Mars now!

[opacity]

Well, i don't think mankind will "abandon Earth" if "we" colonize Mars. Most likely all calls will be made from Earth, all governments will still have bases on Earth

i thought so

and we all know food is at a current shortage on Earth.

wrong. there's just too many nations who rather throw their food away (for purely economical reasons) than transfer it to those places where food is needed. because the transfer and organisation and the difficulties which would inevitably evolve, are economically not acceptable.
Earth produces enough food. The homo sapiens s. however has made all his problems himself.
perhaps an evolutionary issue too - Homo sapiens s. is not at the end of his development.

btw, where would you produce food on mars? or take it from earth, after all...?

But Again, sad but true. We will have a Mars populated by europeans, australians and north americans (except mexicans). But then there's the bright side, which is that there'd be no poverty (at first, anyway) on Mars.

yes, sad but true. and your selfish little remark is sad but true too
though i guess it was not meant as is sounds.
(sounds like: i'm sorry buddy but oh well, that's life: i was born in a first world country and you were not. bad luck for you, but you get no ticket to mars, i.e. escape poverty)

well, anyway - i'd not leave earth.
but i would not have anything against a migration of a good amount of nations
go to mars. hurry up. don't come back. take all nuclear and chemical weapons with you to terraform mars.

 

[rahvin]

(sounds like: i'm sorry buddy but oh well, that's life: i was born in a first world country and you were not. bad luck for you, but you get no ticket to mars, i.e. escape poverty)

wait... he's from mexico, though. that wasn't so selfish after all. although i do believe the difference in this hypotethical scenario would be based on personal wealth instead of citizenship: richer countries might well be the only ones to send ships out, but the passengers will only need to personally be able to afford the ticket, so to speak.

i feel a little removed, not from the planet but from this kind of debate. part of me agrees with siren that we should focus our efforts elsewhere, while another part believes that yes, sure, in the long run mankind can probably broaden the window of its survival as a species by finding - among other things - somewhere else to conquer. i just don't see it as something i can either encourage or discourage as of now. i'm in favor of space research, yes. but i'm also in favor of pineapple, and despite plintus' alluring catcall i wouldn't want the entire world to start focusing on either too much.

my contribution is rather superfluous, i know, but you should be glad i didn't make a joke about colonizing uranus.

 

[Siren]

The real reason i discourage the colonization of Mars is that eventually i'm sure i'd get involved with someone who lived there. While i'd still be on Earth.

I'm sure tickets would be terribly expensive. And i suppose phonecalls too.

 

[opacity]

aha
when i wrote my posting there were no hints yet that UC was from mexico.

 

[Magrathean]

wrong. there's just too many nations who rather throw their food away (for purely economical reasons) than transfer it to those places where food is needed. because the transfer and organisation and the difficulties which would inevitably evolve, are economically not acceptable.
Earth produces enough food.

Of course there's nations which throw away their food. We can all see that. But isn't the food shortage in some countries greater than the food excess in others? And aren't there more countries with shortage than countries with excess?

perhaps an evolutionary issue too - Homo sapiens s. is not at the end of his development.

Evolution is nothing more than the emergence of a new species from an old one through changes caused by mutation. That doesn't necessarily mean that the new species is smarter/better than the old one; it just means that it survived; it could be that the new species likes to live underground and a meteor hits the Earth and kills everybody except that new species, even though it might be weak and helpless against any predator (the odds of that actually happening are very small, and usually what wipes out one species is another species, so usually the new species either is better than the old one or simply doesn't survive; but an example is the dinosaurs, who clearly could kill any modern-day species easily and yet died because of a meteor impact and its secondary effects and so on). Anyway, i believe i've walked too far out of the path here; my point is that evolution merely creates new species and has nothing to do with human beings throwing food away. And there's no "driving force" or "purpose" behind it, it just happens. "Random" mutation, you could say (although mutations are actually caused by chemical or physical factors, but that's another story).

btw, where would you produce food on mars? or take it from earth, after all...?

We can plant trees on Mars. And once the atmosphere is habitable we could even have animals roaming about. Or we could indeed take it from Earth for a while (until we can grow it on Mars): starve a few people to feed a lot of people. Might sound cruel, but how i see things it's worth it if it kills n lives to save n+1 lives.

your selfish little remark is sad but true too

Well, it is. I meant to say that Mexico is in North America but won't get to Mars if Mars becomes a planet of the rich and powerful.

