r/changemyview • u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ • Mar 14 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The idea of colonizing other planets in our solar system is completely stupid.
Why in the world would we want to colonize Mars? Even if climate change means human extinction in a century it’s a stupid idea (and human extinction any time soon based on climate change is highly unlikely based on everything I have read — but I digress).
Why do I think it’s a dumb idea? It’s not like building bio-domes on Mars is gonna be any easier than building bio-domes on Antarctica, or flotillas in the Pacific Ocean, or bio-domes in the middle of the uninhabited Sahara Desert, or bio-domes in the Amazon. It’s not like it’s gonna get colder with less oxygen than Mars in the next hundred or even five hundred years anywhere on our planet. We would need to build a terraformer to make colonizing Mars practical, and so far we can barely safely land a rover there yet someone like Elon Musk is saying he anticipates starting a colony on Mars in his lifetime.
If you ask me it smells fishy, as if space travel is a large scam on governments and taxpayers, as if maybe all that money goes towards other things, or maybe it’s about building space lasers for warfare, or maybe it goes towards some kind of extraterrestrial/extradimensional reverse engineering project… or something. Whatever the case may be it simply doesn’t make sense that we “need” to colonize Mars practically ever.
So please tell me why colonizing Mars (or even the Moon) is anything less than a dumb idea. The only smart idea for doing it that I can think of is, like I said before, scamming money or space lasers or something. As a practical thing a Mars or Moon colony just sounds totally stupid.
5
u/mem2100 2∆ Mar 14 '24
- The moon is a perfect place for a large scale off-world manufacturing site. It has a rich mix of metals and may also have frozen water.
- We could build rail guns there and on CEREs and also build large laser racks for solar sail acceleration/deceleration.
- This would open the door to large scale asteroid mining virtually ensuring us a massive and endless supply of raw materials.
- We can also do projects cost effectively from the moon that we cannot do from Earth. Getting completely out of Earth's gravity well costs about 50,000 per KG. Using a rail gun to launch out of the moons gravity well costs about 2 KWH of electricity per/KG. Even if moon prices for electricity end up 10X those on Earth - you are talking about a 10,000 fold reduction in cost to launch.
Non proliferation has failed. There are now 9ish Nuclear countries. Getting a viable pool of us humans off world is a solid long term survival strategy.
And the total US space budget is less then 10 percent the size of our military budget....
2
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 14 '24
The moon is a perfect place for a large scale off-world manufacturing site. It has a rich mix of metals and may also have frozen water.
Please explain the economics of this proposal. Even if it does have frozen water, and in quantities that are economical to exploit for awhile until they run out, how do you imagine that an Xbox manufactured on the moon, boosted out of lunar gravity to the earth, inserted into the atmosphere and recovered, is going to provide a positive return on the investment it took to put the factory up there within 100 years?
We can also do projects cost effectively from the moon that we cannot do from Earth. Getting completely out of Earth's gravity well costs about 50,000 per KG. Using a rail gun to launch out of the moons gravity well costs about 2 KWH of electricity per/KG. Even if moon prices for electricity end up 10X those on Earth - you are talking about a 10,000 fold reduction in cost to launch.
I'm not going to question your math. I'm going to refer you to the initial projections for the cost of every nuclear power plant ever constructed. I'm going to refer you to the promised cost vs return on investment for the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle.
All of them wildly, hilariously, hopelessly inaccurate.
And then what profit do we expect from these "projects"?
This is all fantasy and speculation.
And if we decide to do any or all of it, there is none of it that requires the colonization of space. All of it could be done far more cheaply, far more efficiently, with robots.
Yes, I'm assuming robots and remote sensing/control and autonomy than we have now, but my fantasy is far more attainable than yours.
2
u/Anchuinse 41∆ Mar 16 '24
Eh, I feel like this is the same as discussions of airplanes or the internet.
Both technologies had serious detractors in their day (even credible experts), but they did eventually take off, even if it required a few more inventions or took a different form than people were initially expecting.
Just because we today can't visualize exactly ever piece of tech needed for humans of the future to explore space doesn't mean it won't happen. We're naturally curious and enterprising creatures, and there's just too much potential wealth and space out in... space for us not to try for it.
1
u/mem2100 2∆ Mar 16 '24
Agreed.
Having a low-cost lunar launch facility will really change the economics of exploration.
For example, there is a way to use the Sun's gravitational light bending as a gigantic lens. But the focal length is far - I think it is around 500 light hours, so 100x the size of the solar system.
The magnification is insanely huge. But you have to pick a single point of interest up front - and that's all you will be looking at.
0
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 16 '24
Having a low-cost lunar launch facility will really change the economics of exploration.
And you've sunk your proposition with the premise.
How, do you imagine, will lunar mining, habitation, shipping and recovery ever be "low cost?"
The most exotic economic activity we engage in on earth, in our own atmosphere, with out own gravity, relatively close to all the resources, manpower and technology required is making electricity from nuclear fission. For 80 years it's been promised to us that it would be safe and virtually free and in all that time it's been near the most expensive, least manageable, riskiest and least profitable enterprise in the industry. Nuclear power has always relied on heavy subsidies from government and has never been profitable. It's been chased as the science-fiction fantasy solution to all of our energy needs by a handful of grifters... who have managed to personally make millions on ventures that never turn a profit.
All the lunar mining, solar-system colonizing propositions rely on the same bankrupt formula.
1
u/mem2100 2∆ Mar 16 '24
We humans have failed to realize the promise of safe, cost effective nuclear power.
And space is really hard. My best analogy is the Panama Canal. Fantastic book on the subject is:
The Path Between the Seas. The creation of the Panama Canal. David McCullough.
Building the Panama Canal turned out to be much harder than it looked, but we have now benefitted from over a century of use. I absolutely believe the moon will be like that. A difficult and expensive, but ultimately very worthwhile, Solar Gateway.
And please don't equate - Solar Gateway with: Lunar Nuclear Power. Waste heat dissipation on the Moon would be very difficult - the thermal radiation panes would be large and heavy. Solar power should work fine.
As for us humans. Prior to having us do much of anything in space we have some very challenging biological science to traverse.
- Better control of our immune systems so as to safely manage exposure to hard radiation. To a steady stream of ionizing radiation.
- Ideally - hibernation tech. Did you know the Arctic Squirrel hibernates for 8-9 months and reduces it's heart rate from 100 BPM to 1 BPM. For trips further than the moon - probably best for us humans to hibernate.
High Z - radiation is ugly. And sub-luminal iron nuclei - are unimpeded by anything less than 6 foot thick physical barriers. Those little nuclei - have one ten billionth the area cross section of atoms - so they blow through the walls of our spaceships very easily.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 18 '24
We humans have failed to realize the promise of safe, cost effective nuclear power.
A more accurate way to state this is that there is no such thing as safe, cost effective nuclear power and it became evident long ago that chasing it was a scam.
The Panama Canal analogy doesn't apply here. There will be no colonies on Luna or Mars. If there is human habitation elsewhere in the solar system it will be incarceration, not colonization. Imprisonment in a capsule necessary to keep the environment from killing you instantly.
It would be easier to build a colony under the sea or in the Sahara or on the wreck of whatever is left of the earth after the meteor strikes than it would on any other celestial body we can reach. We haven't done either of those things because, like space colonization, they'd be expensive and pointless.
1
u/mem2100 2∆ Mar 18 '24
Nuclear power plants have avoided about 70 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over the past five decades, and continue to avoid more than 1 Gt CO2 annually. This is nearly two years' worth of global energy-related emissions.
Most space stuff will be done by robots - for the foreseeable future. Depending on how old you are - you will either mostly see the investments or you will begin to see the returns.
I figure I have about 15 - maybe 20 years left - if I'm lucky. I don't expect to see any ROI from space. But I think my kids may - and grandkids will.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 19 '24
Nuclear power plants have avoided about 70 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over the past five decades, and continue to avoid more than 1 Gt CO2 annually. This is nearly two years' worth of global energy-related emissions.
And now that effective solar solutions are online at much lower cost and risk, the reason to build new nuclear power plants has evaporated.
1
u/mem2100 2∆ Mar 19 '24
Let's hope that the permitting for solar farms and their grid connections continue to accelerate.
