Elon Musk argues that putting a million people on Mars ensures humanity's future(aeon.co)
aeon.co
Elon Musk argues that putting a million people on Mars ensures humanity's future
http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/the-elon-musk-interview-on-mars/
358 comments
You first. I am not relocating to Mars and trying to raise my kids in non-existent school districts.
Or: Earth has a lot of advantages over Mars. Why would you totally diminish your life's possibilities and leave?
Or: Earth has a lot of advantages over Mars. Why would you totally diminish your life's possibilities and leave?
This isn't about moving everyone to Mars. This is about colonization, which always happens with an extremely small fraction of the original population.
I'm not negating that proposition. I am saying that people have alternatives in life and I can't imagine a life on Earth that is so bad that moving somewhere that has no water, no atmosphere, no food, no anything would be better.
Chance of dying -- high. Chance of having children -- low. This is not rocket science, as they say.
Chance of dying -- high. Chance of having children -- low. This is not rocket science, as they say.
Not many people become polar explorers either. For some people the challenge is worth almost any risk, look at nutters like the wingsuit proximity flyers, for instance. If there is a rocket to Mars you will have no problem filling it. For certain people you will have problems sending them away. I suspect a team of people may have to physically restrain Brian Blessed from invading the launch site to try and stow away on board if he isn't among those selected.
I would imagine that any kids in a mars colony would have access to the most in depth schooling imaginable. The average educational level of the population there is going to have to be extremely high initially, and it is very hard to skip class. So if all you cared about you child's welfare was the quality of schooling, Mars wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course there are other risks and to take kids along on the first few ships would probably be considered bad parenting.
Here is the conversation in every household where this comes up:
Would-be colonizer: I am thinking of relocating the family to Mars for the stunning education opportunities the kids will have -- high average education level in the population, ...
Spouse of would-be colonizer: You make one move to relocate the kids to Mars and you will divorced before your intergalactic shuttle lifts off.
Would-be colonizer: I am thinking of relocating the family to Mars for the stunning education opportunities the kids will have -- high average education level in the population, ...
Spouse of would-be colonizer: You make one move to relocate the kids to Mars and you will divorced before your intergalactic shuttle lifts off.
I hate to say it, but I am well and truly tired of this flim flam man. This latest gambit is surely the most cynical plot of them all. He really is the latest Steve Jobs, whose marketing genius was imagining a never-ending string of products that define a superior class of people.
The Musk M.O:
1. Identify industry with big inefficiencies that depends on huge government subsidies. That's cars, commercial space vehicles, mass transit and now: colonizing another planet with the 0.1%.
2. Convince the media and envious government officials you are Tom Swift, boy inventor. Have these governments fight over how many billions to give you to build your space car factory.
2. Use these taxpayer dollars and gigantic tax breaks to create iconic products and services for the elite class, effectively transferring huge dollars from the poor to the rich.
3. Rinse and repeat.
I see no evidence at all that Musk cares any more about technologies to enable several billion of us to live together without slaughtering each other than he does about money
The Musk M.O:
1. Identify industry with big inefficiencies that depends on huge government subsidies. That's cars, commercial space vehicles, mass transit and now: colonizing another planet with the 0.1%.
2. Convince the media and envious government officials you are Tom Swift, boy inventor. Have these governments fight over how many billions to give you to build your space car factory.
2. Use these taxpayer dollars and gigantic tax breaks to create iconic products and services for the elite class, effectively transferring huge dollars from the poor to the rich.
3. Rinse and repeat.
I see no evidence at all that Musk cares any more about technologies to enable several billion of us to live together without slaughtering each other than he does about money
I wonder. Elon Musk is not an idiot.
Then why did he say that to go to Alpha Century you needed 40 years? Why does he participate to this world wide disinformation?
Since 1904, we know that to go to Alpha Century, if you can accelerate to a non negligeable fraction of the speed of light, then you need a time that below the distance, and non negligeably close to zero.
In clear terms, to go to a star that is 4 light years away, with a 1 g constant accelleration, you need to travel for about 2 years.
If you put in space a nuclear reactor (that can produce energy for more than ten years), and if you can use that energy to produce constantly a 1g accelleration, then you can easily go to Alpha Century, in 2 years, spend 2 years there, and come back in 2 years, for a total travel of 6 years. Now tell me we can't with the current technology build a space ship that can work safely for 6 years!
Of course, when you come back to Earth, 82 years will have passed on Earth. I hope you put your saving in a good investment fund.
Anyways, I'm wondering why Elon Musk, amongst all others, is propagating this lie? It looks like quite a confirmation for a complot theorist...
Then why did he say that to go to Alpha Century you needed 40 years? Why does he participate to this world wide disinformation?
Since 1904, we know that to go to Alpha Century, if you can accelerate to a non negligeable fraction of the speed of light, then you need a time that below the distance, and non negligeably close to zero.
In clear terms, to go to a star that is 4 light years away, with a 1 g constant accelleration, you need to travel for about 2 years.
If you put in space a nuclear reactor (that can produce energy for more than ten years), and if you can use that energy to produce constantly a 1g accelleration, then you can easily go to Alpha Century, in 2 years, spend 2 years there, and come back in 2 years, for a total travel of 6 years. Now tell me we can't with the current technology build a space ship that can work safely for 6 years!
Of course, when you come back to Earth, 82 years will have passed on Earth. I hope you put your saving in a good investment fund.
Anyways, I'm wondering why Elon Musk, amongst all others, is propagating this lie? It looks like quite a confirmation for a complot theorist...
You are massively overestimating the time dilation on that trip. You need to be getting into the 90%c range before you start getting into decent amounts of time dilation and then you start hitting into the increase in energy required for the same acceleration, as your nuclear power plant or whatever has also slowed down along with you, while you are increasing in effective mass.
edit - also, it is Alpha Centauri
edit - also, it is Alpha Centauri
It seems like we have a long way to go when we're still struggling with servers that can handle a few hundred requests per second.
Edit: Drats, I spoke too soon. The server seems to up now.
Edit: Drats, I spoke too soon. The server seems to up now.
We landed on the moon with computers no more powerful than a pocket calculator.
Really i/o bandwith probably isn't the issue here, latency will be an issue for communications between mars and earth but as far as getting to the colony and sustaining it will be a lot of hard math problems and impressive calculations.
Oh and node can easily do millions of connections and lighttpd beat the 10k problem a long time ago.
Oh and node can easily do millions of connections and lighttpd beat the 10k problem a long time ago.
My comment was made in jest, the site was initially returning 500 status codes. To their credit they got it back up within half an hour.
Distribution and management of resources, it's still a problem we have here on Earth.
Did he mention anything about telephone sanitizers and account executives?
Well, before boarding the ship, make sure they have enough lemon-soaked paper napkins aboard, or expect a delay...
server is throwing a 500
Here's link to Google cache: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://aeon.co/magazine...
Here's link to Google cache: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://aeon.co/magazine...
Ok sure. Let's try tackling immediate issues that have huge implications on our survival like climate change, before we make plans to send thousands of people to a place more inhospitable than Antarctica.
Colonization is a pipe-dream in our immediate future.
Colonization is a pipe-dream in our immediate future.
He's probably doing more to tackle climate change than anyone else on this planet (Tesla). There is no 'we' making plans to colonize Mars, there is Elon Musk making plans.
No, he's not doing more to tackle climate change than anyone on this planet. Let's say 25,000 sales in 2013 and 35,000 sales in 2014 [1]. That's 60,000 cars. Now let's take the numbers for electric GHG emissions vs. conventional emissions from this 2006 paper[2]. This is more of a reference, I'm not trying to say this paper is the unassailable truth. Also a disclaimer, these numbers will obviously be rough, again, just trying to paint a picture.
These numbers have 3 scenarios, all fairly optimistic:
Conventional (gasoline) emissions are 19.9 kg GHG emissions per 100 km.
1. Electricity is produced from renewables and nuclear
1a. Electric emissions are 0.343 kg/100km
2. 50% electricity from renewables, and 50% from natural gas with a 40% efficiency
2a. Electric emissions are 5.21 kg/100km
3. All electricity from natural gas with a 40% efficiency
3a. Electric emissions are 10.1kg/100km
At this point, I should note that burning natural gas has roughly half the emissions associated with burning coal in terms of CO2 equivalency.
Let's run with the middle scenario, which is still totally not representative of the country as a whole[3]. And we need some mileage, thankfully there are statistics on that. I'll use the 35-54 age group, which I'm guessing are the most likely to own Teslas, so 15,291 miles a year[4], which becomes 24,608km.
Aright, so we have 60,000 electric cars that we're gonna assume are straight-up replacing 60,000 conventional cars. Each car would replace 14.69(24608/100) = 3614.9152kg/year(60,000 cars) = 216,894,912kg. This is the annual grossly simplified reduction in emissions of replacing 60k conventional cars (using numbers from that paper for what a conventional car means) based on that idealized generation mix.
In 2012, our emissions were 6,526 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent[5]. Scaled down to our kilograms, it becomes 6,526,000,000,000kg. That amount displaced up above would account for 0.00332% of total emissions in 2012 based on those numbers.
For some other perspective, Ford F-series sales have been up significantly the past two years[6] post-ish recession, and 16 mpg seems like a reasonable average for that line of vehicles[7].
More perspective, the MIT study "The Future of Coal"[8] pegged an average 500MW coal plant as producing 3 million tons of CO2 a year (although it ranged up to 4.5 or so million tons in other literature). That presents a range of 2,722,000,000 - 4,082,000,000 kg. Although not all of that is necessarily emitted in every case. So, displacing one 500MW coal plant with say, a large wind farm, would displace 12.5x what those 60k cars would do annually.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that researchers and policy makers involved with utilities, DOE initiatives, and state governments (via RPS, no overarching federal clean energy policy[although the PTC obviously has a huge effect]) are probably all doing more to tackle climate change than Elon Musk. Not to crap on him, I would love to own a Tesla, I just like energy topics.
Links 2 and 8 are pdfs.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors#Model_S [2] https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~sabrash/110/Chem%20110%20... [3] http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,... [4] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm [5] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html [7] http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150 [8] http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal.pdf
These numbers have 3 scenarios, all fairly optimistic:
Conventional (gasoline) emissions are 19.9 kg GHG emissions per 100 km.
1. Electricity is produced from renewables and nuclear
1a. Electric emissions are 0.343 kg/100km
2. 50% electricity from renewables, and 50% from natural gas with a 40% efficiency
2a. Electric emissions are 5.21 kg/100km
3. All electricity from natural gas with a 40% efficiency
3a. Electric emissions are 10.1kg/100km
At this point, I should note that burning natural gas has roughly half the emissions associated with burning coal in terms of CO2 equivalency.
Let's run with the middle scenario, which is still totally not representative of the country as a whole[3]. And we need some mileage, thankfully there are statistics on that. I'll use the 35-54 age group, which I'm guessing are the most likely to own Teslas, so 15,291 miles a year[4], which becomes 24,608km.
Aright, so we have 60,000 electric cars that we're gonna assume are straight-up replacing 60,000 conventional cars. Each car would replace 14.69(24608/100) = 3614.9152kg/year(60,000 cars) = 216,894,912kg. This is the annual grossly simplified reduction in emissions of replacing 60k conventional cars (using numbers from that paper for what a conventional car means) based on that idealized generation mix.
In 2012, our emissions were 6,526 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent[5]. Scaled down to our kilograms, it becomes 6,526,000,000,000kg. That amount displaced up above would account for 0.00332% of total emissions in 2012 based on those numbers.
For some other perspective, Ford F-series sales have been up significantly the past two years[6] post-ish recession, and 16 mpg seems like a reasonable average for that line of vehicles[7].
More perspective, the MIT study "The Future of Coal"[8] pegged an average 500MW coal plant as producing 3 million tons of CO2 a year (although it ranged up to 4.5 or so million tons in other literature). That presents a range of 2,722,000,000 - 4,082,000,000 kg. Although not all of that is necessarily emitted in every case. So, displacing one 500MW coal plant with say, a large wind farm, would displace 12.5x what those 60k cars would do annually.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that researchers and policy makers involved with utilities, DOE initiatives, and state governments (via RPS, no overarching federal clean energy policy[although the PTC obviously has a huge effect]) are probably all doing more to tackle climate change than Elon Musk. Not to crap on him, I would love to own a Tesla, I just like energy topics.
Links 2 and 8 are pdfs.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors#Model_S [2] https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~sabrash/110/Chem%20110%20... [3] http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,... [4] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm [5] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html [7] http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150 [8] http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal.pdf
Tesla is greenwashing. It's not sustainable to habitually move 300 pound Americans around in 2000 pound steel cars regardless of how they're propelled.
Sorry, you are very uninformed. Tesla is by no means making a greener planet. Batteries as of today take more energy to produce than gas. And yes most of these energy is not from non-renewable resources.
If you really want a greener planet, do something in terms of public transport. Silicon valley is gas guzzling society and nobody is doing anything about it (tesla's home)
If you really want a greener planet, do something in terms of public transport. Silicon valley is gas guzzling society and nobody is doing anything about it (tesla's home)
Musk is also contributing to the battle against climate change via his work on solar power and electric vehicles.
Amazingly, he's working on more than one project at a time.
Amazingly, he's working on more than one project at a time.
If we don't do it now, we may never do it. In the past 20 or 30 years or so, at least until the advent of SpaceX and competitors, we had lost or stagnated in human spaceflight capability.
Besides, climate change won't kill humanity. We'll adapt, even as climate change makes life on Earth difficult.
Besides, climate change won't kill humanity. We'll adapt, even as climate change makes life on Earth difficult.
To stick with your analogy, maybe we're at the Scott of the Antarctic stage of things?
It's time to go have a poke around and see what we can find, there's a fair chance people might die along the way, but someone has to take that first step.
It's time to go have a poke around and see what we can find, there's a fair chance people might die along the way, but someone has to take that first step.
[deleted](2)
sending people to Mars is, surely, hedging against climate change?
What? The landscape of Mars is actively hostile to human biology. Even the absolute worst case scenario of climate change on earth is infinitely better for human life than Mars.
...assuming the humans have a balloon and some plants, and as many solar panels as they can carry, I wouldn't rate their chances too low.
I wouldn't give good odds on earth remaining inhabitable for more than a couple of hundred years, at the rate we're going (assuming I'd live long enough to pay out.)
I wouldn't give good odds on earth remaining inhabitable for more than a couple of hundred years, at the rate we're going (assuming I'd live long enough to pay out.)
Terraforming your own planet to make it less habitable while trying to terraform a hostile planet to make it more habitable seems like an odd way to do things.
It doesn't have to be either/or. But politically, the odds of an unsuccessful Earth creating a viable Mars colony are somewhere very near zero.
It doesn't have to be either/or. But politically, the odds of an unsuccessful Earth creating a viable Mars colony are somewhere very near zero.
Didn't say anything about terraforming; I said they'd live in a balloon, a mini-biosphere.
Why not do the same thing on earth without all this rocket stuff?
That's a remarkably good suggestion. Only answer I can come up with: It'd be really really hard to declare independence from whatever nation's land the bubble was sat on. Float & anchor it in international waters? Problem solved!
[deleted]
I think this is a good long-term goal, but one thing that's missing from this analysis is the urgency of the thing. Right now, we've never even put one person on Mars, and keeping any significant Martian population alive would be a considerable expense. The cost in human labor and materials would certainly have to be diverted from other enterprises, as is the case with all economic actions.
Given that we are on an exponential growth curve both in terms of technology and wealth, it seems likely to me that by the natural course of things 100 years from now maintaining an extraplanetary base on Mars would be much cheaper and easier, and would disrupt our growth rates much less, if at all. It may be that by acting now, it would take us 200 years to create a self-sustaining population on Mars, whereas if we wait 100 years, we'll be able to get something up and running in just an additional 50 years, thus better insulating us from disaster (consider that until the Mars colony is completely self-sufficient, it will likely be wiped out by any disaster on Earth, even disasters that aren't a real threat to our species, as long as we don't have enough surplus wealth to sustain an expensive Mars colony).
Given that we are on an exponential growth curve both in terms of technology and wealth, it seems likely to me that by the natural course of things 100 years from now maintaining an extraplanetary base on Mars would be much cheaper and easier, and would disrupt our growth rates much less, if at all. It may be that by acting now, it would take us 200 years to create a self-sustaining population on Mars, whereas if we wait 100 years, we'll be able to get something up and running in just an additional 50 years, thus better insulating us from disaster (consider that until the Mars colony is completely self-sufficient, it will likely be wiped out by any disaster on Earth, even disasters that aren't a real threat to our species, as long as we don't have enough surplus wealth to sustain an expensive Mars colony).
The opposing viewpoint is that since we're decelerating our technological progress and achieving new wealth by pursuing more and more trivial enterprises (come on, it's a messaging app!), a new kind of space race that inspires generations to come might exponentially accelerate our progress, just like the last space race did!
The idea that sending people off to live on a cold, lifeless world with no shielding from deadly solar winds is some noble endeavor, but enabling people living on this warm, green, living world to communicate with each other is "trivial" is such an incredibly backwards way of thinking.
with no shielding from deadly solar winds
This is plain silly. "Solar wind" is absolutely no danger to people on the surface of Mars, at all.
This is plain silly. "Solar wind" is absolutely no danger to people on the surface of Mars, at all.
I may have misspoke, but there is a real danger from solar radiation on Mars:
"Solar storms are not dangerous to humans on Earth’s surface. These storms are awesome to contemplate, but they cannot harm our human bodies as long as we remain on the surface of Earth, where we’re protected by Earth’s blanket of atmosphere. Remember, there’s every reason to believe that storms on the sun have been happening for billions of years, since the sun and Earth came to be. If that’s so, then all life on Earth evolved under their influence.
What is the danger of a solar storm in space? Very high-energy particles, such as those carried by CMEs, can cause radiation poisoning to humans and other mammals. They would be dangerous to unshielded astronauts, say, astronauts traveling to the moon. Large doses could be fatal."
http://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us
Mars lacks a magnetosphere.
"Solar storms are not dangerous to humans on Earth’s surface. These storms are awesome to contemplate, but they cannot harm our human bodies as long as we remain on the surface of Earth, where we’re protected by Earth’s blanket of atmosphere. Remember, there’s every reason to believe that storms on the sun have been happening for billions of years, since the sun and Earth came to be. If that’s so, then all life on Earth evolved under their influence.
What is the danger of a solar storm in space? Very high-energy particles, such as those carried by CMEs, can cause radiation poisoning to humans and other mammals. They would be dangerous to unshielded astronauts, say, astronauts traveling to the moon. Large doses could be fatal."
http://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us
Mars lacks a magnetosphere.
Mars isn't "space." It has an atmosphere. It's thin, but it's enough to stop solar flares from killing people on the surface.
Earth's magnetosphere could disappear today, and whatever other chaos that causes, Earth's atmosphere would still deflect most charged and uncharged particles from space. The magnetosphere has no effect on the uncharged particles, remember.
The moderate-level long-term cosmic radiation will probably be an issue for colonists, making cancer quite likely for anyone spending 40+ years there.
Earth's magnetosphere could disappear today, and whatever other chaos that causes, Earth's atmosphere would still deflect most charged and uncharged particles from space. The magnetosphere has no effect on the uncharged particles, remember.
The moderate-level long-term cosmic radiation will probably be an issue for colonists, making cancer quite likely for anyone spending 40+ years there.
> The moderate-level long-term cosmic radiation will probably be an issue for colonists, making cancer quite likely for anyone spending 40+ years there.
But instead of saying that, you decided to say:
> This is plain silly. "Solar wind" is absolutely no danger to people on the surface of Mars, at all.
instead. So, uh, I guess you win one Internet for pedantry.
But instead of saying that, you decided to say:
> This is plain silly. "Solar wind" is absolutely no danger to people on the surface of Mars, at all.
instead. So, uh, I guess you win one Internet for pedantry.
For people designing Mars missions, the distinction between solar radiation and cosmic radiation is really, really, really important. (In fact, CMEs often decrease cosmic radiation.)
That's false. Because Mars has no magnetic field, and because its atmospheric pressure is only 0.06 that of Earth, the radiation level at the surface is occasionally life-threatening. In the event of a solar storm, human astronauts would have to take shelter underground. And the cumulative radiation levels in normal circumstances pose a danger over time, even in the absence of a solar storm:
http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radia...
http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radia...
|we're decelerating our technological progress and achieving new wealth by pursuing more and more trivial enterprises
Sure let's forget about all other examples of technological progress and point to the sell of a startup as a key indicator of modern day progress
Sure let's forget about all other examples of technological progress and point to the sell of a startup as a key indicator of modern day progress
Really? We're "decelerating our technological progress"? That's a bold enough claim that I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for it beyond, "someone made a dumb iPhone app instead of curing cancer".
Agreed. The best minds in one area (marketing, business, etc) don't apply to other areas (cancer research, physics, rocket science). Put Biz Stone to work at NASA and I'll bet he could make communication at NASA 10x better, but he's not going to be changing the fan belt on an Apollo booster any time soon.
> decelerating our technological progress
Deceleration from what velocity? That of the 1800s? the 1900s? It seems obvious to me this isn't the case.
Deceleration from what velocity? That of the 1800s? the 1900s? It seems obvious to me this isn't the case.
Here's a lengthy counter argument. https://libcom.org/library/flying-cars-declining-rate-profit...