(sounds like: i'm sorry buddy but oh well, that's life: i was born in a first world country and you were not. bad luck for you, but you get no ticket to mars, i.e. escape poverty)

My sincere apologies. I never thought of it that way. On the contrary, i believe; you're in Austria and i'm in Mexico, and Austria is richer than Mexico, so you have a higher chance of going than i do.

But if they call you and you don't want to go then can i go in your place?

i do believe the difference in this hypotethical scenario would be based on personal wealth instead of citizenship: richer countries might well be the only ones to send ships out, but the passengers will only need to personally be able to afford the ticket, so to speak.

Well, yea, you've got a point there, actually. If i make a band and tour the Earth for a while i might, after all, be able to afford a ticket to Mars.

you should be glad i didn't make a joke about colonizing uranus.

Just mentioning it makes it a joke.

when i wrote my posting there were no hints yet that UC was from mexico.

No problem.

 

[Magrathean]

Siren: Whenever i get my hands on that spaceport they're going to build on Olympus Mons (highest volcano on Mars, and in the entire solar system for that matter) i'll make sure to send a shuttle down to Earth with the sole mission of transporting Siren and a couple other UM members to Mars.

 

[Siren]

@Undo: hey, and what if i want to come back?

 

[rammpeth]

i think it would actually do everyone good if the "rich and powerful' leave earth. that way the people left behind could in theory start an economy with somewhat similar standards, the pollution would go way down (after all first world countries pollute a whole lot) and life i guess would go back to a more simple style

 

[marduk1507]

@Sirenoulitta: Dont forget whos wearing the spandex, honey. Mars? Piece a´cake.

 

[Magrathean]

Siren: Ah, women and their voluble nature! But i guess i could arrange for you to have your own shuttle.

rammpeth: I agree, though it seems unlikely that the whole population of any given country will go to Mars. Most likely they'll just either send scientists and workers or make it a big jail.

 

[rahvin]

Just mentioning it makes it a joke.

you're so on to me!

 

[Magrathean]

Damn you, Master rahvin, you could tell even though i tried so hard to hide it!

 

[Siren]

@mardy; undies: awww you're both so sweet, now i fear nothing!

 

[Magrathean]

Thanks, thanks, i'll be here all week. Autographs are signed from 8:30 to 8:35 near where mardy's standing.

 

[opacity]

But isn't the food shortage in some countries greater than the food excess in others?

i don't think so.
(though of course i cannot give any proove other than some statistic that might be faked - who knows )

And aren't there more countries with shortage than countries with excess?

it's a matter of number of people. and imo there'd be enough for each single individual (theoretically). might sound naive to you *shrugs*

Evolution is nothing more than the emergence of a new species from an old one through changes caused by mutation. That doesn't necessarily mean that the new species is smarter/better than the old one; ...

i was about to write a decent paragraph to explain some things.
but deleted it
it goes too far (offtopic) and it wouldn't have any effect on either your or my point of view.
so let's cut this one.

But if they call you and you don't want to go then can i go in your place?

you can count on that



opi/not knowing exactly why of all things participated

 

[Magrathean]

i don't think so.
(though of course i cannot give any proove other than some statistic that might be faked - who knows )

Let's leave it at that (who knows).

it's a matter of number of people. and imo there'd be enough for each single individual (theoretically). might sound naive to you *shrugs*

Precisely. Poor countries and overwhelmingly overpopulated while rich countries are beginning to face population decrease (because nobody's having kids; think Russia, Scandinavia, New Zealand). Maybe Earth's soil could theoretically feed seven thousand million people, but there's too much pollution and destruction and everything's terribly divided, so the ones who are starving aren't getting anything and the ones who aren't are getting fat and having to get treatment for diabetes and obesity.

i was about to write a decent paragraph to explain some things.
but deleted it
it goes too far (offtopic) and it wouldn't have any effect on either your or my point of view.
so let's cut this one.

Agreed.

 

[Magrathean]

Well, now we have Rincewind and 6SF and Zack and Rampage and a few more members. Let's see how this thread does if we give it a second chance.