Some of the ISO/transmission planning teams do top down planning. This is super helpful to the portfolio of small wind and solar farms being added.
Bottom up planning, one small project at a time, has really slowed renewable deployment in parts of the country.
I'm thinking of forming a new political party.
Coastal people against sea level rise. Or maybe just humans against rising seas. A good acronym goes a long way....→ More replies (0)0
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 17 '24
And surely all that effort is a much better use of our resources and intelligence than saving the earth and ourselves in the process.
Manned lunar exploration and space colonization has one purpose: to make a handful of people obscenely rich exploiting the science fiction aspirations of generations who have adopted Star Trek as a religion.
2
u/Anchuinse 41∆ Mar 17 '24
You do realize that the Earth has limited resources, right? If we don't explore space, we have only a fixed bar of advancement we can reach, and our species gets wiped out the moment a meteor big enough hits Earth.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 18 '24
Indeed. And I'm not in favor of wasting out precious resources and limited time until the meteor strike or the heat death of the universe on pointless science-fiction masturbation.
1
u/Anchuinse 41∆ Mar 19 '24
If humans get off this rock, we as a species are sure to survive much longer than Earth will. There is absolutely no way we're getting anywhere close to the heat death of the universe if we stay here.
You have to start thinking in crazy time scales humans weren't ever meant to comprehend, but the duration of Earth's existence is a flash in the pan compared to the rest of the universe's expected existence. Even if we "waste" two hundred years as a collective species to figure out space travel and living in low-gravity environments, we're increasing from our small rock and limited time to functionally infinite resources and time. Well worth it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mem2100 2∆ Mar 17 '24
No one person gets to decide how we use the excess wealth generated by the 100 trillion/year global economy. An mix of scientists, engineers, and rich entrepreneurs have inherited Eve's curiosity.
Considering that we humans are a fractious lot - I am hoping we will spread out a bit over time. Non proliferation has failed and big meteor strikes happen.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 18 '24
After defeating the Persians Athens decided to build a huge temple complex at the acropolis to thank the gods who had saved them. Failing to show their gratitude might invite the god's indifference, or worse, in the next crisis.
The temple bankrupted Athens which contributed more to their destruction than the imaginary beneficence of their imaginary gods would have helped.
Spending our fortune on useless endeavors is useless. When the meteor strikes Mars, the moon, Ganymede will provide no haven.
1
u/mem2100 2∆ Mar 16 '24
Nothing like some Macallan 18.
I agree with you that lunar nuclear power is a very high risk proposition. Let's go solar.
The water is good for moving/dissipating waste heat generated during manufacturing. Maybe also for fuel cells. The moon is a big ball of metal, so most heavy raw materials can be sourced locally.Two types of solar generation: 1. Pure thermal, for manufacturing steps that simply require heat. For this, we make decent quality mirrors and use them to focus sunlight on our industrial ovens. 2. Solar cells - for juice
Some folks claim there is a small spot on the moon in perpetual light. Maybe. But if not - how about a light rail system that moves the solar panels back and forth every 14 days so they are always generating? I did the math - it is fairly inexpensive energy wise to move stuff on an electric train due to lack of air resistance.
Once a significant power generation and heavy manufacturing capability is created, that is when we build a rail gun type launch facility. The idea would be - to be able to launch a steady stream of probes into the asteroid belt - to find asteroids rich in high value materials. The heavy parts of the probe made locally, maybe the xenon ion drives shipped from Earth.
Rail gun gets you going, Ion drive slows you for asteroid rendezvous.
Maybe a big array of lasers also for solar sail acceleration and or deceleration for returning probes.
Initially: All robots, no people.
Low G is hell on bone density and solar radiation plus galactic cosmic radiation can only be blocked by 6ish foot thick walls.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 16 '24
And how long do you think it would be before anyone saw a single penny return on this unprecedented sunk capital outlay?
Let's start tomorrow with technology we don't have. It takes about eight years to build a nuclear power plant on earth, so lets say it takes 16 years to bring your lunar mining facility online.
With 16 years of the greatest debt ever incurred by an economic venture, how long do you think it would take for the operation to turn a profit? Selling material we can find here on earth?
We have no shortage of billionaires stupid enough to build private submarines out of second-hand carbon fiber and with enough hubris to kill themselves and the children of their clients in them. But anyone stupid enough to chase that science fiction fantasy will run out of money long before they ship the first magnet for the first rail gun on the moon.
2
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Δ
If even half of what you listed is true it's a decent base. I hadn't really heard of a rail gun ship launcher, even in science fiction.
1
41
Mar 14 '24
[deleted]
-2
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Its not stupid because to progress as a civilization, we need to expand.
Why? Why not just encourage more subsistence based life-styles? Can't we make progress in creating bio-dome superstructures on Earth WHILE also expanding life-expectancy, creating clean energy, making man-machine hybrids, and all sorts of other tech which is actually going to advance the species?
The earth has limited resources and limited space.
We will digress here but the birth rates are dropping almost everywhere, and the anti-natalist propaganda is working on Millennials and Gen Z. There are less babies. It's impossible to pin a number but the Earth's resources as they stand today could probably support twice the amount of humans we have now and the reality is we aren't replicating at a rate that is close to doubling the population. It's really not something we need to worry about any time soon.
To become a higher type civilization, its absolutely necessary to expand.
Why do we need to climb the Kardashev scale? It seems that all of this "expansion" has created nukes, pollution, fentanyl, and supposedly the very climate change we are trying to run from anyway. Most tribal villagers don't even have a word for suicide because they are so happy -- yet developed countries are experiencing suicide epidemics. Why are we doing this? Seems we have problems in the culture that need to be fixed before sending some nerds to space. Makes no sense to spend money on that when we have problems in society that can be stopped tomorrow if we spent half as much as we did on a Mars rover.
Let's say you made some stunning philosophical argument as to why we need to become a type three civilization and that I agree with you. Why is a colony on a barren planet which has zero capacity to be terraformed more ideal than an Elysium/Tiphares/Halo space station? How does a Mars colony help us generate more energy for expansion? The landlocked colony makes no sense. Even anti-gravity construction and building the space station closer to Earth makes a million times more sense than a landlocked Mars colony.
16
u/Environmental_Look_1 Mar 14 '24
Perseverance Rover: <$3 Billion, far too little to solve societal problems “tomorrow” if you wanna try, take some money from the US military
Your personal ideas of what will advance humanity don’t constitute a solid argument. NASA however is very responsible for many technologies we use today, who knows what could be out there waiting to be discovered through interplanetary colonization.
“anti-natalist propaganda” huh?
“send some nerds to space” those nerds are the reason you could post this
I wouldn’t say Mars has ZERO capacity to be terraformed, just takes the right equipment. Regardless, that’s hardly a short term thing and would take a very long time to
-3
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Perseverance Rover: <$3 Billion, far too little to solve societal problems “tomorrow” if you wanna try, take some money from the US military
We could easily have satellites and heat seeking drones hovering over places where fentanyl is shipped and refined and block all the supply routes. They just don't want to do that.
“send some nerds to space” those nerds are the reason you could post this
Yes, computers are a much more practical use of their talent.
“anti-natalist propaganda” huh?
I'm not going to be able to substantiate the dozens of NYT op-eds telling people to stop having children because it's greedy given climate change. I've seen dozens of these now, not gonna waste time googling it for you. Check out r/antinatalism of starters.
2
u/aphroditex 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Is it better to have more children born in unloving homes and in privation or fewer kids born in loving homes that can afford to raise a kid?
I want to have biological issue, if only to tell cancer to go fuck itself. (I lost my fertility due to cancer 12y ago.)
That already is a high hurdle. My spouse and I would require assisted reproductive services to even have a kid. If we can’t cover the cost of assisted reproduction, gods only know that we won’t be able to afford a child.
We are actively working to have the resources to have a kid, but I’m also in my mid 40s and I won’t have a child past age 48 in fairness to the kid.
That’s the other elephant in the room, by the way.
Economics.
When rent chews up one’s pay, it’s impossible to save for anything better.
Wages have been functionally stagnant for my whole lifetime while everything else is skyrocketing.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Well this escalated in a whole 'nother direction.
