Live data from Hacker News

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

spiegel.de

221–230 of 330 posts

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

#221
post #6

He may be a smart dude, but this answer is out there: > "DER SPIEGEL: Cancer is a silent killer that might get diagnosed long after the exposure, when it is too late. > Lovelock: I've had 10 cancers in the last few years and it hasn't been very bad. They just appear and grow. If you go to a good oncologist nearby, they'll take it out. It's just unfortunate for people who let it happen and it grows and grows until it'…

So did my Aunt. She had cancer a bunch of times before it eventually took her out. The toll that your body takes after chemo and/or radiation therapy makes the cancer that will materialize later in your life a lot more threatening, in addition to how your body decays over time. So basically, the older you get and the more chemo you've had, the higher likelihood you have of cancer taking you out. If Lovelock has had "…

Considering he's over 100, I doubt he's concerned about such a fate. Also, he might be talking about skin cancers, which are easily removed, yet people often wait until they've metastasized.

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

#222
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like they put words in his mouth...

It's a pretty well documented fact that people get misquoted all the time by journalists. Not quite Gell-Mann amnesia, but something close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_...

That guy had won several awards for his "reporting".

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

#223
post #55

Perhaps it might have been possible in some long distant past to underestimate Elon Musk and write him off as a crazy person. That time is gone. If Musk appears to be doing something crazy you've not understood it. > It’s crazy, completely crazy. Elon Musk has read too much science fiction. He got carried away with it. If I were in his position, I would not waste my fortune on colonizing Mars. And all they would lear…

Not only that, but the cynic in my says... what SHOULD you be spending your billions on? Carefully grabbing more billions and political influence/power so you can have more influence/power? Or, you know, try to make humanity better?

It gets more clear when you steel-man the "make humanity better" on earth and find out that the powers-that-be will fight you if you try to objectively make life better for the billions here because you will need to disrupt various power structures to do so.

Mars is an aspirational, asymptotic ideal that could get more people in space/lunar and possibly also prove to be wildly profitable in some applications - while also being somewhat orthogonal to existing terrestrial hegemonies.

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

#224
The thing is that Mars settling is not an idea Musk thought up. It's something that space pioneers have been pursuing since the dawn of the space age or even slightly before. Tsiolkovsky and the other Russian (and later Soviet) Cosmists. Robert Goddard and Wernher Von Braun. And it was kind of the understood backdrop narrative to NASA's foundation and Apollo, why it seemed to capture everyone's imagination. Yeah, scifi. But scifi is not supposed to be a synonym for the impossible or fantastic (ala Star Wars). Jules Verne (for instance) is scifi but powerfully predictive in what technologies ended up existing (nuclear submarines, space travel in capsules, etc). People EXPECTED space settlement after people landing on the Moon and were excited about it. I think the Cold War eventually kind of destroyed that optimism for a while just due to dread and dystopia becomingfully mainstream in media and scifi.

NASA never gave up human missions to Mars as a goal (and not just supporting the search for life, but as a goal in and of itself, with permanent presence as the goal). Apollo was wound down in favor of Shuttle, which was to lay the groundwork for Mars by lowering launch costs and establishing Space Station Freedom (which became ISS) as a platform (in part) for building and launching missions to Mars. The Soviets were pursuing a similar path. After losing the Moon race, they chose to refine long-duration human spaceflight instead, developing the Salyut space stations built with logistical support from many launches (a first for spaceflight, and considered a prerequisite for Mars). Salyut was considered a kind of precursor to a Mars transfer vehicle. Salyut expanded to the Mir program, whose spares and follow-ons ended up contributing to the critical propulsion elements of ISS. But like NASA, the goal was still eventually Mars and space settlement. (And around this time in the US, there were also space settling enthusiasts focused on just scaling up space stations to be large, permanent settlements... a kind of rival for the Mars sect).

In the 1980s and 90s, there were a group of Mars enthusiasts in industry and NASA that started pushing Mars settlement hardcore after a few decades of post-Apollo disillusionment. They saw ISS and space stations in general as a kind of distraction, a needless cost and time tax for missions to Mars. They were (are) led by Robert Zubrin, who developed an architecture for Mars exploration called Mars Direct that could do cargo or crew launches to Mars in just one launch, with rendezvous with the different elements happening on the surface of Mars, not in orbit. They also did some important work on in situ resource utilization (ISRU), i.e. the idea of producing the vast majority (or all) of the fuel, oxidizer, and even consumables like water and air from resources on Mars (initially relying primarily on Mars' CO2 atmosphere, but later incorporating surface ice as knowledge about the extent of water on Mars expanded), convincing NASA to hesitantly baseline ISRU for future missions (previously had been Apollo-like all-up missions bringing all supplies from Earth). They were more vocal about permanent settlement on Mars as the end goal than NASA. Robert Zubrin and his group established The Mars Society in 1997, with permanent settling of Mars as a primary goal. Today, The Mars Society has Mars analogue research stations around the world where volunteers dress in mock spacesuits and live in mock space habitats (naturally, modeled after the ones from Mars Direct) and conduct mock Mars missions, including studying rock samples from the surrounding area (usually some kind of remote desert). This has been going on for decades, now.

