James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

Post by AndrewKemendo » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

34679 wrote: post #122

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JFK sold us on space because "we choose to do these things because they are hard." It was an aspirational exploratory message. The reality is that we are in space because it is required for great power contests. I'm mired in space as a DoD executive, so I promise you space - at least inside the GEO orbits - is extremely practical. Starlink is honestly amazing. Mars though? I've steel-manned that one and I don't see i…

> there is no future event that would make earth as uninhabitable as Mars is today. Wouldn't that imply if we can make Mars habitable, then we'll be capable of dealing with whatever problems arise here on Earth? Think of it as a nice test run without the immediate fate of humanity's only biosphere at stake.

Post by Veedrac » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #68

skellera wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t say marketing is his skill. His skill is getting shit done. The only reason why we listen to his (crazy) words is because he actually does what he sets out to do.

> His skill is getting shit done. The main contribution is from his employees, not himself. He manages to convince them to work for him with extreme hours for bad pay and without even receiving proper credit (check out how many authors the Neuralink paper listed, then check out the cern paper's authors). How does he convince people to work for him? Marketing. He's a marketing guy.

Post by njb311 » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #87

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JFK sold us on space because "we choose to do these things because they are hard." It was an aspirational exploratory message. The reality is that we are in space because it is required for great power contests. I'm mired in space as a DoD executive, so I promise you space - at least inside the GEO orbits - is extremely practical. Starlink is honestly amazing. Mars though? I've steel-manned that one and I don't see i…

There could be strategic military advantages to having people on Mars. Nuclear mutual assured destruction doesn't work if one side has a base on mars, where it would take 6+ months for any fired nuke to arrive. Having people in spacecraft could be a good place for high-importance leaders - nearly no bunker is nuke-proof, but a spacecraft far away is far harder to hit.

Post by est31 » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #118

emiliobumachar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please spell out how would nuclear MAD stop working? The way I see it, the Mars base could be ignored for MAD purposes unless it's self sufficient and large enough to be considered civilizational survival. By the point it can no longer be ignored, the other side will just aim a couple nukes at it - what will the colonists do, move the base in months? (Also, tangentially, I don't think the whole transit time…

> what will the colonists do, move the base in months? Yes. If you knew that your city would be destroyed in 6 months, you'd build a new one elsewhere. People on earth don't have that privilege due to not having 6 months notice.

Post by VectorLock » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

silvester23 wrote: post #22

Most of this reads as "this is how it worked for me so it must work like this for everyone". I understand he "enjoys controversy" but it's hard to take someone seriously who says things like "Oh, politicians should just ignore the protests and keep their minds straight. It will go away. It always does. They’ll find another big issue after a little while and switch to something else.", as if protests have never effect…