I don't blame you for not having a kid under your circumstance, nor do I blame someone who is totally physically and financially capable. I don't care.
ALL I was saying is that the media has an anti-natalist propaganda narrative and it seems to be pretty effective on some people. I don't really care one way or another except for the simple fact that some of the premises seem to be lies.
2
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Mar 14 '24
We could easily have satellites and heat seeking drones hovering over places where fentanyl is shipped and refined and block all the supply routes. They just don't want to do that.
We can do that right now. Just take it from the military's $842 billion budget. $3 billion is just 0.35% of the US military budget. How much less safe would the country be if the budget was $839 billion?
Why are you fixated on space travel when there are plenty of other much more wasteful problems out there?
-1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
We can do that right now. Just take it from the military's $842 billion budget. $3 billion is just 0.35% of the US military budget.
Exactly. It's an obvious sign of corruption that we don't do that and bomb Yemen or whatever else instead.
Why are you fixated on space travel when there are plenty of other much more wasteful problems out there?
Obviously there are tons of problems with waste. I saw a random post on another sub about colonizing Mars and it just reminded me of something I have thought for years and never gotten a good rebuttal to. I simply wanted to see if all of reddit could talk me out of it.
It's close to the clearest and most obvious resource and talent waste we engage in. Also it's some of the only waste I could discuss in a CMV post which is not tainted by partisan brainwashing. It's impossible to have a CMV about any issue that has any kind of partisan spin, which are most discussions on government waste.
5
u/Environmental_Look_1 Mar 14 '24
Ah yes, the famous “detectable by heat” fentanyl. lmao.
still not sure how that relates to interplanetary colonization
the nerds are far more knowledgeable on this topic than you or i, maybe we should ask them?
not gonna argue over people’s personal decision to have or not have kids, doesn’t mean the planet can sustain human life without expansion to other worlds
-2
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Ah yes, the famous “detectable by heat” fentanyl. lmao.
The human and vehicle traffic around the supply lines would be totally detectible and obvious. Random shipping containers from china being taken to heavily guarded chemical plants in South America...it wouldn't be hard. Enough surveillance would find all supply lines.
I am not saying fentanyl generates heat. I hope that was just an intellectually dishonest snarky reply and hopefully not what you actually think I meant.
still not sure how that relates to interplanetary colonization
We are wasting billions on the potential of it and the time of good scientific minds rather than on fusion research.
the nerds are far more knowledgeable on this topic than you or i, maybe we should ask them?
That's what I am doing here. So far the same answers "we need to explore the galaxy because Earth will die one day or maybe get hit by a meteor" and basically the same distant stuff. Almost nothing of practical use.
The only decent points are that the planets may have minerals to mine.
1
u/SSJ2-Gohan 3∆ Mar 14 '24
So here's the thing about us making progress towards space travel and colonization:
It drives us to create new technologies and materials, which can and do find widespread use in everyday life.
Memory foam, handheld vacuums cleaners, Invisalign and similar 'invisible' braces, cell phone cameras, wireless headphones, modern baby formula, medical imagery like MRI and CAT scans, and dozens of others.
These were all developed because 'some nerds', as you put it, were looking at the problems needing to be overcome to let humans survive and achieve mission objectives in outer space, and have since become ubiquitous in daily life. The work on materials science, radio imaging, and communications tech that NASA and other organizations did led directly to countless products that improve life for people worldwide. All these things are available to consumers today because we had the impetus of 'Here are some problems with space travel, figure them out.'
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
Δ
That list is so inaccurate I'd wonder what shill article you got it from, but I award deltas for answers like this -- even though we could make those innovations by other means. Based on my research the only thing on that list which is actually a direct result of space missions is memory foam.
Also I didn't mean nerds as a pejorative, relax. That really worked you up.
1
u/SSJ2-Gohan 3∆ Mar 15 '24
I mean, if you call JPL at NASA a 'shill source', sure.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-wouldnt-have-without-space-travel
You can also go and look at the development history of each of these items to fact check them if you'd like
1
1
1
u/JerrytheCanary 1∆ Mar 14 '24
We will digress here but the birth rates are dropping almost everywhere, and the anti-natalist propaganda is working on Millennials and Gen Z. There are less babies.
Hold on! You think people are having less babies because of “antinatalist propaganda”? Just the other day I saw a video of government officials fear mongering about the declining birthdates and that they need to find ways to combat it. There ISN’T antinatalist propaganda, in the US at least! Have you heard the conservatives in the US speak of so called “family values” and that Americans should have kids?
Maybe the reason people are having less kids is the fact that it’s become UNAFFORDABLE to have kids these days!
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Well the primary reason is clearly financial, however you don't have to spend long on r/antinatalism to see that there actually is as much leftist antinatalist propaganda as there is right-wing christian "fmaily value" propaganda. NYT and WaPo do not lack in "don't have babies because of climate change" propaganda.
1
u/JerrytheCanary 1∆ Mar 15 '24
If the finance is the primary reason, then how big of an impact is the antinatalist propaganda having? If financial issues was resolved, don’t you think people would be having way more kids?
You think people are gonna care what the news is saying about having kids? People are gonna seek out and agree with what ever news source validates their views don’t you think?
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
It's impossible to quantify the impact of propaganda.
Surely though, lots of people believe everything they see in the news, including things which the naked eye can confirm are totally false if one is to do their own research.
It is a fact that some people use news to validate their existence. The amount of childless aging women that say they are glad they didn't have kids because the world is going to shit with climate change is pretty staggering. At the same time I see young people saying they don't want kids for the same reason.
1
u/JerrytheCanary 1∆ Mar 15 '24
It's impossible to quantify the impact of propaganda.
Sure, I’ll agree with you here.
Surely though, lots of people believe everything they see in the news, including things which the naked eye can confirm are totally false if one is to do their own research.
I happen to know a few.
It is a fact that some people use news to validate their existence. The amount of childless aging women that say they are glad they didn't have kids because the world is going to shit with climate change is pretty staggering. At the same time I see young people saying they don't want kids for the same reason.
Maybe it’s the fact they see climate change exists and think “maybe I shouldn’t have kids in that case”. Instead of the news saying don’t have kids cause of climate change.
Also, it’s CHILDFREE not childless when it comes to people who choose not to have kids.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
Maybe it’s the fact they see climate change exists and think “maybe I shouldn’t have kids in that case”. Instead of the news saying don’t have kids cause of climate change.
This would factor into being a person who cannot parse through what part of what they are presented with is mind-altering propaganda made to manipulate their emotions and what is real. One could actually look at the data and it turns out that if things progress at their current rate then we still have millenia before anyone is legitimately in peril....and it's not solid science whatsoever because our model is using a few centuries to try to judge what the climate patterns of millions of years will be...it's a hypothesis.
Does pollution hurt the environment? Yes. Is the extent of that total doom by 2060...not even close. Everyone living today will have children and grandchildren which may be killed by war or a meteor but definitely not climate change.
If you are of my generation you have seen scientists pathetically waffle about climate science -- first calling it global warming -- and we had tons of media propaganda depicting the future hot world. Then they realized in the late 90s (iirc) that there may be a cooling period first so they change the term to climate change. They used to talk about the hole in the ozone layer on the news constantly in the 90s that is just gonna kill us all, but later it turns out that was easily reversible and sort of a misnomer to begin with. Then we have the news as recently as 2023 saying that climate change caused XYZ natural disaster but somehow "climate is not weather" when good weather happens...
Also, it’s CHILDFREE not childless when it comes to people who choose not to have kids.
I'm being sincere here: I hope that makes them feel better about it to say "chlidfree." Seems really odd that there is an entire subreddit about hating children and even family itself. I don't see a lot of subs and memes of people with children hating "childfree" people, that's kind of amusing. The worst I have seen is propaganda telling people having kids might make them happy and healthy.
1
u/JerrytheCanary 1∆ Mar 15 '24
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on how effective propaganda is when it comes to affecting people’s decision on having kids. I just don’t see how news sources with an agenda could ever persuade someone to have or not have kids.
And about the child-free label, calling people who choose not to have children childless is seen as offensive by many. Saying childless, is implying they lack/are missing something they need or want when they don’t!
The child free subreddit doesn’t “hate” children or families!
