5 ms·

Is it an act of hatred to say that humans shouldn't expend huge amounts of effort and energy to try to populate Mars so that humans can escape the very human ac

Is it an act of hatred to say that humans shouldn't expend huge amounts of effort and energy to try to populate Mars so that humans can escape the very human act of polluting the Earth? When this human pollution kills millions a year and plenty of other organisms? Is it a celebration of humanity to continue buying chocolate or clothing or rugs, even if they are clearly the result of exploited or downright slave labor? Or is it just that you suppose that we, as humans who have privilege and comfort, deserve to continue and expand those qualities? You "personally" want to see lights from the moon? You think Mars "desperately" needs habitation? I'm not sure how you're any less self-important about this topic than your opposition. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "humanity", because it sure doesn't seem like the same kind of "humanity" that MLK Jr. described. I'm sure there are plenty of people you could speak for. Don't presume that's everyone worth considering.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Why not both populate Mars and improve earth? I dont think they are mutually exclusive.
- vacuity 2y ago
  I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax The history of conquest on Earth shows no such example. If anything, given a choice, humans will happily push the unsavoury to the periphery. I'd much rather e.g. risky biological, chemical and nuclear research happen on the Moon or Mars than Earth. The honest truth is our first colonies on Mars will be Jamestowns. Unlike the Jamestown in our past, however, this one's horrors will be broadcast real time. The deadliness of space almost promises that we'll be keenly reminded of how special our safe harbor. Not that we'll forget it.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Why do you thinking settling mars would have any impact on our efforts to improve earth? What are the incentives that are wrong with Mars?
    - vacuity 2y ago
      My belief is that many people will think "Oh good! A safe harbor where we can fix our mistakes!" My problems with this: 1) Is everyone going to Mars in a reasonable time frame, or are people going to be left behind? Permanently? 2) Are we actually going to fix the Earth? Let's assume many people will be there for a while longer. 3) Are we going to not wreck Mars?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        #1 That is an extremely dumb thought to project on everyone else. Mars isn't an a replacement for earth, and wont support even a tiny fraction of the population in the foreseeable future. Why do you believe people will think this? #2 I hope we fix earth, but we either will or wont completely independent of Mars policy. Again, I dont see how they are related. Is the idea to prevent Mars activity as a motivating punishment (e.g. Birthday parties are cancelled until you clean your room)? #3 What does "wrecking Mars" mean? What is a good Mars and what is a bad Mars?
        vacuity 2y ago
        To 3, I'll vaguely say "like how we are wrecking the Earth". To 1 and 2, I think you have a far more optimistic view of the technical and social aspects of this issue than I do. Dangerously so. Enough people look at Musk and others talking about Mars, or "believe in the technological revolution", or don't care about the Earth, that fixing the issues on Earth is a very urgent matter with not enough mindshare.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        waging war and trying to destroy people's hopes and dreams is a cynical, toxic, failing strategy for environmentalism. It communicates that environmentalism cant maintain mindshare based on its own merit, and must obstruct and tear down other goals. Unfortunately, this alienates anyone one who holds values on par with environmentalism.
- freejazz 2y ago
  One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Because one is an urgent need, the other isn't and also presupposes a solution to the first problem. Perhaps you can explain why this doesn't matter.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I dont see that way at all. Space exploration in no way hampers or restricts our ability to improve earth. The two can be done in parallel. Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?
        freejazz 2y ago
        I didn't say they couldn't be done in parallel. >Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved? No, I'm not sure how that follows at all.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I asked why not do both, and you responded that "One of those is actually an urgent need". If you arent arguing against doing them in parallel, what point are you trying to make. If you agree they can both be done in parallel, and dont think we should wait, what is your objection?
        2y ago
- WalterBright 2y ago
  I did not suggest otherwise.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I was responding to vacuity, not you. They hold the position that Mars activities should not take place until we fix earth, if ever.
fsckboy 2y ago
human pollution kills millions a year? the only thing reducing the human population is decreased desire to have children by people who can afford them. Otherwise, more people are born, live longer, and die than ever before.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- vacuity 2y ago
  > Air pollution accounted for 8.1 million deaths globally in 2021 [0] > In 2019, air pollution caused about 6.7 million deaths. Of these, almost 85% are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes. This makes air pollution the second leading cause of NCDs globally after tobacco. [1] [0] https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/air-pollution-accounted-81-million-deaths-globally-2021-becoming-second-leading-risk https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/air-pollution-accounte... [1] https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-what-are-health-consequences-of-air-pollution-on-populations https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-what-are-health-con...
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    my point was that all of the activities that we humans engage in are the activities that create the pollution; but they are also the activities that extend our life expectancies. You can't separate them. Claiming that pollution is killing without point out the benefits of what is creating the pollution is lying. Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived. It is the essence of intellectual vacuuity to miss that.
