4 ms·
I'm just making the basic point that we have a wealth of much more hospitable places to live on earth, and somehow they're not viable candidates as "backup plan
by colonelspace 1y ago
I'm just making the basic point that we have a wealth of much more hospitable places to live on earth, and somehow they're not viable candidates as "backup plans" for humanity.
Going a little further, living in the ocean is easier than living on Mars. As far as I can tell there are no billionaire-funded submarine civilisation programs.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoThey're not viable candidates as backup plans for humanity because they have the same vulnerabilities to comet strikes, global nuclear war and pandemic as the rest of the Earth. OTOH, if one of those took out human life on Earth, people living on Mars could re-colonize Earth.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoEarth after a global nuclear war or comet strike is still more hospitable than Mars. It's hard to imagine anything that would make Mars a better place to live than simply staying on earth.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoYes it would be. But that doesn't matter if no humans make it through the apocalypse in the first place.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoThe moon would do the job at a lot cheaper price.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoNope. Because of aero braking, Mars takes less delta v to get to and land on than the moon does.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoNow I'm wondering why the Apollo program went to the moon if doing Mars is so much cheaper.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoGoing is cheaper. Coming back is more expensive. And of course the 3-6 month travel time is a challenge.