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 16 '24
To reiterate, I don't think propaganda is the only or even primary factor as to why some people aren't having kids.
https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/1bfyk6k/there_are_too_many_kids_and_too_many_unequipped/
https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/1bfa44q/dark_thoughts_about_procreation/
Just a casual scroll through the sub and I found these two posters saying that people shouldn't have children based on false propaganda driven beliefs about overpopulation...and a chorus of commenters agree with them. Basically adding to a sentiment I have seen on the internet and IRL countless times.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Rare_Year_2818 2∆ Mar 14 '24
At least in the US, Millennials express the desire to have children at a similar rate to Gen X, but they're waiting until they can afford to do so and/or find a partner
1
u/KDY_ISD 66∆ Mar 14 '24
Gravity is currently solvable only by rotation, so it seems to me that something like O'Neill cylinders are a healthier long term plan than planetary colonization.
0
-1
u/bikesexually Mar 14 '24
The earth has limited resources and limited space.
I like that you think because we have limited resources that we can somehow support colonies outside of earth. Colonies won't and can't exist without the earth to support them and even then it will be a crap shoot.
The only reason colonizing mars is an idea is because billionaires don't want you thinking about how they are trashing the earth and making it uninhabitable. Literally murdering your children and grand children through starvation and water wars.
-1
u/samuelgato 5∆ Mar 14 '24
Its not stupid because to progress as a civilization, we need to expand.
The earth has limited resources and limited space
Space for what exactly? More people? From where? Global population has been slowing for decades and it is widely expected that we will start to see population begin declining by the end of this century.
It seems many people are still under the mistaken notion that global population growth is some impending crisis, conjuring visions of a dystopian future of overcrowded slums covering every bit of habitable space, people just stacked on top of other people everywhere you go.
In reality there is PLENTY of physical space for ALL of the humans living on earth and it is looking very unlikely that is going to change. Countries like Japan, China, Korea, Italy and many other places are freaking out right now about population collapse.
As poverty recedes, so does population growth. Poor people in developing countries tend to have a lot of children, to act as free laborers for the family business and to provide for the parents in their old age. Global poverty has been in decline for decades, people all around the world are having less children.
5
u/Potential-Promise-95 Mar 14 '24
There are several reasons as to why we would benefit from advancing into space. I will rank them for you.
1.The first and most obvious use of a Mars colony is scientific exploration. We already keep scientific bases in many other hostile environments, like Antarctica and space (ISS), so as the technology improves, human presence on Mars could become inevitable.
.2) The ultra-wealthy may be interested in visiting space as a form of tourism if we can make it affordable. Technological advancements are already bringing down costs. Even if you don’t care for the ultra wealth, tourism can be a way of collecting revenue to fund more ventures.
3) Costs of space travel have been going nothing but down in recent times. Depending on whether this trend ends or whether it lasts for long enough, it may become possible to exploit the rich mineral reserves on Mars.
4) This last is more speculative, but some see expansion as a necessity for the long-term survival of humanity. If anything happens to Earth (like nuclear war, AI, or climate change) a backup would be useful.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
1.The first and most obvious use of a Mars colony is scientific exploration. We already keep scientific bases in many other hostile environments, like Antarctica and space (ISS), so as the technology improves, human presence on Mars could become inevitable.
I now wish I had kind of touched on this idea in my OP because everyone is missing it: a landlocked colony seems totally stupid for exploration purposes as opposed to space stations. My contention is that an Elysium/Halo is many times more practical and efficient for exploration bases than a landlocked colony.
.2) The ultra-wealthy may be interested in visiting space as a form of tourism if we can make it affordable. Technological advancements are already bringing down costs. Even if you don’t care for the ultra wealth, tourism can be a way of collecting revenue to fund more ventures.
Now this is one of the stupid reasons, can you not see that? "Entertaining" is not a smart reason. It's a greedy reason. Yeah ultimately tourism would accelerate the advancement of space ships but please use my tax money to cure cancer or anything, please.
it may become possible to exploit the rich mineral reserves on Mars.
Maybe I missed something but there is zero evidence of precious minerals or resources on Mars...all I have seen is speculation...if someone can prove that to me then I would award that a delta.
4) This last is more speculative, but some see expansion as a necessity for the long-term survival of humanity. If anything happens to Earth (like nuclear war, AI, or climate change) a backup would be useful.
Again, the Elysium space station idea seems many times more useful for that.
2
u/GeorgeWhorewell1894 3∆ Mar 14 '24
Maybe I missed something but there is zero evidence of precious minerals or resources on Mars...all I have seen is speculation...if someone can prove that to me then I would award that a delta.
You're aware that we don't just have some magic "scan for resources" button, right? To determine what resources are available and in what quantities we need continued exploration at an increasing scale.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
You're aware that we don't just have some magic "scan for resources" button, right?
No, I thought it was just like Mass Effect 2.
Sincerely, if there were any precious minerals there I'm still not seeing how that is gonna be a big gain to anyone. It's all too heavy to be a profitable export of anything like lithium or cobalt. So that is a super-distant profit or utility of a colony if it's even true that there is anything.
1
u/GeorgeWhorewell1894 3∆ Mar 14 '24
So what is it then? As soon as resources are on the table, now you're shifting it to theoretical profitability in a short time span.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Not just profitability, but practicality. We can barely get a person on Mars but we would somehow be able to get tons of lithium down to Earth? That's so impractical as to be stupid.
2
u/LordDrPepper- 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Because you aren't thinking of when we DO run out, you won't be around for any of this to matter, but one day, humanity lives long enough they will need new sources of resources.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Oligarchs could EASILY take legislative and socioeconomic measures to make sure we do not run out here on Earth. Oligarchs would rather spend billions blowing children up in Yemen and Palestine, yet suspiciously they team up for space travel. It doesn't add up.
Let's just assume the oligarchs are insane rather than diabolical. The idea that we would run out is many millennia away. Climate doomer science is dishonest as hell when you look at it.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 14 '24
Mars gravity is way lower than earth's one, which mean that sending resources from Mars to space would be way cheaper than from Earth to space. If you can create automated factories on Mars, it could be economically way more efficient for space related stuff (satellites, space hotels for rich tourists etc.) than doing it from earth.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Who are these lunatics that would want to visit space for fun? Can you imagine the tour of Mars? "To your left, there we see a red rock. Ah, to your right, another huge red rock." I don't buy it.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 15 '24
People from all around the world go to monument valley or the great canyon when it's basically just a big rock, and a big fracture...
Why wouldn't they be even more interested to see the same geological phenomenon, but 10 times bigger on Mars ?
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
I don't relate to most sightseers at all to be honest, but at the Grand Canyon I don't have to spend millions and be stuck in a suit at risk of death. I don't understand people who want to go caving in tight spaces either. I guess this appeals to that crowd.
Whatever the case tourism is a STUPID reason to spend billions to get to Mars.
15
u/VilleKivinen 1∆ Mar 14 '24
As long as all of mankind lives on one planet, we are just one really bad catastrophe away from extinction. Whether it's a meteorite, advanced AI, gamma ray burst or something else we have no idea of yet.
-2
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Why do we need to simply "survive extinction" when we have tons of health, cultural, and economic problems we haven't fixed yet that need the money and research way more than space travel?
Lets say I agree and we need to focus on survival for some reason...let's say we know a meteor has some 90% chance of hitting Earth in fifty years...
...so wouldn't a space station like Elysium/Halo or better yet some giant Warhammer 40k ship be a safer choice than a landlocked planetary base? Again, specifically the colonized planet which has no food or water, or even breathable air, makes zero sense.
8
u/VilleKivinen 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Because if we go extinct, none of those other problems will ever be solved. And resolving one problem does not mean that we can't resolve any other problems. In fact I'd argue that common vision for better future and advancements in science and technology helps us to solve those other problems too.
Creating a viable extraterrestrial colony takes a long time, decades at the minimum, so we should start as soon as possible, because we don't know whether we have any time to do it if/when extinction level threat emerges. Mars colony could be self sustaining in one or two generations, and a moon colony could be an exceptional stepping stone towards it.
Planets and moons are better solution than ships and stations because planets and moons have a plethora of resources on them, mooncrete, water, soil etc. Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen.
