Did we learn significantly more "about our cosmic origins, about the value of life and our healthy planet, and about ourselves as a species and culture" from our manned exploration of the Moon, than we could have from probes?
AFAIK the primary things we learned were encapsulated by the 10 items NASA listed [1]. Which is great for the moon, but doesn't really give us much to work with here.
For example, we learned that it is possible for humans to design a system that can carry people to the moon and return them safely to the Earth. Before we did that, no one knew if that was true.
We learned about the Overview Effect, which astronauts say changed their view on humanity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
Some people say that the environmental protection movement was started on Earth after people saw what it looked like from a distance. And while those images could be captured by robotic cameras, I can easily imagine that it helped having actual live humans get to experience that and share what they felt. We can relate to people much more than we can relate to a robot.
I don't expect you to agree with me. But I think it is significant for actual humans to go out and do these things. It is more inspiring to people here on Earth. And I think that inspiration is valuable and produced tangible benefits on Earth.
Agree, that inspiration is important. However I seriously doubt that manned space exploration has the ability to impact humanity in the same way, and in as quick of a timeline that AGI and Transhumanism do - which is where I'd rather see people find inspiration.
As far as transhumanism - that's a philosophy. Where will tomorrow's practitioners come from? The people inspired by man's achievements. And in that regard, I think the more great things we can do the better.
I think there will be many future transhumanists inspired by images of the colony on Mars.
Also, going there is relatively cheap, so why not go? It looks like it will be mostly private funds. I wouldn't blame you if you were opposed to the use of public funds for this (as the original post suggests may happen), but are you opposed to humans going in general?
For a transhumanist, I find opposition to space exploration a bit surprising.
Also, what are your thoughts on manned expeditions to the Jupiter system, the clouds of Venus, or other stars? I understand other stars requires technology far beyond what we can imagine today, but so did manned flight 150 years ago.
True, but there are tangible aspects to it that don't require you to be onboard with the philosophy. Brain computer interfaces, mechanical assistance etc... have plenty of uses that don't require the philosophical aspect, like helping paraplegics and the elderly.
Also, going there is relatively cheap, so why not go?
It's not relatively cheap. What do we do after we get to Mars? Go to Jupiter, venus etc? Ok great, now you need to build systems with life support capabilities that allow you to not age out on the way - so add that to the cost? What's the long term goal here? If the goal is to just drive around the universe then the human animal is one of the worst systems to do that as the life support needed is excessive.
If you look at the current state of funding for AGI or Genetics, Robotics and Nanotechnology (GNR) then it's basically nothing in comparison to what we have or are planning on spending on space. Despite what people say it is a fixed pie (on the timeline for any human use of outcomes) both on the private and public side in any practical timeline. So funding for space practically does crowd-out funding for AGI and GNR.
I'm all for space exploration, but not right now with squishy humans.
The "problems" that the space exploration people claim to be solving around humanity will not actually yield results if all we're doing is taking our problems elsewhere - because our problems are baked into our biology. Climate change, resource allocation etc... are all human problems. Man made existential risks are just moved, not eliminated by being a "multi-planetary" species. I also argue that natural existential risks are not solved, just again moved - at crazy high costs. An ELE on Mars is just as likely as it is here on earth, only we have fallback systems and can at least breathe here without energy inputs. The earth is still more habitable after an ELE asteroid than it is on Mars today.
Humans were made on earth for the earth environment. We need to actually change "form" if we are going to explore the universe in any meaningful way - if nothing else because of the time involved in transport.
Further, you can send a 50+ ton's worth of rovers instead of 1 person who needs to spend most of their time inside and wast all this time sleeping and eating etc.
PS: At best a human can take pictures while holding a camera 'just like a robot'. Notice how you need to send a camera in both cases.
Historically, when we can do something much faster we tend to do things with that we didn't do when it was very slow. For example when it took months to cross the country, it was a once in a lifetime thing for some and most never did it. Now we do it all the time, and generations of West Coast students have seen the Smithsonian.
I think that there will be more value in sending humans to Mars than just hubris. I think we will learn a lot more about our cosmic origins, about the value of life and our healthy planet, and about ourselves as a species and culture. In fact, I think sending man to Mars is a key factor in getting us to appreciate this planet and the destruction we're causing here. I don't think Musk's end goal is to leave Earth, but to save it by making us value it again. Perhaps, on this scale, for the first time.
To me, that's a lot more than just hubris. What do you think of all that?