4 ms·

"Humans living on Mars are in a much better position to access the resources of the Solar System than humans living on Earth." Has the Earth run out of resourc

by TriinT 17y ago

"Humans living on Mars are in a much better position to access the resources of the Solar System than humans living on Earth." Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? If this endeavor were cheap, it could be worth it. But let's face it: it won't be cheap. I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. One step at a time. In a few decades the time might be right. Sending humans to Mars in the next couple of decades would be a bad investment imho. Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet.

stcredzero 17y ago
Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? Sorry, but you're not quite there yet. The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride. A big part of the reason why the US rocked the world economically was because of advantageous economic geography. (No need to devote resources to defend borders, lots of ports with easy access to waterways, waterways with good access to vast agricultural resources, advantageously situated synergistic natural resources like iron and coal, etc.) If you look at the economic "geography" of the Solar System, it's quite obvious that Mars will eventually be the next North America. It's much cheaper to get almost anywhere in the Solar System from Mars than Earth. Heck, it even takes less energy to get to Earth's Moon from Mars than Earth. (This makes it likely that initially lunar industrial equipment will be made on Mars, shipped to the Moon, and teleoperated from Earth's surface.) Also note that you are making the classic mistake of not extrapolating technology. Perhaps certain English shipwrights pooh-poohed the vast American forests. After all, the infrastructure was all in Europe. How many of them could have predicted that ships would be made of steel, sails would be obsolete, and ships would be propelled by coal and steam? Industrial technology in the late 21st century is likely to even more unpredictable to us as our industry was unimaginable to all but a few denizens of 1909. The only sure thing is that they will want to be able to marshall vaster resources and energies. To do that, you must go to space. I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. Yes, but whatever we do, we need to do it first. It will be much better for the US if the future superpower of Mars is not settled by the Chinese. Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet. Have you read Zubrin? He thinks along similar lines. However, he's probably spent a lot more time working out the difficulties, likely steps, even specific chemical processes.
- TriinT 17y ago
  "The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride." I don't understand what point you're trying to make. American Industrial Revolution?!? Let us look at Europe. In the early 15th Century, while England was fighting France and Spain was fighting the Moors, the Portuguese started exploring the western coast of Africa. The goal was to seize access to commodities such as gold, silver, silk, spices, etc. Spain then started its own explorations, but while the Portuguese went east, Spain went west. Then the Dutch, the French and the English joined the party. The old continent had no resources, so yes, it was a hunt for resources that triggered the European expansion. Of course technology is constantly changing. If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense. However, I keep saying there are more urgent problems to be addressed. One of them is energy. If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place. It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    I don't understand what point you're trying to make. American Industrial Revolution?!? Let us look at Europe. In the early 15th Century... Okay, I see. You're taking a shorter term view. In the 15th century, they didn't know the potential advantage of the conveniently situated coal and iron resources of North America. "Gold, silver, silk, spices, etc," weren't strategic resources for the American Industrial Revolution, not so important if you want to understand the ultimate potential of North America as home to a future superpower. If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense. Please get this already: using North American history as a model, we should figure out that going there to bring resources back is not the point. That's obviously stupid. The point is from what set of values the next superpower draws its lineage. I think human history will be far better if it's the US that gives rise to Mars civilization. If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place. I agree. But there's no reason why we can't go to Mars while we are doing this. It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars. In the longer term view, it is imperative that we start as soon as we can.

by TriinT 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago

Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? Sorry, but you're not quite there yet. The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride. A big part of the reason why the US rocked the world economically was because of advantageous economic geography. (No need to devote resources to defend borders, lots of ports with easy access to waterways, waterways with good access to vast agricultural resources, advantageously situated synergistic natural resources like iron and coal, etc.) If you look at the economic "geography" of the Solar System, it's quite obvious that Mars will eventually be the next North America. It's much cheaper to get almost anywhere in the Solar System from Mars than Earth. Heck, it even takes less energy to get to Earth's Moon from Mars than Earth. (This makes it likely that initially lunar industrial equipment will be made on Mars, shipped to the Moon, and teleoperated from Earth's surface.) Also note that you are making the classic mistake of not extrapolating technology. Perhaps certain English shipwrights pooh-poohed the vast American forests. After all, the infrastructure was all in Europe. How many of them could have predicted that ships would be made of steel, sails would be obsolete, and ships would be propelled by coal and steam? Industrial technology in the late 21st century is likely to even more unpredictable to us as our industry was unimaginable to all but a few denizens of 1909. The only sure thing is that they will want to be able to marshall vaster resources and energies. To do that, you must go to space. I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. Yes, but whatever we do, we need to do it first. It will be much better for the US if the future superpower of Mars is not settled by the Chinese. Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet. Have you read Zubrin? He thinks along similar lines. However, he's probably spent a lot more time working out the difficulties, likely steps, even specific chemical processes.

TriinT 17y ago
"The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride." I don't understand what point you're trying to make. American Industrial Revolution?!? Let us look at Europe. In the early 15th Century, while England was fighting France and Spain was fighting the Moors, the Portuguese started exploring the western coast of Africa. The goal was to seize access to commodities such as gold, silver, silk, spices, etc. Spain then started its own explorations, but while the Portuguese went east, Spain went west. Then the Dutch, the French and the English joined the party. The old continent had no resources, so yes, it was a hunt for resources that triggered the European expansion. Of course technology is constantly changing. If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense. However, I keep saying there are more urgent problems to be addressed. One of them is energy. If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place. It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  I don't understand what point you're trying to make. American Industrial Revolution?!? Let us look at Europe. In the early 15th Century... Okay, I see. You're taking a shorter term view. In the 15th century, they didn't know the potential advantage of the conveniently situated coal and iron resources of North America. "Gold, silver, silk, spices, etc," weren't strategic resources for the American Industrial Revolution, not so important if you want to understand the ultimate potential of North America as home to a future superpower. If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense. Please get this already: using North American history as a model, we should figure out that going there to bring resources back is not the point. That's obviously stupid. The point is from what set of values the next superpower draws its lineage. I think human history will be far better if it's the US that gives rise to Mars civilization. If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place. I agree. But there's no reason why we can't go to Mars while we are doing this. It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars. In the longer term view, it is imperative that we start as soon as we can.