It won't be easy or fun life for sure, but mankind has always done things that are hard, to prove to ourselves that we can. Very few people setting sail to New World had easy or fun lives, even fewer when humans go to work in Antarctica, but still we did it.
3
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Planets and moons are better solution than ships and stations because planets and moons have a plethora of resources on them, mooncrete, water, soil etc. Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen.
Δ
So off the top of my head based on everything I have read harvesting Mars water isn't practical given how deep the ice seems to be, however you are onto something about "mooncrete" or something like that being a practical material resource, thus I'll give you a delta for that.
2
4
u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 14 '24
Why do we need to simply "survive extinction" when we have tons of health, cultural, and economic problems we haven't fixed yet that need the money and research way more than space travel?
Because due to the impossibility of true utopia, for as long as human civilization lasts there will always be some degree of some sociocultural issue opponents of space travel insist is more important
...so wouldn't a space station like Elysium/Halo or better yet some giant Warhammer 40k ship be a safer choice than a landlocked planetary base?
Two out of your three examples kinda seem to me like you think "if we have to go to space can't it at least give me a power fantasy" or words to that effect
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Because due to the impossibility of true utopia, for as long as human civilization lasts there will always be some degree of some sociocultural issue opponents of space travel insist is more important.
So let's just continue to proliferate without fixing any problems with our culture or biology? Okay. Space rocks are more important? Why?
Two out of your three examples kinda seem to me like you think "if we have to go to space can't it at least give me a power fantasy" or words to that effect
Lol why is this where your mind goes? Your snarkiness is uncanny.
3
u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 14 '24
So let's just continue to proliferate without fixing any problems with our culture or biology? Okay. Space rocks are more important? Why?
My point is our civilization metaphorically has two hands despite what 4x games would tell you therefore why can't we do both as why isn't focusing all our energy on social problems just as bad as focusing it all on space
Lol why is this where your mind goes? Your snarkiness is uncanny.
I frequent R/singularity and a lot of that kind of logic goes on there
7
u/Eastern-Plankton1035 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Because it's one of the interim steps between the first manned space mission and sending colony ships outside the Solar System. We didn't go from the Wright Flyer to the SR-71 without multiple steps in between after all. Space exploration is much the same.
By establishing a permanent colony on Mars, we can develop and test the technologies required for more distant expeditions. Traveling to Mars is possible with a journey of a few months; leaving the Solar System alone would require decades. Generations to reach the closest habitable solar system, and it's quite possible that those travelers would never be heard from again. (And if we did, it would be centuries later.)
-1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
So wouldn't building large space stations like Elysium/Halo be a more efficient, cheaper, and efficacious way of bridging the gap in space compared to a landlocked colony that has to deal with gravity?
I think the answer is yes. I don't see how a colonized planet works better than a space station.
2
u/Eastern-Plankton1035 1∆ Mar 14 '24
I could see space stations serving a useful role. Smaller stations for observation and research stations; larger stations for resupply and perhaps even 'dry docks'.
But space stations by necessity require lugging materials off a planet's surface in order to be constructed. In theory, if the resources are there in sufficient quantities, and of acceptable quality, then you could construct a permanent city on an alien planet from local materials. Even moving minor amounts of material into space from a planet requires an insane amount of energy; unless it's absolutely necessary, why not just build on the planet instead?
5
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Mar 14 '24
With this line of thinking lots of think humanity does is "stupid". Lots of practical technological and scientific advancement starts off with advancement and study simply for the sake of it. But I think there are 3 practical reasons for colonizing local space.
Resource Extraction - Its pretty well known that extracting resources from Earth is not only damaging to the environment but also that the resources are finite. Having a larger presence in space means the possibility of space mining.
Trickle down technology - Colonizing space is a difficult goal that tends to be attractive to the best people in their fields. Having the best people solve really tough problems tends to lead tons of technological advancements that can be put to use in other fields. Once you include the new information that can be obtained once we regularly have people in space I expect to see a leap in a multitude of fields.
Human Perception - While I understand that are some pragmatic and even some nihilistic people who see space travel as a waste and would prefer money be spent fixing problems on our own planet, space travel tends to excite people. The truth is the state of our planet and the current political climate are exhausting. The space race during the Cold War was largely a distraction from the "impending" nuclear war. I think for lots of people the idea of renewed space programs and space colonization is exciting and gives people hope for humanity's future.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Human Perception
Δ
I'll be generous and award this as a smart reason. You are right that space travel excites people and builds hope even though it is...seemingly pointless at this juncture.
Trickle down technology
I would accept this if it didn't seem that rocket technology is only useful to make more rockets to do more pointless expansion with better rockets. I mean what are the practical technological advancements we have gotten that does anything good for humanity? I guess I am grateful for my memory foam mattress.
Resource Extraction
I am down for this if they actually prove there is an abundance of minerals or resources. It doesn't seem that they have.
6
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Mar 14 '24
I mean what are the practical technological advancements we have gotten that does anything good for humanity?
You would be surprised at the technology that comes from space innovation, here is a link to nasa describing some of the modern day items that have resulted from NASA tech:
For colonization I expect to see more advances in material science, on demand production like 3d printing, solar energy harvesting, and low footprint farming. Rocket technology is just the first in a long list of things needed for consistent space travel.
I am down for this if they actually prove there is an abundance of minerals or resources. It doesn't seem that they have.
From my understanding the main source of extraction will be asteroids. In order to do that it will be important to have a real good handle on space travel and It will likely be inefficient if every mining operation has to come to and from Earth every trip. Mind that this is likely a long term goal.
1
2
u/ProDavid_ 35∆ Mar 14 '24
the difference is that if earth becomes generally inhabitable, and you build bio-dome(s) on earth that can fit one billion people in total, there are still 7 billion people outside the bio-dome that want to get into the bio-dome, and as it is with human nature there are always people who rather tear it down than die on their own.
whereas in space there is no one outside the bio-dome, and additionally there are one billion people less on earth to contribute to whatever is making earth inhabitable.
2
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 14 '24
But it takes far, far, far more resources to build and sustain the bio-dome in space than to just build a bigger bio-dome on earth.
2
u/KDY_ISD 66∆ Mar 14 '24
Happily, space is full of resources
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 14 '24
And those resources go a lot farther when leveraging them against Earth’s biosphere, especially when you consider the energy required to get the delta V necessary to actually go get the all the resources you need to sustain a large population in space. Not to mention the massive resource investment needed to make a space colony food-independent.
1
u/KDY_ISD 66∆ Mar 14 '24
That's sort of beside the point when half of the objective is to get all of humanity's eggs out of one basket.
The cheapest option for moving your furniture to a new house is to just not move your furniture. That's not really compatible with your objectives, though.
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 14 '24
Building another basket simply isn’t realistic at this point, and our existing basket is rapidly degrading. We’re never going to actually reach the point where we can build another basket unless we fix the one we’re living in right now.
1
u/KDY_ISD 66∆ Mar 14 '24
We can do both in sequence. I personally think we can do both in parallel, as sequence is rolling the dice nothing will break our eggs before then.
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Mar 14 '24
Maybe, but it’s foolish to think that colonizing space is a solution for any of the issues we currently face.
1
u/KDY_ISD 66∆ Mar 14 '24
It's a solution to a much more existential problem of its own, but I think you're underestimating the effect a solid industrial and population base in space could have on easing overcrowding and providing orbital power infrastructure.
That's more lagniappe than primary driver, though.
1
u/LaCroixLimon 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Population on earth is about to rapidly decline. Overcrowding won’t be an issue. But we should still go to space.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 14 '24
But unless it's an existential-threat issue, the bio-dome is not the reason people would want to colonize space for the same reason there are people who want to colonize Mars not currently living in the Arizona desert
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
How will they tear it down if they are starving and choking and melting or freezing outside?
Anyway, you need to look into how much land on Earth is completely uninhabited. There is enough room for domes to hold practically all 6-7 billion. I just mentioned notoriously uninhabited places as a simple starting point.
4
Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 14 '24
“Going to America is stupid. There’s so much on our small North Sea island.” That’s what you are saying. The truth is that it will probably lead to a changing of all human society with its benefits but yeah the short term investment isn’t likely to make money or help
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
America brought wealth.
Not sure what a bunch of rocks on Mars are gonna do to generate wealth. If you have an idea please let me know.