    - vacuity 2y ago
      > Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived. It is indeed true that we have unprecedented life quality among more people than ever. It is also very true that industrialization has played a gigantic part in that. However, from one line of history does not come them all. We do not know that this exact path of industrialization was or continues to be necessary. If, in an alternate history, there were less humans with very high quality of life for longer and then they discovered less polluting forms of industry to reach this point, were they worse off? Are you saying we are already minimizing pollution to the level necessary for progress, or quickly working on it? If you're trying to justify the current level of pollution with the current level of progress, you have a lot of explaining to do. Cutting down plastic bag usage alone would probably be high impact for reducing pollution/environmental harm and low impact on impeding progress.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> we, as humans who have privilege and comfort, deserve to continue and expand those qualities Cutting down forests for farms asserts a human privilege. Arguing for colonies on the Moon or Mars isn't asserting a human privilege, it's arguing for a biological one: the privilege the living should enjoy over the non-living.
- vacuity 2y ago
  Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed for the former to work? I don't follow.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera, come down to decidedly human systems of values and ethics.) When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people. That tabula rasa makes the previous discussion about humans versus other living things moot. Instead, the practical trade-offs aren't about any inherent rights dead things have (they don't), but how it impacts life on Earth. In particular, for humans.
    - vacuity 2y ago
      That makes a lot of sense. I acknowledge there is an asymmetry that favors Moon development. I think "while cute to debate philosophically" is itself an amusing stance, given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically, but not the main point. My main gripe is that, if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival, why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table? (If you don't, your motivation is just shallow greed.)
mulmen 2y ago
Colonizing the moon and improving life on Earth are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Both are possible and the space program has given us constant technological improvements to help improve life on Earth. We’re more likely to do both together than picking only one.
goatlover 2y ago
Doubt MLK Jr had much to say about Mars colonization. Why would he be opposed to it as long as Martian settlers were treating each other equally? I don't like the view that we shouldn't go to space as long as there are problems on Earth to fix. There are always problems to fix. It's an excuse to never explore space. There's no reason that going to Mars would prevent addressing pollution on Earth. I don't even see how they're related. If anything, trying to live on Mars would probably help us deal with climate change on Earth.
- vacuity 2y ago
  I invoked MLK Jr. in pointing to problems on Earth, including pollution, as an example of how we are not serving "humanity" in MLK Jr.'s spirit. I think your technology advancement argument is far-fetched, even though I acknowledge the historical basis. In part due to reasoning in another comment of mine: > I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- freejazz 2y ago
  > I don't even see how they're related You can't see how terraforming Mars and solving Earth's climate crisis could be related? And you want us to consider your opinions at all?
  - goatlover 2y ago
    I don't care, but I did say it might in my last sentence.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
WalterBright 2y ago
I don't see where you inferred these questions from my statement.
erik_seaberg 2y ago
Escaping pollution is not a reason for going. Creating habitable areas on/under Mars is clearly harder than maintaining habitable areas on/under Earth. We have people who are much more motivated to do it and we might learn more from it, though.
- vacuity 2y ago
  Granted, I overstated the escaping pollution part. It seems like people are not alarmed enough about climate change and pollution to believe extinction[0] will happen anytime soon. That would mainly be the motivation for rich people, and not just pollution but many other issues they are not interested in solving. Frankly, the least selfish reason to go to Mars is to avoid extinction. Barring that, is it such a great thing for "humanity" to explore Mars for curiosity, commercial ventures, and leisure? Apparently many of the commenters here seem to extol things that can be great for "humanity" while lashing out at mentions of real issues not getting enough attention right now. I'll restate what I said: is it so important that we with privilege continue to have greater privilege? Or if you believe we can just fix these issues and get our space exploration too: do you really think that will happen with reasonable likelihood? The feel-good narrative of having our cake and eating it too is just too delectable. And to those of you saying I would shut down everything for one cause, you're blatantly wrong. I'm saying we should focus on this cause and look to the remainder for things like space exploration. What we have in reality is focusing on things like space exploration and hoping. We are misallocating resources. Yes, perhaps we will get magical technology from the money currently going into it, or from space exploration. I ask you if you think the likelihood is reasonable. If you're here to talk about mere possibilities, don't complain when others bring up feasibility. [0] Or just a lot of people dying, doesn't have to be nearly everyone.
  - erik_seaberg 2y ago
    The resources are 0.004% of the population of one wealthy country, who devoted themselves to shaping about 400 tons of stainless steel. Nothing constructive comes of starving a project that size, certainly not the global carbon sequestration I'd like to see.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Why not both populate Mars and improve earth? I dont think they are mutually exclusive.