That of the 1950/60/70s. The last space race and the cold war provided us with plenty technologies (transistor, computers, GPS, internet) that are still the main drivers of progress nowadays.
I think this point of view ignores all the boring, unsexy, non-headline-grabbing progress that has developed 1950s inventions into what we have today. Progress is the aggregate of millions of very small advances.
Yes, and you could also argue that if our progress rate was sampled at a rate proportional to the total duration of human progress, the period from the 1950's to today is really one sample and the curve at this moment is just beginning to look like a hockey stick.
I think the goal requires many technologies that aren't mass produced at the moment but which such technologies would be highly valuable and required to reaching a sustainable environment here on Earth.
Yep. Europe didn't wait for ocean-liners to start colonizing the rest of the world. The ocean-liners came about because of the colonization efforts.
It seems like that argument's always going to apply though. The only way we're going to get better at sending people to Mars is to actually start doing it.
That's not necessarily true at all. Imagine in 1900 I said, "We'll never get better at making digital music players until we start making them!", and then poured a bunch of money into single-purpose digital music players, at the expense of general purpose computing. Digital music players came around as a natural consequence of general purpose computing, not the other way around.
Additionally, at one point along our exponential growth curve, it became inexpensive to dedicate enough research funding to the creation of a digital music player that we got the beginnings of modern MP3 players. I don't see any reason why going to Mars will be particularly different - it's not like there's no overlap between the technology we need to survive there and the technology we need to thrive here.
Additionally, at one point along our exponential growth curve, it became inexpensive to dedicate enough research funding to the creation of a digital music player that we got the beginnings of modern MP3 players. I don't see any reason why going to Mars will be particularly different - it's not like there's no overlap between the technology we need to survive there and the technology we need to thrive here.
There was a positive feedback loop between music technology and computing technology. Without efforts at playback and recording of music, the mercury delay lines that were used to make some of the first computers would have been impossible. Without the massive popularity of transistor radios it would have taken much longer to develop the semiconductor technology used in more modern computers, and without the Walkman the stabilized tape recorders early hobbyist computers used for storage would probably have been impossible (when audio skips it's annoying, when data skips it breaks your program). Same story for CDs; if ARM is the way forward for general-purpose computing, it wouldn't've happened without portable music.
"keeping any significant Martian population alive would be a considerable expense"
Getting a population to Mars would be a considerable expense. Keeping them there would have to be free, or the whole thing isn't ready to go yet. Free, that is, in the sense that the whole population is capable of being self-sustaining. If they aren't then the whole "backup human race" idea fails, if Earth dies and then they inevitably die too.
Also, there's no point in sitting back and just waiting for something to happen. It doesn't work to discourage all the specific people who want to invest in the tech from doing so because "someone" will get to it eventually.... "someone" won't if all the interested parties have been counseled to wait for "someone" else to do it.
Getting a population to Mars would be a considerable expense. Keeping them there would have to be free, or the whole thing isn't ready to go yet. Free, that is, in the sense that the whole population is capable of being self-sustaining. If they aren't then the whole "backup human race" idea fails, if Earth dies and then they inevitably die too.
Also, there's no point in sitting back and just waiting for something to happen. It doesn't work to discourage all the specific people who want to invest in the tech from doing so because "someone" will get to it eventually.... "someone" won't if all the interested parties have been counseled to wait for "someone" else to do it.
Getting a population to Mars would be a considerable expense. Keeping them there would have to be free, or the whole thing isn't ready to go yet.
Putting aside the offsite-backup-for-humanity angle, if it becomes practical to send a significant population to Mars, wouldn't it consequently also be at least as practical to keep sending them stuff?
I have always assumed that any Martian colony would be receiving regular supply dumps from Earth for decades or centuries before becoming self-sustaining.
Putting aside the offsite-backup-for-humanity angle, if it becomes practical to send a significant population to Mars, wouldn't it consequently also be at least as practical to keep sending them stuff?
I have always assumed that any Martian colony would be receiving regular supply dumps from Earth for decades or centuries before becoming self-sustaining.
> Putting aside the offsite-backup-for-humanity angle, if it becomes practical to send a significant population to Mars, wouldn't it consequently also be at least as practical to keep sending them stuff?
Not really, not with the expense that would entail. The only viable Mars colonization model assumes the creation of most needed commodities out of local resources.
> I have always assumed that any Martian colony would be receiving regular supply dumps from Earth for decades or centuries before becoming self-sustaining.
It such a colony required substantial supply dumps from Earth, and if this were anticipated in the planning stages, the colony wouldn't be funded in the first place. Transferring anything massive from Earth to Mars is extraordinarily expensive and will continue to be so.
Not really, not with the expense that would entail. The only viable Mars colonization model assumes the creation of most needed commodities out of local resources.
> I have always assumed that any Martian colony would be receiving regular supply dumps from Earth for decades or centuries before becoming self-sustaining.
It such a colony required substantial supply dumps from Earth, and if this were anticipated in the planning stages, the colony wouldn't be funded in the first place. Transferring anything massive from Earth to Mars is extraordinarily expensive and will continue to be so.
Musk believes the cost can be US$500,000/immigrant. Assuming 100 kg/immigrant plus an absurdly low 1kg/day supplies and 150 days of travel gives a maximum transport estimate of $2,000/kg.
This is extraordinarily expensive, yes, but not out of the realm of question. Saffron is $1,100–11,000/kg, for example.
A colony of 1 million is also very unlikely to have the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and high-end chips which are cost competitive with Earth. Assuming a core weighs 20 grams, the shipping cost is $40.
Of course, this is as public-private partnership. Assuming the real cost is $2 million / immigrant gives a shipping cost of $200 - which is still going to beat the cost of starting and maintaining a set of fabs on Mars.
If Musk is right about the cost, then there will be goods exported from Earth to Mars. If Musk is wrong about the cost, then it's not practical to send a significant population to Mars.
This is extraordinarily expensive, yes, but not out of the realm of question. Saffron is $1,100–11,000/kg, for example.
A colony of 1 million is also very unlikely to have the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and high-end chips which are cost competitive with Earth. Assuming a core weighs 20 grams, the shipping cost is $40.
Of course, this is as public-private partnership. Assuming the real cost is $2 million / immigrant gives a shipping cost of $200 - which is still going to beat the cost of starting and maintaining a set of fabs on Mars.
If Musk is right about the cost, then there will be goods exported from Earth to Mars. If Musk is wrong about the cost, then it's not practical to send a significant population to Mars.
> A colony of 1 million is also very unlikely to have the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and high-end chips which are cost competitive with Earth.
Well, cost-competitive with products imported from Earth, which is an easier standard to meet. Maybe Mars colonization will finally bring 3D printing into its own. People will discover they need an exotic part, so they radio earth for -- not the part itself -- but a diagram of the part, delivered by radio. Then they print it using local raw materials.
As to high-end technology, I think at least at first, the colonists will have to do without a ready supply of integrated circuits. They will have to live in a pre-iPod society for a while, more's the pity. :)
I can imagine an interview room twenty years form now -- a candidate says, "I'm willing to put up with many discomforts, even danger, to be among the first to colonize Mars." A few facts are delivered, then, "What? No cell phones? Are you serious?"
> If Musk is right about the cost, then there will be goods exported from Earth to Mars. If Musk is wrong about the cost, then it's not practical to send a significant population to Mars.
With a degree of resourcefulness by the colonists, I think there will be local exploitation of raw materials and production of needed goods, relatively quickly. Especially if every idea for small-scale local production, like 3D printers, is taken advantage of.
Well, cost-competitive with products imported from Earth, which is an easier standard to meet. Maybe Mars colonization will finally bring 3D printing into its own. People will discover they need an exotic part, so they radio earth for -- not the part itself -- but a diagram of the part, delivered by radio. Then they print it using local raw materials.
As to high-end technology, I think at least at first, the colonists will have to do without a ready supply of integrated circuits. They will have to live in a pre-iPod society for a while, more's the pity. :)
I can imagine an interview room twenty years form now -- a candidate says, "I'm willing to put up with many discomforts, even danger, to be among the first to colonize Mars." A few facts are delivered, then, "What? No cell phones? Are you serious?"
> If Musk is right about the cost, then there will be goods exported from Earth to Mars. If Musk is wrong about the cost, then it's not practical to send a significant population to Mars.
With a degree of resourcefulness by the colonists, I think there will be local exploitation of raw materials and production of needed goods, relatively quickly. Especially if every idea for small-scale local production, like 3D printers, is taken advantage of.
I see no reason for why Mars colonization is needed to "finally bring 3D printing into its own."
Anything appropriate for a Mars colony would be as appropriate for overwintering in Antarctica, or for the residents of various islands from the Cook Islands to Saint Helena, or similarly isolated place.
Presumably there's a cost-benefit matrix. Denser processors mean less needs to be shipped to Mars, but the harder it is to make locally. You mention "pre-iPod society" as if digital entertainment was the main loss. Pre-iPod also a pre-GPS-everywhere society, and pre-Internet-of-things society. Wifi embedded in every device may make a colony more likely to succeed. I would like a faulty CO2 scrubber to be able to notify the colony network, and wifi is cheaper than building cables. With that network in place in order to survive, a mobile device with phone-like communications is likely not only trivial but essential.
Regarding 'resourcefulness' - that's besides the point. A self-sustaining colony requires a huge number of people. (Who builds the fab units? Who are the doctors? Who repairs the sewage systems? Who takes care of food and O2 production? Who spends the 20 years to educate the next generation to the PhD level needed to support a high-tech frontier?) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513... estimates 40,000 people, which is a shot in the dark for the minimum size. Musk proposes 1 million; his cost numbers don't work out with only 40,000 people.
Any rocket technology which is cheap enough to deliver 40,000 people for a self-sustaining colony on Mars is one which can support trade between the planets. Someone will want saffron. Someone will want white truffles. (Both are already in the $1000s/kg range.) Maybe not the first generation, who all volunteered, but surely the second.
Anything appropriate for a Mars colony would be as appropriate for overwintering in Antarctica, or for the residents of various islands from the Cook Islands to Saint Helena, or similarly isolated place.
Presumably there's a cost-benefit matrix. Denser processors mean less needs to be shipped to Mars, but the harder it is to make locally. You mention "pre-iPod society" as if digital entertainment was the main loss. Pre-iPod also a pre-GPS-everywhere society, and pre-Internet-of-things society. Wifi embedded in every device may make a colony more likely to succeed. I would like a faulty CO2 scrubber to be able to notify the colony network, and wifi is cheaper than building cables. With that network in place in order to survive, a mobile device with phone-like communications is likely not only trivial but essential.
Regarding 'resourcefulness' - that's besides the point. A self-sustaining colony requires a huge number of people. (Who builds the fab units? Who are the doctors? Who repairs the sewage systems? Who takes care of food and O2 production? Who spends the 20 years to educate the next generation to the PhD level needed to support a high-tech frontier?) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513... estimates 40,000 people, which is a shot in the dark for the minimum size. Musk proposes 1 million; his cost numbers don't work out with only 40,000 people.
Any rocket technology which is cheap enough to deliver 40,000 people for a self-sustaining colony on Mars is one which can support trade between the planets. Someone will want saffron. Someone will want white truffles. (Both are already in the $1000s/kg range.) Maybe not the first generation, who all volunteered, but surely the second.
Most nations on Earth engage in trade. I'm sure Mars would do so as well. Because of the expense involved, soon the only thing Mars would ship in would be computer components that require a large fab.
There's a difference between "can be self-sustaining" and "is self-sustaining." A successful Mars colony would engage in trade with Earth.
There's a difference between "can be self-sustaining" and "is self-sustaining." A successful Mars colony would engage in trade with Earth.
Keeping them there would likely have to be profitable, otherwise the considerable expense of putting them there would be very hard to justify.
Some predictable and unpreventable existential crisis might do that, but I can think of few cases where setting up a dozen similarly sized self-sufficient colonies on the Earth (in Antarctica, buried in the middle of the Great Victoria Desert, etc.) wouldn't be a better strategy with higher chance of success.
Some predictable and unpreventable existential crisis might do that, but I can think of few cases where setting up a dozen similarly sized self-sufficient colonies on the Earth (in Antarctica, buried in the middle of the Great Victoria Desert, etc.) wouldn't be a better strategy with higher chance of success.
This is an example of an actual "first world problem."
Other first world problems include:
* Decarbonizing energy and achieving a sustainable energy and transportation infrastructure. (Not coincidentally Elon's also doing work in that area.)
* Curing the diseases of aging and achieving significant life extension.
* Augmenting and enhancing human intelligence.
* Closing natural resource cycles to achieve a much higher rate of recycling and lower overall resource consumption.
* Discovering new positive-sum solutions to the conflict between economic liberty and economic fairness / wealth distribution. These problems are probably game theoretic in nature and will probably require thinking at that level.
* Unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity and unlocking a comprehensive and coherent understanding of ultimate physical reality.
* Achieving a true holistic comprehension of the language of genetics and inheritance that goes far beyond "a gene for X" correlation-fishing.
Other first world problems include:
* Decarbonizing energy and achieving a sustainable energy and transportation infrastructure. (Not coincidentally Elon's also doing work in that area.)
* Curing the diseases of aging and achieving significant life extension.
* Augmenting and enhancing human intelligence.
* Closing natural resource cycles to achieve a much higher rate of recycling and lower overall resource consumption.
* Discovering new positive-sum solutions to the conflict between economic liberty and economic fairness / wealth distribution. These problems are probably game theoretic in nature and will probably require thinking at that level.
* Unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity and unlocking a comprehensive and coherent understanding of ultimate physical reality.
* Achieving a true holistic comprehension of the language of genetics and inheritance that goes far beyond "a gene for X" correlation-fishing.
Colonizing Mars is a cool project, no doubt. But in order to let humanity survive, I personally would focus on earth. We must develop ways to live in balance with nature. And we should have started yesterday.
WWF just released its annual report. Shocking. http://www.worldwildlife.org/publications
WWF just released its annual report. Shocking. http://www.worldwildlife.org/publications
Have you flown a plane in the last year? Because then you've used up more than your CO2 share as a human being.
It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society
It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society
> It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society
To me, that is an indication that we need to change today's society, not a justification for doing nothing.
To me, that is an indication that we need to change today's society, not a justification for doing nothing.
Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live in balance with nature. They laid waste to continent sized forests (mostly using fire strip hunting - set fires to force game into a kill zone), wiped out hundreds of species of mega-fauna with over-hunting, created deserts through over-grazing. Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness.
> Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't live in balance with nature.
That depends on how one defines "balance with nature". We're just a species competing for resources with other species. To argue that what we do is anything but a normal survival strategy is to buy into a supernatural role for human beings on planet Earth. In fact we're a natural species, and we follow entirely predictable patterns of natural selection.
> Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness.
And? Is a farm distinct from an anthill, or is it a natural variation? We may see ourselves as exceptional, as separate from nature, but nature certainly doesn't see us that way.
That depends on how one defines "balance with nature". We're just a species competing for resources with other species. To argue that what we do is anything but a normal survival strategy is to buy into a supernatural role for human beings on planet Earth. In fact we're a natural species, and we follow entirely predictable patterns of natural selection.
> Even retreating into the wilderness and living off the land just makes a big artificial farm-shaped hole in the wilderness.
And? Is a farm distinct from an anthill, or is it a natural variation? We may see ourselves as exceptional, as separate from nature, but nature certainly doesn't see us that way.
I completely agree, we are natural creatures. That doesn't mean that wiping out species and destroying ecosystems by our activities is OK.
In many cases it has long term detrimental consequences far in excess of the short term benefit of the economic activity causing the damage. Personally, I'm an advocate of factoring in the environmental costs of our economic activities and taking those costs into account. However the idea that we can live in balance without having an impact on the world around us is a fantasy.
In many cases it has long term detrimental consequences far in excess of the short term benefit of the economic activity causing the damage. Personally, I'm an advocate of factoring in the environmental costs of our economic activities and taking those costs into account. However the idea that we can live in balance without having an impact on the world around us is a fantasy.
[deleted]
"Have you flown a plane in the last year?"
Well, although I am a scientist and traveling to conferences is a habit that everybody does, I could limit my number of flights to one last year.
The point is, we don't need to fly. Conferences are boring, we have videocons. It is just a fashion to spend vacation overseas (even over the weekend). It is just the aviation industry screwing our minds.
"It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society"
You certainly have to be smarter than a hunter-gatherer to do it. But that's what makes us different.
Well, although I am a scientist and traveling to conferences is a habit that everybody does, I could limit my number of flights to one last year.
The point is, we don't need to fly. Conferences are boring, we have videocons. It is just a fashion to spend vacation overseas (even over the weekend). It is just the aviation industry screwing our minds.
"It's almost impossible to live in balance with nature in today's society"
You certainly have to be smarter than a hunter-gatherer to do it. But that's what makes us different.
WWF just released its annual report. Shocking
Of course it's shocking. This tells you very little about how good or bad things actually are. WWF will always say that right now is the last chance to save life on earth unless their viewpoint is given high-status.
Of course it's shocking. This tells you very little about how good or bad things actually are. WWF will always say that right now is the last chance to save life on earth unless their viewpoint is given high-status.
What kind of ecological disaster would kill off humanity?
As far as I know, humanity is dependent on several crops and a few animals(cows, pigs, and chickens) for our survival.
As far as I know, humanity is dependent on several crops and a few animals(cows, pigs, and chickens) for our survival.
"As far as I know, humanity is dependent on several crops and a few animals(cows, pigs, and chickens) for our survival."
Indeed, missing knowledge is most dangerous. That's why education is so important. Start by reading the WWf report ;o).
Indeed, missing knowledge is most dangerous. That's why education is so important. Start by reading the WWf report ;o).
As humans, we tend to see things through our own lenses.
I happen to believe that if everyone played music together once a week, humanity's future would be preserved through the effects of mutual cooperation, trust and survival information communicated through music.
Clowns probably believe humanity's future is ensured through everyone laughing at squirting flowers and Bill Gates probably believes curing malaria will ensure our future.
These are all overly-biased, myopic views which when stretched to the point of determining the fate of the entire human race become equally absurd. They're little more than attention-seeking plays.
I happen to believe that if everyone played music together once a week, humanity's future would be preserved through the effects of mutual cooperation, trust and survival information communicated through music.
Clowns probably believe humanity's future is ensured through everyone laughing at squirting flowers and Bill Gates probably believes curing malaria will ensure our future.
These are all overly-biased, myopic views which when stretched to the point of determining the fate of the entire human race become equally absurd. They're little more than attention-seeking plays.
These are all overly-biased, myopic views which when stretched to the point of determining the fate of the entire human race become equally absurd. They're little more than attention-seeking plays.
No offense, it sounds like "deep" bullshit. You had yet to explain why Musk's views are myopic.
And curing malaria ensuring our future? Do you really expect Bill Gates to believe that? It seems far more likely that he see malaria as unnecessary harm and sought to eliminate it.
No offense, it sounds like "deep" bullshit. You had yet to explain why Musk's views are myopic.
And curing malaria ensuring our future? Do you really expect Bill Gates to believe that? It seems far more likely that he see malaria as unnecessary harm and sought to eliminate it.
Gates actually has stated what he feels is needed to ensure our future. Eliminate all CO2 production as soon as possible. To that end he's funding TerraPower's traveling wave reactor research. (Personally I feel this has a 50/50 chance of being a boondoggle, probably because it's an IV company.)
It's pretty inarguable that, if an asteroid or other disaster strikes Earth, a human population on Mars would survive, however. You wouldn't try to run an important web site that had to stay up with one server, it is silly to expect a species to survive with only one planet when certain failure modes include an entire planet.
Not all asteroids would destroy life on Earth, and there are many ways we can protect ourselves against such events, even without leaving our planet. Having orbit deflectors, for once, is a good solution if we can detect a large object early enough. Plus, I'd wage the Human Race is far more resilient that we think. I'm much more concerned about self-annihilation with nuclear weapons in the short run than any remote asteroid destroying us all.
I don't agree, or I didn't get your comment.
I'm a software engineer and I strongly believe that if every humans on earth worked all together with a single goal in mind, space exploration and conquest, instead of spending millions on wars (as an example) we would already been on Mars, or close to it. I kinda feel ashamed when I think about it, I would prefer to work into something which have a bigger impact on the humanity future, and that what I want to do later in my life.
Musicians, clowns, video games, movies, are all entertainments, it adds pleasure into doing things but don't contribute in the to the goal of a greater knowledge of the universe. (you could argue that if X wouldn't have listened to Y song he wouldn't have discovered Z, and I would agree).
I'm a software engineer and I strongly believe that if every humans on earth worked all together with a single goal in mind, space exploration and conquest, instead of spending millions on wars (as an example) we would already been on Mars, or close to it. I kinda feel ashamed when I think about it, I would prefer to work into something which have a bigger impact on the humanity future, and that what I want to do later in my life.
Musicians, clowns, video games, movies, are all entertainments, it adds pleasure into doing things but don't contribute in the to the goal of a greater knowledge of the universe. (you could argue that if X wouldn't have listened to Y song he wouldn't have discovered Z, and I would agree).
I feel like you didn't get his comment.
He means that the reality of what is important for the future of the human race is subjective based on the biases of the person making the statement.