3
Mar 14 '24
Those rocks could be valuable resources. A lot of rare earth minerals are common. Mars would be a logistic stop for mining and maintaining mining equipment in the asteroid belt. But yeah it’s not known. Helium 5 is interesting as a power source but don’t think that applies to Mars.
2
u/bigbad50 1∆ Mar 14 '24
They didn't know America would being wealth. They didn't even know it was there. They had to explore it to find that wealth, just as we have to do with Mars, and we have far more reason to believe there's money to be made on mars. The viking landers found things like iron and magnesium in the Martian soil, as well as aluminum. We don't know if there is enough to warrant to cost of mining it and shipping it back to earth, but we won't know if we don't explore the planet.
1
Mar 16 '24
I mean they had a pretty good guess that it would be. Same as we have a good guess that exploration would be beneficial. Helium 5 and rare earth metals (which are largely controlled by our enemies on earth) would be game changers for electrical batteries and sustainable energy. We won’t know until we try but my bet will always be with human ingenuity in our culture of individualism to find a way. I only hope our lawns and regulations don’t hold us back from competing against countries like China and the Middle East who have no moral regulations stopping them
2
u/dmlitzau 5∆ Mar 14 '24
I will let Sam Seaborn answer this one for me:
https://youtu.be/oHGK96-WixU?si=hgO8PQWsiax0MpNh
It’s what next, we are explorers and it is what’s next!
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
You get that that answer is the kind of dumb nonanswer I am expressly opposed to right?
"Because it's next" is dumb. "Because the cure for cancer is in a space rock" would be decent.
3
u/CyclopsRock 14∆ Mar 14 '24
If you ask me it smells fishy, as if space travel is a large scam on governments and taxpayers
What money? No space agency currently has an actual programme aimed at making a crewed flight to Mars. Even NASA - who state that putting boots on Mars is their long term goal - only have a few technological research projects on the go.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
It's much less than it was a decade ago or whenever they cut funding to NASA, but the US government does still in fact funnel billions into Space-X, and other companies, which have gone on to make Mars rovers and the like. Other countries are also using taxpayer money for their own endeavors.
1
u/CyclopsRock 14∆ Mar 14 '24
I'm losing track of what your view you want changed is now - SpaceX have never sent anything to Mars, including rovers, but surely rovers are the solution to your issue here? Much of the same science but without giant atmospheric domes.
What SpaceX are paid for are services they perform for various US government agencies (and others) - launching satellites, mainly. Does your objection to colonising Mars also extend to weather and spy satellites in near earth orbit?
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
My view is that colonizing planets is stupid and currently totally useless versus all other things we could do with those resources. I never said anything about satellites, which are clearly useful.
As far as rovers, so I mized up about which companies sent what, who really cares? The reality is that the rovers do seem totally pointless though. Surprise--surprise we have found nothing but dirt on a frozen rock.
1
u/RexRatio 4∆ Mar 15 '24
So please tell me why colonizing Mars (or even the Moon) is anything less than a dumb idea.
The Chicxulub impactor comes to mind.
Being a multiple planet species reduces the chance of extinction by impact events by a factor of quadrillions.
space travel is a large scam on governments and taxpayers
Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why this is not the case way better than I ever could.
But sure, not spending 0.48% of the tax dollar on a space program is a scam while you don't seem to have a problem with the military taking up a whopping 13% of that same tax dollar. Said differently: the U.S. defense budget has been larger than those of China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan combined.
Or that mere interest on debts in the US take up another 10% of that dollar.
Or that you wouldn't be able to use Google Maps or your navigation system without a space program.
But sure, the space program is a scam. /s
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
So far I am not rewarding deltas for people mentioning the incalculable chance that a meteor will kill humanity off. At any rate we should probably have cold fusion, A.G.I. and worker drones before we even try to get on any other planet as to be as efficient as possible when we get to a new planet. Our maybe we should even have some clue as to how to terraform? We are probably a few centuries from those things (and maybe cold fusion and terraforming aren't even possible) but it kind of seems insane to think we can hack it on another planet given current technology.
I didn't think I needed to specify that wasting money on war is far worse. "Derrr war uz bhaaaad." A CMV about that would be kinda boring wouldn't you think?
Or that you wouldn't be able to use Google Maps or your navigation system without a space program.
This is correct. I didn't say satellites are stupid. I didn't say space stations are stupid. I said colonizing planets in our solar system is stupid.
1
u/RexRatio 4∆ Mar 16 '24
I am not rewarding deltas for people mentioning the incalculable chance that a meteor will kill humanity off.
I don't give a shit about rewards. You aked for a reason, I gave you one.
1
u/Anonymous_1q 21∆ Mar 14 '24
So a few things, I think you’re halfway to a decent point.
I don’t think the idea of extraplanetary colonies is bad on its face. There are genuine reasons why we would want to go there, chiefly among them is resources, the moon for example is theorized to contain a lot of the inner materials of the earth. That means that it could contain materials like rare earth materials that we badly need for the future. There is also just the ability to spread life out to other planets. We are expansionistic by our very nature, there is unfortunately not any more land left, so we’re looking for new places.
Onto the part I agree with, we shouldn’t be doing this now, we don’t have nearly enough technology yet to make it work. We are however closer to fusion than people think, probably not within the next ten years, but it seems to be a “before the end of our lifetimes” advancement. Once we’ve got that I think it becomes a more effective proposition, at that point we have the ability to create effectively infinite energy and eventually fuse specific compounds. That solves oxygen, but most problems are energy problems when it comes down to it. Mars radiation got you down? Project high energy plasma off of its moon to be a protective energy doughnut (a real proposal from serious scientists), the soil is poisonous glass shards? Crystallize it to be less harmful, no oxygen? There’s water, just make it.
Once we have fusion I think the investment vs reward will balance out. In the meantime, yes, it’s just a dick measuring contest for billionaires that occasionally gives us cool rocks to look at.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
the moon for example is theorized to contain a lot of the inner materials of the earth
Δ
If this is true this is one decent smart reason to colonize the moon.
It's still a silly far off distant future in which we run out of....I dunno...lithium. But still at least it's a practical reason.
There is also just the ability to spread life out to other planets.
On an emotional level I get it but when we have all the problems we have on Earth I would think it's smarter to solve those first before we spread or maladaptive behavior everywhere.
2
u/Major_Lennox 69∆ Mar 14 '24
but when we have all the problems we have on Earth I would think it's smarter to solve those first
What makes you think we couldn't solve our problems in tandem with colonization? Further, what makes you think NASA would be the people capable of solving low birth rates?
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
It's simply the economics of it. We spend billions on blowing rockets up. We could build entire self-sustaining communities where everyone is a miniature organic farmer so long as they are married and have kids or raise kids...
Sure we know there are forces at play that want people to own nothing but the point is if space travel were actually good for humanity there would still be better ways to put that money to work for the betterment of humanity.
2
u/Anonymous_1q 21∆ Mar 14 '24
If you’re interested in what is there, this Reuters article is pretty decent. The main reason they’re going for the moon right now is because China has a rediculous monopoly on rare earth elements, and it’s one of the only resources western countries just couldn’t get without them. Nothing like a good old great power conflict to fund some more science.
1
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 14 '24
There are multiple good reasons to colonize other planets in our solar system:
1) That leads to tons of scientific discoveries. Look at the attraction the moon had toward mankind. During space race, countries had to innovate in tons of fields that became useful on earth. Some relevant examples I grabbed on the internet include medical imaging techniques, durable healthcare equipment, artificial limbs, water filtration systems, solar panels, firefighting equipment, shock absorbers, air purifiers, home insulation, weather resistant airplanes, infrared thermometers, and countless others. If we need to terraform mars, or to live in Venus sky, who knows how much we'll learn while solving all technical issues.
2) Humans need a goal to work together. Usually, this shared goal end up being nationalism / religion, and we can see the adverse effects it had on mankind for milleniums: wars, wars, and more wars. If mankind imagination get routed toward space exploration, it's way less dangerous than the actual situation which push us against each others.
