5 ms·

The likelihood of an extinction-level asteroid impact event on both planets at the same time is significantly lower than such an event that hits only one planet

• lapcat 2y ago
  Earth is still vastly, vastly, vastly, vastly more inhabitable after an extinction-level asteroid impact than Mars will ever be without an asteroid impact. As proof: life on Earth did survive the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. We're here, we live. Meanwhile, Mars remains a desolate, lifeless hellscape. Whatever indoor/underground habitats would be required for humans to survive on Mars could be built vastly, vastly, vastly, vastly more easily on Earth. Using Mars as a backup for life is like storing your computer backups in an active volcano, basically the stupidest idea ever. Mars is actively hostile to human life in so many ways. The so-called backup is worse than no backup. You've been sold a bill of goods. Mars was always a sideshow, a clever way of recruiting naive tech and science nerds to the cause of glorifying one sociopathic man. The head DOGE is in the process of cutting and shutting down scientific research all across the US, as well as eliminating all regulation of the environment and pollution. He's aligned himself with regressive religious nuts who want to bring back the Dark Ages. Those aren't the actions of someone dedicated to saving the Earth, much less going to Mars. But hey, perhaps science was "too woke". No, problem, we can just replace it with Christian Science, amirite.
  • natch 2y ago
    You are making absolutely huge unfounded assumptions that the human body plan cannot be altered if not completely redesigned to make it compatible with living on Mars.
    • lapcat 2y ago
      I am making absolutely huge unfounded assumptions? Show me the existing technology to alter or completely redesign the human body "plan" (whatever that means) to make it compatible with living on Mars. Otherwise, it's you who is making the absolutely huge unfounded assumptions.
      • avmich 2y ago
        Why you need to see an existing tech? It's too easy to dismiss an argument on the grounds that the tech isn't there. I'm exagerrating, but we're talking about real scientific progress here, right?
        • lapcat 2y ago
          > It's too easy to dismiss an argument on the grounds that the tech isn't there. It's way too easy to pretend that massive problems can magically be solved by some imagined but nonexistent tech. In any case, we're not even close to having this tech during the lifetime of Elon Musk, who's now over 50 and has been promising a Mars colony for decades. I don't know what's possible in the far future, but in the near future this is all just hand-waving nonsense. They can't even get Full Self-Driving cars right that don't crash randomly.
          • avmich 2y ago
            So, since both sides are easy to state but hard to prove, we should conclude that this is an uncertain matter, right?
            • lapcat 2y ago
              There's nothing hard to prove about the current nonexistence of the technology. Indeed, nobody is even working on the technology as far as we know.
              • avmich 2y ago
                But nonexistence of technology isn't a proof of impossibility, or even particular hardness.
                • lapcat 2y ago
                  You don't think it's hard to alter or completely redesign the human body to make it compatible with living on Mars? Ok, bud, whatever you need to tell yourself. I'm done here.