4 ms·

Yes, well, maybe logically speaking that would be true. Practically speaking hardly anyone blinks an eye when 'society' daily sends young (mostly) men into harm

Yes, well, maybe logically speaking that would be true. Practically speaking hardly anyone blinks an eye when 'society' daily sends young (mostly) men into harm's way whether that be by employing them in known dangerous professions such as logging (etc.) or by sending them to war. According to the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, more than 526,000 people die each year because of the violence associated with armed conflict and large- and small-scale criminality [1] while the world just keeps on turning. Nobody would even blink an eye if that number changed to 525.000 per year by putting dangerous criminals behind bars and keeping them there or by eradicating some terrorist group somewhere nor would they loose sleep if it changed to 527.000 per year after some conflict somewhere flared up again. Life is not as precious as it is often thought to be by most of us here on this site. Seen in that light it makes a lot of sense to choose 1000 volunteers out of the millions who would show up if asked to go on a mission to Mars, success not at all guaranteed and quite likely to be a one-way trip for the foreseeable future. Mars has been explored by a multitude of probes and rovers so sending the next one, no matter how advanced, will not cause much of a stir. Sending 1000 people to Mars with the intent of establishing an outpost will 'rock the world'. If successful (which is not at all a given) it would be one of the greatest achievements of our species while a successful robot mission would just be another tick on the list. [1] https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/world-development-indicators/series/VC.BTL.DETH https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/world-develo...

knome 2y ago
>Life is not as precious as it is often thought to be by most of us here on this site starting anything by throwing out the value human life seems like a bad direction.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I think the person you're responding to had a solid point, but he derailed it with his own examples. It's not about "throwing out the value of human life" but appreciating that risk is something that, in many endeavors, is going to remain relatively high even if you make every effort to minimize it. When we went to the Moon, the obituary for the astronauts was written before they even took off. And the astronauts themselves felt they had somewhere from a 50% to 70% chance of success. Everybody was well aware of the extreme risks, but they still voluntarily participated, because they felt the achievement was worth the risk. And indeed those brave men inspired an entire generation to science and achieved what many believe was still the greatest achievement in humanity's entire history. The first missions to Mars will always be high risk, because the fundamental issue is that you're always going to be doing a bunch of things that no other human ever has. There's just so many unknown unknowns there that we're going end up getting surprised by something. So all we can do is make sure we have highly capable people and try to prepare as well as we can. But in the end, even when you work to minimize risk as much as you possibly can, that mission will always qualify as 'risky.'
  - XorNot 2y ago
    Conversely humans are absurdly bad at statistics - i.e. "an astronaut feels he has a 50 to 70% chance of success"...isn't a real prediction. It isn't based on any failure analysis. The actual failure analysis and engineering was substantially more confident, because otherwise why go? 50% is a coin-flip, but those odds were already proven wrong by the missions before Apollo 11 anyway (since there was more then 1).
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      You're doing some improv here based on your intuition when history has a way of surprising us. So what was the "actual" failure analysis and risk percent? It didn't exist. "Mathematical risk analysis was used in Apollo, but it gave unacceptably pessimistic results and was discontinued." [1] Of course there were working assessments internally and they generally put the figure at about 50%. That figure is from Gene Krantz's excellent book "Failure Is Not an Option." The reason you go is because you cannot find any other practical way to significantly reduce the risk, and are willing to accept the risk you end up with. Also I feel you're somewhat denigrating the astronauts with your comment by saying their estimations weren't "real". These weren't just adrenaline junkies looking for a wild ride - they were extreme intellectual outliers with higher degrees in aerospace engineering and extensive backgrounds in the development and application/flight of all sorts of aerospace systems. Like that paper also mentions, "The only possible explanation for the astonishing success [of the Apollo Program] – no losses in space and on time – was that every participant at every level in every area far exceeded the norm of human capabilities." [1] - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190002249/downloads/20190002249.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190002249/downloads/20...
  - knome 2y ago
    the reasons a person does something are important, because those reasons influence every decision that goes into doing that thing. the difference between the perspectives of "yes, we go into this knowing it is dangerous and that the challenge may be insurmountable, but we believe the potential rewards are worth that risk" vs "lives aren't actually worth much so why not spend them because we'll just waste them somewhere else anyways" is a gulf.
pyrale 2y ago
"Many of them will die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  You show a Hollywood quote, I'll raise you a better one: Space: the final frontier. These are the continuing voyages of the starship Enterprise. Their ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new lifeforms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before You missed the 'volunteer' part it seems. People have volunteered for expeditions with uncertain outcomes since, well, forever. Some people do their utmost best to tempt fate by climbing skyscrapers and masts without any safety devices, they jump off cliffs in clothing which gives them a slight advantage over gravity, they get into devices which are supposed to keep them alive at depths which would crush them to ¼ of their size if they were to be exposed and more. People used to embark on sailing vessels to trek to unknown places, a practice which started when sailing vessels became a thing. People want to explore frontiers and some people are willing to take great risk to be among the first to do so. No silly quote from a Hollywood production will keep them from following their drive to boldly go where no man has gone before. Or woman, for that matter.

