3 ms·

I'm sure we can figure out stuff, but I guess my point is, why would we do that at all? How fucked up Earth needs to be than living on a floating oil platform

I'm sure we can figure out stuff, but I guess my point is, why would we do that at all? How fucked up Earth needs to be than living on a floating oil platform above Venus is better? The point is already hard to make for the Moon or Mars.

o1bf2k25n8g5 1y ago
> why would we do that at all? This question is one of a whole genre of "why" questions that come from supposed pragmatists, but I can't help but think the existence of the question misses the entire point. Luckily, one of the older questions of this genre was about why anyone would bother to climb Mount Everest, and ol' Mallory had such a good answer that I'll just paste the whole thing here: > People ask me, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is of no use.' There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. > If you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to live. That is what life means and what life is for. Of course, with Venus, there's the joy of exploration and also tons of profits and learning to be had. For example, we could cover the entire planet in giant ads. Think of the CPMs you'd get as people looked out the window on their way to Mercury!
- bregma 1y ago
  We choose to go to the Moon ... and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win
  - sunrunner 1y ago
    And because if we don't beat Russia there we're all going to look less good on the global stage, and we simply can't have that. Wait, can we edit that out in post?
- glenstein 1y ago
  On some level I agree with the spirit. But I also think it implicitly concedes that there's not good reasons otherwise, which sells it too short. Existential threats to humanity seem like a pretty good reason, to the point that if reasons mean anything at all it should count as one.
stavros 1y ago
It's less about the earth being uninhabitable and more about redundancy of species.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Living on a ship at sea, or underground / underwater, should give enough protection against whatever post-apocalyptic situation exists on Earth, it's pretty much always going to be more survivable than Mars or outer space. You might need a protective suit, air filters etc. Still 100x easier than having no atmosphere at all.
  - robotomir 1y ago
    What if the threat is not environmental collapse but hostile government?
    - HPsquared 1y ago
      If they can reach your submarine, they can reach your space colony.
      - glenstein 1y ago
        Surprise Dodgeball reference. But I don't think the ocean is as far away as deep space. I also think due to its proximity, it could be entangled in political paradigms that lead to entanglements in international conflicts and the independence from those political paradigms affords a form of insulation.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- wartywhoa23 1y ago
  Aye, this! Redundancy of species... As in sending a part of species to a hostile place where all living is confined into a one big life support machine, without fresh air (which is very different from freshly uncanned or chemically generated air), without fresh and varied food (which is very different from artificially grown), without open sky and Sun above, without seas, rivers, forests, mountains, without anywhere to wander to find inner peace, in a setting for a psychologic horror where one deranged member of expedition is enough to bring it down. That is going to contribute so greatly to the redundancy of our species.
potato3732842 1y ago
Because it's cheaper to live on a f-ed up half-built construction site of a planet than it is to fight with entrenched interests on earth. Same reason North America got colonized by religious extremists and weirdos.
- pbmonster 1y ago
  The free, abundant land choke full of natural resources was probably more important.
  - techdmn 1y ago
    Only free if you discount the costs involved in carrying out genocide against the existing inhabitants. But your point stands, that cost was frequently born by the government, so from the perspective of individual settlers it was often free.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      > But your point stands, that cost was frequently born by the government, Who paid this government?
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    There was plenty of death and danger involved in colonizing a foreign land you've never been to with 16th-18th century era technology.
im3w1l 1y ago
People don't scale mount everest because there is an macguffin to be found there. They scale it to scale it. Because you can. For the adventure. To assert dominance over the universe. We can talk about economical benefits or the survival of the species and those do matter. But it's also because colonizing another planet would be fucking epic and go down in history. With the decline in religion we do need some kind of higher purpose and meaning to rally behind, and going off planet could fit that bill. In a time of increasing divisions it could foster brotherhood.
glenstein 1y ago
I understand this became a hot take in recent years, because you can always just "Colonize Earth". I do think there is an independent strategic value in terms of existential threats. It shouldn't be a rationale for abandoning environmental preservation and conservation on Earth. One thing I see, all too often in Internet comment sections is things that could be complimentary are turned against each other and juxtaposed as if one interferes with the other. I don't know if there's a name for that but it happens often enough that it should have a name.
twelve40 1y ago
pretty fucked up if it runs into an asteroid or a comet!

