Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars • Hacker News Board

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#91

Post by cmrdporcupine » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

mFixman wrote: post #23

20 years ago it would have been unthinkable to find water in any other planet in the solar system. Mark my words: in 20 years, we'll find extremely simple proto-bacterial life in Mars and in many other planets.

I fully expect us to find something like a bacterium somewhere else. They might even be very common anywhere where there's hydrothermal activity. Prokaryotes seem to have evolved _twice_ on earth (archaea and bacteria), albeit from some common proto-cell thing. So there's some chemiosmotic 'recipe' which can make them.

What I don't expect is anything like a eukaryote and certainly not like multicelular life. I think that kind of life is either vanishingly rare or non-existent elsewhere.

There was almost 3 billion years of life on this planet before eukaryotes arrived, and they arrived only once and in a form likely almost identical to what we see today. So it's really really 'flukey' and not something that 'just happens' in some necessary teleological fashion.

Nick Lane gets into this in his book "The Vital Question" -- it's quite convincing. And maybe depressing if you grew up on sci-fi like myself.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#92

Post by smpetrey » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #26

mFixman wrote: post #23

20 years ago it would have been unthinkable to find water in any other planet in the solar system. Mark my words: in 20 years, we'll find extremely simple proto-bacterial life in Mars and in many other planets.

Or even on moons. There are several moons that have a non-zero chance of having life on them.

I'm betting on Europa. Lovely little moon, so many mysteries. Can't wait to see what we uncover from there.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#93

Post by vibrio » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

zimablue wrote: post #49

remote_phone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer. It’s hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be v…

To be fair cancer is super overfunded and a waste of money to fund relative to lots of more easily cured third world diseases or poverty itself. Always someone with a better case than you.

"waste of money" is strong. Live with a loved one as they progress through rounds of cancer therapies and I suspect you will identify unmet need. It will change you. It's not a cancer vs infectious disease/clean water situation, both goals are valid and possible within reasonable means.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#94

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #61

ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy that always annoys me. It is entirely possible that by spending $400B to safely send people to Mars and live there, especially in a moderately high radiation environment, that we will discover EXACTLY the mechanisms that send cells into cancer states and how to reverse that so they stop. Otherwise we're going to have colonists getting cancer and dying too quickly. Then not only do we get to…

It's also entirely possible that the cure for all forms of cancer is a diet consisting entirely of frosted flakes, and that spending $400B researching the effects of all-cereal diets would also discover the cure for cancer. However, it's far more likely that $400B in cancer research will do more for curing cancer than hoping for side effects from $400B in other research.

We have already spent $500B on cancer research[1] and it hasn't cured. This also isn't an "either/or" proposition. As I mentioned, people travelling in space are subject to a lot of radiation which is known to cause cancer, so part of the research is going to be figuring out how to fix cells that are cancerous.

Cancer is a systemic problem, it isn't measles or polio or TB. You have to understand the system in order to fix it and pushing humans into new environments will give us better insights into the system we call human life.

[1] https://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-never-ending-war-...

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#95

Post by TangoTrotFox » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

remote_phone wrote: post #43

ryanmercer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any exploratory drilling, or covering any real amount of ground, you need humans. For reference, Opportunity Rover has only traveled 45 km/28 mi in 14 years. A human can collect more specimens in a day than ALL of the rovers have to date. If we remove this year's launch window, you have 10 minimum-energy launch windows in the next 21 years. 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2037, 2039. If we could g…

I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer. It’s hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be v…

This is peculiar logic if you break it into its most fundamental. Dealing with cancer's entire purpose is extending the average human life expectancy. Right now cancer is the cause in about 12.5% [1] of all deaths. And the average years of life lost from cancer victims is 15.7 [2]. So if we completely eliminated all cancer we'd expect to extend the life expectancy for everybody by 0.125 * 15.7 = 1.97 years on average. In the US 22% [3] of deaths are from cancer, so it would be .22 * 15.7 = 3.5 years.

So we change our life expectancy in the US from 79.3 years to 82.8 and now suddenly we can become a space faring civilization? Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense does it?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...

[2] - https://www.progressreport.cancer.gov/end/life_lost#field_mo...

