next »

[Tumetsu]

planet independent living is definitely possible.

Maybe? We're evolved to live on this planet and are dependent on it's incredibly complex global ecosystem to survive. I think it's entirely unclear if it's feasible, even in the long term, to have humans living off-planet in sufficiently large numbers for sufficiently long periods of time.

I also find it unclear what the motivations would be. If it's only to increase survival for the species (also not clear on why you'd care about that) it would likely be more efficient to have lots of self-sustaining and isolated colonies on earth (maybe in the form of bunkers, deep-sea cities, antarctic colonies). Which could make sure lots of people survived most kinds of events big enough to wipe most of the population (asteroids, pandemics, nuclear war). The huge benefit being that they would still get lots of benefits from being on earth, like better temperature ranges, easier access to water and oxygen, easier to build and so on.

Well, it remains to be seen. Of course living in artificial habitats would be distant future but that is also just progression from our current history. So far we have been modifying our environment to be more friendly to us. While we usually think that Earth and nature are benevolent for us and our survival, the fact is that our survival is largely based on how to protect ourselves against elements and "outsmart" the environment etc. Creating artificial space habitats is just continuum on that made possible by advanced knowledge. I don't see why this wouldn't be feasible in *principle* but it would require much more advanced tech than we have now and likely modifications on humans. I also think that transition to space habitats would be gradual and planets offer important benefits for a long time. Of course this depends on your and mine definition of "long term". You are definitely right in near foreseeable future.

For the motivation, I think for many people it is a value in itself to want to see humanity go on and progress. Personally I value the human endeavors and would find it shame if we didn't try to get everything out of our stay in the universe. For other more practical motivations, I think available resources in space once they become available to us will motivate the spreading out to solar system in same way as the motivated us to spread all over our planet. The improvement in survivability is just a side effect not consciously intended goal.

[Dacke]

I agree that it should be doable in principle, but I think people like Musk radically underestimating (or underselling) how complex it wold be to create a separate ecosystem that could support humans indefinitely. If I'm understanding things correctly, there are also no known resources on Mars that we can't get more efficiently on earth or from asteroids. So there's no apparent motivation to go there, except for science and tourism.

But I wouldn't really have a problem with it if he was just selling it honestly. Like: big rockets will allow us to do practical stuff nearby and going to Mars would be good for science and totes rad.

What I take issue with is him playing into the trope of saving humanity. Because it's:
A. BS
B. as we've seen, it gives people an excuse to mentally check out from the reality that if we don't fix things like global warming / wars / resource distribution we're all totally fucked. No matter how many off-world projects we have.

There shouldn't have to be a conflict between space exploration and improving things here, but when you start promising an escape from a doomed earth, then I start to worry.

[Tumetsu]

I see Mars as a more of symbolic goal atm kinda like Moon was. To get people excited about space and making huge progress forward. And of course getting people there would be awesome for science And I agree with your criticism of Musk concerning the complexity of the artificial biosphere.

I'm not really sure how common the case B is? I haven't seen anyone thinking space being escape for our current problems like climate change. Stephen Hawking for example thinks it as a just "backup" *if* something catastrophic happens on Earth in long run. It is wishful thinking we could escape Earth any time soon and Mars is just a preliminary step in long term goal of spreading into solar system.

I haven't read everything Musk says btw, so I don't really know how he worded or implied the "save humanity by escaping planet Earth" promise. If he meant something similar as Hawking (long term), I think he is right but if he is promising escape from our near term problems I agree with you that it has implications.

[Dacke]

I'm not really sure how common the case B is?

I'm not sure either, but it's a mentality I really fear. It's sort of a continuation of the capitalist dogma of infinite growth and exploitation, that we can use this planet more and more and eventually move on.

I haven't seen any research/polling. But people like Bill Nye apparently feel the need to try to slap it down, which is enough to spook me.

@ 2:38

[Tumetsu]

I have usually seen it just as a counter argument for space exploration in some form of "Oh so now they want to go space and let Earth go garbage and move on? Great. Better spend that money here on Earth." argument or rather misunderstanding of motivations for space exploration. Can't remember seeing it as an argument for space exploration but of course that's just my limited experience.

Interestingly enough long term space exploration could support the capitalist dogma of infinite growth in a way which wouldn't be as destructive for Earth as our current practices. Especially the raw resource production of minerals and possibly energy production.

[gimymblert]

I think it can be both way, the tech to live on a planet on mars (aside from rocket) can help fight global warming here by creating more efficient tech that would allow to adapt and adapting mars.

Also classical motivational trick, being optimistic allow to start, when difficulty kick in the middle of the project, well sunk cost fallacy allow you to roll until the end How many amazing feat where accomplish because we underestimated the goal? I think it's totally fair because being realist will post pone tacking action indefinitely. That's why after I'm done with my current project I intend going into a number of foolish project like trying to capture carbon in the atmosphere, even though I'm not competent (yet?), because if you don't start you go nowhere, that's simple like that.

[Schoq]

how about we just ship our excess atmospheric CO₂ to mars where it could do some good
2 birds 1 stone

[J-Snake]

I think it's totally fair because being realist will post pone tacking action indefinitely. That's why after I'm done with my current project I intend going into a number of foolish project like trying to capture carbon in the atmosphere, even though I'm not competent (yet?), because if you don't start you go nowhere, that's simple like that.

Well, it's not like you have mastered Sonic yet. And capturing carbon won't help it either.

[s0]

can sanic go to mars??

[mks]

No, but he tried.

Sonic Mars is a conceptual Sonic the Hedgehog originally designed for the Sega 32X. Likely due to the system's limitations and commercial failure, the project was moved to the Sega Saturn where it evolved into Sonic X-treme. [...]

http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Mars

[gimymblert]

yes the meme, I knew my bait will work

[s0]

if not even sonic can go to mars, how could the human race?

[jamesprimate]

So now we have 3 major companies and agencies aiming for mars:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-04/boeing-ceo-vows-to-beat-musk-to-mars-as-new-space-race-beckons

seems like things are going to plan. ill pack my bag 

[mks]

[s0]

If it's only to increase survival for the species (also not clear on why you'd care about that)

imagine a hypothetical scenario where you know that the inevitable "apocalypse" will likely happen within your lifetime. a few hundred years ago, society decided that survival of the species is an unimportant goal and thus abandoned most research in that direction, so there's no way out. human life on earth is going to go extinct no matter what and you will either die a premature death or live a miserable life as one of the last humans on an inhospitable earth.

how would you deal with this? would you just go "welp that's it folks, survival of the species is not important so i'm just going to curl up and die"?

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE

[gimymblert]

I don't think people would give up, until the last moment they would seek a solution because some people are just like that, I mean some people are trying to fight mortality, and that's an old thing to do, to find the cure to death itself, so no they won't curl up, they will die trying. Meaning = decide for thyself

[s0]

the question was rhetorical lol. the majority of people have something like a will to survive. i was just explaining why it's understandable that people care about our species' survival.

[gimymblert]

my answer was rethorical I guess this smiley was more on point that the wizard :^)

[s0]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[GSGBen]

send aussies to make the first shitposts imo