3 ms·

yeah, all this about inhabiting mars, even when earths ecology and economies crash as they're looking to do it will still be orders of magnitude more survivabl

yeah, all this about inhabiting mars, even when earths ecology and economies crash as they're looking to do it will still be orders of magnitude more survivable than mars lol

stevage 9mo ago
Yeah a future where Mars is more inhabitable than earth is unbelievably depressing.
- jryle70 9mo ago
  We have a choice of feeling depressed or working on mitigation options. Mars is simply a backup option. Maybe you can come up with a better option.
  - cwillu 9mo ago
    The better option is unfucking the planet we live on.
wongarsu 9mo ago
I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that Mars will be more habitable than Earth. The argument is about the possibility of humans on Earth being wiped out due to freak events like a huge asteroid impact or global thermonuclear war. Earth would still be more habitable than Mars, but the probability that human survivors would be equipped with Mars-level survival tools is tiny, and any facility equipped like this would have to be hardened against desperate survivors trying to take it over and bringing it over capacity. Meanwhile if we had a self-sufficient Mars colony they could resettle any Earth that is more habitable than Mars. Now I'm not saying it's necessarily a smart allocation of resources. But it does follow the popular IT saying "one is none, two is one. If you care about something make sure you have a backup"
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  A Mars colony would simply die when it's no longer being supported by earth. Maybe they'll survive a year but not much more.
  - wongarsu 9mo ago
    Hence "if we had a self-sufficient Mars colony". Any initial mars colony would not be self-sufficient, but even just by economics alone that would change as the colony grows. Even if we get stuck in the "initial colony" stage (which is not the plan of any Mars-colonization proponent) with precautions comparable to the ISS you'd still have a colony capable of surviving a minimum of four years (two launch windows, in case one delivery goes wrong) and the capability to return to Earth.
  - jryle70 9mo ago
    That's one more reason to start Mars missions as soon as technologies allow. It will take a long time to build a self sufficient colony on Mars.
- fn-mote 9mo ago
  I’m intrigued by lumping “asteroid impact” and “nuclear war” in the same freak events category. In the US, you’re probably voting for people who will be making the nuclear war decisions… It won’t be a freak accident, it will be a result of the democracy you participate in.

yeah, all this about inhabiting mars, even when earths ecology and economies crash as they're looking to do it will still be orders of magnitude more survivable than mars lol

stevage 9mo ago

Yeah a future where Mars is more inhabitable than earth is unbelievably depressing.

jryle70 9mo ago
We have a choice of feeling depressed or working on mitigation options. Mars is simply a backup option. Maybe you can come up with a better option.
- cwillu 9mo ago
  The better option is unfucking the planet we live on.

wongarsu 9mo ago

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that Mars will be more habitable than Earth. The argument is about the possibility of humans on Earth being wiped out due to freak events like a huge asteroid impact or global thermonuclear war. Earth would still be more habitable than Mars, but the probability that human survivors would be equipped with Mars-level survival tools is tiny, and any facility equipped like this would have to be hardened against desperate survivors trying to take it over and bringing it over capacity. Meanwhile if we had a self-sufficient Mars colony they could resettle any Earth that is more habitable than Mars. Now I'm not saying it's necessarily a smart allocation of resources. But it does follow the popular IT saying "one is none, two is one. If you care about something make sure you have a backup"

wolvoleo 9mo ago
A Mars colony would simply die when it's no longer being supported by earth. Maybe they'll survive a year but not much more.
- wongarsu 9mo ago
  Hence "if we had a self-sufficient Mars colony". Any initial mars colony would not be self-sufficient, but even just by economics alone that would change as the colony grows. Even if we get stuck in the "initial colony" stage (which is not the plan of any Mars-colonization proponent) with precautions comparable to the ISS you'd still have a colony capable of surviving a minimum of four years (two launch windows, in case one delivery goes wrong) and the capability to return to Earth.
- jryle70 9mo ago
  That's one more reason to start Mars missions as soon as technologies allow. It will take a long time to build a self sufficient colony on Mars.
fn-mote 9mo ago
I’m intrigued by lumping “asteroid impact” and “nuclear war” in the same freak events category. In the US, you’re probably voting for people who will be making the nuclear war decisions… It won’t be a freak accident, it will be a result of the democracy you participate in.