
We’re Not Ready for Mars - animo
https://longreads.com/2018/09/19/were-not-ready-for-mars/
======
sctb
Alright, this a rather touchy article. All who dare to comment: please put the
lid on any simmering indignation and let's try our utmost to take in and let
out actual information.

------
sargun
This author seems to have a couple problems.

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?

~~~
ken
> I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific
> progress.

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?

~~~
sargun
My culture is that of a progressive Bay Area liberal, who’s the child of
immigrants. It’s under threat, but it’s also constantly changing, and shifting
based on the global socioeconomic circumstances.

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.

~~~
flashgordon
Well let us put it the other way. If scientific advancement was _this_
important to you would you pay _whatever_ price they are asking you to pay?
(Assuming they and they alone come up with a price tag?)

------
KenanSulayman
All that I worry about in space exploration is that it ends up like the
internet, nuclear fusion, genetics or even mundane things like bitcoin -- they
all were born in the heads of incredibly intelligent people who had pure and
sound intentions. But once it gets tainted by money and greed, the pioneers
start to regret it.

------
moneytide1
I tend to see the popularity of tiny houses, off-grid living, and minimal
lifestyles as a sort of preliminary trend that must spread through society
before something like colonizing Mars is possible.

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.

------
maxxxxx
I tend to agree. We have to be careful that the Mars dreams don't become a
distraction from the problems we have on Earth. I am very much for spaceflight
but we should treat other planets with care and not export stupid things we do
on Earth there.

~~~
dogma1138
That’s a very short sighted view.

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.

~~~
maxxxxx
This makes sense. My point was that we should be careful to not repeat the
same mistakes we are making on Earth. I could easily imagine that somebody may
start building factories on Mars that pollute the whole planet in order to
make some profit.

~~~
dogma1138
Building polluting factories on Mars would be perfectly fine in fact it would
be encouraged it would be a critical part of any terraforming project.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think pollution is generally viewed as something negative. It it's part of a
planned terraforming project you would not call it pollution.

~~~
dogma1138
Pollution is pollution space is hostile and toxic to human life the pollution
won’t be magical and non-harmful it will also be much more impactful on the
existing environment on Mars than it is on earth and that is a good thing.

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.

------
paulddraper
Ah, the good old "We shouldn't invest in exploration until we've fixed all our
problems here." [1]

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.

[1] [https://xkcd.com/1232/](https://xkcd.com/1232/)

------
m000z0rz
If you REALLY believe in this sentiment fueling this article, then you
shouldn't ever do anything. "We've made mistakes, and we shouldn't do anything
until we're perfect." Fine, lay down and die, and the rest of us will keep
trying to be better, failing often, but improving gradually.

~~~
ericd
This type of opinion seems correlated with the idea that we also shouldn't
reproduce, because people do too much damage to the environment. I'm always a
bit baffled by it. Not only does it seem extremely self-loathing, but it also
seems like a auto-extinguishing philosophy, because the people who hold it are
much less likely to have children to spread it to, and will essentially be
outcompeted by those who don't share it. It seems much better to have children
but educate them on having a lighter footprint, and attempt to improve things
out of proportion with their own impact.

~~~
craftyguy
> and will essentially be outcompeted by those who don't share it.

Only if you assume that this sentiment is genetic and not learned.

~~~
ericd
Nah, I'm assuming that kids are much more likely to learn this if their
parents believe this than if their parents don't.

