bad for you Mars' surface is covered in fine silicates [1] and other goodies (e.g. cadmium, arsenic and perchlorates [2]). [1] https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2024/pdf/1333.pdf https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2024/pdf/1333.pdf [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04910-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04910-3

api 2y ago
The more I think about a human future in space the more I wonder whether settling space itself is a better idea than trying to settle a planet. None of them are habitable. All of them have too little gravity for us. So build factories on the Moon, which has only 1/6 gravity, and use those to build huge stations with rotational gravity that we can launch from the Moon (with its low gravity) and live in those. Use ion engines or solar sails to slowly push them around the solar system if we want. Eventually the Lunar and asteroid-based mining and factories would be mostly robotic. We would live in things that look like the giant stations in The Expanse or O'Neill Cylinders. Life support on such a station is not substantially harder than it would be on the surface of the Moon or Mars. It could be easier due to the absence of things like nasty abrasive dust, storms, etc. Over millennia eventually our solar system ends up with something like a living/inhabited Dyson swarm. We become actually spacefaring, not just living on another planet.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > more I think about a human future in space the more I wonder whether settling space itself is a better idea than trying to settle a planet It's explored in A City on Mars [1]. It's technologically more remote than planetary habitation. Mars gives you some gravity, some pressure, some protection from radiation (less from the atmosphere than from the planet) and asteroids and plenty of ISRUs, from water to CO2 to dry mass. With a space station you have to do all of that yourself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars
  - api 2y ago