> Go ahead and start "fixing earth" then, you're free to do so if you think it is "sexy".
I don't think it's sexy, at all. It's hard work, but it's also necessary.
> "colony run by a dictator"
A space colony is a pretty harsh environment. I'd be that it'll tend toward harsh, centralized leadership sooner rather than later, but, you know, maybe I'm wrong on that. In my defense, the things that make democracy possible -- plentiful resources, some level of societal trust, public safety -- are not going to be plentiful on Mars.
> Humankind needs a frontier to strive towards, this has always been the case and will probably remain so.
Agreed.
> There used to be many frontiers but technology has developed as such a rapid pace that they're starting to become quite rare.
Disagree. It is still the case that every question we answer in science leads to two more. Now, granted, not everyone needs/wants/can be a scientist.
> As said, feel free to "fix the Earth" but may I suggest framing this in a more positive and inspiring way?
Yeah, I probably should've, that would've probably been more convincing.
Undertaking the risk of exploration has -- I would venture to say -- almost always had some economic, political, or military motive. Someone had to see some potential gain for the risk they were undertaking.
To be clear, I'm not frustrated at Elon for spending his money like this. I mean, if it were his money, because it's not. He's spending his investors' money, which he raises for himself by selling these ideas. I'm less excited by my government spending money on this, but, yes, it's not really that much.
What frustrated me more were the comments that appeared to be divorced from reality about what space exploration will bring.
> Man belongs wherever he wants to go – and he'll do plenty well when he gets there.
I find this level of optimism completely unwarranted. Plenty of people have died trying to go places they hadn't gone to before, or if they simply had to leave where they were. Explorers, places with overpopulation, refugees, I mean, the list really goes on.
> Furthermore, no, you can't fix Earth now. The only possible way to achieve that is eradicating humanity.
I disagree, and I think this is far too pessimistic. Food security, climate change, politics, all huge, huge problems, but there's real progress being made on all those fronts.
This argument would have a lot more merit if Earth and Mars were similar, but they're utterly not. The difficulty, expense, and risk of setting up life on Mars absolutely pales in comparison to cleaning-up life on Earth.
Suppose there were a Mars colony. How many years before that colony could go on indefinitely if it didn't have support from Earth?
I'm stunned at the level of "optimism" in these comments. Guys, we're not going to be setting up colonies on Mars, we're not going to setting up heavy industry in space. There is literally no. point. at. all. Mars is less hospitable than even the least hospitable places on Earth. "Heavy" industry, pretty much by definition, means it's way cheaper to do it on Earth than in space (no amount of rocket development will ever overcome those physics.)
I'm barely, just barely, partial to the argument that there should be a Mars colony so that humanity could go on even if we wiped ourselves out on Earth, but the challenge of an off-Earth colony is so great, I'm pretty reluctant we'll see anything successful in the next 50 years. Even once you figure out all the mechanics of building something in a high radiation/below freezing/basically no atmosphere environment, you have to figure out how to get a few dozen people to work together for _years_ without interpersonal conflicts destroying the whole mission.
Also, uh, why don't we just fix Earth? Oh, that's not sexy? No, of course not, because real problems are always more complicated than simple, inspirational ideas or a colony run by a dictator.
I don't think it's sexy, at all. It's hard work, but it's also necessary.
> "colony run by a dictator"
A space colony is a pretty harsh environment. I'd be that it'll tend toward harsh, centralized leadership sooner rather than later, but, you know, maybe I'm wrong on that. In my defense, the things that make democracy possible -- plentiful resources, some level of societal trust, public safety -- are not going to be plentiful on Mars.
> Humankind needs a frontier to strive towards, this has always been the case and will probably remain so.
Agreed.
> There used to be many frontiers but technology has developed as such a rapid pace that they're starting to become quite rare.
Disagree. It is still the case that every question we answer in science leads to two more. Now, granted, not everyone needs/wants/can be a scientist.
> As said, feel free to "fix the Earth" but may I suggest framing this in a more positive and inspiring way?
Yeah, I probably should've, that would've probably been more convincing.