To draw a parallel, the most important legislature to next get pushed through Government is different for every lobbyist, because having different goals implicitly makes the meaning of important relative.
He means that the reality of what is important for the future of the human race is subjective based on the biases of the person making the statement.
To draw a parallel, the most important legislature to next get pushed through Government is different for every lobbyist, because having different goals implicitly makes the meaning of important relative.
Let's play a bit of semantics and say putting people on Mars helps to insure our future. As in, it provides insurance against some catastrophes that a malaria cure and even squirting flowers can't.
Still I agree that we tend to see things through our own lenses. Maybe evolution has something really amazing planned for bonobos, but we're too stubborn to die off.
Still I agree that we tend to see things through our own lenses. Maybe evolution has something really amazing planned for bonobos, but we're too stubborn to die off.
To be fair, I don't think Gates has ever used Malaria as an "attention-seeking" play.
Colonizing Mars? Sure, that's more about grabbing headlines. But saving lives from Malaria for Gates isn't about generating hype, or boosting stock prices ... it's genuinely about humanity and doing what's right (because they have the means)
Colonizing Mars? Sure, that's more about grabbing headlines. But saving lives from Malaria for Gates isn't about generating hype, or boosting stock prices ... it's genuinely about humanity and doing what's right (because they have the means)
> Bill Gates probably believes curing malaria will ensure our future
Why do you think that? Bill Gates has certainly never said anything to that effect.
> Clowns probably believe humanity's future is ensured through everyone laughing at squirting flowers.
This seems less ridiculous than the Malaria one, but I would still be surprised if anyone I knew said something this silly.
The myopic views you are projecting onto other people may exist in a few, but I don't think that they are common.
Why do you think that? Bill Gates has certainly never said anything to that effect.
> Clowns probably believe humanity's future is ensured through everyone laughing at squirting flowers.
This seems less ridiculous than the Malaria one, but I would still be surprised if anyone I knew said something this silly.
The myopic views you are projecting onto other people may exist in a few, but I don't think that they are common.
You know, I was with you until the end.
That guy preserving music or that guy curing malaria or that guy trying to get humans onto another planet? They may be in some sense wrong, but if they all succeed we will have great music playing among the non-malarial population on Mars in a century. I don't see what's not to like.
That guy preserving music or that guy curing malaria or that guy trying to get humans onto another planet? They may be in some sense wrong, but if they all succeed we will have great music playing among the non-malarial population on Mars in a century. I don't see what's not to like.
Spreading cheer and goodwill isn't even in the same ballpark as coping with unbridled growth in a limited environment.
I only agree with you if your conclusion is that Musk's dreams are NOT myopic.
Yes. All of the digital backups in the world won't help the species after a global catastrophe unless we have some human operators backed up somewhere offsite.
After reading this and "the everything store," I wonder what Jeff Bezos & Blue Origin (which started in 2000) would feel about Elon's recent endeavors with SpaceX (started in 2002), considering his highly competitive character.
They are not competitors. I don't know what Bezos said about it, but Elon Musk said:
"Every time I see Jeff, I ask him why he's not doing more in space."
"Our [SpaceX] competitors are not Paul Allen and Richard Branson, but Boeing, Lockheed, and the big aerospace companies. I'm really glad to see all the activity in entrepreneurial space and hopefully this heralds a new era of space exploration with price and quality improvements similar to other technology arenas."
"Every time I see Jeff, I ask him why he's not doing more in space."
"Our [SpaceX] competitors are not Paul Allen and Richard Branson, but Boeing, Lockheed, and the big aerospace companies. I'm really glad to see all the activity in entrepreneurial space and hopefully this heralds a new era of space exploration with price and quality improvements similar to other technology arenas."
Note that they're going to be competing a little more in the future. It was announced a couple of weeks ago that Blue Origin will be supplying engines to ULA (the joint venture of LockMart and Boeing that operates the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets).
What sort of existential risk is this supposed to protect against? The articles' examples are all wrong (these aren't Musk's examples):
(I'm not at all dismissing exotic existential risks. But is this a solution, or is it "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.")
[0] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/05/19/ar...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst#Energetics_and...
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4710
"A billion years will give us four more orbits of the Milky Way
galaxy, any one of which could bring us into collision with
another star, or a supernova shockwave, or the incinerating beam
of a gamma ray burst. We could swing into the path of a rogue
planet, one of the billions that roam our galaxy darkly, like
cosmic wrecking balls. Planet Earth could be edging up to the end
of an unusually fortunate run."
(I'm not at all dismissing exotic existential risks. But is this a solution, or is it "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.")
[0] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/05/19/ar...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst#Energetics_and...
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4710
How about environmental disaster, asteroid strikes, nuclear war, and biological warfare. All of those would leave a self sustaining Mars colony unscathed even if they caused extinction on Earth. Also, at least one offworld colony is a prerequisite for the interstellar colonization that could actually protect against the threats described in your quote.
Maybe Musk is convinced by the doomsday argument[0] (or unconvinced by the rebuttals), and sees this as a way to skew the probabilities.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
[deleted]
Plus another million on the moon. Just in case.
This is one of the only articles I have read that keeps Musk's Mars vision in check with doses of reality throughout:
On Mars, the best we can expect is a crude habitat, erected by robots...US colonies from Roanoke to Jamestown suffered similar social breakdowns, in environments that were Edenic by comparison...For all we know, revolutions in energy, artificial intelligence and materials science could be imminent. Any one of them would make human spaceflight a much easier affair.
The only thing that makes me feel better is that Musk seems to not be thinking through it all the way...and I mean that in the best way possible. At this point, from what I can tell he's still an evangelist and isn't putting resources to solving the minutiae of how to live on Mars.
He is so laser focused on the logistics that he likely wants to leave practicalities of the biology problem to someone else.
On Mars, the best we can expect is a crude habitat, erected by robots...US colonies from Roanoke to Jamestown suffered similar social breakdowns, in environments that were Edenic by comparison...For all we know, revolutions in energy, artificial intelligence and materials science could be imminent. Any one of them would make human spaceflight a much easier affair.
The only thing that makes me feel better is that Musk seems to not be thinking through it all the way...and I mean that in the best way possible. At this point, from what I can tell he's still an evangelist and isn't putting resources to solving the minutiae of how to live on Mars.
He is so laser focused on the logistics that he likely wants to leave practicalities of the biology problem to someone else.
He is so laser focused on the logistics that he likely wants to leave practicalities of the biology problem to someone else.
The only way we're going to start colonizing Mars is that someone focuses on making rocket cheaper.
We can wait, but we had waited for several decades after the Apollo landing. Since then, in some way, technology had stagnated.
The only way we're going to start colonizing Mars is that someone focuses on making rocket cheaper.
We can wait, but we had waited for several decades after the Apollo landing. Since then, in some way, technology had stagnated.
It is not just the cost of rockets holding us back, if we are going to do it right and safely we will be years in sending robots there to make it ready for people. Being so far away the habitat needs to be guaranteed before launch of the colonist. It would take some serious advancements in robotics, construction, and understanding of Mars geology, to make it happen.
We cannot ship all of if there, we can send the building blocks then use those to mine, process, and construct, what is needed. A viable colony must operated independently and not rely on Earth for its survival
We cannot ship all of if there, we can send the building blocks then use those to mine, process, and construct, what is needed. A viable colony must operated independently and not rely on Earth for its survival
It is not just the cost of rockets holding us back, if we are going to do it right and safely we will be years in sending robots there to make it ready for people.
With current limitation in AI and robotics, sending robots is not really good use of resources. They are inflexible and if something broke, it may be difficult to fix on the spot. Don't forget that teleoperation from Earth takes minutes, and by then, situation would have changed entirely.
You're better off sending a shit ton of materials to Mars, with many redundancies so that a colonist can survive for years without going home, until the next resupply point.
Teleoperation with the colonist nearby is a good idea though.
With current limitation in AI and robotics, sending robots is not really good use of resources. They are inflexible and if something broke, it may be difficult to fix on the spot. Don't forget that teleoperation from Earth takes minutes, and by then, situation would have changed entirely.
You're better off sending a shit ton of materials to Mars, with many redundancies so that a colonist can survive for years without going home, until the next resupply point.
Teleoperation with the colonist nearby is a good idea though.
To get anything started you are already talking 30+ years in the future. Why would you plan based on current limitations in AI and robotics? Better is coming.
Why would you plan based on current limitations in AI and robotics? Better is coming.
We assume too much about the future. Technological progress is not inevitable, as we had seen with the space programs.
Besides, when the time come, it's not like the plan won't be revised.
We assume too much about the future. Technological progress is not inevitable, as we had seen with the space programs.
Besides, when the time come, it's not like the plan won't be revised.
You really aren't up with Mars proposals. Even NASA's DRM 3.0 (Design Reference Mission) for Mars from over 10 years ago had a habitat being on Mars, and a return vehicle fully fueled and ready to go, before the human crew launches.
You can launch lots of things to Mars and have them sitting around waiting on the surface for the humans to show up.
You can launch lots of things to Mars and have them sitting around waiting on the surface for the humans to show up.
and you know, we find an efficient way to create a breatheable atmosphere, even if it is a huge bubble dome. Getting there is not really the problem, we could get there now it would just take a while, but staying there requires significantly more than just a rocket.
To the nay-sayers here:
“What if Columbus had been told, ‘Chris, baby, don’t go now. Wait until we’ve solved our number one priorities — war and famine; poverty and crime; pollution and disease; illieracy and racial hatred—and Queen Isabella’s own personal brand of ‘interal security’‘” – W.I.E. Gates
Humans are capable of doing multiple things at once. Some people working on space travel doesn't preclude others from working to slow (can we even reverse at this point) climate change.
“What if Columbus had been told, ‘Chris, baby, don’t go now. Wait until we’ve solved our number one priorities — war and famine; poverty and crime; pollution and disease; illieracy and racial hatred—and Queen Isabella’s own personal brand of ‘interal security’‘” – W.I.E. Gates
Humans are capable of doing multiple things at once. Some people working on space travel doesn't preclude others from working to slow (can we even reverse at this point) climate change.
The ability to go west was well understood and already successful by other Europeans by then, namely the various Norse colonizations.
Columbus lucked out to have the political will to make his colonies work, mainly via the brutal large-scale warfare against the natives Isabella and others were more than willing to fund, largely to acquire natural resources and for further empire building.
SpaceX doesn't even have the ability to go. Comparing Columbus's low hanging fruit to Mars colonization is pretty unconvincing, especially on the economic front where colonization of the Americas was deeply profitable almost instantly, while Mars would be a welfare state.
Columbus lucked out to have the political will to make his colonies work, mainly via the brutal large-scale warfare against the natives Isabella and others were more than willing to fund, largely to acquire natural resources and for further empire building.
SpaceX doesn't even have the ability to go. Comparing Columbus's low hanging fruit to Mars colonization is pretty unconvincing, especially on the economic front where colonization of the Americas was deeply profitable almost instantly, while Mars would be a welfare state.
> The ability to go west was well understood and already successful by other Europeans by then
Indeed, the main reason Columbus was mocked because his plan was rather extreme on its face (and, despite the fact that he never admitted this, was a complete failure for exactly the reason it was mocked, even though it happened to produce benefits completely unrelated to its intended purpose) because not only the shape but the size of the Earth was well known.
> Columbus lucked out to have the political will to make his colonies work
Columbus lucked out in running into a large land mass well short of his desired goal (which he never admitted that he hadn't reached, which is why the lands of the New World are now commonly known by a name derived from that of an Italian map maker and not their "discoverer".)
Columbus's plan was no less absurd than SpaceX's, and is only seen as successful in retrospect for accomplishments unrelated to its intended purpose.
Indeed, the main reason Columbus was mocked because his plan was rather extreme on its face (and, despite the fact that he never admitted this, was a complete failure for exactly the reason it was mocked, even though it happened to produce benefits completely unrelated to its intended purpose) because not only the shape but the size of the Earth was well known.
> Columbus lucked out to have the political will to make his colonies work
Columbus lucked out in running into a large land mass well short of his desired goal (which he never admitted that he hadn't reached, which is why the lands of the New World are now commonly known by a name derived from that of an Italian map maker and not their "discoverer".)
Columbus's plan was no less absurd than SpaceX's, and is only seen as successful in retrospect for accomplishments unrelated to its intended purpose.
> The ability to go west was well understood and already successful by other Europeans by then, namely the various Norse colonizations.
And our ability to go to Mars isn't imaginary either (even if we haven't sent people).
Also, I've never seen literature claiming the Norse expeditions were very well known. (Not saying that doesn't exists, just that I haven't seen them.) > SpaceX doesn't even have the ability to go. Comparing Columbus's low hanging fruit to Mars colonization is pretty unconvincing, especially on the economic front where colonization of the Americas was deeply profitable almost instantly, while Mars would be a welfare state.
It wasn't know that America would be profitable. Granted it was thought spice trade would be.
The point of the quote is that Europeans chose to take on an expensive exploratory endeavour (with the hope of a profit) even though they had issues at home.
And our ability to go to Mars isn't imaginary either (even if we haven't sent people).
Also, I've never seen literature claiming the Norse expeditions were very well known. (Not saying that doesn't exists, just that I haven't seen them.) > SpaceX doesn't even have the ability to go. Comparing Columbus's low hanging fruit to Mars colonization is pretty unconvincing, especially on the economic front where colonization of the Americas was deeply profitable almost instantly, while Mars would be a welfare state.
It wasn't know that America would be profitable. Granted it was thought spice trade would be.
The point of the quote is that Europeans chose to take on an expensive exploratory endeavour (with the hope of a profit) even though they had issues at home.
[deleted]
> It wasn't know that America would be profitable.
This is misleading, because the early explorers thought they were sailing to India, not to a new world that was unknown at the time. India was certainly regarded as profitable, and was the impetus for the early voyages. BTW this is why native Americans are called "indians".
This is misleading, because the early explorers thought they were sailing to India, not to a new world that was unknown at the time. India was certainly regarded as profitable, and was the impetus for the early voyages. BTW this is why native Americans are called "indians".
That was literally my next sentence, in the same paragraph.
It's a nice quote but with this logic you can justify any absurd attempt to do anything.
At the time Columbus crossed the Atlantic Ocean it was a (relatively) reasonable thing to do given the boat they had. Can we say the same about the ones who tried 500 years before and died? Probably not.
Is the right time to try colonizing Mars? What would be the chance of success given our current technology level? I think those are very relevant question that needs to be discussed with facts rather than quotes.
Is the right time to try colonizing Mars? What would be the chance of success given our current technology level? I think those are very relevant question that needs to be discussed with facts rather than quotes.
> At the time Columbus crossed the Atlantic Ocean it was a (relatively) reasonable thing to do given the boat they had.
Was it that reasonable at the time? Granted no one really thought they'd fall off the edge of the world and we did have long-time-at-sea experience, even if near the shore.
Compared to today: the US has a decent track-record of landing on Mars. We have the tech to do it. We have a decent amount of experience in LEO. What makes a manned-Mars trip more or less absurd than Columbus' first trans-Atlantic voyage?
Is it simply that Columbus hoped to be profitable by sailing to the East and we don't have that same expectation of a Mars mission?
Was it that reasonable at the time? Granted no one really thought they'd fall off the edge of the world and we did have long-time-at-sea experience, even if near the shore.
Compared to today: the US has a decent track-record of landing on Mars. We have the tech to do it. We have a decent amount of experience in LEO. What makes a manned-Mars trip more or less absurd than Columbus' first trans-Atlantic voyage?
Is it simply that Columbus hoped to be profitable by sailing to the East and we don't have that same expectation of a Mars mission?
Mars at 54.6 million km compared to moon at merely ~0.4 million km is about 135 times further away and considering the amount of on-board supply and resources, a trip to Mars is on whole another level.
Going for a 10 meter dive isn't a good enough testimony to over a 1km deep dive.
Going for a 10 meter dive isn't a good enough testimony to over a 1km deep dive.
He might not have started Europe on a 3-century adventure in genocide and enslavement of other peoples?
That most likely would have happened anyway. Even without Columbus's voyage, the existence of ships capable of intercontinental travel would have led to an an encounter that would have played out much the same way: decimation of the population by foreign pathogens from a society with strong immunity due to high population density, ensuing collapse the native states that may have been able to organize resistance, looting of mass quantities of gold and silver, and mass agricultural slavery. The only difference would have been a slightly greater technological edge for the invaders.
Also, there's nothing special about Europeans. If the explorers had been from China via the eastern region, the scenario would likely have played out the same way. Up until modern times, most warfare was either about power, e.g. preventing a rising rival or conquering a falling power, or extraction, where the goal was to remove as much wealth as possible in as short a period of time as feasible. Given human history, extractive warfare against the native population by militarily superior Eurasian invaders would be the expected outcome.
So no, I doubt the lack of Columbus's voyage would have done more than set back the timetable a bit, or changed the players. Societies in Eurasia just had too much of a biological (germs from city density), technological, and organizational advantage.
That said, what's unique about the Mars colonization idea is that we may have a limited time window in which to try it. Given that our chief sources of energy are non-renewable, we are living in a golden age of cheap production. We haven't so polluted space for Kessler syndrome to lock us in. We even have precociously advanced space technology due to the huge boost from the USA-USSR space race.
Right now we're watching our space programs atrophy. There may be a limited amount of time to get a viable off-world colony going.
Sure, right now we're talking about an Antarctica-style bunker mission, the Martian equivalent of Apollo. But to get to a true space colony you have to start somewhere.
Also, there's nothing special about Europeans. If the explorers had been from China via the eastern region, the scenario would likely have played out the same way. Up until modern times, most warfare was either about power, e.g. preventing a rising rival or conquering a falling power, or extraction, where the goal was to remove as much wealth as possible in as short a period of time as feasible. Given human history, extractive warfare against the native population by militarily superior Eurasian invaders would be the expected outcome.
So no, I doubt the lack of Columbus's voyage would have done more than set back the timetable a bit, or changed the players. Societies in Eurasia just had too much of a biological (germs from city density), technological, and organizational advantage.
That said, what's unique about the Mars colonization idea is that we may have a limited time window in which to try it. Given that our chief sources of energy are non-renewable, we are living in a golden age of cheap production. We haven't so polluted space for Kessler syndrome to lock us in. We even have precociously advanced space technology due to the huge boost from the USA-USSR space race.
Right now we're watching our space programs atrophy. There may be a limited amount of time to get a viable off-world colony going.
Sure, right now we're talking about an Antarctica-style bunker mission, the Martian equivalent of Apollo. But to get to a true space colony you have to start somewhere.
Mostly agreed, but having a truly independent Martian colony will surely require millions of people to be transported there, and millions of tons of material. If non-renewable fuels or Kessler syndrome are ever going to be a problem, then any colony we found today is doomed to die waiting for the next shipment of stuff from Earth.
Agreed. Colonization must include a very high degree of self-sufficiency. Occupation is a prerequisite for colonization, and the window to do the work necessary to complete the task of a true colony may not be that large.
Did Europe have that long to wait? Hell, the Aztecs were pretty advanced. Maybe if they started sailing, they could have brought all the diseases of the Americas to Europe and Africa. Then they could have had an adventure in pyramid-building and blood-sacrifice among the decimated peoples of the "Old World"! (Hat-tip: OSC)
Actually, it's thought that few diseases (perhaps only limited to venereal diseases) were brought back to Eurasia from the Americas. Thoughts on this range from the higher densities Europeans may have been living at and the much higher contact with many more varied types of animals. Though I'm not sure we know exactly.
Yeah I've read Diamond's book too. b^) The livestock hypothesis is plausible, but another model would be the following, from the perspective of the crew of explorers:
Crew carries all diseases endemic to their native land. Crew travels to foreign land. Now foreign land has all diseases endemic to native land, and crew has some diseases endemic to foreign land. (The all/some asymmetry I get from the assumption that a crew of nothing-to-lose sailors are likely to be better-traveled than the tribe that inhabits their landing site.) Some or all of crew dies of these foreign diseases while in foreign land. Whatever portion of crew returns to native land carries foreign diseases that are survivable from a no-immunity starting point. Population of foreign land has all native diseases, including those such as smallpox which will leave alive but a fraction of a population that has no immunity.
Crew carries all diseases endemic to their native land. Crew travels to foreign land. Now foreign land has all diseases endemic to native land, and crew has some diseases endemic to foreign land. (The all/some asymmetry I get from the assumption that a crew of nothing-to-lose sailors are likely to be better-traveled than the tribe that inhabits their landing site.) Some or all of crew dies of these foreign diseases while in foreign land. Whatever portion of crew returns to native land carries foreign diseases that are survivable from a no-immunity starting point. Population of foreign land has all native diseases, including those such as smallpox which will leave alive but a fraction of a population that has no immunity.
Hypothetical question: if we had indeed ended war, famine, etc. in the known world before finding the new world, would genocide and slavery still have ensued?
Most likely many people would have still died. Much of the genocide was precipitated by (unintended) biological factors. Perhaps more of those civilizations would have survived, but they would have still be reverse-decimated (decivivimated?) by disease.
If we cared enough to end war I would have hoped we would have ended slavery as well.
If we cared enough to end war I would have hoped we would have ended slavery as well.
Hopefully there is no slaves or gold on Mars ;)
Hopefully there is a ton of gold, that'll get us there really quick.
Ha, there's something absurd about the idea of sending a bunch of people to a distant planet just to get their hands on a bit of shiny, somewhat rare rock.
