Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your genes might compel you to try to leave the planet and keep mating after our sun dies, but our species will inevitably be dead once entropy kicks in at the heat death of the universe. Ultimately we are going to go extinct and there is no point to the colonization scheme other than delusions of grandeur.
Yeah but we have 200 billion years until the universe ends and 5 ish until the heat death of the sun. Let's focus on one thing at a time!!! (*All numbers are estimates)
Mars Is No Earth
51–60 of 106 posts
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#52Yet? It seems the writer is debating a view that Elon doesn't have. His goal is to begin the process of making Mars habitable, I'm not aware of anyone with the position that Mars is currently as nice as Earth. Terraforming Mars is a long term vision and not one we'll see in our lifetimes. If we don't take steps towards achieving that goal then of course it will always seem lofty. Martian greenhouses may sooner emulat…
Personally, I'd like to see his enthusiasm more focused toward space megastructures, such as O'Neill Cylinders and Dyson Swarms. It seems to me that humanity would benefit a lot more from mastering industrial-scale manufacturing and construction in space than sticking ourselves in another large gravity well.
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#53The myth of a wonderful terraformed Mars must be pushed as part of capitalist technosaviourism. If we recklessly consume Earth into dust that's actually ok because technology can save us as we simply load into rocket ships for a new life on the offworld colonies. If we accept the notion that actually there's only one Earth, that we already live on a paradise planet and that we must protect what we have then going han…
Earth is not paradise, on a timeframe of tens of thousands of years it is a volatile place that could blow us up in an instant. Terraforming and space mining are absolute necessities for human survival. You really only can argue that maybe it is one or two centuries too early to think about colonizing Mars, but you gotta start somewhere.
Is that so? Which timeframe are we talking about then, because for the entirety of humankind's existence, including its ancestors (so going back at least 4 million years), Earth was a mighty fine place to be. The occasional ice age didn't stop our non-technological ancestors from spreading all over the globe either.
> You really only can argue that maybe it is one or two centuries too early to think about colonizing Mars, but you gotta start somewhere.
How about closer targets then? The Moon is just a few days o travel away, can be evacuated at short notice if need be and communication delay allows for near-realtime information exchange. This obsession with Mars and "colonising" it is really quite baffling to me.
It's not even clear whether the physical conditions (especially gravity, which no amount of "terraforming" can change) would allow for long-term human settlement. Instead of planning (permanent) research outposts to find answers to these questions, Musk is already fantasising about "1 million people on Mars by 2050", which is just bonkers.
Considering that our species developed in an environment with 1g gravity, 1 atm of air pressure, plenty of water and moderate temperatures, I find it quite astonishing how anyone in their right mind would find Mars of all places to be necessary for human survival.
A civilisation capable of modifying an entire planet's atmosphere, temperature, and magnetic field would much more easily (in terms of energy required) be capable of creating free floating habitats with orders of magnitude more living space, carefully tuned parameters (air, temperature, artificial gravity, etc.) and versatility than a small cold, barren rock like Mars.
It would be much quicker to create such artificial worlds, worlds, too than to slowly heat up and build up an entire breathable atmosphere.
By the way - where are all the required elements for a proper atmosphere and ecosystem (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus) supposed to come from? Even extraction from minerals (assuming sufficient presence) would be incredibly costly: 1 m³ of air is appr.1 kg of nitrogen and given a similar composition of Mars and Earth, about 0.03% of the crust would be nitrogen. That'd be about 3300 kg of soil to process per m³ of air to get the nitrogen for an Earth-equivalent atmosphere at sea-level. If you want a column of just 100m of air with a density in that ballpark, that'd already be 300 tons of soil to process per m², or (given an average density of 4 tons/m³) 70 metres of the entire surface of Mars...
Just to give you an idea of what the scope of such an undertaking (e.g. "terraforming" Mars) would be. It's something that a post-scarcity society can do as a vanity project, but most certainly not as a "necessity for survival".
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#54I am really sad that so much of our elite media institutions are deeply Luddite. They wear their anti-technology, anti-progress biases like badges of honor. It’s likely a signaling mechanism. The elite doesn’t need technology because they don’t need change. So opposing change signals that things are good for you already. I don’t love Elon Musk but at least he dreams big and has a change-positive attitude. Because I t…
I can also think of instances when mainstream media has been uncritically supportive of new technology, even when they were pretty obviously unsound. One example was their uncritical promotion of filtering technologies that would magically remove microplastics from the ocean, even when there was no way for them to distinguish microplastics from same-sized algae and microorganisms--in addition to a host of other logistical challenges.
So I don't think the problem here is that media elites hate change, or that all change is inherently good. In this case the Atlantic is pointing out real, significant challenges for permanent human habitation of Mars at a large scale. Do you believe there's any way to write that story that wouldn't be "anti-technology, anti-progress"?