knome 2y ago

>Life is not as precious as it is often thought to be by most of us here on this site starting anything by throwing out the value human life seems like a bad direction.

somenameforme 2y ago
I think the person you're responding to had a solid point, but he derailed it with his own examples. It's not about "throwing out the value of human life" but appreciating that risk is something that, in many endeavors, is going to remain relatively high even if you make every effort to minimize it. When we went to the Moon, the obituary for the astronauts was written before they even took off. And the astronauts themselves felt they had somewhere from a 50% to 70% chance of success. Everybody was well aware of the extreme risks, but they still voluntarily participated, because they felt the achievement was worth the risk. And indeed those brave men inspired an entire generation to science and achieved what many believe was still the greatest achievement in humanity's entire history. The first missions to Mars will always be high risk, because the fundamental issue is that you're always going to be doing a bunch of things that no other human ever has. There's just so many unknown unknowns there that we're going end up getting surprised by something. So all we can do is make sure we have highly capable people and try to prepare as well as we can. But in the end, even when you work to minimize risk as much as you possibly can, that mission will always qualify as 'risky.'
- XorNot 2y ago
  Conversely humans are absurdly bad at statistics - i.e. "an astronaut feels he has a 50 to 70% chance of success"...isn't a real prediction. It isn't based on any failure analysis. The actual failure analysis and engineering was substantially more confident, because otherwise why go? 50% is a coin-flip, but those odds were already proven wrong by the missions before Apollo 11 anyway (since there was more then 1).
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    You're doing some improv here based on your intuition when history has a way of surprising us. So what was the "actual" failure analysis and risk percent? It didn't exist. "Mathematical risk analysis was used in Apollo, but it gave unacceptably pessimistic results and was discontinued." [1] Of course there were working assessments internally and they generally put the figure at about 50%. That figure is from Gene Krantz's excellent book "Failure Is Not an Option." The reason you go is because you cannot find any other practical way to significantly reduce the risk, and are willing to accept the risk you end up with. Also I feel you're somewhat denigrating the astronauts with your comment by saying their estimations weren't "real". These weren't just adrenaline junkies looking for a wild ride - they were extreme intellectual outliers with higher degrees in aerospace engineering and extensive backgrounds in the development and application/flight of all sorts of aerospace systems. Like that paper also mentions, "The only possible explanation for the astonishing success [of the Apollo Program] – no losses in space and on time – was that every participant at every level in every area far exceeded the norm of human capabilities." [1] - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190002249/downloads/20190002249.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190002249/downloads/20...
- knome 2y ago
  the reasons a person does something are important, because those reasons influence every decision that goes into doing that thing. the difference between the perspectives of "yes, we go into this knowing it is dangerous and that the challenge may be insurmountable, but we believe the potential rewards are worth that risk" vs "lives aren't actually worth much so why not spend them because we'll just waste them somewhere else anyways" is a gulf.

pyrale 2y ago

"Many of them will die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".

hagbard_c 2y ago
You show a Hollywood quote, I'll raise you a better one: Space: the final frontier. These are the continuing voyages of the starship Enterprise. Their ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new lifeforms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before You missed the 'volunteer' part it seems. People have volunteered for expeditions with uncertain outcomes since, well, forever. Some people do their utmost best to tempt fate by climbing skyscrapers and masts without any safety devices, they jump off cliffs in clothing which gives them a slight advantage over gravity, they get into devices which are supposed to keep them alive at depths which would crush them to ¼ of their size if they were to be exposed and more. People used to embark on sailing vessels to trek to unknown places, a practice which started when sailing vessels became a thing. People want to explore frontiers and some people are willing to take great risk to be among the first to do so. No silly quote from a Hollywood production will keep them from following their drive to boldly go where no man has gone before. Or woman, for that matter.