We’re Not Ready for Mars
longreads.com
longreads.com
One, they're complaining that we're going to pollute other worlds. I'm not sure that's a problem. I'm not even sure if we'll do it because of the delta-V requirement.
Two, they have a massive problem with animal experimentation, which seems to be a bit of a tangent, because that's the case across many industries -- the examples they give are from some time ago.
Three, the posit that there is life elsewhere in the solar system, which if it is the case, would be a good enough reason alone to explore the solar system.
Lastly, they comment on the thirty-meter scope fight in Hawaii, and this is where I completely diverge in opinion from the author. The author posits that Mauna Kea is a poor location for the telescope, but as far as I know, it's one of the best. I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress. I know their land is small, but the 'scope will benefit all of humanity for years to come, along with economic incentives. What's wrong with that?
If you don't understand it's because you don't share their perspective—understandably. I think one of the things the author is suggesting is that we make a better effort to do so. Perhaps your idea of benefiting all of humanity for years to come is different than theirs?
So you could say they do have a bigger picture in mind, their religion, but you would be talking to a skeptic were you to say that. In the end, it may be their right to protect their perceived (or claimed, or claimed-perceived, each of which is different) interests... and we should protect that right to an extent. But it's sad that they are blocking science. And I think they're doing it just for the pride of letting their team win a contest which means nothing (aside from pride) to them, and a lot to astronomy.
This was all super off topic but I find it pretty interesting.
Point by point.
I'm sure pollution is a problem. It certainly won't be noticeable when there's only a hundred colonists, but we're unlikely to constrain until it is becoming a problem - then we're simply repeating our mistakes. It's about mindset and attitude. We have to learn to live within the constraints of the ecosystem. Doesn't matter if that ecosystem is Earth, or it's a small size base on some other planet. Main difference is the extra-terrestrial ecosystem or life-support we create will be more fragile and easy to break for a long time.
I'm certain we will pollute, for two reasons. First because we have not yet learnt not to, secondly because we can. The very second there's enough stuff been sent from earth to assemble a mining robot it will be done - to reduce the amount sent in future. From there it will escalate. There's a whole infinite, empty, lifeless (probably, maybe) planet - why bother with the expense of cleaning and keeping it tidy? Fast forward a thousand years and we've pushed two planets to the point of irreparable ruin. Maybe by then planet #1 is an overheated, uninhabitable wreck.
The animal experimentation is again a fair summary of attitude. We're already exporting those industrial attitudes into space, and orbit. Perhaps there's no alternatives to mice experiments on the space station, I know not.
Life is a good enough reason to explore. Is it? If that's all it is, sure. Except it will become, in short order, to exploit and affect. There is no way we'd leave somewhere alone because we discovered it had life. We can't even leave the Antarctic alone, despite the unique international treaties.
"I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress". Who says they are? There are plenty of locations around the world where telescopes have been placed that aren't culturally or religiously significant. Why ride roughshod over the views of the indigenous people? Do they not matter? Is it always OK to ruin a bit more habitat for economic incentives? Seems like we need to learn to stop that before we wreck the entire solar system.
This is the most interesting one because it begs many questions such as:
Assuming we find life, then what? The purpose ostensibly would be to study it to understand our place in the universe better. But what if it doesn't want to be studied, or we don't have the scientific capacity to study it? What is gained?
Why are humans, as opposed to robotic systems, the absolute right path to discovering other life forms?
Is it even possible for humans to get anywhere worth investigating within reasonable distance in a human lifespan?
I think the answer to all of these is, "Human spacetravel is the solution looking for the problem" because biologically, we aren't built or suited to multi-planetary existence in any kind of scenario where we would be effective.
Musk, says it himself: He needs a reason to get up in the morning [1]. That's pretty much the primary answer for everyone I've ever seen make any kind of reasonable argument for manned travel to Mars.
In other words, in the long run our engineered systems (robots etc...) will be more efficient at answering off-world questions than we are. That's not sexy or exciting so people don't argue it.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/elon-musk-on-inspiration-and...
Don’t you think that the discovery of life outside of earth would have a profound effect on the people of earth, and how they operate? They might have new methods of agriculture, to grow things in the the soil of Mars that are applicable to Earth. They might have lots of things we can learn.
Maybe. Depends on what kind of life.
Finding a single cell amoeba on Titan won't do anything for the millions of Americans working two or three jobs trying to make rent.
I'd argue finding an intelligent society or entity etc... wouldn't change much for them either.
They might have new methods of agriculture, to grow things in the the soil of Mars that are applicable to Earth.
Again, maybe, but this is a very anthropomorphic view. There is nothing that suggests that there are things outside of our atmosphere that can materially and positively impact humanity.