Gold is heavy. How expensive would it be to send enough fuel to Mars to have enough fuel to return the gold to Earth?
Or do we get fuel on Mars?
Or do we get fuel on Mars?
I don't know the math offhand, but the return trip from Mars would take far less fuel than the initial trip. The atmosphere is almost non-existent and Mars' gravity is about 2/5 of Earth's. Similar to our experience on the moon, it took a Saturn V to get to the moon, but the Lunar Lander + CSM were enough to get back to earth from there.
Solar panels and water gets you all the fuel you ever need. One of the things that is interesting is finding asteroids with water and parking a solar panel on them to quietly sit and make hydrogen so that you have loads of refueling stations zipping around the inner solar system.
You've got it all wrong. If there's gold on Mars, there's a financial incentive to send a million people to Mars to create a market for it!
An example I always found quite fun: if you knew how to turn lead into gold in LEO, for free, it still wouldn't be a profitable venture.
Gold costs ~$38,000/kg [1], lead costs ~$4/kg, and launching 1 kg to LEO costs ~$4,000 [2]. It would be an extremely profitable venture.
[1] http://goldprice.org/gold-price-per-kilo.html
[2] http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1989/what-is-the-cu...
[1] http://goldprice.org/gold-price-per-kilo.html
[2] http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1989/what-is-the-cu...
Fair enough. I probably read the claim back when gold was ~$9k/kilo and there was no SpaceX.
Doubtful, someone would have found it eventually. I mean the world is only so big. Someone was bound to find it.
I doubt it would have taken more than 50 years or so longer if Columbus hadn't gone.
Technically, Columbus didn't set out to colonize anything...
No but he set out on an expensive and high-risk endeavor. It was hoped to be profitable, but was a money sink until proven otherwise.
Not remotely in the same scale, considering the time, development and resources that go into conducting even the first manned mars mission.
Putting people on Mars to save humanity is - in my view - a bad reason. There are better reasons to travel to mars.
Putting people on Mars to save humanity is - in my view - a bad reason. There are better reasons to travel to mars.
He didn't have to design the Caravel, no. He had that at his dispose, but it's not like that all came from nothing. It took time to build and develop as well.
Every time that this argument is made, I can't help but wonder if the mere existence of a sustainable off-world colony would cause humans on Earth to give even less of a damn about maintaining a habitable planet. A sort of moral hazard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) on an interplanetary scale. Which is to ask, could colonizing other worlds actually accelerate the destruction of human civilization, rather than ensure it?
As an alternative to possibly engendering environmental apathy, imagine a scenario akin to the Cold War, except that one of the superpowers has a million citizens on Mars, and the other doesn't. Does MAD still apply, or does the interplanetary superpower suddenly becoming all the more willing to watch the world burn?
As an alternative to possibly engendering environmental apathy, imagine a scenario akin to the Cold War, except that one of the superpowers has a million citizens on Mars, and the other doesn't. Does MAD still apply, or does the interplanetary superpower suddenly becoming all the more willing to watch the world burn?
Are you personally currently environmentally apathetic because you know China is shoving as much burned coal into the air as they can?
Are you personally currently environmentally apathetic because you know somewhere there are some unspoiled mountain lakes that are still hardly touched by the hand of man?
Are you personally unconcerned about the possibility of your home being nuked because thank goodness Alaska will probably survive?
You hypothesize a very bizarrely precise self-interest that very suddenly gives way to complete wild suicidal abandon at a very precise point. I'm not at all convinced what you've ordered up here can exist.
Are you personally currently environmentally apathetic because you know somewhere there are some unspoiled mountain lakes that are still hardly touched by the hand of man?
Are you personally unconcerned about the possibility of your home being nuked because thank goodness Alaska will probably survive?
You hypothesize a very bizarrely precise self-interest that very suddenly gives way to complete wild suicidal abandon at a very precise point. I'm not at all convinced what you've ordered up here can exist.
So dualing straw men? Nobody light a match :-)
There is a pretty clear body of evidence that humans do not expend resources on something they don't value. And the question of whether or not the value of the planet would change with the expansion into space is a reasonable one to ask.
I believe what is posited is not precise self-interest so much as a reevaluation of risk and its concomitant change to the cost of failure.
As an example, one might speed down the highway with a perception of low risk of being caught, but that behavior might change if a sign appeared that said "speed limit enforcers are on duty." So in the presence of the new information a re-evaluation of the risk of being cited is undertaken and behavior may (or may not) change.
The question posed is whether or not the value calculus that currently drives the environmental and military engagement thinking of the world today, would be altered by the existence of a stable 'somewhere else'. That is a general question and not one that turns on precise self interest.
I do not believe such a settlement would change the value equation, as it would not apply to a large enough fraction of the current residents to change the calculus. Now I also would not expect the prototypical someone who was born and raised on Mars to feel particularly motivated to change what folks on Earth were doing, just as non-Chinese do not feel moved enough to intervene on the actions decided upon by that country's government. They might "care" and have some empathy for the resulting negative outcomes, but they would be insufficiently empowered to actually act.
There is a pretty clear body of evidence that humans do not expend resources on something they don't value. And the question of whether or not the value of the planet would change with the expansion into space is a reasonable one to ask.
I believe what is posited is not precise self-interest so much as a reevaluation of risk and its concomitant change to the cost of failure.
As an example, one might speed down the highway with a perception of low risk of being caught, but that behavior might change if a sign appeared that said "speed limit enforcers are on duty." So in the presence of the new information a re-evaluation of the risk of being cited is undertaken and behavior may (or may not) change.
The question posed is whether or not the value calculus that currently drives the environmental and military engagement thinking of the world today, would be altered by the existence of a stable 'somewhere else'. That is a general question and not one that turns on precise self interest.
I do not believe such a settlement would change the value equation, as it would not apply to a large enough fraction of the current residents to change the calculus. Now I also would not expect the prototypical someone who was born and raised on Mars to feel particularly motivated to change what folks on Earth were doing, just as non-Chinese do not feel moved enough to intervene on the actions decided upon by that country's government. They might "care" and have some empathy for the resulting negative outcomes, but they would be insufficiently empowered to actually act.
Unfortunately, at least with the first point, this is true for a lot of people, and governments. This "they're not doing it, so why should I?" is a common justification, and is expressed in goverments who are pressured into ignoring environmental concerns because it could impact short term gains. India noted at the UN climate summit it had no intention of taking steps to move off coal power and that was a problem for others [1]. Granted, I agree it seems far-fetched to think this would extend so much as to aggravate the destruction of the earth's environment as stated above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html?...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html?...
I'm really not sure what any of these are intended to show. Can you clarify?
I think he's saying that we're already succeptible to moral hazard in the same way that we would be if we colonized mars. People in America don't have much skin in the game when it comes to protecting the environment in India or China.
Except, we still do care if their water is toxic and if the air conditions are poor. The same sort of empathy will apply to people on other planets as well. Even though a heavily polluted other planet doesn't directly affect us in the same way that a heavily polluted Earth affects us, we are currently pretty well isolated from the extreme conditions in Shanghai and yet we still care what happens there.
Furthermore, because of the large costs of shipping between planets, most of the things causing pollution on one planet is probably benefitting almost exclusively the residents of that planet.
Moral hazard is an interesting concern but I don't think that it's going to end up being a severe problem.
Except, we still do care if their water is toxic and if the air conditions are poor. The same sort of empathy will apply to people on other planets as well. Even though a heavily polluted other planet doesn't directly affect us in the same way that a heavily polluted Earth affects us, we are currently pretty well isolated from the extreme conditions in Shanghai and yet we still care what happens there.
Furthermore, because of the large costs of shipping between planets, most of the things causing pollution on one planet is probably benefitting almost exclusively the residents of that planet.
Moral hazard is an interesting concern but I don't think that it's going to end up being a severe problem.
I'm taking the attitudes you suppose might exist in the future and translating into your current context, with the intent of showing that once you consider them concretely they don't make much sense. The United States isn't going to go "Oh, it's OK if everyone on Earth gets nuked, at least our Mars colonies will still be there." anymore than you're going to be unconcerned about whereever you live getting nuked because some other chunk of your country will probably survive.
Self-interest isn't going anywhere.
Self-interest isn't going anywhere.
>Are you personally currently environmentally apathetic because you know China is shoving as much burned coal into the air as they can?
Tons of CO2 emitted per capita:
United States 16.4
China 7.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
I feel like China can do a lot more.
Tons of CO2 emitted per capita:
United States 16.4
China 7.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
I feel like China can do a lot more.
Countries by population:
They do a lot more, you just saw a piece of the information.
China 1,367,030,000
United States 318,827,000
They do a lot more, you just saw a piece of the information.
By that standard, you could also argue that China has far too many legs.
It doesn't make sense to look at total emissions, though. Because then you can create arbitrary groups and demand that they scale down. Should Europe cut emissions because they're so high or is it okay for Germany to stay at current levels because they're so low? Either per unit land area or per capita are better measures.
The point is that if the Chinese had the standard of living that Americans have, everything would shoot through the roof. And considering that they don't, there's great potential for it to go wrong.
The whole "China shoving CO2 into the atmosphere" could just as well be stated "Americans driving large SUVs that dump CO2 into the atmosphere". It doesn't matter, we've all got to do our part.
The point is that if the Chinese had the standard of living that Americans have, everything would shoot through the roof. And considering that they don't, there's great potential for it to go wrong.
The whole "China shoving CO2 into the atmosphere" could just as well be stated "Americans driving large SUVs that dump CO2 into the atmosphere". It doesn't matter, we've all got to do our part.
What matters to the planet are the totals, I agree with your point that Americans have standards of living that needs to be improved, but I don't buy the argument that measures should be per unit land or per capita, because this is not the case.
A large SUV won't dump as much CO2 as industrial manufacturing, for example.
A large SUV won't dump as much CO2 as industrial manufacturing, for example.
Naturally what matters to the planet are the totals, but not going per-capita or per-unit-area is asking a disproportionate share from different people. And you can frame the problem using different groups in different ways so it is no longer well defined. Observe:
1. Members of the OECD must cut down on CO2 emissions. They far exceed China's emissions. Totals are what matter, and the OECD certainly has a higher total than China. China can't do anything so long as the OECD keeps pumping CO2 freely into the atmosphere.
2. North America must cut down on CO2 emissions. They far exceed that of South Asia.
We can think of it this way. A certain standard of living requires some degree of pollution + cost. It is not productive to ask the other guy to endure a poorer standard of living while you live large just because he, as an individual, lives in a place with more individuals. You can ask for that, but it isn't going to happen.
1. Members of the OECD must cut down on CO2 emissions. They far exceed China's emissions. Totals are what matter, and the OECD certainly has a higher total than China. China can't do anything so long as the OECD keeps pumping CO2 freely into the atmosphere.
2. North America must cut down on CO2 emissions. They far exceed that of South Asia.
We can think of it this way. A certain standard of living requires some degree of pollution + cost. It is not productive to ask the other guy to endure a poorer standard of living while you live large just because he, as an individual, lives in a place with more individuals. You can ask for that, but it isn't going to happen.
He said "coal", not aggregate CO2.
The distinction is important, because coal is seen as a cheap way of feeding China's relentless appetite for growth (or more specifically, the appetite for the perceived advantages brought by this "growth" to those who are in a social or political position to benefit from it.)
The distinction is important, because coal is seen as a cheap way of feeding China's relentless appetite for growth (or more specifically, the appetite for the perceived advantages brought by this "growth" to those who are in a social or political position to benefit from it.)
Or even more specifically, the appetite for capitalising on the rest of the worlds appetite for growth. Let's not forget what region of the world production of our physical goods is outsourced to.
While what you say is technically correct, it's not very nuanced.
No words, just data: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Carbon_Mo...
No words, just data: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Carbon_Mo...
[deleted]
Obviously Australia is the one truly in the wrong.
Personally, I don't care much about conserving energy specifically because so many others are not going to. The existence of large numbers of undersea vents makes me somewhat apathetic about the risk of humans "killing all life on earth". We could have full scale nuclear war / winter and I don't know if they would notice.
The latter is probably true but not germane. Nobody else was talking about sterilizing the planet, and there are many much less severe possible futures that still qualify as nightmare scenarios. Some of them could even conceivably happen, unlike total sterilization.
Who cares about "killing all life on earth"? The problem is that we're fucking ourselves over big time.
http://joyreactor.com/post/351870
http://joyreactor.com/post/351870
I think it is correct to be apathetic about the risk of killing all life on earth because that is far beyond our ability. Killing most life on earth and causing mass extinction is another matter.
I suspect that once we see how hard it is to build a self-sustaining extra terrestrial colony, we'll come to appreciate what we have even more.
So far, this is the best argument against my cynicism. I certainly hope you're correct!
I wonder though that because the people that would feel the most discomfort would be out of sight, out of mind we still wouldn't learn our lesson.
That said, maybe the technology created to sustain a colony on Mars could be used to clean up the messes we've made on Earth.
That said, maybe the technology created to sustain a colony on Mars could be used to clean up the messes we've made on Earth.
Why do you think it'll be hard? I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but what difficult challenges to survival do you specifically think they'll struggle to overcome?
There are enough places on Earth that was can barely manage to survive without major supporting infrastructure. Those places have the benefit of a breathable atmosphere and Earth gravity. Mars has a far more brutal climate (with a more elliptic orbit creating a more dramatic range through the Martian year), no breathable air, and a weaker gravity.
The weak gravity is the real killer, colonists bones would decay, the calcium would leach into the bloodstream causing serious health issues. Muscles would atrophy. The colonists' sense of balance and motion, evolved to Earth gravity, would be constantly disorienting. Low gravity has a lot of negative health effects.
Mars also has nothing like the Van Allen belt, it's bombarded with radiation that colonists would constantly need to be shielded from.
Mar's atmosphere is poisonous to humans, and has a much lower atmospheric pressure, so colonists would need to have a constant protective bubble protecting them from the world they were on.
Mars hasn't got liquid water. There is water there, but it would require a lot of energy to get it to the point of being usable.
Energy is another issue. Solar energy could provide some energy, though it'd be massively expensive to get enough arrays to support a colony with the required infrastructure. In theory they could create some kind of nuclear energy plant, though the logistics of transporting that to Mars and maintaining it are staggering.
The psychological impact of taking an animal evolved to live in Earth conditions and put them in a completely inhospitable environment deeply dependent on a very complex and expensive infrastructure, with disorienting gravity, health decay, very limited variety in food, and other likely spartan living conditions a Mars colony would be completely hellish for most.
There may be ways to manage these problems, but the millions of dollars spent per colonist to get them there along with the millions spent per colonist to sustain them are a pretty serious impediment. A colony would need to ultimately be economically independent to make it worthwhile. Mars has some resources that might be valuable to Earth, but whether they'd be viable to support a colony needing such an expensive infrastructure to survive isn't a guarantee. Would humanity be willing to pour trillions upon trillions into a Mars experiment in the hope that the experiment might work?
The weak gravity is the real killer, colonists bones would decay, the calcium would leach into the bloodstream causing serious health issues. Muscles would atrophy. The colonists' sense of balance and motion, evolved to Earth gravity, would be constantly disorienting. Low gravity has a lot of negative health effects.
Mars also has nothing like the Van Allen belt, it's bombarded with radiation that colonists would constantly need to be shielded from.
Mar's atmosphere is poisonous to humans, and has a much lower atmospheric pressure, so colonists would need to have a constant protective bubble protecting them from the world they were on.
Mars hasn't got liquid water. There is water there, but it would require a lot of energy to get it to the point of being usable.
Energy is another issue. Solar energy could provide some energy, though it'd be massively expensive to get enough arrays to support a colony with the required infrastructure. In theory they could create some kind of nuclear energy plant, though the logistics of transporting that to Mars and maintaining it are staggering.
The psychological impact of taking an animal evolved to live in Earth conditions and put them in a completely inhospitable environment deeply dependent on a very complex and expensive infrastructure, with disorienting gravity, health decay, very limited variety in food, and other likely spartan living conditions a Mars colony would be completely hellish for most.
There may be ways to manage these problems, but the millions of dollars spent per colonist to get them there along with the millions spent per colonist to sustain them are a pretty serious impediment. A colony would need to ultimately be economically independent to make it worthwhile. Mars has some resources that might be valuable to Earth, but whether they'd be viable to support a colony needing such an expensive infrastructure to survive isn't a guarantee. Would humanity be willing to pour trillions upon trillions into a Mars experiment in the hope that the experiment might work?
Just for the curious, Mars' gravity is about 38% of Earth's, which is about twice the gravity of the moon.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mars+gravity+vs+earth+g...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mars+gravity+vs+earth+g...
Not to mention the psychological effect of a dim, reddish atmosphere replacing the sky humans are accustomed to. I'd wager the effect would be very depressing, over time.
Strange. On Earth, it's exactly the dim, reddish atmosphere that's considered paradisiac!
Compare http://www.sunsetbeachestates.ca/images/sunsetbeach.jpg with http://i.imgur.com/WxxEt.jpg
Compare http://www.sunsetbeachestates.ca/images/sunsetbeach.jpg with http://i.imgur.com/WxxEt.jpg
Dim light is lovely at the beginning or end of the day, but it's not something that's great to live in full time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder
Colonists could use energy to get artificial lighting to a decent level, but in a wholly artificial environment it might would be depressing to have no nature to experience. We evolved to like living in natural environments that we couldn't really reproduce on Mars. No oceans, no streams, no lakes, no time in the sun, no natural beauty, it sounds like a horrific nightmare to me.
Colonists could use energy to get artificial lighting to a decent level, but in a wholly artificial environment it might would be depressing to have no nature to experience. We evolved to like living in natural environments that we couldn't really reproduce on Mars. No oceans, no streams, no lakes, no time in the sun, no natural beauty, it sounds like a horrific nightmare to me.
I don't think living on mars will be that hard. I think building the large industrial base required to extract resources and manufacture the equipment required to live on mars will be very difficult (read expensive and slow).
It may, in fact, require more resources for one person to live on mars than one person can produce with our current (or near future) level of technology.
I think just building the energy infrastructure to do energy expensive things like make steel or silicon ingots will be very difficult. Not to mention that there is no source of petroleum on mars, so plastics are going to have to synthesized using other materials. The difficulties are legion once you get down to the details.
It may, in fact, require more resources for one person to live on mars than one person can produce with our current (or near future) level of technology.
I think just building the energy infrastructure to do energy expensive things like make steel or silicon ingots will be very difficult. Not to mention that there is no source of petroleum on mars, so plastics are going to have to synthesized using other materials. The difficulties are legion once you get down to the details.
How sure are we that there's no petroleum on Mars? If Mars contained any sort of life at one point or another the likelihood of fossil fuels is there, correct?
This would be the biggest discovery of all time, if we actually discovered remains of life on another planet. At the moment and as far as we know, there is no life on Mars and there never has been. It would be fantastic to be proven otherwise, but we cannot rely on hopes of finding oil.
My understanding is that Mars at this time has much less sedimentation than Earth has. It may have had more in the past, but was there ever the volume of organic material that Earth has had in e.g. the Gulf of Mexico or the Tethys Sea?
If we find fossil fuels on Mars, I'm not entirely sure we'll be climbing over each other to burn them. That would be a discovery of immense importance.
In the short to mid term, living on Mars or an asteroid will be much harsher that on Earth. It is colder, there are plenty of space radiation. You'll have to put a suit to go outside. You are not going to frolic in a shallow creek on Mars soon.
Creating new habitable space will be expensive it will be like living in a submarine or an Antarctic base during winter. Forget about having large space for entertainment like a football stadium or a theater. I think that after a few months of that regimen people will start to appreciate more life on good old Earth.
Creating new habitable space will be expensive it will be like living in a submarine or an Antarctic base during winter. Forget about having large space for entertainment like a football stadium or a theater. I think that after a few months of that regimen people will start to appreciate more life on good old Earth.
I agree that living conditions will undoubtedly be hard at first, but will only improve from there.
The first humans to live on Mars will almost certainly already have gone through many months/years of rigorous on-Earth testing to ensure they don't go stir crazy. Indeed, MARS-500 is a wonderful, recent example of research into this area.
By the time 'ordinary' humans get to Mars, there should be a reasonable amount of infrastructure (power/water/heat) already in place to support a population.
As for entertainment, I don't imagine that football stadiums or theatres will be required in the future if everyone had access to something like an Oculus Rift.
The first humans to live on Mars will almost certainly already have gone through many months/years of rigorous on-Earth testing to ensure they don't go stir crazy. Indeed, MARS-500 is a wonderful, recent example of research into this area.
By the time 'ordinary' humans get to Mars, there should be a reasonable amount of infrastructure (power/water/heat) already in place to support a population.
As for entertainment, I don't imagine that football stadiums or theatres will be required in the future if everyone had access to something like an Oculus Rift.
Nothing is unmanageable, and it is obvious that an engineered habitat will be less "diverse" than Earth that have evolved for billions of years. Take food for example. The basics will be available anywhere in the Solar system, but you are not going to eat fresh seafood or truffle. I know that this sounds pretty trivial, but lots of what we are taking for granted on Earth will need lots of careful planning and execution to get elsewhere.
Just imagine how screwed up thing would have to get on earth for it earth to be on par with mars. The air is unbreathable, there are no living plants (or anything else) outside, the sun is dim, water is scarce, energy is scarce, and it is very very cold.