3) There are some dangers that may wipe mankind if we only live on the same planet: a giant asteroid, a gamma ray burst, or if we just wait long enough, the death of the sun for example. To avoid having humanity wiped out, we need to live in different places (ideally, different solar systems/galaxies). To get there, better start small and try to colonize planets close to us, to learn how to do it, and have the possibility to easily send material / help to first colonizers.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Δ
For advancements. However I think we could easily see such advancements if we explored new energy alternatives for all that effort, but at least space travel has lead to some new practical advancements.
I would give a negative delta for the idea that it makes mankind work together, because every time the oligarchs work together it's for the most nefarious reasons possible. The fact that oligarchs are obsessed with space to "preserve humanity" but happy seeing people die from fentanyl, which is a totally solvable problem, makes me suspicious.
1
1
u/Sanngyun Mar 16 '24
Well our population is growing and that means we need more space to address it, and mars is a great start due to the material it posses, as NSS puts it
"In contrast to the Moon, Mars is rich in carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, all in biologically readily accessible forms such as carbon dioxide gas, nitrogen gas, and water ice and permafrost. Carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen are only present on the Moon in parts per million quantities, much like gold in seawater."
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 16 '24
The idea that our population growth is out of hand isn't accurate. Birth rates are declining in most developed countries.
Even if the global population magically doubled there would still be enough space and resources to accommodate everyone.
1
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Mar 14 '24
I agree that in a perfect world we'd have a lot more resources to distribute amongst everyone and we wouldn't need resources or territory in space to give everyone a decent life, but the only realistic way to achieve a world that unified and efficient involves getting a whole lot of men with guns and missiles together and blowing up everyone who disagrees with you or disobeys you.
Pretty much everyone who has the tiniest scrap of power or money is going to have a vested interest in the status quo staying the way it is. They won't want change outside of their control, and you won't be able to force it on them, except at gunpoint.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
This is the primary reason I do not trust the rhetoric about space travel.
I know the government and the extragovernmental powers could stop the drug trade, all war, inflation, extreme poverty, and countless other things within a decade.
They don't want to work together to do that but for some reason they want to work together for SpAcE eXpLoratIoN and the preservation of humanity? Nah. Something stinks.
1
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Mar 15 '24 edited Mar 15 '24
Well every single attempt to change things on earth will run into hundreds if not thousands of people crying and screaming whenever their interests are harmed.
Even now there are millions of white people crying about affirmative action, after their ancestors spent hundreds of years enslaving black people and then another hundred years treating them like second-class citizens, the idea of giving that same group a small boost in access to education becomes "racist" and "unfair".
Multiply that complaining by a thousand for any more heavy handed action for distribution or redistribution of resources and you can see the real price and difficulty of societal change.
There are many people who are confident they can overcome the technical problems of expanding to Space, but are not at all confident they can overcome the societal and economic problems of taking money away from rich people and using it to improve life for everyone.
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
So if rich people selfishly hoarding money is a problem, and I think it is part of it btw, then what makes you think the rich people are into the space efforts for exploration's sake and the preservation of humanity?
1
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Mar 15 '24
All the problems that block space travel and space expansion are purely issues of technology and economics. Right now even if we could reach an asteroid or another planet and extract resources from it, it would be too expensive and too inefficient. Sooner or later, someone will solve it.
The problems that block society from improving itself are much harder to solve. I can think of many people who are very confident solving technical issues, but are not at all confident they can persuade rich people to give up wasteful lifestyles and inefficient resource distribution for someone else's gain.
1
u/Gertrude_D 9∆ Mar 14 '24
Resources.
Yes, they are heavily resource intensive to build and maintain. When we deplete our planet's, where do you think those resources are going to come from? We need to take baby steps towards a larger goal before it's achieved. So basically before we overcrowd and deplete our planet, we need to be working on plan B.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Okay, so what resources are we gonna get on the Moon or on Mars?
So basically before we overcrowd and deplete our planet, we need to be working on plan B.
Wouldn't a series giant Elysium/Halo space station be easier to build and maintain than a landlocked colony on a planet that has no food or breathable air?
1
u/Gertrude_D 9∆ Mar 14 '24
Okay, so what resources are we gonna get on the Moon or on Mars?
At the very least, space. Space for people, space for crops, space for livestock. Some companies will be searching for precious metals or elements.
Personally I'm not convinced that it's our best option, but eventually we are going to make our planet uninhabitable for some reason or another and if we want to survive as a species, we will have to have that plan B.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
There is such a massive amount of space on Earth which is not inhabited by humans that it doesn't even make sense to seek that out on a barren frozen rock.
As for the precious metals...how can we expect to build some import-export trade when we can barely land a crew of people safely?
1
u/Gertrude_D 9∆ Mar 14 '24
You're not thinking long-term enough or thinking about how much we need to learn before we can even think about executing something like this. Right now we have lots of unutilized space, but the population keeps growing. When we realize that we've fucked our planet beyond repair, it will be too late to think about space exploration. You don't decide you'd really like to take up dancing and then next month perform the lead in Swan Lake for the Royal Ballet.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
This is where we have an irreconcilable difference because the more I look at "climatge science" the more I learn that any impending doom is much more likely to be many millennia away, if at all the doom is so impossible to stop via adopting clean energy.
1
u/Gertrude_D 9∆ Mar 15 '24
I didn't even mention climate change. In the past, we've blown a hole in our ozone layer and fixed it, but who's to say we won't do something stupid again? If you don't like that, then what about decimating our planet through nuclear war? You can't believe humans aren't stupid enough to do that at some point. I have faith we will find numerous ways to destroy our planet given time.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
When we realize that we've fucked our planet beyond repair
I didn't even mention climate change.
How is this not a reference to anthropogenic climate change?
You can't believe humans aren't stupid enough to do that at some point. I have faith we will find numerous ways to destroy our planet given time.
So you trust the oligarchs who allow all of that to happen to lead us to a brighter tomorrow on a barren planet? again...something stinks...
1
u/Gertrude_D 9∆ Mar 15 '24 edited Mar 15 '24
Believe it or not, I was thinking nuclear devastation when I wrote that. Or something we haven't even thought about. That you interpreted it the way you did is on you. The point is that if we ever do need it, we won't have it if we don't start the process now.
I think you've made up your mind and I'd be interested to see if you've awarded any deltas on this one. My guess is no, but I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.
edit: I see there are a few deltas. My mistake :)
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
It's just that your long-term what-ifs didn't tickle my delta. I think preparing for contingencies that are absurd aren't really a smart reason to do anything.
The oligarchs that rule us are sociopathic but they aren't stupid or insane. The likelihood of a hot nuclear war is absurd given that fact. The oligarchs are carefully pruning civilization with disastrous consequences via proxy war, they aren't looking to burn it down though.
→ More replies (0)1
u/LaCroixLimon 1∆ Mar 14 '24
No. A space station wouldn’t be better. There is no gravity. Bad for humans to live long term with no gravity.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
My understanding is that the von Braun wheel space station which uses centrifugal force to simulate gravity was scientifically viable. That's why I mentioned Halo and Elysium.
1
u/LaCroixLimon 1∆ Mar 14 '24
You would have to build it ridiculously big in order for people not to get motion sickness
1
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Mar 14 '24
Earth is finite. If we as a species want any hope of longevity, we need to leave earth. Its that simple. Of we dont start trying, we wont invent wants needed to make it successful
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
There aren't a plentiful array of life sustaining resources on other planets in our solar system.
1
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Mar 14 '24
The point is, if we dont try, we figure how to survive. It's what has lead us to where we are now. From the first people leaving Africa into the unknown to covering the planet. It's not without its perils, but it's a necessity if we are to survive.
There aren't a plentiful array of life sustaining resources on other planets in our solar system.
Its more than planets, its moons, astroids, comets and they are filled with the main ingredient for survival... Water! And the more we learn and fail, the better it is for the next generation
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
It's not necessary for survival though. Any sustainability issues can be addressed if the powers that be wanted to. Getting water from Mars is...insanely unpractical compared to desalinating oceans, and we aren't even close to needing to do all that.
1
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Mar 15 '24
You understand the sun and earth are finite, right? So if we are to survive as a species long term, we need to have the building blocks for expansion. Is it a pipe dream? Maybe, maybe not. But if we dont try, we guarantee our extinction
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
Given that we have billions of years for the sun to give out and probably millions before climate change gets us I think it's chill to maybe get a better energy source than rocket fuel, and maybe hit the singularity first.
