481–490 of 495 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hunger and access to water are political problems not scientific ones.
I think the simple answer is 'hedging'. Cancer, hunger and the like are unlikely to kill the entire human race in one go. A climate event or asteroid could, which would render all other efforts redundant. Mars exploration means hedging the survival of our species. A diverse portfolio is where the smart money is.
Also, who should determine how the resources of humanity are deployed?
People who arbitrarily have gained control of the resources?
For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water.
It also seems a well fed and hydrated global population would be much happier, healthier, creative and productive.
Another question for folks who make the hedging argument — at what point do we say “ok, we have X% of the population living off world, so now we are going to divert funds to make sure people have access to basic human needs on earth.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hunger and access to water are political problems not scientific ones.
And if we colonise Mars without having solved these political problems, what do you think will happen?
Is a humanity that doesn’t bother taking care of its own people worth saving?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly we ought to solve global hunger and access to water before spending trillions of dollars to go find water on mars.
I don’t see why this is an either or proposition.
Do you feed your kids or do you goto a night club?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some modern thinking has confused self-loathing and careful introspection. There were a great many things that could have, or arguably should have, been done differently in the past, but many of those things were done in the context and to the standards of the day. The transgressions of the past resulted in a technologically advanced society. Introspection considers this and asks, "what should we do differently in th…
Certainly we ought to solve global hunger and access to water before spending trillions of dollars to go find water on mars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see a man lying still on the ground, blood pooling around his body, and a woman standing close by gripping a knife with bloody hands. What happened? “We weren’t there. We didn’t observe it.”
She tried to save his life by removing the knife, then she went in to shock? Probably not the explanation you had in mind. This is not a good metaphor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see a man lying still on the ground, blood pooling around his body, and a woman standing close by gripping a knife with bloody hands. What happened? “We weren’t there. We didn’t observe it.”
That only works because humans have killed each other, not to mention animals, many times in the past, so all of us are familiar with the process. We're yet to observe any instance of abiogenesis at all, anywhere .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We still do that today. Imo we will still do that 10,000 years from now... If we continue to glibly shrug our shoulders at the premise that mass destruction is just what we do, and if we keep pretending we have no choice in the matter, then the chance of us lasting 10,000 more years is somewhere near zero.
I believe that we can solve our problems, but only if we deal in reality. Once I hear people advancing agendas that rely on humanity pulling together as a world group to help each other for no more reason than "it's nice to do that"; well let's just say I remain skeptical. I have the same reaction when I hear talk of Socialism. It is simply Not dealing with reality to expect people to; start a business, spend every w…
The majority people of the developed western world already do this. Their taxes are higher than 50%. And they're happy with it.
The US is an exception.
The reason why they're happy with it is because they get benefits too. Transit systems and park systems that they benefit from. Healthcare coverage so broad they do not have to worry about their health.
OK, your house is smaller.
OK, your back yard (if any) is smaller.
OK, you buy less random disposable garbage on Prime Day to fill your smaller house.
But the people in these countries are happier. Because happiness is reality - expectations. And expectations are subjective and controllable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asteroid. Clathrate gun hypothesis. One-in-a-billion solar event. Planet-wide nuclear war. Random destabilization of the Earth's core. There are a lot of things that wouldn't kill you on Mars.
Maybe I should clarify my point: all the things that will realistically kill everyone reading this comment are not unique to Earth. Some of the things you've mentioned are quite literally so astronomically unlikely that worrying about them is unproductive. And in any case, each of the extinction scenarios you've listed is also fully plausible on Mars. Scores of people die from cancer, heart disease, obesity, malnutri…
Nobody thinks going to Mars will make us immortal, you're kinda just throwing that straw man in there.
The disagreement is really that colonizing Mars does not make us any less capable of solving problems on Earth, but it could have many benefits. There are realistically zero downsides. The great thing about space exploration is that it's mostly a purely scientific endeavor. If you throw money at it, you can get stuff done. That's not how global geopolitics works. That's not how convincing people to take better care of their bodies works. You can't just throw money at that problem, so the idea that spending money on Mars takes money from those things is a baseless premise anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly we ought to solve global hunger and access to water before spending trillions of dollars to go find water on mars.
Those are pretty much solved... if you're hungry, eat the incredibly cheap and plentiful food available due to Western technology. If you're thirsty, drink water. Don't have access to water? Move. Or, dig a well.