"Let's spend trillions and throw it into space"
The technical issue is not the matter. It's the sheer amount of resources for which the overwhelming majority of the human race will never see a benefit from in their lifetimes.
The technical issue is not the matter. It's the sheer amount of resources for which the overwhelming majority of the human race will never see a benefit from in their lifetimes.
perhaps the inverse is true, we send a load of people and a spend a huge amount of resources to be able to make an inhospitable planet, hospitable, through the means of huge domes etc.
Perhaps then we will realise how fortunate we are to have a planet where this is not required and that may cause us to increase our efforts to save earth.
I would agree however that finding a hospitable planet that did not require 'terraforming' would be the death knell for the earth. Mainly because the rich/powerful would see their exit and would happily use all of earths remaining resources to get themselves there even if it was at the cost of most of the rest of the population of earth and earth itself.
Perhaps then we will realise how fortunate we are to have a planet where this is not required and that may cause us to increase our efforts to save earth.
I would agree however that finding a hospitable planet that did not require 'terraforming' would be the death knell for the earth. Mainly because the rich/powerful would see their exit and would happily use all of earths remaining resources to get themselves there even if it was at the cost of most of the rest of the population of earth and earth itself.
'I would agree however that finding a hospitable planet that did not require 'terraforming' '
Doesn't look like this is available in the solar system. Even the jovian moons MAY be habitable, but living there would certainly not be a pleasure.
Planets around other stars are currently a little hard to reach. Science certainly need more (earth- ) time to get there.
Doesn't look like this is available in the solar system. Even the jovian moons MAY be habitable, but living there would certainly not be a pleasure.
Planets around other stars are currently a little hard to reach. Science certainly need more (earth- ) time to get there.
I thin the Red Mars trilogy might be closer, corps and countries fighting over who can go and who is paid not to go
The selection process would be pretty draconian at the start and for quite some time. Can you imagine the protests over genetic and medical screening that would preclude a great many from ever being considered?
The selection process would be pretty draconian at the start and for quite some time. Can you imagine the protests over genetic and medical screening that would preclude a great many from ever being considered?
I don't think enough people are going to go to give the average person any real chance of getting there. Even if we send a million people that is still 0.014% of the population. I think it's more likely that we send far fewer people and let the population grow for mars-born children.
Transportation to mars is incredibly expensive. Even with reusable rockets refueling on mars (and that would be quite the accomplishment) it would still be incredible expensive to send 1,000,000 people.
Transportation to mars is incredibly expensive. Even with reusable rockets refueling on mars (and that would be quite the accomplishment) it would still be incredible expensive to send 1,000,000 people.
Consider the following a thought experiment and not some ideology worth attacking.
This type of discussion always reminds me of a story Terence Mckenna told (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLikdK8LjmE). To paraphrase, a vine refused to grow onto a branch of a tree in his backyard. One day, while contemplating this unfortunate affair, he witnessed the branch fall off the tree. He realized that the vine 'sensed' the instability. He then thought that the complex ecosystem of Earth might have a similar mechanism and that it might be aware that the Sun will explode at some point in the future, destroying all life. In anticipation for this inevitability, the human race (or another advanced species) was called forth to extend life/consciousness beyond the confides of our eventual death trap.
So why tell this story? What if the destruction of ones home planet is part of the evolutionary process of advanced consciousness? The same way that a fetus must purge itself from the womb or risk death by toxicity. In weird paradoxical way, those that pollute planet Earth might be playing their role as designed.
It's worth noting that I'm 100% for ecologically sound technological advancement and a society that doesn't destroy the environment. But part of me thinks everything is going according to plan, when viewed from a large enough perspective.
This type of discussion always reminds me of a story Terence Mckenna told (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLikdK8LjmE). To paraphrase, a vine refused to grow onto a branch of a tree in his backyard. One day, while contemplating this unfortunate affair, he witnessed the branch fall off the tree. He realized that the vine 'sensed' the instability. He then thought that the complex ecosystem of Earth might have a similar mechanism and that it might be aware that the Sun will explode at some point in the future, destroying all life. In anticipation for this inevitability, the human race (or another advanced species) was called forth to extend life/consciousness beyond the confides of our eventual death trap.
So why tell this story? What if the destruction of ones home planet is part of the evolutionary process of advanced consciousness? The same way that a fetus must purge itself from the womb or risk death by toxicity. In weird paradoxical way, those that pollute planet Earth might be playing their role as designed.
It's worth noting that I'm 100% for ecologically sound technological advancement and a society that doesn't destroy the environment. But part of me thinks everything is going according to plan, when viewed from a large enough perspective.
Earth is not intelligent. Species can and will drive themselves to extinction via evolution.
The destruction of Earth may be the only way to make humanity successful in the long term - that was the view given in some of Asimov's stories. Or it may just be a way to kill ourselves. The ecosystem as a whole is not an optimized complex system like a vine; it has not been subject to evolutionary pressure. There is no plan; the outcome will be down entirely to luck and our own decisions.
The destruction of Earth may be the only way to make humanity successful in the long term - that was the view given in some of Asimov's stories. Or it may just be a way to kill ourselves. The ecosystem as a whole is not an optimized complex system like a vine; it has not been subject to evolutionary pressure. There is no plan; the outcome will be down entirely to luck and our own decisions.
Or on the flip-side once people see how crappy life on Mars is, they will realized that we need to take better care of the paradise we have been living in?
>As an alternative to possibly engendering environmental apathy, imagine a scenario akin to the Cold War, except that one of the superpowers has a million citizens on Mars, and the other doesn't. Does MAD still apply, or does the interplanetary superpower suddenly becoming all the more willing to watch the world burn?
Or do you just get a third superpower less invested in the fate of home planet?
Or do you just get a third superpower less invested in the fate of home planet?
I have no doubt that given enough time and enough people born on Mars, the population of Mars will become more and more uninterested in the politics of Earth. We've seen it happen so often in colonization around the planet, there's no doubt that if a Mars colony is successful that we will see the same thing.
No one born on Mars is going to have any reason to care about what happens on Earth any more than the people of one continent care about the day-to-day life of people on another continent.
No one born on Mars is going to have any reason to care about what happens on Earth any more than the people of one continent care about the day-to-day life of people on another continent.
I think it's true that Martians will feel a great cultural separation from Earthlings (note to self: think of a better demonym), but I don't think it's true that colonies have historically become disinterested in the politics of their founding countries (be sure to consider only colonies that establish new populations shipped in from a host country rather than subjugating natives, since AFAIK Mars has no natives to subjugate).
> No one born on Mars is going to have any reason to care
> about what happens on Earth any more than the people of
> one continent care about the day-to-day life of people on
> another continent.
You follow big news events happening elsewhere, but that is far different from caring about the day-to-day life of people. Mars would have a CNN equivalent to broadcast what is happening on Earth as well. But how much of the international news focuses on the impact back home? We're worried about ISIS because we might have to send troops to fight or risk them somehow endangering us directly (attacks in other countries, long range missiles, etc). We're worried about the ebola outbreak because there is potential to spread to our own nation. We're interested in the Hong Kong protests because of the impact that China has on the international economy. Watch CNN or Fox or Sky or whatever and listen to how often they will say "And what is the impact to [insert your country]?" or "How long until we're facing this threat in [country]?"
What on Earth (literally) could threaten the Martians once they've become self-sustaining? The only time they would care about what happens on Earth from anything more than a pure curiosity standpoint is when they are dependent on Earth for survival. After that point, until we develop ships fast enough that we can get to Mars as fast as we can get across the Atlantic and trade once again becomes an issue, who cares what happens to Earth? Mars is just fine.
What on Earth (literally) could threaten the Martians once they've become self-sustaining? The only time they would care about what happens on Earth from anything more than a pure curiosity standpoint is when they are dependent on Earth for survival. After that point, until we develop ships fast enough that we can get to Mars as fast as we can get across the Atlantic and trade once again becomes an issue, who cares what happens to Earth? Mars is just fine.
however the people on mars would have been supported significantly more by people from earth, both in getting to Mars and maintaining a colony before it became self sufficient. So it would take a generation or two after full sustainability for this sort of mindset to come into play in the younger generations, perhaps 4th and 5th generation martians.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the existence of distant relatives in Oceania (rather a lot of them if you include the fellow English-speaking capitalists in Australia and New Zealand) was ever seriously advanced as an argument in favour of MUAD wouldn't necessarily be a bad end to the Cold War from a US point of view.
Morality has nothing do with environmental apathy.
Survival takes precedence over morality and convenience, that much is obvious. People will violate morals in the name of survival.
The question of saving the environment is not a moral question but one of survival. The irony about it all is, if saving the environment is about survival why do people still don't care?
Ask yourself, "If I care about the environment, if I care about my survival, why do I pollute it by driving a car to work every morning?" The answer is deceptively obvious. I direct you to an insightful article by Garrett Hardin describing a phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
Survival takes precedence over morality and convenience, that much is obvious. People will violate morals in the name of survival.
The question of saving the environment is not a moral question but one of survival. The irony about it all is, if saving the environment is about survival why do people still don't care?
Ask yourself, "If I care about the environment, if I care about my survival, why do I pollute it by driving a car to work every morning?" The answer is deceptively obvious. I direct you to an insightful article by Garrett Hardin describing a phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
> I can't help but wonder if the mere existence of a sustainable off-world colony would cause humans on Earth to give even less of a damn about maintaining a habitable planet. [...] does the interplanetary superpower suddenly becoming all the more willing to watch the world burn?
If you're interested in fiction along those lines, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars) seems right up your alley. I'm about half way through the first book, and it's starting to delve into whether or not the distant, Earth-based powers that financed initial settlement have any ability to actually influence or control the resulting Martian population. Environmental concerns are also pretty explicitly considered. Definitely a fun read.
If you're interested in fiction along those lines, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars) seems right up your alley. I'm about half way through the first book, and it's starting to delve into whether or not the distant, Earth-based powers that financed initial settlement have any ability to actually influence or control the resulting Martian population. Environmental concerns are also pretty explicitly considered. Definitely a fun read.
Agreed, these books are interesting and cover the geopolitical aspects of a mars colony attempting to break away from the control a dying earth government.
Imagine an island with two tribes, except that one of the tribes has a boat, and the other doesn't. Do both tribes want to preserve the coconut trees on the island, or is one tribe willing to take all of the coconuts with them on their boat?
Sure. And that would suck. But that's not an argument against boats. Take the bigger perspective. The universe is bigger than you can ever imagine, on any scale.
Sure. And that would suck. But that's not an argument against boats. Take the bigger perspective. The universe is bigger than you can ever imagine, on any scale.
I wasn't intending it as an argument against boats, but your scenario becomes quite bleak when you add in the fact that there exist less than a dozen islands in the world, and only one of them is known to actually support coconut trees by dint of not being perpetually on fire.
"The universe is bigger than you can ever imagine" indeed, and I'm not advocating against space exploration. But humans as a species will never venture beyond the solar system; self-replicating robots designed to withstand 200,000 years of space travel might.
"The universe is bigger than you can ever imagine" indeed, and I'm not advocating against space exploration. But humans as a species will never venture beyond the solar system; self-replicating robots designed to withstand 200,000 years of space travel might.
An off-world population is extremely vulnerable to attack from space.
And even with a million people, Mars would be a long way from resupplying or repopulating a major country composed of hundreds of millions of people.
And even with a million people, Mars would be a long way from resupplying or repopulating a major country composed of hundreds of millions of people.
You act like it is our choice whether the earth remains habitable or not. That remains to be seen (rather unlikely in my opinion). Sure we can affect it but I think in the end it really isn't up to us.
most of the biggest users of earth's resources already don't care (think companies that prioritize profit over everything else), so why would you think that it would be worst?
According to Futurama, you are correct.
[deleted]
To all the naysayers and party poopers in this thread, I would like to bring to your attention the following excerpt:
Calling multi-planetary life an insurance policy “for life as we know it,” the 40-year-old physicist/entrepreneur/inventor warned that catastrophic natural or man-made disasters -- such as the planetoid collision that wiped out the dinosaurs eons ago or nuclear holocaust or climate change -- could someday wipe out humankind.
Space exploration “is the next natural step” in the 3.8-billion year evolution of life on earth, he said.
Musk suggested that .25% of the nation's gross domestic product would be an “appropriate” expenditure by the United States on space exploration, which he said is roughly the percentage an individual spends on life insurance. Space exploration spending, he said, should be "much less than we spend on health care, but maybe more than we spend on lipstick." (http://press.org/news-multimedia/news/space-exploration-crit...)
Now, before you start complaining about climate change, gamma rays and comparing him to a disillusioned clown, answer the question: is it reasonable for us to spend more money on space exploration than lipstick?
EDIT: Talk about people missing the point. Keep on hating, just let Musk and people like him do their thing. Luckily, online comments have very little influence on the world.
Calling multi-planetary life an insurance policy “for life as we know it,” the 40-year-old physicist/entrepreneur/inventor warned that catastrophic natural or man-made disasters -- such as the planetoid collision that wiped out the dinosaurs eons ago or nuclear holocaust or climate change -- could someday wipe out humankind.
Space exploration “is the next natural step” in the 3.8-billion year evolution of life on earth, he said.
Musk suggested that .25% of the nation's gross domestic product would be an “appropriate” expenditure by the United States on space exploration, which he said is roughly the percentage an individual spends on life insurance. Space exploration spending, he said, should be "much less than we spend on health care, but maybe more than we spend on lipstick." (http://press.org/news-multimedia/news/space-exploration-crit...)
Now, before you start complaining about climate change, gamma rays and comparing him to a disillusioned clown, answer the question: is it reasonable for us to spend more money on space exploration than lipstick?
EDIT: Talk about people missing the point. Keep on hating, just let Musk and people like him do their thing. Luckily, online comments have very little influence on the world.
It is more reasonable to spend on AI research, wich can be done from comfy Earth, and truly is THE NEXT logical evolution for bilogical life. Why would we want to carry this perishable resource-needy bodies into space colonization/exploration if we can go in semi-indestructible digital form?
God creates humans, humans kills God.
Humans create AI, AI kills Humans.
The problem with creating something, is how do we know how it will judge its creator? The thought of creating another form of sentience scares me on a very deep philosophical level.
Humans create AI, AI kills Humans.
The problem with creating something, is how do we know how it will judge its creator? The thought of creating another form of sentience scares me on a very deep philosophical level.
Backtrack a little to "God creates humans" and take another path: life happened then evolved, digital life may be the next step. Do you still feel scared down this new path?
This was a bit of play of words from Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldblum's speech about dinosaurs. It wasn't meant to convent a theist view point, if anything it nearly quotes Nietzsche about Man killing God.
My point is when life evolves, what it evolves from is destroyed in the process. As I represent the lower step, yes I am afraid. Natural Selection is nature selecting the more competitive life form. Nature isn't kind about this if earthquakes, asteroids, super novi, volcanoes taught you nothing.
Have you ever wonder why there is only one member of Homo genius on earth? We killed them all. Our species raped and murdered its way to dominance. We were faster, smarter, and better looking. We out hunted their lands until they starved, we stole any member we found attractive, and we killed them over berry patches and watering holes.
The difference is 5, 10 million years ago. Spears, Rocks, Fists, Feets were simple weapons. Today, we nerve gas, weaponized smallpox, atomic bombs. The best part is, most of those things will barely harm silicon based AI.
I have no reason to believe any other step in evolution would be any less violent then every single step before it. And as I represent the old, I know the point of that step will be rid nature of me.
My point is when life evolves, what it evolves from is destroyed in the process. As I represent the lower step, yes I am afraid. Natural Selection is nature selecting the more competitive life form. Nature isn't kind about this if earthquakes, asteroids, super novi, volcanoes taught you nothing.
Have you ever wonder why there is only one member of Homo genius on earth? We killed them all. Our species raped and murdered its way to dominance. We were faster, smarter, and better looking. We out hunted their lands until they starved, we stole any member we found attractive, and we killed them over berry patches and watering holes.
The difference is 5, 10 million years ago. Spears, Rocks, Fists, Feets were simple weapons. Today, we nerve gas, weaponized smallpox, atomic bombs. The best part is, most of those things will barely harm silicon based AI.
I have no reason to believe any other step in evolution would be any less violent then every single step before it. And as I represent the old, I know the point of that step will be rid nature of me.
If we consider that this new form (humans) has annihilated countless of species and might kill the entire planet soon, imagine what the next logical step in the evolution might be capable of.
Keeping it framed that way, do mice care that humans progress? Is it meaningful that something that "evolved" (or generically, was in some way created) from us succeeds?
In particular, if there are already other advanced races in the universe, is it actually meaningful that new advanced sentience that is wholly unlike us is added to that set of races, simply because of some historical connection to us?
In particular, if there are already other advanced races in the universe, is it actually meaningful that new advanced sentience that is wholly unlike us is added to that set of races, simply because of some historical connection to us?
is it reasonable for us to spend more money on space exploration than lipstick?
This is a textbook false dichotomy. Almost everything that is a long term investment falls prey to things which offer marginal benefit.
This is a textbook false dichotomy. Almost everything that is a long term investment falls prey to things which offer marginal benefit.
> is it reasonable for us to spend more money on space exploration than lipstick?
hell yeah
hell yeah
> is it reasonable for us to spend more money on space exploration than lipstick?
Like, if really rich people like Musk want to spend that kind of money on it, fine. But otherwise? No, it's not really reasonable to spend more on exploring space than on lipstick, and it's a pretty damn condescending question to even ask.
Like, if really rich people like Musk want to spend that kind of money on it, fine. But otherwise? No, it's not really reasonable to spend more on exploring space than on lipstick, and it's a pretty damn condescending question to even ask.
Besides being condescending and bordering on the nonsensical, the U.S. spends way, way more on space exploration than lipstick. Lipstick & lip gloss sales are ~$500M annually[1], while NASA's budget averages around $15B in constant 2007 dollars[2].
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230445980...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230445980...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
its better to habitat earth like planets.
I find an interesting intersection with his Tesla efforts (and perhaps more grand, the battery plant in Nevada)that can potentially provide mechanical autonoma on said colony without the need for fossil fuels and their high initial investment costs. Is he picking his earth bound investments in a manner that could carry forward into space?
Define 'future'. A million years? What when the Sun has swallowed the Earth and Mars? I don't think biological humans will colonize space, not even the Moon, digital humans will. The Singularity is coming, hopefully within our lifespan.
All this talk of sending people to Mars seems like putting the cart before the horse. If you have the technogy to not die on Mars, why not start with, say, underwater cities on Earth? At least there you'd have a ready supply of several life-supporting elements that would be absent on Mars. As it is, we've never tried to ensure anybody's long-term survival under conditions anywhere near as harsh as Mars — no air, no nitrogen, no readily available water, no indigenous animals to hunt, no fossil fuels, no geothermal energy, no hydro or windmills.
I never see plans to get around this with real-world technology — it's always just hand-waved as something we'll figure out. But it seems like the "letting people live natural lives under utterly inhospitable conditions" part has a lot more to do with ensuring humanity's survival than the Mars part.
I never see plans to get around this with real-world technology — it's always just hand-waved as something we'll figure out. But it seems like the "letting people live natural lives under utterly inhospitable conditions" part has a lot more to do with ensuring humanity's survival than the Mars part.
why not start with, say, underwater cities on Earth?
Because they don't want to live on underwater cities on Earth. They want to live on Mars.
Because they don't want to live on underwater cities on Earth. They want to live on Mars.
Who wants to live on Mars?
This is a legitimate question, so I don't think downvotes are warranted. Elon Musk may want to live on Mars (and in fact I have at least one friend who would abandon everything and take a one-way ticket to Mars in a heartbeat), but the sentiment expressed here of using a Martian population as insurance against an Earthborne cataclysm requires a functioning, self-sufficient civilization composed of more than just a cadre of explorers and thrill-seekers.
You'll need to find a way entice doctors, farmers, miners, and other specialized professions to leave everything behind and consign themselves to death on a dark and barren rock. Historically, colonists have been motivated to such lengths for religious and political reasons. For example, perhaps libertarians will flock to Mars for freedom from oppressive governments. (Hey Bioshock developers: hint hint.)
You'll need to find a way entice doctors, farmers, miners, and other specialized professions to leave everything behind and consign themselves to death on a dark and barren rock. Historically, colonists have been motivated to such lengths for religious and political reasons. For example, perhaps libertarians will flock to Mars for freedom from oppressive governments. (Hey Bioshock developers: hint hint.)
The relative unpopularity of colonizing places like Alaska says a lot though. If you don't want to be hassled over your political or religious beliefs and are willing to go a year between supply runs, there are entire towns in Alaska that are perfect for you, or you could found your own. Curiously, few people do this.
I curretly live in a small town in Alaska. No mater where you go, some people will still hassle you over political and religious beliefs. We even have internet access (where I live it maxes out at 22MBps) And while supply runs do happen infrequently, we have Amazon (or any other online provider) to provide us with resupply.
I don't know if I would go as far as relating Alaska to Mars. Certainly the appeal to Mars is something more unique than just living in a small town.
I don't know if I would go as far as relating Alaska to Mars. Certainly the appeal to Mars is something more unique than just living in a small town.
Alaska isn't another planet, and therefore lacks the allure that living on another planet has for many people.
It really is that simple.
