4 ms·

I hate this argument. There is no foreseeable disaster that would make Earth less habitable than any other solar system body. Even if every nuke we have was det

by hnrq 6y ago

I hate this argument. There is no foreseeable disaster that would make Earth less habitable than any other solar system body. Even if every nuke we have was detonated, it would still be orders of magnitude easier to survive on what remains of Earth than to live in Mars. I'm not saying there are no existential risks at all, but being on other planets would not make us any more likely to survive to them than to simply being very well isolated on Earth (which would cost 1000x less). Developing space technology already has all sorts of benefits and it doesn't need this poor argument in its favor.

nitrogen 6y ago
Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory. Any significant social experiment is basically impossible on Earth because every space and person is claimed property by an existing state. Mars would also offer cultural redundancy. Also, sometimes people choose to do things brcause they are hard.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory If I were a betting person, I'm not sure I'd go all-in on a CEO-Emperor-King of Mars over existing nation-states on Terra
  - UnFleshedOne 6y ago
    Is that a bet on a basically functional society, or a bet on which place is better to live in for individual?
menybuvico 6y ago
Well, there is the question of whether we will ever have the possibility of developing this technology again. I see no immediate risks to life on Earth, and considering we're quite hard to get rid of, I suspect the human race will be here for quite some time yet. The ability to do a large-scale settlement on other planetary bodies on the other hand, might go away considerably sooner, and who knows if/when we will be able to do it again if we ever end up in a situation where it might be needed. Regardless, there are other reasons, as you say. For one, space-based manufacturing would allow us to increase the standard of living on Earth without having to worry about things like CO2 levels and pollution. If we start commercializing space then I expect colonization to follow as a natural result of that and we won't have to worry about the more philosophical side.
pharke 6y ago
It's not a matter of Earth becoming uninhabitable. You're right that it would take a lot to do that, though it is possible with a large enough asteroid or some unexpectedly fast acting runaway greenhouse effect. The problem is of human civilization continuing at its current level and continuing to advance. Any number of small disasters could set us back hundreds if not thousands of years. We have direct evidence and record of this happening multiple times throughout human history so we know it can and probably will happen. That's why we need a self-sustaining society elsewhere, preferably far enough away to resist whatever disaster causes Earth to fall.
Koshkin 6y ago
The fact is, and it may sound like a paradox, that, for more than one reason, it is the humans themselves that is the biggest danger to their own existence in the long term.
UnFleshedOne 6y ago
But only if you already developed technology needed to survive on mars and have an industrial base not touched by those nukes. Having a self-sustaining outpost somewhere other than earth is valuable not only for its own sake, but also due to the developed technology and industry and infrastructure implied by its existence. If tomorrow you suddenly need a huge fleet of fully reusable ships for some reason, the right time to start working on them was 20 years ago, or as soon as basic science and technology level allow. There are also political risks (we are all too close to each other).

by hnrq 6y ago

nitrogen 6y ago

Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory. Any significant social experiment is basically impossible on Earth because every space and person is claimed property by an existing state. Mars would also offer cultural redundancy. Also, sometimes people choose to do things brcause they are hard.

sangnoir 6y ago
> Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory If I were a betting person, I'm not sure I'd go all-in on a CEO-Emperor-King of Mars over existing nation-states on Terra
- UnFleshedOne 6y ago
  Is that a bet on a basically functional society, or a bet on which place is better to live in for individual?

menybuvico 6y ago

Well, there is the question of whether we will ever have the possibility of developing this technology again. I see no immediate risks to life on Earth, and considering we're quite hard to get rid of, I suspect the human race will be here for quite some time yet. The ability to do a large-scale settlement on other planetary bodies on the other hand, might go away considerably sooner, and who knows if/when we will be able to do it again if we ever end up in a situation where it might be needed. Regardless, there are other reasons, as you say. For one, space-based manufacturing would allow us to increase the standard of living on Earth without having to worry about things like CO2 levels and pollution. If we start commercializing space then I expect colonization to follow as a natural result of that and we won't have to worry about the more philosophical side.

pharke 6y ago

It's not a matter of Earth becoming uninhabitable. You're right that it would take a lot to do that, though it is possible with a large enough asteroid or some unexpectedly fast acting runaway greenhouse effect. The problem is of human civilization continuing at its current level and continuing to advance. Any number of small disasters could set us back hundreds if not thousands of years. We have direct evidence and record of this happening multiple times throughout human history so we know it can and probably will happen. That's why we need a self-sustaining society elsewhere, preferably far enough away to resist whatever disaster causes Earth to fall.

Koshkin 6y ago

The fact is, and it may sound like a paradox, that, for more than one reason, it is the humans themselves that is the biggest danger to their own existence in the long term.

UnFleshedOne 6y ago

But only if you already developed technology needed to survive on mars and have an industrial base not touched by those nukes. Having a self-sustaining outpost somewhere other than earth is valuable not only for its own sake, but also due to the developed technology and industry and infrastructure implied by its existence. If tomorrow you suddenly need a huge fleet of fully reusable ships for some reason, the right time to start working on them was 20 years ago, or as soon as basic science and technology level allow. There are also political risks (we are all too close to each other).