3 ms·
Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart. The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least
by ryandvm 11y ago
Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart.
The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. Your willingness to write off the cooperation of the rest of the human species seems shortsighted. Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat. What happens when the "Old World" find themselves embroiled in World War III thirty years into the colonization of Mars and a fungus kills all your monoculture rice? My guess is that if it comes down to winning a war or shipping 5 million tons of corn to Mars, well, you guys are going to be eating a whole lot of Soylent.
The other issue is that human colonization has always been driven by "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion. Mars solves none of those. At best you can risk a high likelihood of dying from freezing, starving, depression, and/or cancer in order to avoid: asteroid impact, global pandemic, or killer robots. Scratch that - the killer robots will definitely find you on Mars.
- angersock 11y ago"colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient." You mean like Antarctica, right? "Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat." Rich folks and companies, and maaaaybe governments, will be funding this--the same as all colonization efforts in the past. Consider the colonization of the Americas. "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion These are still very much things to worry about on Earth. Moving to Mars doesn't solve those problems--for the Earthlings. Then again, fuck'em.
- swagasaurus-rex 11y ago> The other issue is that human colonization has always been driven by "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion. This is true, but only after colonization had become an economic feasibility for those who weren't enormously wealthy. After Columbus 'discovered' the Americas, nobody in their right minds would board the next ship to the Caribbeans because it was not clear there was any reason to go. It took the funding of governments and interested frontiersmen to do the exploration, much like what we will see on any interplanetary colonization. Only until there is enough infrastructure and a semi-self sustaining economy on Mars, will there be a low enough cost and enough interest by entrepreneurial individuals.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoYeah, folks like to compare previous terrestrial colonization with interstellar (Mars). Its fabulously incomparable. Folks in the New World could expect food plants, neighbors, congenial weather for growing, even Oxygen. All of which are largely absent on Mars. Let's plant a colony on the peak of Mt Everest first, as a kindergarten-level test of our readiness for Mars.
- jessriedel 11y agoYou still haven't shown that there is an importance difference between the New World and Mars that justifies your focus on collectivism. > The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. The colonies on mars are only useful as an insurance policy against global catastrophe when they are economically self sufficient. > The other issue is that human colonization has always been driven by "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion. Mars solves none of those. Right, just like European colonization.