Several times on HN I have posed replies that consist of the snappy comment: "your logical fallacy is: " followed by a link. It doesn't usually go over well.
Yes, it would be wise to do those things. I mean, to do them as well: It's not one of the other. The "don't go to Mars, fix poverty" argument is something like Whataboutery or "Fallacy of relative privation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallaci...
Imagine if presidential debates had real-time scoring of what was being said. Politifact is great, but 24h delay makes it substantially less impactful.
That's what my experience indicates, anyway ;)
"It's not one or the other"
To a large degree it is, as in "you cant have your cake and eat it".
They are mostly political problems rather than technologies.
The exception would be diseases, because a lot of that is the scientific challenge and research and development.
And they're all problems that plague our quality of living rather than posing any kind of existential risks. Nuclear war, asteroid strikes, and UFAI would qualify as existential risks.
Plus, by establishing a colony on Mars, you reduce the probability of extinction should something happens to Earth.
Those are threats to individual human beings, not to mankind as a whole. A Great Plague or a (non-nuclear) world war here and there can wipe 1/3 of humanity, but for the species as a whole it's just an inconvenience: it can be compensated in a couple of generations, through our adaptable fertility rate.
There are dangers, mostly ecological, which can wipe out the whole species: nuclear winter, mega-volcanoes, meteors... (yes, most of them are about some form of climate change) The mitigation for those dangers is to have several separated ecosystems, not regrowing the population locally after a demographic setback.
A city on Mars would probably take centuries to turn into an independent ecosystem (including all of the mining, transforming and recycling of every material required, and the means to extend itself across the planet. Or even, maybe, terraforming). But a partially Earth-dependent Mars city is a very important milestone towards the big goal.
Finally, he doesn't say that all of our efforts should be dedicated to that single goal: he's quite involved in fixing Earthly problem, including energy, climate change and transportation. He's also vocal about how we should think very hard about the kind of IA we want to cohabit with.
Perhaps a terraforming project could be accomplished in a few thousand years, but for the most part this is all ridiculous pipe dream. We only have one planet.
What makes you think technology pushed to incredible levels won't assist with Earth's current problems?
Even if you are really into space exploration, developing a comet pusher would be infinitely more valuable.
But with the decent possibility of somebody like Donald Trump becoming President, I think the journey to Mars can't come soon enough.
As for asteroid mining, aren't metals available here on earth too, at a fraction of the cost? How about an R&D effort to make batteries and other technology out of easily-available metals here? Wouldn't that spending yield useful products much more cheaply than trying to get them from out there in the sky?
We have to stop reading science fiction and taking it as prophecy. The case for seeding our species on another planet makes no economic sense.
I can understand inspiration part but don't get how this help preventing human extinction. Wouldn't be wise to focus on unresolved problems like hunger, poverty, education and incurable diseases? I understand that trying to reach other planets can push forward technology to incredible levels but it would be more meaningful if this technology can find areas to resolve Earth's current problems.