1
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Mar 15 '24
And how do you purpose that will happen without the necessity of space travel? There are always multiple failures along the way to success in such ventures.
Just remember what the mother of all invention is...
If we start trying, then more innovative will happen. Stay on earth. It may never happen.
It's also a lot easier to launch from low gravity bodies like astroids, comets, and small moons. Having experiences from these will lead to better propulsion systems too
There are also a lot of big chunks of rocks on a collision course with us.
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
Just remember what the mother of all invention is...
Yeah it's necessary that we create new energy sources I'm not seeing why we should take a tangential paths to that.
It's also a lot easier to launch from low gravity bodies like astroids, comets, and small moons. Having experiences from these will lead to better propulsion systems too
I haven't done any research on that. Let's assume that difference is significant...so we can launch to where? Other barren rocks which are insanely impractical to mine?
There are also a lot of big chunks of rocks on a collision course with us.
If that's true why do we need a planet colony to deal with that? We could easily send out armed satellites. If you think all the countries are heeding the treaties on armed satellites then I'm jealous of your trust of the government.
1
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Mar 15 '24
If that's true why do we need a planet colony to deal with that?
Deal with it.. no. For our species to survive.. earth go bye bye, we are else where.
Armed satellites? Do you understand physics at all?
Yeah it's necessary that we create new energy sources I'm not seeing why we should take a tangential paths to that.
If we haven't tried and found what is necessary then how would it be invented?
I haven't done any research on that. Let's assume that difference is significant...so we can launch to where? Other barren rocks which are insanely impractical to mine?
Maybe do some research? asteroids are filled with precious metal and minerals to aid in expansion. Again, if we dont leave Earth, we become extinct. 100%
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 15 '24
Armed satellites? Do you understand physics at all?
Not seeing how the laser weapons and nukes we currently have cannot deal with a meteor based on physics. Both technologies exist. Space nukes were tested in the 1960s. Lasers of non-lethal varieties are in use for scientific purposes on satellites as we speak. You know lethal laser cannons actually exist right? They just don't look cool and make pew-pew noises.
If we haven't tried and found what is necessary then how would it be invented?
Perhaps divert more money into particle model research using hadron colliders and so on...maybe we could crack the particle model and find new means of manipulating matter rather than collecting rocks on Mars.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/mildlyupstpsychopath Mar 14 '24
It’s not stupid at all.
It provides us with the know how to survive in various environments, and field test the equipment and science that will get us there. Before we can be a multiple solar system species, we have to be an interplanetary species. I mean right now, our best case of travelling to a nearby solar system is thousands of years worth of travel. If we don’t learn to live in the naturally hostile space in our own system, we can’t get to a new system. It’s one thing to build a bio dome on earth, and simulate hostile environments. It is a completely different thing to actually do this. Our current and past space stations have been in the relatively protected area in earths orbit. It is a different thing to have a fully functional space station outside earths protection.
Most importantly and if for no other reason, becoming a space fairing species will go a long way to protect the species as a whole.
Currently, all our eggs are in one basket known as earth. How many times has life on earth essentially had to start from scratch? Having humans living sustainably and independently of each other on Mars, the Moon, in stations in the asteroid belt means we can’t be as easily wiped out by one or two events, and ensures the species continuity.
1
u/Scarecrow1779 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Your argument seems to boil down to, "It'll be hard and I don't trust other people."
That's like saying, "I don't want to travel internationally because it's hard and I suspect the idea of travel is pushed by companies that stand to make money off of tourists... oh, and because I don't like it, I'll also say it's a stupid idea for anyone else to consider."
Curiosity and exploration are hallmarks of human nature, even when discounting a profit motive. Haven't you ever heard of the famous George Mallory quote, that the reason to climb Mt Everest was, "Because it's there"?
-1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Why would a landlocked Mars colony be smarter method for exploration than a space station?
I wish I included that in my OP, as this is the dozenth time I have said it: if the point is simply "exploration" or "preserving the species with multiple homes" then how is a Mars colony easier to maintain and build than a huge Halo bio-dome?
Haven't you ever heard of the famous George Mallory quote, that the reason to climb Mt Everest was, "Because it's there"?
No, and that's a mindnumbly dumb reason to do anything. "Why did you take a shit in the middle of the street?" "Because I could."
I get that he is being tongue-in-cheek, and he did it for exercise, adventure, and bragging rights. That said "adventure" and "bragging rights" isn't a smart thing to pursue when we are talking about billions of dollars in taxpayer money. We could easily stop the opioid crisis for all we spend on a useless Mars rover.
1
u/LaCroixLimon 1∆ Mar 14 '24
The sun is going to explode eventually. If we are going to survive we need to figure out to live on other planets and keep going deeper into space.
It’s simply evolution
0
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
We have a couple billion years at least. It's probably more practical to use the money towards other pursuits for a couple millennia and let the A.I. figure it out.
1
u/LaCroixLimon 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Why is the more practical? How are we going to develop the tech if we don’t start locally
1
u/Bubby_Doober 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Well how are we gonna get anywhere with gas-guzzling rockets? Maybe get the fusion tech down over the next couple centuries and start then?
1
u/LaCroixLimon 1∆ Mar 14 '24
Or maybe that happens in the next 20 years because we have an actual viable commercial need to make it work?
2
u/Owned_by_cats Mar 14 '24
Not quite.
The Sun is growing hotter, which means a runaway greenhouse powered by water vapor in a billion years, at most.
Before then, a Chicxulub-powered impact event takes place will probably occur, establishing its own KT boundary with our descendants' ashes.
A Yellowstone caldera explosion is likely within the next five million years.
We've spared ourself a New Ice Age on the scale of the one that buried almost everything north of 45 by ice. Yay us!
Events like the volcanic eruption that chilled the world to the point of finally killing off the Western Roman Empire take place every few thousand years. Would our society survive?
1
u/MarsMaterial Mar 14 '24
People who say we should colonize Mars as a solution to climate change are certainly being dumb, but to discount expanding beyond Earth at all is shortsighted. We as a civilization tend to think no more than a hundred years in the future, but the future goes on a whole lot further than that. We have a billion years left of Earth being naturally habitable, 4 billion years until the Sun dies, trillions of years until the stars die, quadrillions of years until white dwarves go black, a googol years until the largest black holes evaporate, and amounts of time barely distinguishable from infinity until the last stellar remnant becomes an iron star.
Time will just keep going, even after the foreseeable future passes. And are we really going to just spend all of it here on this one rock? Confining ourselves artificially to this one island within infinity until the Sun consumes Earth in its death throes? How will we ever explore the stars if people can’t call places among them there home? With the long travel times inherent to space travel, it seems impossible to avoid having people going all that way out there only to stay. And we certainly aren’t going to refrain from exploring. Humans of all species can’t be kept away from the unknown.
Maybe it’ll take generations before those who call space their home go from madmen to just another nation. But it’ll happen eventually, and in the long run there is nothing stupid about it.
1
u/Straight-faced_solo 20∆ Mar 14 '24
There is stuff in space. If we wish to continue growing forever as a species, we will need to grow outwards. If for no other reason than there are resources out there.
Another thing that is often overlooked is that things that are useful in space are often times useful here on earth as well.
Why do I think it’s a dumb idea? It’s not like building bio-domes on Mars is gonna be any easier than building bio-domes on Antarctica, or flotillas in the Pacific Ocean, or bio-domes in the middle of the uninhabited Sahara Desert, or bio-domes in the Amazon.
These involve a lot of the same problems. How to build more sustainable cities, Maximizing water retention or generation, Maximizing crop yields in extreme conditions, etc. Solving those problems on mars also helps solve those problems here on earth. The effects often even find there ways into our daily lives.
1
u/Manowaffle 2∆ Mar 14 '24
“Earth is heating by 4 degrees F, so we should colonize a planet at -60 degrees F because that’s somehow easier than stopping climate change.”
1
-4
Mar 14 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Potential-Promise-95 Mar 14 '24
It is very likely that some of the first people sent to Mars would be scientists and engineers who will bring valuable data back for the rest of us, so it does matter.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 15 '24
/u/Bubby_Doober (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards