> We can't know for sure, of course, but who were would have preferred Elon Musk start a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX?
I would have preferred that.
EDIT: Sure, downvote me for honestly answering a question. I don't really care about colonizing space right now, I care about a lot of other problems here on Earth. Perhaps you think that's short sighted, but I'd rather Musk have started another Simons Foundation or DESRES than SpaceX. More power to him, and I don't bear him any enmity, but I don't respect the decision.
We don't need to leave the planet to solve our current problems with overpopulation or climate change. More importantly, the reality is that the things that will kill anyone reading this are not going to be solved by going to Mars.
> The downvotes for simply having another vision of a better future are silly.
It's hubris to declare that your vision inherently provides a better future.
Happily you are completely free to start your own project(s) to 'solve Earth's problems' too -- it won't get in the way of what others (in this case, Musk) is doing, and you can look forward to basking in the glory of curing cancer, etc.
Unless the problem is that other people aren't working exclusively on the things that are important to you?
> I didn't say that, I said that there are different visions of a better future.
You agreed with GP who stated they would prefer Elon Musk had started a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX, and you said 'I would prefer solving Earth's problems too'.
(Personally I'd prefer cancer research wasn't conducted by 'a firm' at all, but that's aside.)
What was the 'better' in reference to a 'better future' mean?
Aha, so you weren't comparing different futures, you were comparing now to a type of future that you weren't committing to (and certainly weren't suggesting a future with Musk running a cancer-curing-firm would be better than a future with Musk not curing cancer for profit).
Maybe I should clarify my point: all the things that will realistically kill everyone reading this comment are not unique to Earth. Some of the things you've mentioned are quite literally so astronomically unlikely that worrying about them is unproductive. And in any case, each of the extinction scenarios you've listed is also fully plausible on Mars.
Scores of people die from cancer, heart disease, obesity, malnutrition, vehicular accidents or warfare every day. In my opinion, there's a sort of messianic hubris involved in the idea that we should colonize an utterly foreign, unfamiliar and inhospitable environment for the sake of our species, when everything that actually threatens our species comes from our own biology and the way we treat each other.
The current state of Mars is a vastly more hostile environment than even the worst, most pessimistic scenarios offered by Earth's paleoclimatology. We completely lack the technology to terraform Mars' environment to our needs. It is strictly easier for us to develop the technology, lifestyle changes or sociopolitical reforms necessary to continue thriving here on Earth than it is to learn how to adapt to Mars or to terraform its environment to approximate Earth's.
You and I are probably going to die from cancer, heart disease or random accidents. On a long enough timeline, everyone we know is probably going to die from one of those things. But sure let's go to Mars, where the things that kill approximately everyone apparently aren't an issue.
If fixing all our problems on earth is easier than going to other celestial bodies, why have we visited the moon but not done the former?
Nobody thinks going to Mars will make us immortal, you're kinda just throwing that straw man in there.
The disagreement is really that colonizing Mars does not make us any less capable of solving problems on Earth, but it could have many benefits. There are realistically zero downsides. The great thing about space exploration is that it's mostly a purely scientific endeavor. If you throw money at it, you can get stuff done. That's not how global geopolitics works. That's not how convincing people to take better care of their bodies works. You can't just throw money at that problem, so the idea that spending money on Mars takes money from those things is a baseless premise anyway.
I would have preferred that.
EDIT: Sure, downvote me for honestly answering a question. I don't really care about colonizing space right now, I care about a lot of other problems here on Earth. Perhaps you think that's short sighted, but I'd rather Musk have started another Simons Foundation or DESRES than SpaceX. More power to him, and I don't bear him any enmity, but I don't respect the decision.
We don't need to leave the planet to solve our current problems with overpopulation or climate change. More importantly, the reality is that the things that will kill anyone reading this are not going to be solved by going to Mars.