Elon Musk, shortly after selling Paypal and getting rich, became kind of converted into this Mars settlement vision. He donated a bunch of money to the Mars Society (they named a telescope at one of the Mars analogue research stations after him), and they convinced him to try to send a greenhouse to Mars to kickstart the public's imagination on Mars, with the goal of increasing NASA's budget and focusing them on the humans to Mars goal. Long story short, he tried buying ICBMs from Russia on the cheap, was rebuffed, and so ended up starting SpaceX (and the ambition has grown tremendously from that point on).

So I'm not surprised not everyone is on the Mars settlement train. You've got to catch the Mars bug. It's not for everyone. But it's much bigger than Musk alone. It's an old dream going back over a century. Here's the Mars Anthem, with words written by Robert Zubrin, describing in grandiose terms the goals of the Mars Society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj8-NcyULps

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

#226
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no comparison here. Musk acquired his money through voluntary exchanges with buyers freely and willingly engaging in market transactions. The government uses coercive force to raise taxes, it is not voluntary. Tax money is public property and we should have a say in how it is spent. Musk's money we gave to him freely and is his to dispose of as he sees fit.

> Tax money is public property and we should have a say in how it is spent. Musk's money we gave to him freely and is his to dispose of as he sees fit. A substantial portion of Elon Musk's company's funding comes from "tax money" (Goverment contracts, EV credits, tax breaks, subsidies). This seems to contradict both of your sentences. And if you don't believe it's substantial: Tesla's EV credit sales alone were on th…

> A substantial portion of Elon Musk's company's funding comes from "tax money" (Goverment contracts, EV credits, tax breaks, subsidies).

How much? Sounds more like a talking point than an actual honest critique.

I mean, oil companies get massive subsidies and we spend trillions to go to war to keep the petroleum industry ascendant.

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

#227
post #55

Perhaps it might have been possible in some long distant past to underestimate Elon Musk and write him off as a crazy person. That time is gone. If Musk appears to be doing something crazy you've not understood it. > It’s crazy, completely crazy. Elon Musk has read too much science fiction. He got carried away with it. If I were in his position, I would not waste my fortune on colonizing Mars. And all they would lear…

I'm gonna take the risk of being extremely unpopular and I'll say that Musk is completely overrated. I think he's nowhere near the level of people that we usually think of as geniuses. In certain ways he's good at marketing and hyping things up, but a lot of his ideas, especially the Mars one, are nonsensical. Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to…

> Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to move to a planet that is essentially uninhabitable?

LOL. If the New World is any indication, as soon as there's money to be made or persecution to escape (which we are not out of).

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

#228
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna take the risk of being extremely unpopular and I'll say that Musk is completely overrated. I think he's nowhere near the level of people that we usually think of as geniuses. In certain ways he's good at marketing and hyping things up, but a lot of his ideas, especially the Mars one, are nonsensical. Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to…

Life on Earth didn't leave the ocean and ventured onto land because the ocean became uninhabitable. It was still a good idea. Expanding beyond Earth is something we must do eventually. If we can do it now, why wait? We risk that we are unable to do it later.

Life expanded because there were resources and opportunities on land. Plants grew there because there were no predators and then some animals managed to go eat them and benefited because there was little competition, I don't see a real analog there for Mars. [0] I think an actual Mars colony is centuries out just due to the amount of things left to invent to make it viable. We still haven't really even retried a closed circuit environment here on Earth where it's easier to ship in base requirements like additional nitrogen. [1]

[0] Beyond that I'm increasingly skeptical of any attempts to draw parallels or inferences from evolution about humans today because so much like evo-psych turns into unfounded garbage. Once a species gets to the point it can manipulate it's own environment and mortality evolution gets shaky as a framework.

[1] Simpler atomic components and resources could be mined on Mars where they couldn't in space so I'm allowing for some basic supplements extracted on Mars.

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

#229
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not because of the lack of trying though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_activity_in_the_Ant...

Text from that link: As Antarctica has never been permanently settled by humans, there has historically been little military activity in the Antarctic. Because the Antarctic Treaty, which came into effect on June 23, 1961, bans military activity in Antarctica, military personnel and equipment may only be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose (such as delivering supplies) on the continent.

What about under it?

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

#230
post #55

Perhaps it might have been possible in some long distant past to underestimate Elon Musk and write him off as a crazy person. That time is gone. If Musk appears to be doing something crazy you've not understood it. > It’s crazy, completely crazy. Elon Musk has read too much science fiction. He got carried away with it. If I were in his position, I would not waste my fortune on colonizing Mars. And all they would lear…

What then, is Elon Musk marketing? Space? For whom? In what fashion, and for what purpose?

Exactly how many people, in the best possible scenario, would we have the capacity to transport to Mars, or even simply into space?

What happens to everybody else? There are billions of people on the planet. Does Elon Musk plan to send even 1/10 of them to Mars?

So yeah if one's goal is helping preserve the human race, unless you're ready to write off the planet and everyone on it as totally fucked, not sure how Mars is a solution.

You can make an argument about the _technologies_ developed in the space application process having value for the planet, but, that's a different argument.

Post reply on HN