[3] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#96

Post by Nadya » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

remote_phone wrote: post #43

ryanmercer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any exploratory drilling, or covering any real amount of ground, you need humans. For reference, Opportunity Rover has only traveled 45 km/28 mi in 14 years. A human can collect more specimens in a day than ALL of the rovers have to date. If we remove this year's launch window, you have 10 minimum-energy launch windows in the next 21 years. 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2037, 2039. If we could g…

I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer. It’s hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be v…

A sufficiently sized meteor could wipe out all life on Earth as we know it - or play "Pick your end of days scenario" between WW3, superviruses, or whatever. Having a few backup humans on the Moon or Mars is more beneficial to the survival of the human race than curing cancer is. Curing cancer saves individuals - establishing an off-Earth colony of humans could save all of humanity. Are the chances of a mass extinction of humans slim-to-none? Yes, but currently all of our eggs exist in a single basket: Earth.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#97

Post by corobo » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:08 PM UTC

remote_phone wrote: post #43

ryanmercer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any exploratory drilling, or covering any real amount of ground, you need humans. For reference, Opportunity Rover has only traveled 45 km/28 mi in 14 years. A human can collect more specimens in a day than ALL of the rovers have to date. If we remove this year's launch window, you have 10 minimum-energy launch windows in the next 21 years. 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2037, 2039. If we could g…

I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer. It’s hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be v…

Alright so we split it. 200B for space, 200B for humanity research

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#98

Post by corobo » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

Maybestring wrote: post #78

remote_phone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer. It’s hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be v…

Silicon Valley billionaires are spending $400B/yr on space travel? Where is all this money going?

That number comes from the parent comment's hypothetical 1% of each country's GDP

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#99

Post by ryanmercer » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

harperlee wrote: post #57

ryanmercer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is going into biotech fortunately though. Sam Altman started nudging YC towards biotech a few years ago (one article example https://www.wired.com/2015/11/y-combinator-sam-altman-interv... ) and to date has funded the following companies directly involved in cancer research and treatement: Cambridge Cancer Genomics, Oncobox, Mednet, HistoWiz, Luminist, iSono Health, Notable Labs. And I agree, cancer needs figur…

> we're quickly screwing this planet I'd love to see humans achieve interplanetary colonization in my lifespan, but that one is a lame reason: as much as we hurt Earth, it will remain much more habitable than Mars.

> but that one is a lame reason: as much as we hurt Earth, it will remain much more habitable than Mars

If we stopped using all fossil fuels TODAY (as well as eliminated the cattle and hog industries), as in every single person on the planet, it would a few thousand years to return to pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2. We're realistically looking at a MINIMUM of 6ft increase in sea level before the end of the century (bye-bye most coastal cities unless you ring every last inch of coast with dikes). We are rapidly depleting aquifers the world around (much faster than they can replenish), we're rapidly depleting soil (creating appreciable amounts of topsoil takes centuries), population is still climbing, electricity demand the world around is climbing, someone is producing a banned ozone depleting compound ( https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/it-seems-someone-is-... ) etc.

It's not a lame reason, it is an extremely valid one. We need to develop the technology and means to have self-sustaining colonies (even if enclosed in habitats) off of Earth before stuff gets so bad here we simply don't have the resources to commit to doing such.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#100

Post by wilsonnb2 » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:11 PM UTC

softawre wrote: post #88

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I care to what happens about all living humans today. I simply don't care about the long term survival of our species. Spreading across the galaxy or the universe so that there can be more humans alive or to ensure that if one planet gets wiped out, some humans live on are placing value on the existence of humans as a species in the universe. That's what I don't care about. I don't think we have intrinsic val…

How many generations down do you care about? Do you think fixing global warming is a waste of time, if it might affect 3 generations down?

It's hard to pinpoint an exact generation where I stop caring. Here's how I like to think of it.

If every human alive today died instantly and painlessly, ending the human species and potentially eliminating all sentient life in the universe, I wouldn't care. The people felt no pain, experienced no dread.

The only reason to care in that instance is if you believe that the human race has inherent value just be being alive. That's what I don't have.

Now, the interaction of this philosophy and the real world isn't always clean but in general, it leads me to prioritize current human life over future human life especially over the long term.

So, for example, a dollar spent feeding a hungry child today takes precedence over a dollar spent exploring the universe even if that exploration lays the groundwork for humans being a multi planetary species 500 years from now.

I hope that clears my position up somewhat.