It really is that simple.
Alaska is relatively inhospitable, cold, distant from main human cultural centers. Mars is vastly more so. While science fiction might give an imaginary fantasy of life on Mars appeal, if there were somehow a fact rather than a fantasy of some kind of habitation being possible there, the reality wouldn't be pretty. I'd imagine we'd use the planet as a penal colony for the dregs of society if it were a reality rather than a fantasy.
Also, I wonder how your version of "many people" compares to the population of Alaska.
Also, I wonder how your version of "many people" compares to the population of Alaska.
So people only think they'd like to live on Mars, but you know they really don't?
No, I don't know, just imagine it would be different than how they imagine it. I don't see living there through the lens of science fiction so much as biology.
There are people I think should live on Mars, who wouldn't agree.
There's a big difference between insisting that you want to live on Mars, and actually wanting to live on Mars.
What percentage of your friends want to live on Mars? If it's more than a ten of one percent then that sounds like there are plenty of people who want to live there.
I hardly doubt Elon Musk would want to live in Mars his remaining life time.
That's speculation. What if there were significant mineral resources, attractive tax rules, a large, highly motivated labor pool, and a lot of solar energy that could be harvested to drive that economy?
Could be a playground he couldn't pass up.
Could be a playground he couldn't pass up.
Of course, he might just be pushed out the airlock as soon as he annoys "the labor pool". Idealists who create remote colonies are in for disappointment. It were ever thus.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact."
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-and-the-giving-...
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-and-the-giving-...
Me, for one. I've wanted to since I was a kid, and was quite vocal about it before StartX even existed. Friends of mine know that if I only had myself to consider, I'd take a one-way ticket in a heartbeat and live there the rest of my life. Factors such as a significant other mean that I don't just have myself to consider anymore, but I would still love to live there.
I do. I've wanted to get off of Earth and into space for as long as I can remember. I would grab a one-way ticket to Mars with only the merest moment's hesitation.
I also have zero interest in an underwater city.
I also have zero interest in an underwater city.
I want to live on Mars
Who is this "they"? Jacques Cousteau would have loved to live underwater, and built the Conshelfs in part to experiment with the possibility. I've watched documentaries about marine biologists who visit one of the undersea labs, and want to be able to live there. A quick search even finds http://underseacolony.com/prime/mainhub_revA.html , of people who want to establish an undersea colony.
Finding people to inhabit the doomsday refuge is the least of the problems with building it.
Agreed. For people to survive on Mars, earthlings would have to build the sealed cities there using drone technology, then trial them out by first populating them with animals controlled with that same technology. Earthlings would need the experience learnt by doing it on the Moon first, with its more workable one-second response time to drone commands. The sealed cities would be built like new Chinese cities today, the drone operators having learnt their skills on actual huge building sites like Luozhangmen. If there's nuclear devastation in the Mideast or annihilation by disease in Africa in the near future, such remote drone operation skills will likely be learnt by many competing players in those places. The encryption technology used in the droning must be unbreakable, so players must design and manufacture their own chips. And the people who do inhabit such cities on the Moon and Mars will probably have been specially bred in a country not subject to the restrictive laws governing biological innovation prevalent nowadays in the U.S. and Europe.
I agree, but it isn't really related to Elon Musk's goal. He is specifically worried about anything that might wipe us off the planet at some point. Moving to yet uninhabited places on earth won't do nearly as much to protect us from that.
That said, if we do follow your advice, we'll likely learn a lot in the process that can help us get to Mars.
That said, if we do follow your advice, we'll likely learn a lot in the process that can help us get to Mars.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fifty years of successful Martian colonization would be a good start towards self-sufficiency on that planet.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Chile and Argentina have colonies there, to strengthen their territorial claims. You might not have heard of it but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica has. Quoting from it "On the other hand, it is the very impracticability of permanent colonization that has contributed to the failure of any of the territorial claims to receive international recognition."
If Chile or Argentina could find a way to practicably expand their settlement on the continent, rather than subsidize it like they do now, then they likely would. That they haven't suggests they haven't figured out how.
In any case, Tristan da Cunha is in a much more hospitable area, but its self-sufficiency is shaky. One fire, for example, can ruin their economy and require external support.
I'm amazed that you think it requires an attempt at permanent colonization of Mars in order to get the benefits, when we would get the same benefits here on Earth, should we try to have a permanent, self-sufficient colony on Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, or Nunavut, with lower risks.
If Chile or Argentina could find a way to practicably expand their settlement on the continent, rather than subsidize it like they do now, then they likely would. That they haven't suggests they haven't figured out how.
In any case, Tristan da Cunha is in a much more hospitable area, but its self-sufficiency is shaky. One fire, for example, can ruin their economy and require external support.
I'm amazed that you think it requires an attempt at permanent colonization of Mars in order to get the benefits, when we would get the same benefits here on Earth, should we try to have a permanent, self-sufficient colony on Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, or Nunavut, with lower risks.
Get as many people as excited about the prospect of living in Antarctica (or wherever you'd like) as Mars, and then you can see about those benefits.
Maybe you can even suggest it to Musk. "Mr. Musk, I disagree that Mars is exciting. Please stop building rockets, and start looking into colonizing something safer here on Earth. Thank you."
Maybe you can even suggest it to Musk. "Mr. Musk, I disagree that Mars is exciting. Please stop building rockets, and start looking into colonizing something safer here on Earth. Thank you."
That's a very different argument. That's "we will colonize Mars because it's our dream", not "we will colonize Mars because the benefits in technology payoff are worth it."
People climb Everest because it's their dream, because the intangibles are worth the tens of thousands of dollars to them. Chile and Argentina subsidize their colonies on Antarctica because of dreams of land.
But even Denmark hasn't figured out how to make Greenland profitable. It continues to subsidize life on that island. That's about 60,000 people who would love to be self-sufficient. Is the problem only that they are insufficiently excited? Or that there aren't enough people there? How many more do you need?
People climb Everest because it's their dream, because the intangibles are worth the tens of thousands of dollars to them. Chile and Argentina subsidize their colonies on Antarctica because of dreams of land.
But even Denmark hasn't figured out how to make Greenland profitable. It continues to subsidize life on that island. That's about 60,000 people who would love to be self-sufficient. Is the problem only that they are insufficiently excited? Or that there aren't enough people there? How many more do you need?
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.
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".
That's true. However, being on Mars would allows us to re colonize Earth N years after a cataclysmic event.
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.
A sufficiently large impact.
Sufficiently large to do what?
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
"collision between the Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
"collision between the Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars"
Martian colonies would in all likelihood be dependent on Earth for a very, very long time, if not forever. There are a lot of Earth resources they'd never have access to. If life on Earth was wiped, there would be a fair chance than the colonists on Mars would slowly perish after the first blight took out their crops, or what have you.
It would certainly be difficult to build a self sufficient Mars colony, but I don't think it's impossible. I agree that there would be a long time between the first landing and a self sufficient colony.
I'm not so certain self-sufficiency is possible. Humans are an animal in an ecosystem that sustains it, no matter how much we might kid ourselves otherwise. We aren't self-sufficient on Earth, but deeply dependent on our environment. There is a distinct chance we'd always need things from it. Besides biodiversity that couldn't exist on Mars, there are many natural resources that are a product of that ecosystem that Mars would never have. The needs for food, raw materials that are the basis for most medicines, natural materials for daily life (like wood, paper), and the loss of access to a biodiversity that has been central to human survival are something that I don't think there's any guarantee could be ever be replaced on Mars, though since I don't think there's any possibility of humans surviving there ever, it's kind of peripheral.
The longest a group of humans have gone without depending on earth's biosphere is 2 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2], so I suppose you are allowed to be skeptical. I am not skeptical, let me explain why. In the biosphere 2 experiment the 8 subjects lost weight the first year as they figured out how to manage an ecosystem, but they gained weight the second year. They could have kept going for significantly longer if they wanted to.
The first step would be a colony that can produce and clean its own air and water and some of its food. This seem achievable in the near term. The second step is a full ecosystem (needs almost no nutrients from earth), which is much harder but I think biosphere 2 is a good proof of concept. Mars is much colder with less sunlight so it is a much harder problem on Mars. The finial step is an independent industrial base. You mentioned medicine, but I'm more concerned with the microprocessors to keep the automation running. Humanity can survive without medicine, and with a few easy things like penicillin we can do quite well (we can also avoid bringing the majority of diseases to Mars in the first place). Without automation I don't think one person can produce enough resource to sustain themselves in such a hostile environment.
Self-sufficiency is hard and I think a million people is a good estimation of how large a Mars colony would be before it became truly self sufficient.
The first step would be a colony that can produce and clean its own air and water and some of its food. This seem achievable in the near term. The second step is a full ecosystem (needs almost no nutrients from earth), which is much harder but I think biosphere 2 is a good proof of concept. Mars is much colder with less sunlight so it is a much harder problem on Mars. The finial step is an independent industrial base. You mentioned medicine, but I'm more concerned with the microprocessors to keep the automation running. Humanity can survive without medicine, and with a few easy things like penicillin we can do quite well (we can also avoid bringing the majority of diseases to Mars in the first place). Without automation I don't think one person can produce enough resource to sustain themselves in such a hostile environment.
Self-sufficiency is hard and I think a million people is a good estimation of how large a Mars colony would be before it became truly self sufficient.
I don't think Biosphere 2 is a great example. In Mission 1 there were huge problems regulating CO2 and O2, their pollinators died, invasive insects took over, and they had continually increasing NO2 and CH4 gases. They eventually injected O2 from outside to make up for the decreasing levels, and when a participant got sick, they smuggled supplies back on their return. It was a disaster. And they had a door they could open to walk out.
The issues with getting something like an ecosystem on Mars would be much more dramatic, esp. given that while there are some ways of getting O2 and carbon, there isn't a source of nitrogen on Mars that we know (we assume there's fixed nitrogen in minerals, though that's very hard to breathe). Any loss of significant life forms would need to be replenished from Earth. And while some life forms will probably manage in 38% gravity, there's no reason to assume many would have long term viability (especially vertebrates like humans who depend on Earth gravity to function).
Getting an ecosystem on Mars that could support humans doesn't seem like it's in the realm of possibility to me, especially when there's good reason to believe humans themselves wouldn't be able to survive for long periods there unless something managed to solve that very hard problem. You could use a centrifuge for the long trip out (and nobody could survive without that), but you can't just live in a centrifuge on Mars forever.
The issues with getting something like an ecosystem on Mars would be much more dramatic, esp. given that while there are some ways of getting O2 and carbon, there isn't a source of nitrogen on Mars that we know (we assume there's fixed nitrogen in minerals, though that's very hard to breathe). Any loss of significant life forms would need to be replenished from Earth. And while some life forms will probably manage in 38% gravity, there's no reason to assume many would have long term viability (especially vertebrates like humans who depend on Earth gravity to function).
Getting an ecosystem on Mars that could support humans doesn't seem like it's in the realm of possibility to me, especially when there's good reason to believe humans themselves wouldn't be able to survive for long periods there unless something managed to solve that very hard problem. You could use a centrifuge for the long trip out (and nobody could survive without that), but you can't just live in a centrifuge on Mars forever.
I wonder how much the complete and utter darkness of the deep see would psychologically deter/impact the decision for underwater cities?
Also while Mars does get crazy cold -225'F it can also get up to a nice 70'F at noon. The deep ocean is 0-3'F with not much fluctuation. Of course we could engineer some water cycling around the cities to bring cold up and warm down.
The other psychological choice to make is, "Would you prefer to live in a dwelling surrounded by almost no atmospheric pressure, or intensely high atmospheric pressure?"
Also while Mars does get crazy cold -225'F it can also get up to a nice 70'F at noon. The deep ocean is 0-3'F with not much fluctuation. Of course we could engineer some water cycling around the cities to bring cold up and warm down.
The other psychological choice to make is, "Would you prefer to live in a dwelling surrounded by almost no atmospheric pressure, or intensely high atmospheric pressure?"
Agreed completely. If we can make a livable colony on Mars, surely we can make a livable colony on Earth even after the full effects of climate change have occurred.
The major threat of climate change is not to things so expansive as atmospheric viability, but only to present geography and weather cycles. There will still be breathable oxygen in the atmosphere, there will still be water, animals, and vegetation on the surface. As dystopic as a post-climate-change world may look, it undoubtedly looks better than Mars.
This is probably even true after massive nuclear winters, etc. I don't think there's anything humans can do that would so disadvantage Earth as to make another planet in our solar system better suited to human life. The only thing that may require external planetary colonization would be an extinction-scale geological or astronomical event (i.e., something totally outside of human control).
The major threat of climate change is not to things so expansive as atmospheric viability, but only to present geography and weather cycles. There will still be breathable oxygen in the atmosphere, there will still be water, animals, and vegetation on the surface. As dystopic as a post-climate-change world may look, it undoubtedly looks better than Mars.
This is probably even true after massive nuclear winters, etc. I don't think there's anything humans can do that would so disadvantage Earth as to make another planet in our solar system better suited to human life. The only thing that may require external planetary colonization would be an extinction-scale geological or astronomical event (i.e., something totally outside of human control).
Considering that past CO2 levels have been well past 1500 ppm rather than the ~450 ppm at the moment, and considering that it is, after all, fossilized carbon that we are digging up and we are putting that carbon - you know the building block of life - back into the atmospheric carbon cycle where it bloody well came from, there is no reason to think some future Earth will be dystopic at all. It will if anything be more bountiful and teeming with life. More water vapour + more carbon = more life.
Here's a thought, C3 plant life goes extinct if CO2 falls below ~200ppm. No more rice, no more wheat, no more potatoes, no more evergreen trees. Life on earth would probably suffer a good deal more in the long run (in geological terms) if we left all fossilized carbon in the ground.
Here's a thought, C3 plant life goes extinct if CO2 falls below ~200ppm. No more rice, no more wheat, no more potatoes, no more evergreen trees. Life on earth would probably suffer a good deal more in the long run (in geological terms) if we left all fossilized carbon in the ground.
Sure, the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is fine for life in general, but I don't really have a huge emotional attachment to the shallow-sea fish that will have all that lovely extra living space right where Miami used to be. The future Earth will not be dystopic for biodiversity, but it will make things more difficult for us, and that is, ultimately, what I care the most about.
I get that argument. Sure, it may be bad for certain ecosystems we currently rely on, or for the current configuration of human civilization. But the article we're discussing mentions the next 4 galactic orbits. No one will give a toss about Miami in 100 million years. I will be surprised if it is relevant in 10,000.
Do you have any convincing arguments for why a wetter, warmer, carbon-rich world would be a downside for humans on that scale? If I were betting on us surviving, I'd take that over an ice-age any day of the week.
Do you have any convincing arguments for why a wetter, warmer, carbon-rich world would be a downside for humans on that scale? If I were betting on us surviving, I'd take that over an ice-age any day of the week.
Land, and especially coast, which is a lot of the areas most suitable for human habitation. Earth's surface is already 70% water; the ideal is probably 50%, so we should be looking to lower the water level rather than raise it.
Parasites and diseases, much more common in warmer, wetter places. You'll notice that on the whole tropical civilizations have been less successful than those in colder climes; there's a wide variety of possible reasons for that, but the effects of parasite load on health and general intelligence are real. Our technology/economy/etc. has so far been much better at helping us live in inhospitable cold places (Norway) than at dealing with tropical parasites and diseases.
Not to mention that a climatic shift on this timescale, in either direction, has historically meant about 20% of extant species going extinct. How lucky do you feel?
Parasites and diseases, much more common in warmer, wetter places. You'll notice that on the whole tropical civilizations have been less successful than those in colder climes; there's a wide variety of possible reasons for that, but the effects of parasite load on health and general intelligence are real. Our technology/economy/etc. has so far been much better at helping us live in inhospitable cold places (Norway) than at dealing with tropical parasites and diseases.
Not to mention that a climatic shift on this timescale, in either direction, has historically meant about 20% of extant species going extinct. How lucky do you feel?
"It will if anything be more bountiful and teeming with life."
In the near term, it's going to cause tremendous dislocation of human civilizations. In poorer areas, climate change will cause millions to die and tens of millions to suffer. That's the undeniable moral component.
Ecologically, climate change will hasten the mass extinction of species. A world covered in kudzo, algae, and roaches is technically "teeming with life", but I'm not sure it's the aesthetic vision you have in mind.
In the near term, it's going to cause tremendous dislocation of human civilizations. In poorer areas, climate change will cause millions to die and tens of millions to suffer. That's the undeniable moral component.
Ecologically, climate change will hasten the mass extinction of species. A world covered in kudzo, algae, and roaches is technically "teeming with life", but I'm not sure it's the aesthetic vision you have in mind.
> why not start with, say, underwater cities on Earth?
Or you know, the boundless vast uninhabited deserts that cover the world.
Or you know, the boundless vast uninhabited deserts that cover the world.
Underwater cities would be cool. What tech would be transferable to Martian living? Recycling water? Aquaponics?
And, really, there are plenty of inhospitible places on Earth surface where people are already living.
Why don't we spend time working out how to lift people from garbage picking for example?
And, really, there are plenty of inhospitible places on Earth surface where people are already living.
Why don't we spend time working out how to lift people from garbage picking for example?
Invention is best fuelled by need. A motivation to colonise new worlds (either as a extinction safeguard as it's proposed in the article, or merely for economic exploitation) will drive the journey's price down. And a need for ways to stay in those new worlds will push technology so we don't die on Mars. And so on.
Nobody is going to spend billions to live in cities underwater. Simply, nobody wants to live underwater, or pay for it, or there is enough to be gained from that (we hurt the oceans enough already with fishing and others). And the eventual possible gain of maybe applicable useful knowledge is not enough to warrant the inversion.
It would be cool, though.
Nobody is going to spend billions to live in cities underwater. Simply, nobody wants to live underwater, or pay for it, or there is enough to be gained from that (we hurt the oceans enough already with fishing and others). And the eventual possible gain of maybe applicable useful knowledge is not enough to warrant the inversion.
It would be cool, though.
In the short term yes and I wouldn't expect Mars colonization to have an impact on our the survival of our species for at least 100 years. But in the very long run the sun isn't going to last forever and if resource exhaustion turns out to be a real problem there might only be a limited window for us to get started.
> But in the very long run the sun isn't going to last forever and if resource exhaustion turns out to be a real problem there might only be a limited window for us to get started.
I can't believe I'm still hearing "sun isn't going to last forever" and "us" juxtaposed, as though one had any bearing on the other.
1. Humans have existed as a distinct species for about 200,000 years.
2. Given the process of natural selection, in another 200,000 years we will have been replaced by something different than us -- not necessarily bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber, just different.
3. In a million years, there will be nothing remotely resembling human beings -- it will be as though we had never existed. But let's argue that there's some hint of us after a million years:
4. The sun will become a red giant and envelop the earth in somewhere north of five billion years, which is five thousand times longer than we can possibly exist as an identifiably distinct species, using the optimistic forecast of item (4) above.
We need to have some perspective about our relationship with nature. Evolution teaches us that we're not at all exceptional, but are a random answer to nature's constantly changing question, which is "who is fit today?"
This idea that we're somehow ordained inheritors of the planet, is to me a 21st century leftover of the religious outlook, which is that humans aren't just another species, competing in an open-ended contest with no entry requirements or registration fees.
Here today, gone tomorrow. We're not special, and life is not an ordained right, but a gift. I intend to appreciate my unearned gift. How about you?
I can't believe I'm still hearing "sun isn't going to last forever" and "us" juxtaposed, as though one had any bearing on the other.
1. Humans have existed as a distinct species for about 200,000 years.
2. Given the process of natural selection, in another 200,000 years we will have been replaced by something different than us -- not necessarily bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber, just different.
3. In a million years, there will be nothing remotely resembling human beings -- it will be as though we had never existed. But let's argue that there's some hint of us after a million years:
4. The sun will become a red giant and envelop the earth in somewhere north of five billion years, which is five thousand times longer than we can possibly exist as an identifiably distinct species, using the optimistic forecast of item (4) above.
We need to have some perspective about our relationship with nature. Evolution teaches us that we're not at all exceptional, but are a random answer to nature's constantly changing question, which is "who is fit today?"
This idea that we're somehow ordained inheritors of the planet, is to me a 21st century leftover of the religious outlook, which is that humans aren't just another species, competing in an open-ended contest with no entry requirements or registration fees.
Here today, gone tomorrow. We're not special, and life is not an ordained right, but a gift. I intend to appreciate my unearned gift. How about you?
> 1. Humans have existed as a distinct species for about 200,000 years.
No, that's wrong. Humans, genus Homo, have existed for about 2.5 million years; the subspecies H. sapiens sapiens for about 200,000. The species H. sapiens is a little less clear, there's debate over whether it starts around 200,000 years ago (and includes just a few subspecies, notably H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens idaltu) or whether it starts around 500,000 years ago and includes several others.
> 2. Given the process of natural selection, in another 200,000 years we will have been replaced by something different than us -- not necessarily bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber, just different.
Unlikely; while speciation requires time, time alone is not generally enough, and even if it were, there is no reason to expect the time from the last speciation event to now (whether 500,000 years or 200,000) to be the time from now to the next speciation event.
(Colonization of Mars -- if Earth-Mars interaction is limited once the colony is established -- might actually accelerate that, since the one thing that does contribute to speciation is geographical separation which prevents significant interbreeding between segments of the wider population.)
