What is the point in focusing on terraforming Mars, when:
1. The moon is closer.
2. We can't even take care of Earth. I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems.
1. The moon is closer.
2. We can't even take care of Earth. I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems.
Still, I think we should build a moon base for the same reason we should go to Mars: even if these projects don't yield direct benefits, they are probably necessary steps to exploring the solar system and beyond.
In terms of your "why explore space at all while children are dying in Africa?" argument -- we can do multiple things at once! Anyway, people's interests aren't fungible: you can't force the people who want to dedicate their lives to exploring space to instead dedicate their lives to curing malaria. Even if you could, people should be allowed to do what they like. And complaining that person X is doing prosocial activity A rather than prosocial activity B is stupid and antisocial.
But financial capital, political capital, and public attention are fungible and directly trade off. Want a space program at the top of a national political party platform? What are priorities are you going to give up fighting for to prioritize that?
I'm not sure that's true in any simple way.
As far as the government goes, it has a role, but this isn't the 60s. SpaceX has shown that a company can launch rockets. As long as there are people willing to work on the necessary problems and people willing to take the necessary risks, I see no reason (that isn't degenerate) why anyone would want to obstruct those efforts. It's not like making SpaceX illegal is going to somehow fix climate change or cure malaria.
Anyway, I think terraforming is getting ahead of ourselves. Step one is getting supplies to Mars. Step two is building a base there. Step three is making that base as self-sufficient as possible. Down the road from that we can worry about generating an atmosphere.
I was merely asking what the point was, from the comparative costs and difficulty of terraforming other planets vs Earth.
This is a popular view but I think it is wrong. Yes, we have problems on Earth. But if you compare Earth today, in terms of "carrying capacity for human beings", or "utils generated per day" or some other metric you like, vs pre-human Earth, I don't think it's a close contest.
The few early humans were hungry, naked and vulnerable to all manner of dangers. Now there are billions of us, and most live in relative safety, comfort and material luxury. If we can do for Mars what we did for Earth, that will be the best thing that has ever happened to Mars.
As for why not moon, I'm not a terraforming expert but my understanding is that the more massive planet will be capable of retaining an atmosphere more easily than our small satellite would.
Maybe let's turn down the optimization on a single metric before we're all turned into paper clips.
Nor I, but maybe the Earth's problems can't be solved at all, so -at least some people think- the next best thing would be to have an alternative for saving the human species.