No offense, but you sound like a person who hasn't been outdoors a lot, not even on an overnight hike.
I assure you, there are places on Earth that are effectively as remote and frontier-like as Mars, where you can comfortably die, knowing that no assistance was coming or possible.
If your goal is to make Mars hospitable, I suggest you do some back of the envelope math to see how much energy it would take to divert some water comets onto Mars and then to terraform it to create some sort of rudimentary atmosphere.
That should hopefully rid you of the naivete and hubris about space frontierism.
I camp, I hike in the woods daily, and I've been to some pretty remote places. I still feel the pull of Mars. It's not just the remoteness of it for me - it's the idea of influencing a new society from the ground up, of doing something unprecedented.
Escaping all the problems of Earth to try and rebuild a society from first principles?
You can pretend I was condescending and downvote all you like, but it doesn't change the facts that I stated. It's extremely naive and arrogant to spend the resources to colonize Mars than try and make more places habitable on Earth.
It's even more arrogant to believe that a Mars society will be any different or better than the society on Earth.
> As opposed to sheer arrogance that was OP's post?
What was arrogant in OP's post? They said they personally yearn for a new frontier, and that Mars satisfies it for them.
> It's even more arrogant to believe that a Mars society will be any different or better than the society on Earth.
It'd be an entire planet built with modern understanding of city planning, environmentalism, governance, etc. Whether a Martian society winds up better is hard to say, but different seems pretty certain.
"Human nature" encompasses the range from Somali warlords to Swiss efficiency. Some of what's messy with today's life on Earth is that we didn't know better - we clear-cut forests, we built Boston's streets to fit horses and not cars, we built houses before public transit, etc.
A city built from scratch in 2017 is going to look a lot different than a city that grew organically since the 1600s. Part of the appeal of Mars for me is the ability to build a planet knowing what we know now about city planning.
> Have we stopped doing this since we have know better for a long time now?
We're not perfect, but we've come a long ways from the excesses of the early Industrial Revolution in how we treat our environment. The developed world generally practices sustainable logging these days. A Martian colony would use clean energy, etc.
> You want to leave earth because streets are too crammed for cars? Seriously?
Congratulations on slaying the strawman. No, that's simply an minor example of how starting a planetary civilization with a fresh slate and modern knowledge could have benefits, despite "human nature".
I think Mars offers us a chance to short-circuit some of that.
Fights over land? We'd be opening up an entire Earth's worth of surface area.
Fights over resources? See above.
Fights over oil? None.
Fights over arbitrarily-drawn national boundaries drawn by collapsing colonialist empires? None.
It's remarkably pessimistic to argue that colonizing a new planet after two centuries of experience with industrialization, democracy, environmentalism, ex-colonialism, etc. under our belt wouldn't be at least slightly better than the situations we find ourselves in on Earth.
> It's remarkably pessimistic to argue that colonizing a new planet after two centuries of experience with industrialization, democracy, environmentalism, ex-colonialism, etc. under our belt wouldn't be at least slightly better than the situations we find ourselves in on Earth.
Do you know who will be still calling shots?
Politicians/Businessmen.
I am not even addressing the rest of your comment because that is quite frankly, very naive wishful thinking...You say that is pessimistic. But tell me, look around, do you see anything that make you feel even remotly optimistic?
> I think greed, insecurity and shortsighted thinking are the root causes of most evils on earth. Does going to mars fix that?
Are you saying that the only worthwhile thing to do is come up with something that completely fixes one or more of those things?
If not then what are you trying to argue there?
Looking at your other comments in this thread, for someone who thinks short-sighted thinking is a big problem you seem to have strange issue with solutions that aren't directly addressing the here and now.
> It'd be an entire planet built with modern understanding of city planning, environmentalism, governance, etc. Whether a Martian society winds up better is hard to say, but different seems pretty certain.
There's nothing stopping you from doing that in the inhospitable areas on Earth. If you bring the money and the plan, most governments will let you make a planned city.
This is precisely the arrogance I was talking about. Thinking it would be any different because of the extremely inhospitable conditions. If you don't see the arrogance here - I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to convince you of it. It's simply a difference of viewpoints.
The condescending things about your post were your implicit assumptions that the other poster was incapable of basic math, the presumption that as soon as he saw the basic the math he would turn to your way of thinking, the presumption that your way of thinking was clearly superior and finally calling him naive.
He desires to be part of something grand and huge at the beginning of an era, then you insult and deride his grand dream by belittling it and telling him to make a planned city. It seems to me that he would rather be the lowliest janitor on Mars than a Mayor of planned city here and you cannot fathom how that could be, so you presume he is wrong or confused
He wants something that is impossible now. This is a common human goal. You fail to understand human nature then claim to have all the answers. Your points may all have been correct, but they were not the points that were needed.
I am not saying either of you are wrong or right, but you clearly brought plenty of arrogance and condescension.
Clearly, you're fine putting words in other people's mouths and making subjective claims about the nature of one's post.
You're fine rejecting my arguments for why his post is arrogant, but somehow yours about why my post is condescending are valid.
That's a toxic and arrogant way of arguing, so I'm not surprised you're projecting something I didn't say. Honestly I would have expected better from an HN audience, but techies are still people...
Also quite indicative of what would happen on Mars.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. Direct quotes: "No offense, but you sound like a person who hasn't been outdoors a lot, not even on an overnight hike." and "That should hopefully rid you of the naivete and hubris about space frontierism."
> It's extremely naive and arrogant to spend the resources to colonize Mars than try and make more places habitable on Earth.
Why?
And I'll note that insults and ad hominems don't make a rational argument.
> It's even more arrogant to believe that a Mars society will be any different or better than the society on Earth.
No one said that.
If your best arguments are insults and straw men... well, it's best to avoid a technical forum like HN where there are people trained in rationality, math, and rocket science.
> No offense, but you sound like a person who hasn't been outdoors a lot, not even on an overnight hike.
Was the article about taking an overnight hike on Mars?
Was my response about taking an overnight hike in the Sahara?
No. So why do you feel the need to lie about it?
> I assure you, there are places on Earth that are effectively as remote and frontier-like as Mars, where you can comfortably die, knowing that no assistance was coming or possible.
You're arguing against a point I didn't make.
Why?
> If your goal is to make Mars hospitable, I suggest you do some back of the envelope math to see how much energy it would take to divert some water comets onto Mars and then to terraform it to create some sort of rudimentary atmosphere.
Which is a suggestion, not a rational argument.
> That should hopefully rid you of the naivete and hubris about space frontierism.
Is it really that necessary to engage in ad hominems?
I assure you, there are places on Earth that are effectively as remote and frontier-like as Mars, where you can comfortably die, knowing that no assistance was coming or possible.
If your goal is to make Mars hospitable, I suggest you do some back of the envelope math to see how much energy it would take to divert some water comets onto Mars and then to terraform it to create some sort of rudimentary atmosphere.
That should hopefully rid you of the naivete and hubris about space frontierism.