> 3. In a million years, there will be nothing remotely resembling human beings -- it will be as though we had never existed.
Human beings, genus Homo, have been around for two and half million years already, and H. sapiens (whether you take the narrower or broader view of the species) would be a flash-in-the-pan as species of its size, lifespan, and geographic range are concerned if it wasn't around for several million more (H. erectus -- with competing members of the genus Homo around on Earth for pretty much its whole time of existence -- lasted about 1.75 million years), and things "remotely resembling human beings" have been around significantly longer -- and can be expected to be around significantly longer than humans in the strict sense, unless humans are wiped out completely in a cataclysm rather than subjected to the kind of pressures that produce speciation.
> The sun will become a red giant and envelop the earth in somewhere north of five billion years, which is five thousand times longer than we can possibly exist as an identifiably distinct species, using the optimistic forecast of item (4) above.
The million year forecast isn't "optimistic"; while it may be unlikely that human beings would be around for 5 billion years, your particular argument for that point is, well, based on one controversial claim and a couple of unjustified claims that don't follow from that controversial claim.
No, that's wrong. Humans, genus Homo, have existed for about 2.5 million years; the subspecies H. sapiens sapiens for about 200,000. The species H. sapiens is a little less clear, there's debate over whether it starts around 200,000 years ago (and includes just a few subspecies, notably H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens idaltu) or whether it starts around 500,000 years ago and includes several others.
> 2. Given the process of natural selection, in another 200,000 years we will have been replaced by something different than us -- not necessarily bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber, just different.
Unlikely; while speciation requires time, time alone is not generally enough, and even if it were, there is no reason to expect the time from the last speciation event to now (whether 500,000 years or 200,000) to be the time from now to the next speciation event.
(Colonization of Mars -- if Earth-Mars interaction is limited once the colony is established -- might actually accelerate that, since the one thing that does contribute to speciation is geographical separation which prevents significant interbreeding between segments of the wider population.)
> 3. In a million years, there will be nothing remotely resembling human beings -- it will be as though we had never existed.
Human beings, genus Homo, have been around for two and half million years already, and H. sapiens (whether you take the narrower or broader view of the species) would be a flash-in-the-pan as species of its size, lifespan, and geographic range are concerned if it wasn't around for several million more (H. erectus -- with competing members of the genus Homo around on Earth for pretty much its whole time of existence -- lasted about 1.75 million years), and things "remotely resembling human beings" have been around significantly longer -- and can be expected to be around significantly longer than humans in the strict sense, unless humans are wiped out completely in a cataclysm rather than subjected to the kind of pressures that produce speciation.
> The sun will become a red giant and envelop the earth in somewhere north of five billion years, which is five thousand times longer than we can possibly exist as an identifiably distinct species, using the optimistic forecast of item (4) above.
The million year forecast isn't "optimistic"; while it may be unlikely that human beings would be around for 5 billion years, your particular argument for that point is, well, based on one controversial claim and a couple of unjustified claims that don't follow from that controversial claim.
> The million year forecast isn't "optimistic"; while it may be unlikely that human beings would be around for 5 billion years, your particular argument for that point is, well, based on one controversial claim and a couple of unjustified claims that don't follow from that controversial claim.
Where's the refutation of my point that we will have entirely disappeared in a million years, replaced by some other species? This isn't a philosophy debate, where words like "controversial" and "unjustified" carry weight among people trained in critical thought.
Where's the refutation of my point that we will have entirely disappeared in a million years, replaced by some other species? This isn't a philosophy debate, where words like "controversial" and "unjustified" carry weight among people trained in critical thought.
> Where's the refutation of my point that we will have entirely disappeared in a million years
Where's the support for the claim?
> This isn't a philosophy debate, where words like "controversial" and "unjustified" carry weight among people trained in critical thought.
"Unjustified" always carries weight among people trained in critical thought, at least, when its true -- i.e., no adequate support has been provided for the conclusion presented. You've simply asserted that humans have been around for only 200,000 years as a species (which is one of two common viewpoints about H. sapiens, though "humans" in this context usually means the genus Homo and not the species H. sapiens -- 500,000 is the other, because where exactly at what point H. sapiens becomes a distinct species is debated), and jumped from there to the conclusion that H. sapiens will be replaced in another 200,000 years and that nothing similar will be around in a million years. Neither of those conclusions follow from the premise, which itself is less-than-certainly correct.
Where's the support for the claim?
> This isn't a philosophy debate, where words like "controversial" and "unjustified" carry weight among people trained in critical thought.
"Unjustified" always carries weight among people trained in critical thought, at least, when its true -- i.e., no adequate support has been provided for the conclusion presented. You've simply asserted that humans have been around for only 200,000 years as a species (which is one of two common viewpoints about H. sapiens, though "humans" in this context usually means the genus Homo and not the species H. sapiens -- 500,000 is the other, because where exactly at what point H. sapiens becomes a distinct species is debated), and jumped from there to the conclusion that H. sapiens will be replaced in another 200,000 years and that nothing similar will be around in a million years. Neither of those conclusions follow from the premise, which itself is less-than-certainly correct.
> 2. Given the process of natural selection, in another 200,000 years we will have been replaced by something different than us -- not necessarily bigger or smaller, smarter or dumber, just different.
In the very, very long run, who knows.
But int the timescale of tens or even hundreds of thousands of years I don't think there will be any natural selection process that will apply to the current status of humanity as a species, unless for some reason civilization will fall and humans are scattered throughout the globe.
We've pretty much stopped evolving as a species through natural selection events. There's not much of that happening in the homogenized urban setting where the majority of people live, and will live for the foreseeable future.
Actually, having the current civilization as a substrate for the species does change the playing field considerably from what it was a few thousand years ago.
As for biodiversity creating some sort of 'better adapted species' to take over our position - the sad truth is that biodiversity is in rapid decline, and I don't know when it will stop. We are not killing the planet per se, only... homogenizing it and making it fit for humans.
In a million years, sure, who knows what will happen. But in the current mass extinction event - if we can feed the the human species it's very difficult for me to imagine anything will replace us when the timescale is only the current estimated age of the species.
Prepare to be rickrolled for the next 100k years. Or maybe we will move into some dense compute substrate made of exotic materials.
In the very, very long run, who knows.
But int the timescale of tens or even hundreds of thousands of years I don't think there will be any natural selection process that will apply to the current status of humanity as a species, unless for some reason civilization will fall and humans are scattered throughout the globe.
We've pretty much stopped evolving as a species through natural selection events. There's not much of that happening in the homogenized urban setting where the majority of people live, and will live for the foreseeable future.
Actually, having the current civilization as a substrate for the species does change the playing field considerably from what it was a few thousand years ago.
As for biodiversity creating some sort of 'better adapted species' to take over our position - the sad truth is that biodiversity is in rapid decline, and I don't know when it will stop. We are not killing the planet per se, only... homogenizing it and making it fit for humans.
In a million years, sure, who knows what will happen. But in the current mass extinction event - if we can feed the the human species it's very difficult for me to imagine anything will replace us when the timescale is only the current estimated age of the species.
Prepare to be rickrolled for the next 100k years. Or maybe we will move into some dense compute substrate made of exotic materials.
> We've pretty much stopped evolving as a species through natural selection events.
This is quite false. All that has happened is that we've (to some extent) replaced genes with memes, and memes evolve just like genes do.
Evolution is still underway, actively and blindly selecting individuals and ideas with equal efficiency.
> There's not much of that happening in the homogenized urban setting where the majority of people live, and will live for the foreseeable future.
I'll just give one example that falsifies the thesis -- what is called Asperger Syndrome (AS). A thousand years ago, someone having the behaviors associated with AS might be at a significant evolutionary disadvantage compared to someone who could pick more olives up off the ground. But today, the AS behaviors represent a distinct advantage because the environment has changed in ways that favor that mental wiring, such that a number of AS "sufferers" (to use the psychological terminology) are famous -- Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and many others identified as having AS.
AS is so obviously an advantage in modern times that another psychological school of thought called "Grit" goes so far as to describe the same behavior pattern as an advantage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)
Of course, the Grit people don't call it AS or even mention AS, they just say how advantageous it is to have the intense focus and obsession with only a few activities (or even one) this behavior produces in many modern success stories.
It's evolution at work. I'm sure many more examples could be found, less dramatic than this one.
Evolution is the central theory of biology, and it didn't just stop for human beings when we built the first TV set or began dwelling in arenas of pure thought -- quite the contrary.
This is quite false. All that has happened is that we've (to some extent) replaced genes with memes, and memes evolve just like genes do.
Evolution is still underway, actively and blindly selecting individuals and ideas with equal efficiency.
> There's not much of that happening in the homogenized urban setting where the majority of people live, and will live for the foreseeable future.
I'll just give one example that falsifies the thesis -- what is called Asperger Syndrome (AS). A thousand years ago, someone having the behaviors associated with AS might be at a significant evolutionary disadvantage compared to someone who could pick more olives up off the ground. But today, the AS behaviors represent a distinct advantage because the environment has changed in ways that favor that mental wiring, such that a number of AS "sufferers" (to use the psychological terminology) are famous -- Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and many others identified as having AS.
AS is so obviously an advantage in modern times that another psychological school of thought called "Grit" goes so far as to describe the same behavior pattern as an advantage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)
Of course, the Grit people don't call it AS or even mention AS, they just say how advantageous it is to have the intense focus and obsession with only a few activities (or even one) this behavior produces in many modern success stories.
It's evolution at work. I'm sure many more examples could be found, less dramatic than this one.
Evolution is the central theory of biology, and it didn't just stop for human beings when we built the first TV set or began dwelling in arenas of pure thought -- quite the contrary.
Success in the way you describe it has nothing to do with evolution. To choose someone at random - Sarah Palin is almost twice as successful as Gates or Einstein (she's had 5 children - those two only 3 each).
Unless people with AS / Grit have more children than those without, there's no selective pressure to increase the prevalence of the trait in the population. You could consider health of the children - so maybe you should count great-grandchildren rather than direct children.
BUT - I agree that evolution probably hasn't stopped - it just is selecting for different traits than it did 15,000 years ago. What exactly is being selected for in US in 2014, I can't say.
Unless people with AS / Grit have more children than those without, there's no selective pressure to increase the prevalence of the trait in the population. You could consider health of the children - so maybe you should count great-grandchildren rather than direct children.
BUT - I agree that evolution probably hasn't stopped - it just is selecting for different traits than it did 15,000 years ago. What exactly is being selected for in US in 2014, I can't say.
[deleted]
I think I was parroting Michio Kaku there about the end of natural selection for humans as a species.
You can hear his arguments and draw your own conclusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798
You can hear his arguments and draw your own conclusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798
Actually, we have _not_ stopped evolving because of natural selection. A significant proportion of people choose not to have kids nowadays, or are just having one child.
In a generation or five all this "I don't want kids because there are too many of us in this planet already" crap will be over, and we'll only have people left (in developed countries) that get drunk and don't use condoms and decide to have the kids anyway, people prone to religious belief systems that forbid contraception, and just people that plain have very strong ingrained urge to have a family/kids, despite career pressures and all the information/stimulus overload from internets and 24h connectivity and all.
I'm actually using a very inclusive sense of 'us' here, meaning any sort of life. I'd prefer intelligent life that I can emphasize with, but I'll take what I can get.
Humanity isn't that special and I'm sure intelligent life would arise again without us, but now that Earth has developed fungi that can digest cellulose Earth is never going to have this much fossil fuel sitting around again. Maybe that doesn't matter and humanity or some other species will colonize space anyways... but maybe it does.
Humanity isn't that special and I'm sure intelligent life would arise again without us, but now that Earth has developed fungi that can digest cellulose Earth is never going to have this much fossil fuel sitting around again. Maybe that doesn't matter and humanity or some other species will colonize space anyways... but maybe it does.
> I'm actually using a very inclusive sense of 'us' here, meaning any sort of life.
Okay, fair enough, that's reasonable -- so once we detect any sort of extraterrestrial life, then we can forget about leaving the planet. After all, there's life everywhere, so our leaving Earth loses its significance.
I think we'll colonize Mars for the adventure, or to satisfy our curiosity, not as a first step in colonizing the universe. The latter might be what we'll say, but it won't be the real reason.
Okay, fair enough, that's reasonable -- so once we detect any sort of extraterrestrial life, then we can forget about leaving the planet. After all, there's life everywhere, so our leaving Earth loses its significance.
I think we'll colonize Mars for the adventure, or to satisfy our curiosity, not as a first step in colonizing the universe. The latter might be what we'll say, but it won't be the real reason.
However, humanity lives in an increasingly global environment, and natural selection works slowly - so no two generations will be able to draw a line saying "they're a different species," so they'll still likely call themselves human. And they'd still be our descendants, so I don't know why we wouldn't still think of them as "us" in some way. I don't see a split in what is considered "human" unless we do become an interplanetary civilization, because then it's conceivable that groups of humans could be removed from contact with the rest of humans, and end up evolving in a different direction. Though I wonder how much convergence there would be anyway, given that we save people from a lot of things that could keep them from passing on their genes. I think there will be a wide range in what is considered "human."
> However, humanity lives in an increasingly global environment, and natural selection works slowly - so no two generations will be able to draw a line saying "they're a different species,"
True, but what makes a species a species remains the same. Eventually our descendants wouldn't be able to mate with us (or would want to), and that perspective will mark the end of the human species.
> I think there will be a wide range in what is considered "human."
See above.
True, but what makes a species a species remains the same. Eventually our descendants wouldn't be able to mate with us (or would want to), and that perspective will mark the end of the human species.
> I think there will be a wide range in what is considered "human."
See above.
What a load of begging questions. I wonder what you have to be, to be special according to the flavor of meaning you just happen to prefer?
> What a load of begging questions.
The expression "begging the question" doesn't mean what you think it does.
> I wonder what you have to be, to be special according to the flavor of meaning you just happen to prefer?
The answer is obvious -- no particular form of life is special or supernatural. It's all part of natural selection, changing species adapting to a changing environment. And this isn't just some hypothesis, it's the central idea in evolution, a very well-supported scientific theory.
And our "flavor of meaning" has no part to play, only objective evidence, the evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
The expression "begging the question" doesn't mean what you think it does.
> I wonder what you have to be, to be special according to the flavor of meaning you just happen to prefer?
The answer is obvious -- no particular form of life is special or supernatural. It's all part of natural selection, changing species adapting to a changing environment. And this isn't just some hypothesis, it's the central idea in evolution, a very well-supported scientific theory.
And our "flavor of meaning" has no part to play, only objective evidence, the evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
> But in the very long run the sun isn't going to last forever
In the very long run we're doomed anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
In the very long run we're doomed anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
That's not sure at all - there's no telling how far technology will take us. Eventually, we might be able to forge entirely new universes, or to move to younger ones.
(completely unrelated, but I'm getting tired of creating throwaway accounts on this site each time I want to post a new comment - why oh why is anonymous commenting disabled ?)
(completely unrelated, but I'm getting tired of creating throwaway accounts on this site each time I want to post a new comment - why oh why is anonymous commenting disabled ?)
Because Hacker News wants people to stand behind their comments. Lack of accountability is not a desirable feature if you're trying to encourage civilized discussion.
> completely unrelated, but I'm getting tired of creating throwaway accounts on this site each time I want to post a new comment
Then stop doing it.
Then stop doing it.
If we can't get our shit together in the billions of years it'll take the sun to sputter out, we don't deserve to live.
Honestly, are you really going to be disappointed if, after a few billion years, humanity runs out of gas? We'd have done be the most successful species in the history of species.
Honestly, are you really going to be disappointed if, after a few billion years, humanity runs out of gas? We'd have done be the most successful species in the history of species.
> Honestly, are you really going to be disappointed if, after a few billion years, humanity runs out of gas?
What? Humanity will have entirely disappeared in a million years, and in a billion years we won't even be a distant memory.
Please try to remember that we've only been a distinct species for 200,000 years, and in another 200,000 years, chances are we will have been replaced by something different. In a million years, five times as long, we will not exist in any form whatsoever. In a billion years, five thousand times as long, creatures who have forgotten about us will themselves be forgotten.
It is the height of absurdity to think that a lowly species like us will exist in any form at all even a million years hence. Both us, and all our stellar achievements (like Country & Western music and the Pet Rock), will have completely disappeared.
What? Humanity will have entirely disappeared in a million years, and in a billion years we won't even be a distant memory.
Please try to remember that we've only been a distinct species for 200,000 years, and in another 200,000 years, chances are we will have been replaced by something different. In a million years, five times as long, we will not exist in any form whatsoever. In a billion years, five thousand times as long, creatures who have forgotten about us will themselves be forgotten.
It is the height of absurdity to think that a lowly species like us will exist in any form at all even a million years hence. Both us, and all our stellar achievements (like Country & Western music and the Pet Rock), will have completely disappeared.
> Humanity will have entirely disappeared in a million years
Even if you mean that in the narrow sense of H. sapiens, rather than humans as genus Homo, that would make H. sapiens a shorter-lived species that H. erectus. If there's a reason to believe that, you haven't provided it.
> Please try to remember that we've only been a distinct species for 200,000 years
Or 500,000, depending on which view of the relevant taxonomy you take...
> and in another 200,000 years, chances are we will have been replaced by something different.
There is no factual basis for this claim; particularly, even if we except your POV on how long we have been around so far as a species, it does not follow that the same amount of time in the future would see us replaced.
> In a million years, five times as long, we will not exist in any form whatsoever.
Again, you provide no reason to believe this. H. erectus was around for 1.75 million years. If H. sapiens only lasts as long as H. erectus did, our species would be around -- starting from your 200kYa start date for H. sapiens, another 1.5+ million years. And humans, genus Homo, have been around for over 2.5 million years.
> It is the height of absurdity to think that a lowly species like us will exist in any form at all even a million years hence.
It really is not. We may be lowly, but a species lasting a mere 1.2-1.5 million years (what H. sapiens would have to last in total to be around a million years hence) is not uncommon at all. Many hominid species have, why wouldn't H. sapiens?
Even if you mean that in the narrow sense of H. sapiens, rather than humans as genus Homo, that would make H. sapiens a shorter-lived species that H. erectus. If there's a reason to believe that, you haven't provided it.
> Please try to remember that we've only been a distinct species for 200,000 years
Or 500,000, depending on which view of the relevant taxonomy you take...
> and in another 200,000 years, chances are we will have been replaced by something different.
There is no factual basis for this claim; particularly, even if we except your POV on how long we have been around so far as a species, it does not follow that the same amount of time in the future would see us replaced.
> In a million years, five times as long, we will not exist in any form whatsoever.
Again, you provide no reason to believe this. H. erectus was around for 1.75 million years. If H. sapiens only lasts as long as H. erectus did, our species would be around -- starting from your 200kYa start date for H. sapiens, another 1.5+ million years. And humans, genus Homo, have been around for over 2.5 million years.
> It is the height of absurdity to think that a lowly species like us will exist in any form at all even a million years hence.
It really is not. We may be lowly, but a species lasting a mere 1.2-1.5 million years (what H. sapiens would have to last in total to be around a million years hence) is not uncommon at all. Many hominid species have, why wouldn't H. sapiens?
>> It is the height of absurdity to think that a lowly species like us will exist in any form at all even a million years hence.
> It really is not.
You, too, can learn evolution by natural selection and such related disciplines as probability. We could not successfully mate with our forebears from a million years ago, and chances are we will not be able to mate with our descendants a million years hence.
>> and in another 200,000 years, chances are we will have been replaced by something different.
> There is no factual basis for this claim;
What? There is no "factual basis" for my saying "chances are"? I didn't make a statement about fact, I made a statement about probability, and a very good one.
In any case, were you not more interested in generating heat than light, the point I successfully made was that five billion years from now, there will be no sign of us to fret over the earth's being absorbed by the red giant star our sun will have become. You know, before you tried to change the subject?
> It really is not.
You, too, can learn evolution by natural selection and such related disciplines as probability. We could not successfully mate with our forebears from a million years ago, and chances are we will not be able to mate with our descendants a million years hence.
>> and in another 200,000 years, chances are we will have been replaced by something different.
> There is no factual basis for this claim;
What? There is no "factual basis" for my saying "chances are"? I didn't make a statement about fact, I made a statement about probability, and a very good one.
In any case, were you not more interested in generating heat than light, the point I successfully made was that five billion years from now, there will be no sign of us to fret over the earth's being absorbed by the red giant star our sun will have become. You know, before you tried to change the subject?
> What? There is no "factual basis" for my saying "chances are"?
Correct. Exactly.
> I didn't make a statement about fact, I made a statement about probability
Claims about probability still require factual support (and, in fact, are still fact claims -- that, given given particular prior conditions, there exists an X% probability of a particular subsequent event is a fact claim, even if it is a different fact claim than the claim that the subsequent event is certain.)
> the point I successfully made was that five billion years from now, there will be no sign of us to fret over the earth's being absorbed by the red giant star our sun will have become.
There may be a reasonable basis for that conclusion, but if there is, you haven't presented it, so it would be inaccurate to claim that you have successfully made that point, even if it is a point that could have been succesfully made.
Correct. Exactly.
> I didn't make a statement about fact, I made a statement about probability
Claims about probability still require factual support (and, in fact, are still fact claims -- that, given given particular prior conditions, there exists an X% probability of a particular subsequent event is a fact claim, even if it is a different fact claim than the claim that the subsequent event is certain.)
