5 ms·

Almost everything about the plan to go to Mars, especially about creating a "backup population" is uncertain. Compare that to the current, immediate suffering

Almost everything about the plan to go to Mars, especially about creating a "backup population" is uncertain. Compare that to the current, immediate suffering and lost potential that is caused by poverty and disease.

stingraycharles 13y ago
That's a bit of a negative way to look at it. I think in the end the goals don't have to be mutually exclusive. Elon Musk does what he does best, and Gates does his thing. They're both great goals and I'm glad we live in a time when going to mars is something we can propose as a serious point of discussion, instead of being an unrealistic dream.
patrickaljord 13y ago
Some people may have said this before Polio vaccine was discovered: "Almost everything about the plan to help Polio victims, especially about creating a "polio vaccine" is uncertain. Compare that to the current, immediate suffering and lost potential that is caused by poverty and disease." See how this works?
- hencq 13y ago
  Polio is a disease that that's causing immediate suffering and lost potential. And it was even more so before discovery of the vaccine, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
- saraid216 13y ago
  The only specific alleviation that colonizing Mars yields is that people who don't want to live on Earth don't have to live on Earth. There are some very good reasons to pursue the colonization of Mars, mostly in the form of advancing science. A backup population is not one of these good reasons.
shurcooL 13y ago
One plan is long term, the other is short term. Both are needed.
- kiba 13y ago
  Curing polio is a force multiplier that will probably help us get to Mars, in the form of more demand for satellites and space related industries, as well more inventors and scientists. Colonizing Mars will be a force mulitpler as well, mostly through indirect technology benefit and ancillary space industries(asteroid mining). It probably won't impact the effort to cure polio but will probably increase our ability to cure other diseases.
digikata 13y ago
Polio is an occurrence with a probability of one, and a non-zero impact. An catastrophic asteroid impact is a low daily probability, with an impact of up to one (one being complete wipeout of the human race). I think it's a tossup which yields better happiness or productivity for humanity to address in the short run. In the extreme long run, of course, if you don't solve the second, there's little point solving the first issue. The problem is a lack of resources - that resource being some collective focus of humankind, as there's no real physical resource limit preventing us from pursuing both at the moment.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  As the probability of the asteroid problem is low short term we should tackle the poverty problem first. Then we will have more people to tackle the asteroid problem in the long run.
  - digikata 13y ago
    If number of people are not the limiting factor to working on both problems, why would one a) impose a condition to work on the problems in a sequential order, and b) prefer an order based on gaining more people first?
- jshen 13y ago
  And there are other catastrophic events.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  Why Mars? The moon is nearer and no less hospitable (frankly they both suck). Mars is a vanity project however he chooses to dress it up. An interesting vanity project sure but a vanity project all the same. And personally I have no issue with that, I just wish he'd be honest. We didn't go to the moon the first time for any good reason, we did it because it was there. Governments can't afford to pay for the "because they're there" projects any more but if Musk, Page and co can then great but don't pretend it's for the good of humanity - "because it's there" is all the justification you need for something that amazing.

stingraycharles 13y ago

That's a bit of a negative way to look at it. I think in the end the goals don't have to be mutually exclusive. Elon Musk does what he does best, and Gates does his thing. They're both great goals and I'm glad we live in a time when going to mars is something we can propose as a serious point of discussion, instead of being an unrealistic dream.

patrickaljord 13y ago

Some people may have said this before Polio vaccine was discovered: "Almost everything about the plan to help Polio victims, especially about creating a "polio vaccine" is uncertain. Compare that to the current, immediate suffering and lost potential that is caused by poverty and disease." See how this works?

hencq 13y ago
Polio is a disease that that's causing immediate suffering and lost potential. And it was even more so before discovery of the vaccine, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
saraid216 13y ago
The only specific alleviation that colonizing Mars yields is that people who don't want to live on Earth don't have to live on Earth. There are some very good reasons to pursue the colonization of Mars, mostly in the form of advancing science. A backup population is not one of these good reasons.

shurcooL 13y ago

One plan is long term, the other is short term. Both are needed.

kiba 13y ago
Curing polio is a force multiplier that will probably help us get to Mars, in the form of more demand for satellites and space related industries, as well more inventors and scientists. Colonizing Mars will be a force mulitpler as well, mostly through indirect technology benefit and ancillary space industries(asteroid mining). It probably won't impact the effort to cure polio but will probably increase our ability to cure other diseases.

digikata 13y ago

Polio is an occurrence with a probability of one, and a non-zero impact. An catastrophic asteroid impact is a low daily probability, with an impact of up to one (one being complete wipeout of the human race). I think it's a tossup which yields better happiness or productivity for humanity to address in the short run. In the extreme long run, of course, if you don't solve the second, there's little point solving the first issue. The problem is a lack of resources - that resource being some collective focus of humankind, as there's no real physical resource limit preventing us from pursuing both at the moment.

k-mcgrady 13y ago
As the probability of the asteroid problem is low short term we should tackle the poverty problem first. Then we will have more people to tackle the asteroid problem in the long run.
- digikata 13y ago
  If number of people are not the limiting factor to working on both problems, why would one a) impose a condition to work on the problems in a sequential order, and b) prefer an order based on gaining more people first?
jshen 13y ago
And there are other catastrophic events.
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
Why Mars? The moon is nearer and no less hospitable (frankly they both suck). Mars is a vanity project however he chooses to dress it up. An interesting vanity project sure but a vanity project all the same. And personally I have no issue with that, I just wish he'd be honest. We didn't go to the moon the first time for any good reason, we did it because it was there. Governments can't afford to pay for the "because they're there" projects any more but if Musk, Page and co can then great but don't pretend it's for the good of humanity - "because it's there" is all the justification you need for something that amazing.