4 ms·
>Making any of the world's poorest countries richer in general, or making any of the world's most oppressed countries freer in general, is [...] a much tougher
by zeteo 14y ago
>Making any of the world's poorest countries richer in general, or making any of the world's most oppressed countries freer in general, is [...] a much tougher and more interesting problem, a problem more worthy of a gnarly man willing to risk his life
Involving yourself in foreign politics is no substitute for going to Mars. Even if you magically turn Zimbabwe into a political and economic clone of Alabama, the overall capabilities and prospects of mankind remain substantially the same. Successful manned flight that expands our species to another planet is much more admirable and worthwhile from this point of view.
- brownbat 14y ago> the overall capabilities and prospects of mankind remain substantially the same I disagree. Advancement is directly related to how many minds we can free up to work on intellectual pursuits. Even before Moore's law, publications and rate of invention largely tracked with size of population (minus the portion preoccupied with agriculture). Going to Mars involves calibrating some rockets and making a sustainable habitat for long periods of time. Hard problems, to be sure, but there's nothing about that trip we would do without thoroughly testing it first on Earth. We mostly know how to send projectiles throughout the solar system, and we mostly know that long term stays in space suck, and we mostly know that robots and telescopes pay back orders of magnitude more in scientific discoveries than equivalent manned missions for the cost. (ie, manned missions have the mirrors on the moon and tang, hubble and curiosity have contributed far more to space science...)
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]