3 ms·

I've been following Carmack since the .plan day. He's a very smart and hardworking guy. Putting a person on Mars sounds like an epic and audacious stunt, but I

by xnx 2y ago

I've been following Carmack since the .plan day. He's a very smart and hardworking guy. Putting a person on Mars sounds like an epic and audacious stunt, but I can't figure out why he would think there's any reason it's something we would need to do as a species.

kibibu 2y ago
We can't even keep Earth alive
- plugger 2y ago
  So we should move to a dead planet then? I'm not sure I'm following here.
tristanj 2y ago
Take a moment and truly envision the alternative. What if we don't explore space? Are we content remaining confined to Earth for eternity? Do we stay on earth and watch ourselves destroy the environment, watch our resources dwindle, and sit back as the sun decays into a red giant and envelopes our planet? The choice is obvious. In my opinion, after a certain point, will become an economic necessity; i.e. a lack of resources on earth & cheaper manufacturing costs in space will drive humanity spacebound.
theshrike79 2y ago
Think of it like an offsite backup. If we have a viable self-sufficient colony outside of Earth (even on the moon or in space) humanity has a better chance of survival if we manage to mess up our planet too badly to fix.
- xnx 2y ago
  > Think of it like an offsite backup I still can't think of what sequence of disasters would lead to Earth being less habitable than Mars. Earth still supported life the day after the meteor hit. To bring Earth down to Mars level something would have to remove all the atmosphere, remove all the mineral resources, remove the oceans, and screw up gravity and the diurnal cycle.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    Then think of all this talk about Mars or O'Neill cylinders or whatnot as a step toward interstellar travel, and truly off-site backups.
    - xnx 2y ago
      Good point. I see Mars as a lateral move in that quest. More likely that we'll be post-human before we're an interstellar species.
hackeraccount 2y ago
"As a species" is the right scale. I think if we could put a person on Mars it would mean we've learned to do so much more then just that and were on the path to go further still.

by xnx 2y ago

kibibu 2y ago

We can't even keep Earth alive

plugger 2y ago
So we should move to a dead planet then? I'm not sure I'm following here.

tristanj 2y ago

Take a moment and truly envision the alternative. What if we don't explore space? Are we content remaining confined to Earth for eternity? Do we stay on earth and watch ourselves destroy the environment, watch our resources dwindle, and sit back as the sun decays into a red giant and envelopes our planet? The choice is obvious. In my opinion, after a certain point, will become an economic necessity; i.e. a lack of resources on earth & cheaper manufacturing costs in space will drive humanity spacebound.

theshrike79 2y ago

Think of it like an offsite backup. If we have a viable self-sufficient colony outside of Earth (even on the moon or in space) humanity has a better chance of survival if we manage to mess up our planet too badly to fix.

xnx 2y ago
> Think of it like an offsite backup I still can't think of what sequence of disasters would lead to Earth being less habitable than Mars. Earth still supported life the day after the meteor hit. To bring Earth down to Mars level something would have to remove all the atmosphere, remove all the mineral resources, remove the oceans, and screw up gravity and the diurnal cycle.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Then think of all this talk about Mars or O'Neill cylinders or whatnot as a step toward interstellar travel, and truly off-site backups.
  - xnx 2y ago
    Good point. I see Mars as a lateral move in that quest. More likely that we'll be post-human before we're an interstellar species.

hackeraccount 2y ago

"As a species" is the right scale. I think if we could put a person on Mars it would mean we've learned to do so much more then just that and were on the path to go further still.