vacuity 2y ago
I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax The history of conquest on Earth shows no such example. If anything, given a choice, humans will happily push the unsavoury to the periphery. I'd much rather e.g. risky biological, chemical and nuclear research happen on the Moon or Mars than Earth. The honest truth is our first colonies on Mars will be Jamestowns. Unlike the Jamestown in our past, however, this one's horrors will be broadcast real time. The deadliness of space almost promises that we'll be keenly reminded of how special our safe harbor. Not that we'll forget it.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Why do you thinking settling mars would have any impact on our efforts to improve earth? What are the incentives that are wrong with Mars?
  - vacuity 2y ago
    My belief is that many people will think "Oh good! A safe harbor where we can fix our mistakes!" My problems with this: 1) Is everyone going to Mars in a reasonable time frame, or are people going to be left behind? Permanently? 2) Are we actually going to fix the Earth? Let's assume many people will be there for a while longer. 3) Are we going to not wreck Mars?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      #1 That is an extremely dumb thought to project on everyone else. Mars isn't an a replacement for earth, and wont support even a tiny fraction of the population in the foreseeable future. Why do you believe people will think this? #2 I hope we fix earth, but we either will or wont completely independent of Mars policy. Again, I dont see how they are related. Is the idea to prevent Mars activity as a motivating punishment (e.g. Birthday parties are cancelled until you clean your room)? #3 What does "wrecking Mars" mean? What is a good Mars and what is a bad Mars?
      - vacuity 2y ago
        To 3, I'll vaguely say "like how we are wrecking the Earth". To 1 and 2, I think you have a far more optimistic view of the technical and social aspects of this issue than I do. Dangerously so. Enough people look at Musk and others talking about Mars, or "believe in the technological revolution", or don't care about the Earth, that fixing the issues on Earth is a very urgent matter with not enough mindshare.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        waging war and trying to destroy people's hopes and dreams is a cynical, toxic, failing strategy for environmentalism. It communicates that environmentalism cant maintain mindshare based on its own merit, and must obstruct and tear down other goals. Unfortunately, this alienates anyone one who holds values on par with environmentalism.
freejazz 2y ago
One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Because one is an urgent need, the other isn't and also presupposes a solution to the first problem. Perhaps you can explain why this doesn't matter.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I dont see that way at all. Space exploration in no way hampers or restricts our ability to improve earth. The two can be done in parallel. Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?
      - freejazz 2y ago
        I didn't say they couldn't be done in parallel. >Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved? No, I'm not sure how that follows at all.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I asked why not do both, and you responded that "One of those is actually an urgent need". If you arent arguing against doing them in parallel, what point are you trying to make. If you agree they can both be done in parallel, and dont think we should wait, what is your objection?
      - 2y ago
WalterBright 2y ago
I did not suggest otherwise.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I was responding to vacuity, not you. They hold the position that Mars activities should not take place until we fix earth, if ever.

fsckboy 2y ago

human pollution kills millions a year? the only thing reducing the human population is decreased desire to have children by people who can afford them. Otherwise, more people are born, live longer, and die than ever before.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vacuity 2y ago
> Air pollution accounted for 8.1 million deaths globally in 2021 [0] > In 2019, air pollution caused about 6.7 million deaths. Of these, almost 85% are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes. This makes air pollution the second leading cause of NCDs globally after tobacco. [1] [0] https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/air-pollution-accounted-81-million-deaths-globally-2021-becoming-second-leading-risk https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/air-pollution-accounte... [1] https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-what-are-health-consequences-of-air-pollution-on-populations https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-what-are-health-con...
- fsckboy 2y ago
  my point was that all of the activities that we humans engage in are the activities that create the pollution; but they are also the activities that extend our life expectancies. You can't separate them. Claiming that pollution is killing without point out the benefits of what is creating the pollution is lying. Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived. It is the essence of intellectual vacuuity to miss that.
  - vacuity 2y ago
    > Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived. It is indeed true that we have unprecedented life quality among more people than ever. It is also very true that industrialization has played a gigantic part in that. However, from one line of history does not come them all. We do not know that this exact path of industrialization was or continues to be necessary. If, in an alternate history, there were less humans with very high quality of life for longer and then they discovered less polluting forms of industry to reach this point, were they worse off? Are you saying we are already minimizing pollution to the level necessary for progress, or quickly working on it? If you're trying to justify the current level of pollution with the current level of progress, you have a lot of explaining to do. Cutting down plastic bag usage alone would probably be high impact for reducing pollution/environmental harm and low impact on impeding progress.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> we, as humans who have privilege and comfort, deserve to continue and expand those qualities Cutting down forests for farms asserts a human privilege. Arguing for colonies on the Moon or Mars isn't asserting a human privilege, it's arguing for a biological one: the privilege the living should enjoy over the non-living.