What do you propose we do to help them instead, and if it involves reallocation if government spending, where would you take it from?
I'm not prepared to answer this in this format. To start with though, I'm unsure it can be directly solved, only mitigated. I don't think there are any solutions that don't have massive trade offs and unknown outcomes. Largely though, I'm not a fan of state interventions.
I find it sad (but not surprising) that outsiders would rephrase an intrusion into a sacred place in this way -- especially after they specifically clarified that "We are not here to protest astronomy". The fact that they're against it despite "economic incentives" and "scientific progress" should give a clue how important their culture is to them. Has your culture ever been threatened?
Have you ever read the first chapter of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Why do you think Arthur was so negative about the construction of an efficient new bypass? Do you think he would have phrased his position that way?
Admittedly, I’d be pretty unhappy if someone wanted to take my house away without compensation.
If someone got rid of a place a visited often, I’d be unhappy, but would I stop them? No.
I think from my childhood, the only two places that are still around that I visit are the Exploratorium, and Golden Gate Park — both dramatically changed over the past few decades.
If someone said, sorry, we’ve gotta pave over GGP to build an observatory to further US science, and we can build it here, China, or Russia — I would be unhappy, but understanding.
I guess, I understand why these people are unhappy, in a general sense, but I can’t reconcile that with the fact that they’re impeding scientific progress, and putting US science behind.
Since there is not currently any economic incentive to establish a base on Mars - it is going to be a very expensive endeavor. Thus, the employees involved must learn to start thinking conservatively to suppress these costs.
As for this article - I always welcome a devil's advocate. Colonizing Mars sounds interesting to me, but it should involve more than just my hope and dreaming. Financing these sorts of expeditions is going to come at a cost, but so will fixing outdated or broken systems that threaten our origin planet.
Demonizing humanity for its relentless expansion seems to reject survival of the fittest. But I understand where the author is coming from - parasites can rapidly expand in population, but only until they kill their host. On that same token, digestive bacteria inside of humans form more of a symbiotic relationship. The author is suggesting our assessment of current resources and for humanity to exercise some restraint.
The common denominator with these two scenarios (spend resources on Mars, or fixing Earth) is that I want my money to go into something bigger than myself. Something that strengthens a future society.
Perhaps something like a Mars colony investment has less of a risk of being mismanaged.
We went to the moon at a period when we had many more problems on earth in fact we went to the moon nearly solely because of problems on earth.
The moonshot and the era of space exploration that of followed it enriched us beyond what most of us can comprehend and Mars won’t be any different.
We can never solve all our problems and human nature isn’t going to magically change over night we will have the same problems we are having here on earth else where and that is good because solutions that we might find to them on Mars or somewhere else might also be applicable here.
On earth we don’t need to stop pollution because we’re killing the planet we aren’t we can’t kill the planet regardless of what we do we need to stop because we’re killing ourselves but this notion that somehow human impact on the planet is unnatural is simply silly we are living beings who evolved on this planet anything we do is derived from the same “natural” process which started with the Big Bang.
Cement, Electric Turbines, Indoor Lighting, Compression, Photography, Assembly Lines, Printing Press, Fertilizer, Bicycles, Internal Combustion Engine, Vaccines, Heavier than Air transportation
You can find efficiencies and improvements that came out of space programs, sure. However I've yet to see anyone make a compelling argument that the specific period that was spent on the goal of going to the moon actually impacted anything to a greater degree than anything developed specifically for terrestrial problems. For the cost, it was a terribly inefficient way to solve earth problems.
I'd argue that the most impactful thing to come out of our space program has been GPS/GLONASS/BAIDU positioning and timing systems. It was designed very specifically to enable terrestrial activities and has no relation to space exploration. It's not even functional beyond MEO.
One interesting and oft-forgotten lesson from history is that -- in very broad strokes -- technological and economic advancement bring about long-term greater morality.
It wasn't just sheer human will that created a stable social hierarchies; it was technology: improved agricultural methods.
It wasn't just sheer human will that formed democracies; it was technology: printed works and literacy.
It wasn't just sheer human will that nearly completely abolished the millennia-old practice of slavery; it was also technology: mechanical farming.
It wasn't just sheer human will that brought relative modern peace; it was technology: global trade, MAD.
It wasn't just sheer human will that reduced sexism and racism; it was technology: education and communication.
There are is course historical counterexamples (e.g. firearms and Native American tragedies, or electronic pornography and sexual crimes).
But measured over the breath of human experience, exploration and technological progress are have been enormous greatest drivers for the moral advancement of the human race.
Only if you assume that this sentiment is genetic and not learned.