> the point I successfully made was that five billion years from now, there will be no sign of us to fret over the earth's being absorbed by the red giant star our sun will have become.
There may be a reasonable basis for that conclusion, but if there is, you haven't presented it, so it would be inaccurate to claim that you have successfully made that point, even if it is a point that could have been succesfully made.
>> What? There is no "factual basis" for my saying "chances are"?
> Correct. Exactly.
Honest to God. A statement of probability is not a fact, it is an estimate. You aren't even familiar with the terminology.
> Claims about probability still require factual support ...
False -- they require evidentiary support. A probability estimate requires a basis for making the estimate, which I provided. If you had any understanding of either science or statistics, you would be familiar with what I'm talking about.
Here's the evidence:
1. There are no species that were present on Earth a billion years ago that are still present in the same form, i.e. able to interbreed with their forebears.
2. There are few species that meet the above requirements from 100 million years ago.
3. There are a handful of species that meet the above requirements from 10 million years ago.
4. Modern humans have existed only for 200,000 years.
5. Using the simplest statistical methods, accessible to an average college student, we can write a distribution that takes into account the fact that modern humans didn't exist 200,000 years ago and extrapolate into the future, showing that our likelihood for existing as the same species we are now, 200,000 years in the future, is very small. This is a statement about probability and likelihood, areas with which you are clearly unfamiliar.
6. On the above basis, the probability that modern humans will exist as the same species a billion years from now is zero.
7. On that basis, the probability that modern humans will witness the sun enveloping the earth five billion years from now is also zero.
If you can't understand the above argument, by all means keep your ignorance to yourself.
> There may be a reasonable basis for that conclusion, but if there is, you haven't presented it, so it would be inaccurate to claim that you have successfully made that point, even if it is a point that could have been succesfully made.
Look -- go back to the philosophy department, where contentless arguments like yours, arguments indistinguishable from two children negating each other, are welcome.
In your fantasy, modern humans, which didn't exist 200,000 years ago, have some chance to be present to worry about the sun absorbing the earth five billion years from now. And you think my probabilistic estimates are doubtful. The burden of evidence is yours, not mine.
EDIT: Yes, people, don't bother to read the argument, the evidence, just click the downvote button. Live up to my expectations.
> Correct. Exactly.
Honest to God. A statement of probability is not a fact, it is an estimate. You aren't even familiar with the terminology.
> Claims about probability still require factual support ...
False -- they require evidentiary support. A probability estimate requires a basis for making the estimate, which I provided. If you had any understanding of either science or statistics, you would be familiar with what I'm talking about.
Here's the evidence:
1. There are no species that were present on Earth a billion years ago that are still present in the same form, i.e. able to interbreed with their forebears.
2. There are few species that meet the above requirements from 100 million years ago.
3. There are a handful of species that meet the above requirements from 10 million years ago.
4. Modern humans have existed only for 200,000 years.
5. Using the simplest statistical methods, accessible to an average college student, we can write a distribution that takes into account the fact that modern humans didn't exist 200,000 years ago and extrapolate into the future, showing that our likelihood for existing as the same species we are now, 200,000 years in the future, is very small. This is a statement about probability and likelihood, areas with which you are clearly unfamiliar.
6. On the above basis, the probability that modern humans will exist as the same species a billion years from now is zero.
7. On that basis, the probability that modern humans will witness the sun enveloping the earth five billion years from now is also zero.
If you can't understand the above argument, by all means keep your ignorance to yourself.
> There may be a reasonable basis for that conclusion, but if there is, you haven't presented it, so it would be inaccurate to claim that you have successfully made that point, even if it is a point that could have been succesfully made.
Look -- go back to the philosophy department, where contentless arguments like yours, arguments indistinguishable from two children negating each other, are welcome.
In your fantasy, modern humans, which didn't exist 200,000 years ago, have some chance to be present to worry about the sun absorbing the earth five billion years from now. And you think my probabilistic estimates are doubtful. The burden of evidence is yours, not mine.
EDIT: Yes, people, don't bother to read the argument, the evidence, just click the downvote button. Live up to my expectations.
> There are no species that were present on Earth a billion years ago that are still present in the same form, i.e. able to interbreed with their forebears.
That's not really a useful basis for conclusions about the outer limits for either species in general or any particular species, as sexual reproduction itself may only be around 1 billion years old (from what I can tell, that's the age of the oldest fossil evidence), but, in any case, the oldest animal species seems to be around a 445 million years old, which is a sizable fraction of the time that multicellular life has existed on earth.
> Using the simplest statistical methods, accessible to an average college student, we can write a distribution that takes into account the fact that modern humans didn't exist 200,000 years ago and extrapolate into the future, showing that our likelihood for existing as the same species we are now, 200,000 years in the future, is very small.
No, you can't, because none of the facts that you cite would support any calculation that would lead to that conclusion. If you assume that species total lifespans are randomly distributed (a dubious assumption), and you make the further assumptions that the lifespans evident from the fossil record accurately represent the full lifespans of species (also dubious), you could calculate a distribution function for the actuarial expected future lifespan of a species given how long it has existed previously. But even if the necessary assumptions weren't problematic, none of the premises you cite (alone or together) would support the conclusion that "modern humans", being around 200,000 (even assuming that "modern humans" are even a species and not just a subgroup within a species, which is an actively disputed point) would, as a species, only be around another 200,000 years.
> On the above basis, the probability that modern humans will exist as the same species a billion years from now is zero.
This further conclusion -- and the following one -- fails to be supported because it rests on the prior failed conclusions.
> If you can't understand the above argument
I understand it -- its a stream of statements that you assert follow from each other that don't.
> In your fantasy, modern humans, which didn't exist 200,000 years ago, have some chance to be present to worry about the sun absorbing the earth five billion years from now.
No, I haven't made any positive claim about the likelihood of that happening. You've made a claim about it, but its a claim that rests on dubious stated premises, and, on top of that, doesn't even follow from those premises.
That's not really a useful basis for conclusions about the outer limits for either species in general or any particular species, as sexual reproduction itself may only be around 1 billion years old (from what I can tell, that's the age of the oldest fossil evidence), but, in any case, the oldest animal species seems to be around a 445 million years old, which is a sizable fraction of the time that multicellular life has existed on earth.
> Using the simplest statistical methods, accessible to an average college student, we can write a distribution that takes into account the fact that modern humans didn't exist 200,000 years ago and extrapolate into the future, showing that our likelihood for existing as the same species we are now, 200,000 years in the future, is very small.
No, you can't, because none of the facts that you cite would support any calculation that would lead to that conclusion. If you assume that species total lifespans are randomly distributed (a dubious assumption), and you make the further assumptions that the lifespans evident from the fossil record accurately represent the full lifespans of species (also dubious), you could calculate a distribution function for the actuarial expected future lifespan of a species given how long it has existed previously. But even if the necessary assumptions weren't problematic, none of the premises you cite (alone or together) would support the conclusion that "modern humans", being around 200,000 (even assuming that "modern humans" are even a species and not just a subgroup within a species, which is an actively disputed point) would, as a species, only be around another 200,000 years.
> On the above basis, the probability that modern humans will exist as the same species a billion years from now is zero.
This further conclusion -- and the following one -- fails to be supported because it rests on the prior failed conclusions.
> If you can't understand the above argument
I understand it -- its a stream of statements that you assert follow from each other that don't.
> In your fantasy, modern humans, which didn't exist 200,000 years ago, have some chance to be present to worry about the sun absorbing the earth five billion years from now.
No, I haven't made any positive claim about the likelihood of that happening. You've made a claim about it, but its a claim that rests on dubious stated premises, and, on top of that, doesn't even follow from those premises.
>> There are no species that were present on Earth a billion years ago that are still present in the same form, i.e. able to interbreed with their forebears.
> That's not really a useful basis for conclusions about the outer limits for either species in general or any particular species, as sexual reproduction itself may only be around 1 billion years old (from what I can tell, that's the age of the oldest fossil evidence), but, in any case, the oldest animal species seems to be around a 445 million years old, which is a sizable fraction of the time that multicellular life has existed on earth.
First, you have simply confirmed what I said above, while simultaneously attempting to deny its evidentiary basis.
Second, let me explain something to you, something you very clearly do not understand. You are trolling. You have nothing constructive to offer this discussion, you offer no evidence or productive arguments of your own, and you are constantly restating the terms of the argument to suit yourself. If I offer a guess about the future based on statistical probability, you reinterpret that clearly stated guess as a statement of fact about the future, and call it false. But in point of fact, probabilistic guesses about the future are neither true nor false.
You have yet to argue against what I have actually said -- instead you argue against a series of straw men of your own fabrication.
Stop trolling -- it's not constructive, it's a waste of time, and it makes you look inexperienced and narcissistic.
> That's not really a useful basis for conclusions about the outer limits for either species in general or any particular species, as sexual reproduction itself may only be around 1 billion years old (from what I can tell, that's the age of the oldest fossil evidence), but, in any case, the oldest animal species seems to be around a 445 million years old, which is a sizable fraction of the time that multicellular life has existed on earth.
First, you have simply confirmed what I said above, while simultaneously attempting to deny its evidentiary basis.
Second, let me explain something to you, something you very clearly do not understand. You are trolling. You have nothing constructive to offer this discussion, you offer no evidence or productive arguments of your own, and you are constantly restating the terms of the argument to suit yourself. If I offer a guess about the future based on statistical probability, you reinterpret that clearly stated guess as a statement of fact about the future, and call it false. But in point of fact, probabilistic guesses about the future are neither true nor false.
You have yet to argue against what I have actually said -- instead you argue against a series of straw men of your own fabrication.
Stop trolling -- it's not constructive, it's a waste of time, and it makes you look inexperienced and narcissistic.
I don't find lutusp's points to be all that unreasonable. While you passionately assert that they're false or poorly reasoned, I really haven't been able to figure out from your post what you think the exact problem is.
If there's not a single species present today which was also present 1B years ago, it does not seem unreasonable to me to suppose that humans will not be around in five times that timespan in the future. If anything, this should be the default supposition, and it is any claim to the contrary -- that we will be around in 5B years, in a form we could mate with -- which needs extra support.
If there's not a single species present today which was also present 1B years ago, it does not seem unreasonable to me to suppose that humans will not be around in five times that timespan in the future. If anything, this should be the default supposition, and it is any claim to the contrary -- that we will be around in 5B years, in a form we could mate with -- which needs extra support.
[deleted]
Isn't the point "ensures humanity's future". How does living underwater ensure humanity's future if Earth goes pot?
When will Earth die? A million years? A billion years? I mean actually I don't really think that worrying about the Earth dying anytime soon is much of problem, and by the time Earth is in imminent danger I believe we would have more than enough technological progress to survive. If we can't in a million years develop technology to survive we won't be able to do it in the next 50 years.
"When will Earth die? A million years? A billion years?"
Did the words "tomorrow", "next week", "next year" not suit your argument? It's wilderness from the centre of the Earth all the way out - myriad accidents waiting to happen.
"I don't really think that worrying about the Earth dying anytime soon is much of problem"
You've not based that on anything. It's also ignoring the word "ensure", the longer we sit idly by, the less sure we can be.
"If we can't in a million years develop technology to survive we won't be able to do it in the next 50 years."
Obviously, but what's a million years got to do with anything?
Did the words "tomorrow", "next week", "next year" not suit your argument? It's wilderness from the centre of the Earth all the way out - myriad accidents waiting to happen.
"I don't really think that worrying about the Earth dying anytime soon is much of problem"
You've not based that on anything. It's also ignoring the word "ensure", the longer we sit idly by, the less sure we can be.
"If we can't in a million years develop technology to survive we won't be able to do it in the next 50 years."
Obviously, but what's a million years got to do with anything?
I take it the contingency plan is for, say, another Chicxulub sized impactor hitting the Earth. At which point even undersea or desert habitats will be in trouble, unless they were totally self-sufficient. My impression is the (current) lack of amenities on Mars demands establishing a self-sufficient colony; hard to imagine anything on Earth rising to that level.
I, for one, welcome our new Big Daddy overlords.
The site is down, but does he mention why thought ought to be 1 million is enough? Why not 100000? Why not 5000?
People cannot survive (self sufficiently) on Mars without an industrial base and we don't have that clear of an idea how many people that will take. It has never been done with anywhere near as few as 1 million, but we are getting better at it so maybe we could reduce that number even further.
If you take the work involved in keeping a closed, armored, pressurized habitat viable on Mars and instead direct it to create a closed, armored, pressurized habitat viable underwater or underground on Earth, you should get the same insurance policy at a considerably lower cost.
We've done that. It's called a nuclear bunker.
not neceesarily, any event that was significant enough to wipe out the land based populationw oudl probably mess up the entire ecology of the planet, no reason being at the bottom of the ocean will save you.
I'm somewhat taken by surprise by the negative comments on here. I couldn't agree with him more.
Technically, I suspect we could improve humanity's chances by launching a million-person mission to the Sun. The tricky bit is figuring out which million people to put in the rocket...
>The tricky bit is figuring out which million people to put in the rocket.
Humanity attempts to answer this question using trial and error method. From the previous attempts we now know that the correct answer is not:
- the proletariat,
- Jews,
- Circassians
- Armenians
- American Indians or indigenous peoples in general.
Humanity attempts to answer this question using trial and error method. From the previous attempts we now know that the correct answer is not:
- the proletariat,
- Jews,
- Circassians
- Armenians
- American Indians or indigenous peoples in general.
Well, this is phantasmagory. The mars has actually very low magnetic shield and almost no atmosphere. The core of mars, which should generate this kind of field, as earth do, is burned out. There is no way how to create and sustain a sufficient atmosphere to colonize this planet. What worse the earth come to this point soon or later and solar wind flush all atmosphere and vegetation and there will be another mars on solar orbit. Humankind should focus to leave this world and transcend to another form of life :))))
> There is no way how to create and sustain a sufficient atmosphere to colonize this planet.
A magnetic field is not necessary for an atmosphere. Venus also has no magnetic field, four times the solar wind pressure and somehow ends up with 90x more atmosphere than Earth.
True, any atmosphere we put on Mars will slowly bleed away but we'll be able to top it off faster than it leaks out.
edit: It also depends on the gas. For example, Earth's CO2 levels are only 4x higher than Mars's. It is possible that very hardy (probably engineered) plants could grow in an unpressurized greenhouse.
A magnetic field is not necessary for an atmosphere. Venus also has no magnetic field, four times the solar wind pressure and somehow ends up with 90x more atmosphere than Earth.
True, any atmosphere we put on Mars will slowly bleed away but we'll be able to top it off faster than it leaks out.
edit: It also depends on the gas. For example, Earth's CO2 levels are only 4x higher than Mars's. It is possible that very hardy (probably engineered) plants could grow in an unpressurized greenhouse.
Hi, my name is Elon, and I have a great idea! We should tax Americans $42 billion/year indefinitely and pay much of that money to my company SpaceX. We'll build something on Mars, eventually, if possible.
Let's have the US Congress fund this because as we all know they, like me, have no conflicts of interest, make decisions based purely on the science, have a very low time preference, are good stewards and very wise spenders, and plan for the future. And if Congress funds it then Americans must be willing to pay for it because, ta da, democracy!
I'm pleased to announce that I have made a personal and very generous contribution of $10 million to increase public awareness about the need for this project.
You're welcome humanity.
Let's have the US Congress fund this because as we all know they, like me, have no conflicts of interest, make decisions based purely on the science, have a very low time preference, are good stewards and very wise spenders, and plan for the future. And if Congress funds it then Americans must be willing to pay for it because, ta da, democracy!
I'm pleased to announce that I have made a personal and very generous contribution of $10 million to increase public awareness about the need for this project.
You're welcome humanity.
> We should tax Americans $42 billion/year indefinitely and pay much of that money to my company SpaceX.
Sounds like a better use of taxpayer dollars than spending trillions to bomb brown people on the other side of the planet. And it will cost me less personally to fund a trip to Mars than I pay for a trip to Starbucks, so it's quite the bargain.
Sounds like a better use of taxpayer dollars than spending trillions to bomb brown people on the other side of the planet. And it will cost me less personally to fund a trip to Mars than I pay for a trip to Starbucks, so it's quite the bargain.
Almost no one who advocates for government spending makes it conditional on eliminating other government spending. This would be in addition to the current military spending.
Also, he wants 0.25% of US GDP indefinitely, so ignoring all the complexities of taxes maybe an approximation would be 0.25% of your gross income, every year for the rest of your working life, or like, maybe 10,000 times the the cost of a trip to Starbucks.
Also, he wants 0.25% of US GDP indefinitely, so ignoring all the complexities of taxes maybe an approximation would be 0.25% of your gross income, every year for the rest of your working life, or like, maybe 10,000 times the the cost of a trip to Starbucks.
[deleted]
I think it was Saramago who said "Either we are blind or we are mad," sending people into space rather than fixing problems here. Humanity should face its mistakes.
So, Musk is doing PR for the new Chris Nolan movie, now? I don't remember seeing it in the trailers for Interstellar, but did the rockets have the SpaceX logo on them?
"to ensure humanity's future" This guy...unbelievable.
"to ensure humanity's future" This guy...unbelievable.
How I read this: Man argues that because we cant get away from the competitive nature of the male dominance that pushes society into its gluttony for growth ("Get that GDP up!") we have no alternate but to find new sources to exploit for growth.
While I admire Musk for his accomplishments this is no reason for us to follow his lead in ignoring the core of the problem. I'm all for absurdity masked as "vision" except when it distracts from serious problems. This is not really a critique of musk. His push for electric cars shows clearly he's both concerned as much with saving this environment as he is with leaving it. I'm just not sure great attention from the public to this idea of Mars inspires that same balance.
Finally, to entertain the idea of a colony on Mars is pretty much tantamount acknowledging you're lineage is going to die off. You do notice he said 1 million people. So I ask the proponents, are you really worried about the survival of humanity or does this issue touch some other motives? Perhaps just the novelty of it. Perhaps the relief it gives you from not having to waste as many neurons on thinking about ecological complexity and the economic complexity it carries.
In the same manner that Musk would say "fuck Earth" why can't we just say "fuck civilisation". I'm certain microbes and life on earth will continue onward long after we are gone.
While I admire Musk for his accomplishments this is no reason for us to follow his lead in ignoring the core of the problem. I'm all for absurdity masked as "vision" except when it distracts from serious problems. This is not really a critique of musk. His push for electric cars shows clearly he's both concerned as much with saving this environment as he is with leaving it. I'm just not sure great attention from the public to this idea of Mars inspires that same balance.
Finally, to entertain the idea of a colony on Mars is pretty much tantamount acknowledging you're lineage is going to die off. You do notice he said 1 million people. So I ask the proponents, are you really worried about the survival of humanity or does this issue touch some other motives? Perhaps just the novelty of it. Perhaps the relief it gives you from not having to waste as many neurons on thinking about ecological complexity and the economic complexity it carries.
In the same manner that Musk would say "fuck Earth" why can't we just say "fuck civilisation". I'm certain microbes and life on earth will continue onward long after we are gone.
here is a better idea, develop self sufficient AI that will miss us enough when we all die out on earth that they will make sure the development of life here eventually produces new human friends a billion years later after earth heals from our mess. what do we call this?
Elon Mask is really smart. He know how to keep his name in headlines all the time. This kind of arguments are nothing but tools for gaining more publicity
Totally. I am kind of surprised all this is generating so much discussion. Saying this is semi-meaningless given we don't have the needed technology. It's not even a nice vision. I don't know anyone how would want to live in Mars.
The money/resources necessary to put one million people on Mars with a self-sustainable industrial base would be better spent trying to stave off disaster on our home world. It's easier, cheaper and faster to detect and deflect asteroids than building that colony...
Not that building colonies in space wouldn't be a good idea for other reasons.
Not that building colonies in space wouldn't be a good idea for other reasons.
Someone needs to introduce him to http://www.mars-one.com/
[deleted]
I asked my wife "do you want to go to Mars?"
She was in the other room with my noisy kid and she yelled back "No let's go in April"
Took me a while to process that:) The comments here seem to have the same sort of disconnect from what Mr. Musk is actually proposing. One gentleman suggests the only thing that's holding him back is the lack of a suitable Martian school district. Forget Martian teachers, or even a single Martian school - he wants an entire Martian district of schools so he can A/B test his way to the best one for his kid. Well, more power to him! At this rate, forget Mars, going to Mountain View for the 90 day yc gig seems a formidable exploration - what are you going to do about the school district there?
Took me a while to process that:) The comments here seem to have the same sort of disconnect from what Mr. Musk is actually proposing. One gentleman suggests the only thing that's holding him back is the lack of a suitable Martian school district. Forget Martian teachers, or even a single Martian school - he wants an entire Martian district of schools so he can A/B test his way to the best one for his kid. Well, more power to him! At this rate, forget Mars, going to Mountain View for the 90 day yc gig seems a formidable exploration - what are you going to do about the school district there?
Or we could just limit people to having 2 kids, and most of our population/environmental problems are gone.
Agreed that humanity can have a more positive impact of the world/universe, but this seemed to be a statement that humanity is above all things, including nature. Nature should be respected and we should have our boundaries. It is dangerous to think that human can play god, or have some kind of superior ownership of the universe.