o1bf2k25n8g5 1y ago

> why would we do that at all? This question is one of a whole genre of "why" questions that come from supposed pragmatists, but I can't help but think the existence of the question misses the entire point. Luckily, one of the older questions of this genre was about why anyone would bother to climb Mount Everest, and ol' Mallory had such a good answer that I'll just paste the whole thing here: > People ask me, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is of no use.' There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. > If you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to live. That is what life means and what life is for. Of course, with Venus, there's the joy of exploration and also tons of profits and learning to be had. For example, we could cover the entire planet in giant ads. Think of the CPMs you'd get as people looked out the window on their way to Mercury!

bregma 1y ago
We choose to go to the Moon ... and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win
- sunrunner 1y ago
  And because if we don't beat Russia there we're all going to look less good on the global stage, and we simply can't have that. Wait, can we edit that out in post?
glenstein 1y ago
On some level I agree with the spirit. But I also think it implicitly concedes that there's not good reasons otherwise, which sells it too short. Existential threats to humanity seem like a pretty good reason, to the point that if reasons mean anything at all it should count as one.

stavros 1y ago

It's less about the earth being uninhabitable and more about redundancy of species.

HPsquared 1y ago
Living on a ship at sea, or underground / underwater, should give enough protection against whatever post-apocalyptic situation exists on Earth, it's pretty much always going to be more survivable than Mars or outer space. You might need a protective suit, air filters etc. Still 100x easier than having no atmosphere at all.
- robotomir 1y ago
  What if the threat is not environmental collapse but hostile government?
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    If they can reach your submarine, they can reach your space colony.
    - glenstein 1y ago
      Surprise Dodgeball reference. But I don't think the ocean is as far away as deep space. I also think due to its proximity, it could be entangled in political paradigms that lead to entanglements in international conflicts and the independence from those political paradigms affords a form of insulation.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
wartywhoa23 1y ago
Aye, this! Redundancy of species... As in sending a part of species to a hostile place where all living is confined into a one big life support machine, without fresh air (which is very different from freshly uncanned or chemically generated air), without fresh and varied food (which is very different from artificially grown), without open sky and Sun above, without seas, rivers, forests, mountains, without anywhere to wander to find inner peace, in a setting for a psychologic horror where one deranged member of expedition is enough to bring it down. That is going to contribute so greatly to the redundancy of our species.

potato3732842 1y ago

Because it's cheaper to live on a f-ed up half-built construction site of a planet than it is to fight with entrenched interests on earth. Same reason North America got colonized by religious extremists and weirdos.

pbmonster 1y ago
The free, abundant land choke full of natural resources was probably more important.
- techdmn 1y ago
  Only free if you discount the costs involved in carrying out genocide against the existing inhabitants. But your point stands, that cost was frequently born by the government, so from the perspective of individual settlers it was often free.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    > But your point stands, that cost was frequently born by the government, Who paid this government?
- ambicapter 1y ago
  There was plenty of death and danger involved in colonizing a foreign land you've never been to with 16th-18th century era technology.

im3w1l 1y ago

People don't scale mount everest because there is an macguffin to be found there. They scale it to scale it. Because you can. For the adventure. To assert dominance over the universe. We can talk about economical benefits or the survival of the species and those do matter. But it's also because colonizing another planet would be fucking epic and go down in history. With the decline in religion we do need some kind of higher purpose and meaning to rally behind, and going off planet could fit that bill. In a time of increasing divisions it could foster brotherhood.

glenstein 1y ago

I understand this became a hot take in recent years, because you can always just "Colonize Earth". I do think there is an independent strategic value in terms of existential threats. It shouldn't be a rationale for abandoning environmental preservation and conservation on Earth. One thing I see, all too often in Internet comment sections is things that could be complimentary are turned against each other and juxtaposed as if one interferes with the other. I don't know if there's a name for that but it happens often enough that it should have a name.

twelve40 1y ago

pretty fucked up if it runs into an asteroid or a comet!