4 ms·

But the thing is, most things that we say will "wipe us off the planet" actually leave Earth still more habitable than Mars is today. It's just that when we tal

by chc 12y ago

But the thing is, most things that we say will "wipe us off the planet" actually leave Earth still more habitable than Mars is today. It's just that when we talk about those scenarios, we acknowledge that we have no way to survive such utter deprivation, while with Mars we wave our hands and say "Oh, we'll figure it out." Being able to survive on Mars means being able to survive under totally inhospitable conditions. That alone takes a lot of doomsday scenarios off the table even if we never go to Mars. I'm not arguing for underwater cities or against going to Mars. I'm just saying that the cost and effort of getting everything to Mars is the easy part, and is not the part that will actually ensure humanity's survival.

millettjon 12y ago
That's true. However, being on Mars would allows us to re colonize Earth N years after a cataclysmic event.
- chc 12y ago
  What cataclysm do you envision destroying life on Earth if we have the technology to survive on Mars? Surviving on Mars means that we can survive in freezing temperatures, with deadly levels of radiation, without a breathable atmosphere, without fertile soil, with little to no liquid water, and with no source of power but sunlight that's 60% weaker than on Earth.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    A sufficiently large impact.
    - chc 12y ago
      Sufficiently large to do what?
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        Destroy life on earth. I phrased it as a tautology to be humorous, but very large impacts are possible. I doubt life would survive an impact such as the one we hypothesized to have created the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis "collision between the Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars"
AndrewKemendo 12y ago
But the thing is, most things that we say will "wipe us off the planet" actually leave Earth still more habitable than Mars is today. Exactly right, how this escapes people I am unsure. The absolute worst climate predictions, asteroid impacts or seismic events wouldn't be nearly as hard to recover from than trying to get to and then live for a single day on Mars.
- ezegolub 12y ago
  Yes, but in Mars you're ,in theory, prepared to live and maybe thrive in that harsh enviroment, and it might actually help earth population to know how to survive an enviromental disaster. Short term, i agree it makes little sense to try to colonize other planet, but looking at it as a long term survival of the species type of affair, it makes a lot of sense.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  Because most people probably are looking a little beyond the first day on Mars. Fifty years of successful Martian colonization would be a good start towards self-sufficiency on that planet.
  - dalke 12y ago
    There's over 50 years of colonization of Antarctica, and that's not self-sufficient. Tristan da Cunha, one of the most inaccessible permanently occupied places on the Earth, depends on the UK for support when there are major infrastructure failures. These are successful, by at least some definitions, but are not self-sufficient. Why are you more optimistic about a Mars colony than our experience with places on Earth which are much less inaccessible and more inhabitable might suggest?
    - thaumaturgy 12y ago
      It depends on the goals of the project I guess. I don't think of Antarctica as a colonization effort so much as a research outpost. There are people living there year 'round, but there hasn't been an effort to move people out there en masse. If future Mars missions are launched with the goals of establishing a research station, then yeah, I don't expect it to become self-sufficient. But, if future Mars missions are launched with the expressed goal of establishing an independent colony, then I think there's at least a chance it might work. Certainly there are a lot of challenges. We probably don't even know what all of the challenges are yet. For all we know, Mars could be host to a deadly microorganism, some extremophile we've never seen before. It could go the way of the Roanoke colony, with a total loss of the whole colony. I would still go anyway though. Because maybe, after fifty years of chipping away at it, we would have learned enough and developed enough new technology as a result of the effort to have made it all worthwhile. It is a huge risk for a potentially huge payoff. I'm always amazed when HN, of all places, doesn't see it that way.
lmm 12y ago
Like with computer backups, it's a good idea to test that ability to survive under totally inhospitable conditions before we have to do it "for real".

by chc 12y ago

millettjon 12y ago

That's true. However, being on Mars would allows us to re colonize Earth N years after a cataclysmic event.

chc 12y ago
What cataclysm do you envision destroying life on Earth if we have the technology to survive on Mars? Surviving on Mars means that we can survive in freezing temperatures, with deadly levels of radiation, without a breathable atmosphere, without fertile soil, with little to no liquid water, and with no source of power but sunlight that's 60% weaker than on Earth.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  A sufficiently large impact.
  - chc 12y ago
    Sufficiently large to do what?
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Destroy life on earth. I phrased it as a tautology to be humorous, but very large impacts are possible. I doubt life would survive an impact such as the one we hypothesized to have created the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis "collision between the Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars"

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

But the thing is, most things that we say will "wipe us off the planet" actually leave Earth still more habitable than Mars is today. Exactly right, how this escapes people I am unsure. The absolute worst climate predictions, asteroid impacts or seismic events wouldn't be nearly as hard to recover from than trying to get to and then live for a single day on Mars.

ezegolub 12y ago
Yes, but in Mars you're ,in theory, prepared to live and maybe thrive in that harsh enviroment, and it might actually help earth population to know how to survive an enviromental disaster. Short term, i agree it makes little sense to try to colonize other planet, but looking at it as a long term survival of the species type of affair, it makes a lot of sense.
thaumaturgy 12y ago
Because most people probably are looking a little beyond the first day on Mars. Fifty years of successful Martian colonization would be a good start towards self-sufficiency on that planet.
- dalke 12y ago
  There's over 50 years of colonization of Antarctica, and that's not self-sufficient. Tristan da Cunha, one of the most inaccessible permanently occupied places on the Earth, depends on the UK for support when there are major infrastructure failures. These are successful, by at least some definitions, but are not self-sufficient. Why are you more optimistic about a Mars colony than our experience with places on Earth which are much less inaccessible and more inhabitable might suggest?
  - thaumaturgy 12y ago
    It depends on the goals of the project I guess. I don't think of Antarctica as a colonization effort so much as a research outpost. There are people living there year 'round, but there hasn't been an effort to move people out there en masse. If future Mars missions are launched with the goals of establishing a research station, then yeah, I don't expect it to become self-sufficient. But, if future Mars missions are launched with the expressed goal of establishing an independent colony, then I think there's at least a chance it might work. Certainly there are a lot of challenges. We probably don't even know what all of the challenges are yet. For all we know, Mars could be host to a deadly microorganism, some extremophile we've never seen before. It could go the way of the Roanoke colony, with a total loss of the whole colony. I would still go anyway though. Because maybe, after fifty years of chipping away at it, we would have learned enough and developed enough new technology as a result of the effort to have made it all worthwhile. It is a huge risk for a potentially huge payoff. I'm always amazed when HN, of all places, doesn't see it that way.

lmm 12y ago

Like with computer backups, it's a good idea to test that ability to survive under totally inhospitable conditions before we have to do it "for real".