Hacker News Reader

Comment by f6v | Hacker News Reader

People on HN start this discussion whenever there’re any news about Venus/Mars. But at this point I don’t even care which planet we colonize first. As a layman, I think it’s an engineering problem and all we need is money. Let’s just go SOMEWHERE.

Someone usually says: “Yeah but what about curing cancer first?!” Guys, the war on cancer(or HIV/Alzheimer’s/whatever) has been going on for decades. We can’t wait forever, as there’s always going to be next disease to take care of.

“And what about eradicating poverty on Earth first?!” Just hear me out... imagine how many people we can put to work(with decent wage!) if we put enough money on the interplanetary flights? We’d invest in science, engineering, production... Well, I’ll keep dreaming.

View on HN

>Let’s just go SOMEWHERE.

Why though? We have robots exploring other planets and comets/asteroids and stuff, still sending data from beyond the solar system. We are places. What do we even get out of it that robots on other planets wouldn't be able to accomplish? If there was a new task humans would do, you could likely just form a way for a robot to do that task.

I'm no expert, but it seems that the tasks robots can do are rather limited. Especially considering that they're remotely controlled, there's a huge delay between command and action.

If we had humanoid robots that match us in agility and intelligence...Well, that'd be a completely different story.

Also, if we cure all the diseases, where are we going to put all the people on this already over-taxed air bubble?

Seems like a potentially great way to transfer a lot of wealth from taxpayers to the aerospace industry for a very long time with little oversight or roi.

In ideal world, we'd transfer wealth from football players, singers, actors, traders etc.

Or maybe we give more thought to the feasibility of space colonization and give people the ability to opt out of paying for this kind of adventurism?

I work really hard and would rather my taxes go to helping out those living today, not maybe those living in 1,000 years.

I agree with you. It's driven by nothing more than sci-fi fantasy. Robots are the future of space travel and public funded inventions for those do end up bringing useful technological advances in the future.

Is that not what has been going on with the possibly questionable cost-plus approach of NASA, let alone the US Military contracts and similar government grants for feasibleness research without commitment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com