3 ms·

There will be some chain reaction up there in near future, in our lifetime only. Congratulation to the team. These milestones are necessary to advancement of

by gagan2020 26d ago

There will be some chain reaction up there in near future, in our lifetime only. Congratulation to the team. These milestones are necessary to advancement of human race as we need new planets to occupy. But, we needed clear path going forward. I am both pro to advancement but with caution kind of guy.

amelius 26d ago
Let's first be a competitor to Musk's short term commercial plans.
- gagan2020 26d ago
  It's a race but who will bell the cat and be impartial? That should be the question.
  - amelius 26d ago
    Well, Musk will not be belling any cat, he hasn't even been to space himself. This makes me think he's really just performing an act for investors.
    - gagan2020 26d ago
      I am worry about number of satellites above our head by him.
LM358 26d ago
>we need new planets to occupy We absolutely do not
- gagan2020 26d ago
  That's open question for humanity. I respect both sides of it but I am little more pro to residences in other planets as we are on tech breakthrough on limitation of Earth. Now, surviving means occupying other planets. However, these are just my thoughts you can have different.
  - tsimionescu 26d ago
    We still have a good few thousand years until we make the Earth anywhere close to as inhospitable as the second best planet in the Solar System - and probably much more than that before we run out of space on Earth. It makes far more sense to colonize the Arctic, the Gobi desert, the peaks of the tallest mountains, and similar places here on Earth before even contemplating the colonization of Mars. Let's first have a 10M-strong self-sustaining megacity at the South Pole before contemplating absurd projects like a Mars colony.
    - gagan2020 26d ago
      > space on Earth. I have different take on this. We already shown significant decline in Fertility rate of whole world. Its right now 2.2 against nearly 5 in 1950s till 1970. 2.1 is replacement only. So, we are sorted there from occupying Glaciers,Mountains, etc. Moreover, Average age of many countries are increasing. That might need support in near future. Migration is filling up that gap in Western world. As per current prediction world population will peak around 2080s and then decline. Problem is that decline. Since, Governments are working on selling futures (e.g. Bonds). We need new frontier to make things exciting for new generations up ahead.
      - tsimionescu 26d ago
        People aren't making more children because they largely can't afford to, either in actual resources, or in time spent. And, unlike in a rural community, children don't have any "return on investment" - plus, you generally have to raise them alone even when they're no longer toddlers, rather than relying on an entire community to do it together. There's no great mystery, and a colony on Mars will not change this even one iota.
        MentalM 26d ago
        > because they largely can't afford to, either in actual resources, or in time spent But that's absolutely not true. People are so wealthy right now that they can afford practically an unlimited amount of children. The avoidance of having children is almost entirely shaped by the cultural environment and not economic environment. > relying on an entire community to do it together I am not sure that it ever was a case. "Relying on an entire community" to raise children generally meant that children were raised mostly by themselves.
layer8 26d ago
The alleged “need [for] new planets to occupy” would only demonstrate failure of the human race, not advancement.
KPGv2 26d ago
> These milestones are necessary to advancement of human race as we need new planets to occupy. We can't even positively terraform Earth to stop the climate crisis here. Why does anyone think we need to be terraforming elsewhere? Just terraform here!!! Make the planet we are on more hospitable to human life! It's not like we're running out of space, and the global population is about to start dropping.
- usrusr 26d ago
  I tend to share that position, but there's one counter argument that's not without merit at all: too much to lose. Even the worst climate change outcome would be less bad than the outcome of climate change plus some botched radical fix attempt could be. Mars on the other hand, what's the worst that could happen? Someone writing the Coca Cola logotype across the red?
- MentalM 26d ago
  [flagged]

amelius 26d ago

Let's first be a competitor to Musk's short term commercial plans.

gagan2020 26d ago
It's a race but who will bell the cat and be impartial? That should be the question.
- amelius 26d ago
  Well, Musk will not be belling any cat, he hasn't even been to space himself. This makes me think he's really just performing an act for investors.
  - gagan2020 26d ago
    I am worry about number of satellites above our head by him.

LM358 26d ago

>we need new planets to occupy We absolutely do not

gagan2020 26d ago
That's open question for humanity. I respect both sides of it but I am little more pro to residences in other planets as we are on tech breakthrough on limitation of Earth. Now, surviving means occupying other planets. However, these are just my thoughts you can have different.
- tsimionescu 26d ago
  We still have a good few thousand years until we make the Earth anywhere close to as inhospitable as the second best planet in the Solar System - and probably much more than that before we run out of space on Earth. It makes far more sense to colonize the Arctic, the Gobi desert, the peaks of the tallest mountains, and similar places here on Earth before even contemplating the colonization of Mars. Let's first have a 10M-strong self-sustaining megacity at the South Pole before contemplating absurd projects like a Mars colony.
  - gagan2020 26d ago
    > space on Earth. I have different take on this. We already shown significant decline in Fertility rate of whole world. Its right now 2.2 against nearly 5 in 1950s till 1970. 2.1 is replacement only. So, we are sorted there from occupying Glaciers,Mountains, etc. Moreover, Average age of many countries are increasing. That might need support in near future. Migration is filling up that gap in Western world. As per current prediction world population will peak around 2080s and then decline. Problem is that decline. Since, Governments are working on selling futures (e.g. Bonds). We need new frontier to make things exciting for new generations up ahead.
    - tsimionescu 26d ago
      People aren't making more children because they largely can't afford to, either in actual resources, or in time spent. And, unlike in a rural community, children don't have any "return on investment" - plus, you generally have to raise them alone even when they're no longer toddlers, rather than relying on an entire community to do it together. There's no great mystery, and a colony on Mars will not change this even one iota.
      - MentalM 26d ago
        > because they largely can't afford to, either in actual resources, or in time spent But that's absolutely not true. People are so wealthy right now that they can afford practically an unlimited amount of children. The avoidance of having children is almost entirely shaped by the cultural environment and not economic environment. > relying on an entire community to do it together I am not sure that it ever was a case. "Relying on an entire community" to raise children generally meant that children were raised mostly by themselves.

layer8 26d ago

The alleged “need [for] new planets to occupy” would only demonstrate failure of the human race, not advancement.

KPGv2 26d ago

> These milestones are necessary to advancement of human race as we need new planets to occupy. We can't even positively terraform Earth to stop the climate crisis here. Why does anyone think we need to be terraforming elsewhere? Just terraform here!!! Make the planet we are on more hospitable to human life! It's not like we're running out of space, and the global population is about to start dropping.

usrusr 26d ago
I tend to share that position, but there's one counter argument that's not without merit at all: too much to lose. Even the worst climate change outcome would be less bad than the outcome of climate change plus some botched radical fix attempt could be. Mars on the other hand, what's the worst that could happen? Someone writing the Coca Cola logotype across the red?
MentalM 26d ago
[flagged]