Re:Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
by carleverett on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @09:04PM
(#12594668)
> The choice is a two-planet species versus a more prepared one-planet species.
That's not the choice. Those two options are not mutually exclusive.
Re:Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
by erikpukinskis on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @09:13PM
(#12594709)
Sure they are. Every engineer working on a Mars mission is not working on sustainability/stability engineering.
Re:Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
by i2amsam on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @10:16PM
(#12594942)
Well, there are a couple engineers currently working on things which are not sustainability/stability engineering.
Re:Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
by XorNot on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @11:43PM
(#12595291)
Those problems on earth stopped being engineering issues a long time ago. See the current US election.
Re:Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
by lmm on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @04:17AM
(#12596160)
I think no amount of geopolitics PhDs will reduce the chance of wiping out humanity through nuclear war more than Mars colonization does.
I think it may take some time - centuries even - for colonizing Mars to "pay off" in terms of reduced extinction risk. But I think in the long term - say 500 years from now - we will indisputably be safer as a species if we started colonizing Mars 500 years ago than if we didn't. And if we don't start now, then when?
Re:Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
by erikpukinskis on Thursday September 29, 2016 @12:01PM
(#12606303)
There is no vaguely plausible scenario where humanity goes extinct through deployment of the current nuclear arsenal. I would put the probability at zero.
I would increase that number if someone could tell a story with even a whiff of truth about how it could happen.
No, the risk v reward curve has to be better than an equivalent risk v reward curve for a terrestrial species survival project to justify the mission.
I would argue that just about any PhD in epidemiology, disaster relief, or geopolitics will have a risk/reward curve far better than any Mars mission.
People keep making this argument that, absent any other information, a two planet species is more robust than a one planet species. But that's not the choice we're facing. The choice is a two-planet species versus a more prepared one-planet species.