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fantastic rhetoric in the service of a fundamentally anti-intellectual point. Note first that it proves too much. Richard Nixon referenced this speech as he was resigning the presidency after Watergate. Was Nixon the "man in the arena" who deserved praise for "striving valiantly"? He thought so. Not also that it assumes what it is trying to prove: that the critic does not have practical experience, that the c…
In THIS case, a writer for the Atlantic with a bio of "Shannon Stirone is a freelance science writer based in the Bay Area" is criticizing. If we had an expert in planetary exploration doing the criticism, I think it would be a more interesting conversation, even if I feel that conversation would be FAR more nuanced than - "Mars bad. Elon Musk bad." Which is what I read here. If I agree with Elon's vision or not is i…
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the adoption of electric cars and other electric transportation will help the entire world population by reducing air pollution and climate change. This one tired old argument again. While reducing air pollution is a plus (at least in city centres), electric cars are nothing but green washing. If you really are concerned about climate change and pollution, reduce the need for cars and own no car. Abandon Euclidian-…
The perfect is the enemy of the good. - Voltaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
You don't even have to change anything if you just keep driving your 2010 ICE car until it literally rusts away under your buttocks instead of buying a new car (electric or not).
It'd be interesting to compare the actual CO² and energy use difference (including manufacturing costs for the new car) between driving an existing ICE car less frequently and keeping it longer versus buying a new electric car while keeping the the same driving habits.
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#57I am really sad that so much of our elite media institutions are deeply Luddite. They wear their anti-technology, anti-progress biases like badges of honor. It’s likely a signaling mechanism. The elite doesn’t need technology because they don’t need change. So opposing change signals that things are good for you already. I don’t love Elon Musk but at least he dreams big and has a change-positive attitude. Because I t…
All the elite needs is fewer people taking up resources. Otherwise, everything is perfect for them. The status quo could last from now to eternity. This is kind of how the Egyptian civilization worked. They went 2000 years without a lot of change. Just an endless "sustainable" cycle. I like the comparison between the Canaanite religion and Judaism. The elites are Canaanites and dealt with their not being enough for e…
I don’t think that is the consensus view. It was more to do with the university system, the scientific method, and the invention of capital markets. That and a huge influx of free resources and gold that came from the discovery of the Americas. Also of course the Middle East was annihilated by Ghengis Khan and Western Europe wasn’t. A lot of historical factors were at play.
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but we have 200 billion years until the universe ends and 5 ish until the heat death of the sun. Let's focus on one thing at a time!!! (*All numbers are estimates)
Closer to 1 billion before the increasing heat of the sun kills life on earth. Unless we boost the planet to a higher orbit. Or I guess use a lot of sun shields which would be an easier short term solution...
We still have to develop fusion, some sort of way to shield our ships from space debris, faster travel, etc.
Or maybe develop physics so advanced that we can wormhole to places.
Who the hell knows. But that's only a few million generations to create enough Einstein's to get us off this planet.
Meanwhile smart people are having fewer kids than the average people an education for the masses is worsening. So it's kind of a race against time.
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the adoption of electric cars and other electric transportation will help the entire world population by reducing air pollution and climate change. This one tired old argument again. While reducing air pollution is a plus (at least in city centres), electric cars are nothing but green washing. If you really are concerned about climate change and pollution, reduce the need for cars and own no car. Abandon Euclidian-…
Rofl wow man you can trash anything must be nice to just shit on geniune development and call it crap. The issue is the article actually had a tired argument, your broken attempt to reframe electric cars as useless is really bizarre and not fitting at all to the sentiment it just points out how shallow and negative you are being
That "genuine development" you talk about is over 140 years old. In fact the very first cars in mass use were electric and it was only later ICE cars became more popular due their advantages (back then).
It's not a new or even great development at all if nothing changes in the end - you still need to build these cars, old ICE cars won't just disappear either - they'll be shipped to poorer countries in turn increasing their air pollution and need for infrastructure.
So instead of viewing my point as "shitting on things", how about refuting it with counter facts instead? Like, how is it better to still rely on individual transport, huge wasted areas due to sealed natural ground for roads and parking spaces, the inefficiency of urban sprawl and ridiculous zoning laws which necessitates cars in the first place, deaths and injuries from car accidents, etc. etc.?
Electric cars are like treating symptoms instead of the cause and the treatment basically just trades one symptom (air- and noise pollution) for another (need for more infrastructure) while leaving others untouched (roads, parking spaces, cities built for cars not humans, etc.) and celebrating them as a solution to environmental problems is... very irritating, to say the least.
Re: Mars Is No Earth
#60just look at https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p5fdbowk7X8/maxresdefault.jpg yucatan peninsula crater photo and try and picture the Dinosaurs and that big boom, cloud of dust and it's like c'mon, no brainer. We need N planets not just 1 planet.
It might be easier to survive on earth engulfed in a dust cloud than Mars.
A Martian society would survive by virtue of already being equipped to operate in a hellscape.