“Mars will always be much worse place to live than Earth even if we experience a horrific planetary apocalypse” is a true statement but it’s only an argument against humans ever going there if you’ve been listening to some deeply unserious people
People like Musk try to pitch Mars as a backup planet, presumably because they think it’ll get more investment, but it’s always been a ridiculous notion. Humans will go to Mars for the same reasons they go to Antarctica, and in the same spirit. Exploration, science, not a “better life”.
Even if we turn Earth into a nuclear & chemical weapon toxic wasteland, it will be easier to live on and "terraform" than Mars. The Red Planet has no magnetic field and atmosphere to protect us from space radiation, and its soil is full of toxic dry cleaning chemicals.
We could more easily create a habitable region on the ocean floor, with daily cargo shipments at relatively lower cost, and that is a laughable idea, but Mars? Sure let’s try it on Mars.
Essentially the conclusion of the Weinersmith's "A City on Mars". There are *so* many unanswered questions about settling off world that numbnuts like Musk brush aside 'cause it's not "cool".
yeh I've heard Zack & Kelly talk about the book a bunch of times & they're always clear they'd love to see exploration of Mars. They just think the idea of living there is dangerous nonsense.
the people who believe mars can be terraformed into earth 2.0 but that this MUST be done because we cannot save or preserve earth from worsening climate change are... interesting to me. From a distance.
I mean, ok, that's not good. But I've heard lots of folks (most recently the Weinersmiths) pointing this out just as a dose of realism. But being a wet blanket is totally not the same thing as actively arguing against human exploration of Mars.
It was very interesting to hear Kim Stanley Robinson say he's a lot more pessimistic now about Mars settlement than he was when he wrote the Red/Green/Blue Mars series. Reality has a way of asserting itself, I guess.
The Weinersmiths' book is really good, fun and thoughtful. I wrote a short review here (have to scroll down, unfortunately):
www.americanscientist.org/blog/science...
It would be a nice place to visit some day, and a terrestrial gravity anchor is still a terrestrial gravity anchor. Really depends on what our philosophical goals are as a species when we get to the point where sending people there is feasible.
It’s especially ridiculous that they’re all people like Elon, who would never conceivably agree to actually make the arduous trip and live in harsh grueling conditions with zero luxury
Is there any way for colonizing Mars to be something other than an extremely dangerous proposition requiring absurd scales of macro-construction and oxygen production without discovering some kind of Total Recall machine in an underground pyramid?
the only way I could see us living on mars long term is if we either invent some kinda terraforming technology that we couldn’t just use on earth for some reason, or we find some kinda magical alien artifact like in Mass Effect or Starfield.
It does however give you an idea about the number of people who will volunteer. It also points out the mistake in the thinking that I have heard, that Musk and others are planning to avoid problems on Earth, and live in comfort, and even luxury, on Mars.
I wonder if Musk thinks Mars will be his version of Galt's Gulch where he and his friends can build what they think will be the ideal human society.
If true, it's just further proof of how deeply unserious he is.
We probably wouldn't have to worry about the 'not allow them' part. Most of the billionaires who'd want to go would be too stupid to realize if they couldn't get back.