vacuity 2y ago
Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed for the former to work? I don't follow.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera, come down to decidedly human systems of values and ethics.) When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people. That tabula rasa makes the previous discussion about humans versus other living things moot. Instead, the practical trade-offs aren't about any inherent rights dead things have (they don't), but how it impacts life on Earth. In particular, for humans.
  - vacuity 2y ago
    That makes a lot of sense. I acknowledge there is an asymmetry that favors Moon development. I think "while cute to debate philosophically" is itself an amusing stance, given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically, but not the main point. My main gripe is that, if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival, why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table? (If you don't, your motivation is just shallow greed.)

mulmen 2y ago

Colonizing the moon and improving life on Earth are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Both are possible and the space program has given us constant technological improvements to help improve life on Earth. We’re more likely to do both together than picking only one.

goatlover 2y ago

Doubt MLK Jr had much to say about Mars colonization. Why would he be opposed to it as long as Martian settlers were treating each other equally? I don't like the view that we shouldn't go to space as long as there are problems on Earth to fix. There are always problems to fix. It's an excuse to never explore space. There's no reason that going to Mars would prevent addressing pollution on Earth. I don't even see how they're related. If anything, trying to live on Mars would probably help us deal with climate change on Earth.

vacuity 2y ago
I invoked MLK Jr. in pointing to problems on Earth, including pollution, as an example of how we are not serving "humanity" in MLK Jr.'s spirit. I think your technology advancement argument is far-fetched, even though I acknowledge the historical basis. In part due to reasoning in another comment of mine: > I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
freejazz 2y ago
> I don't even see how they're related You can't see how terraforming Mars and solving Earth's climate crisis could be related? And you want us to consider your opinions at all?
- goatlover 2y ago
  I don't care, but I did say it might in my last sentence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

WalterBright 2y ago

I don't see where you inferred these questions from my statement.

erik_seaberg 2y ago

Escaping pollution is not a reason for going. Creating habitable areas on/under Mars is clearly harder than maintaining habitable areas on/under Earth. We have people who are much more motivated to do it and we might learn more from it, though.

vacuity 2y ago
Granted, I overstated the escaping pollution part. It seems like people are not alarmed enough about climate change and pollution to believe extinction[0] will happen anytime soon. That would mainly be the motivation for rich people, and not just pollution but many other issues they are not interested in solving. Frankly, the least selfish reason to go to Mars is to avoid extinction. Barring that, is it such a great thing for "humanity" to explore Mars for curiosity, commercial ventures, and leisure? Apparently many of the commenters here seem to extol things that can be great for "humanity" while lashing out at mentions of real issues not getting enough attention right now. I'll restate what I said: is it so important that we with privilege continue to have greater privilege? Or if you believe we can just fix these issues and get our space exploration too: do you really think that will happen with reasonable likelihood? The feel-good narrative of having our cake and eating it too is just too delectable. And to those of you saying I would shut down everything for one cause, you're blatantly wrong. I'm saying we should focus on this cause and look to the remainder for things like space exploration. What we have in reality is focusing on things like space exploration and hoping. We are misallocating resources. Yes, perhaps we will get magical technology from the money currently going into it, or from space exploration. I ask you if you think the likelihood is reasonable. If you're here to talk about mere possibilities, don't complain when others bring up feasibility. [0] Or just a lot of people dying, doesn't have to be nearly everyone.
- erik_seaberg 2y ago
  The resources are 0.004% of the population of one wealthy country, who devoted themselves to shaping about 400 tons of stainless steel. Nothing constructive comes of starving a project that size, certainly not the global carbon sequestration I'd like to see.