 

[Zack]

The technology to colonize Mars has existed for years, but regrettably the political will hasn't. During the cold war, a lot of space technology was developed by NASA and by whatever space organization the USSR had (i'm unfortunately ignorant on that matter). But since the cold war political leaders have seemed to think there's no need for that anymore.

Now which technology is this? If you're refering to the infamous Biodome expirement, it failed. And that was on Earth. Sure, we have an idea about how to do it, but we have to work on being successful on earth first.

Personally, I don't think Mars colonization is as possible as it may seem. Even if scientists were given all of the funding, technology and support they needed, it would take 20 years to have a manned mission get there, let alone colinization.

For instance, how many times have we been to the moon? Almost 20, yet 35 years after the first manned mission, colonization hasn't even been talked about yet.

In addition, we have to consider Mars' distance and the window of launch. It takes approximately 6 months (don't quote me on that) to reach Mars, and we can only launch every 2 years.

Furthermore, if space agencies were given funding, all of it would go the ISS, which is another argument in it's own right (hint: I don't like it)

I know, this thread is about going to Mars, not about it's funding. Thats what it boils down to though, and in the end, I believe all funding needs to go to fixing our problems on earth first.



I didn't read the rest of the thread due to time, so if someone already pointed this out, it is purely coincidence.

 

[QRV]

Well, first thing that comes to my mind is, shouldn't we first get done with our own planet before going away to explore another one? I mean, most of this world is covered by water and no government has ever given a shit about finding out what's on its depths. We actually know more about the outer space than we do of the oceans (and there's a greedy military cause for that, rather than a genuine compromise to knowledge). And, considering all life forms came from there, my guess is that should a priority.

But then, we don't know much about most living beings anyway. Hell, we don't know a lot about ourselves either, bloody extroverted occidentals we are.

 

[Magrathean]

Now which technology is this? If you're refering to the infamous Biodome expirement, it failed. And that was on Earth. Sure, we have an idea about how to do it, but we have to work on being successful on earth first.

Agreed. But the technology is there; all we have to do is fund projects that will help us get it right and eventually send manned missions there.

how many times have we been to the moon? Almost 20, yet 35 years after the first manned mission, colonization hasn't even been talked about yet.

That's because nobody really cares about colonizing space, as far as i know. I really don't see the point in sending missions to the moon or rovers to Mars if we're not colonizing them, though.

Even if scientists were given all of the funding, technology and support they needed, it would take 20 years to have a manned mission get there, let alone colinization.

So? They could train the colonizers and build the shit in that time. Send robotic ministations for food/recon/whatever so the colonizers will have an easier time when they get there. Plan the location of the first cities. Extract water from the poles. Build orbital mirrors to increase the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet. Send probes with algae and bacteria (which would start to release oxygen into the atmosphere) and genetically-engineered plants (which would be able to survive in harsh conditions and would release, rather than fixate, the nitrogen trapped in the soil). Probe more to see if there really is water underground or if they'll have to melt the poles.

In addition, we have to consider Mars' distance and the window of launch. It takes approximately 6 months (don't quote me on that) to reach Mars, and we can only launch every 2 years.

Two years? Great! I thought it was several decades. And i don't think a 6-month trip is an issue. With enough funding, space organizations could afford that.

Furthermore, if space agencies were given funding, all of it would go the ISS, which is another argument in it's own right (hint: I don't like it)

Well, shit.

I know, this thread is about going to Mars, not about it's funding. Thats what it boils down to though, and in the end, I believe all funding needs to go to fixing our problems on earth first.

Aye, that's what i keep hearing every time i bring Mars up. Have you ever thought that maybe Earth's situation is irreparable? Also, i think Mars would be a really good chance to start almost from zero, to create a completely new society without the shit that's going on in a lot of Earth's societies today.

Well, first thing that comes to my mind is, shouldn't we first get done with our own planet before going away to explore another one? I mean, most of this world is covered by water and no government has ever given a shit about finding out what's on its depths. We actually know more about the outer space than we do of the oceans (and there's a greedy military cause for that, rather than a genuine compromise to knowledge). And, considering all life forms came from there, my guess is that should a priority.

Aye, i've thought about that too. Well, we would finish destroying all sea life, and the oceans are already too polluted, but sure, we could build there. Underwater colonies wouldn't face natural disasters, would allow vast scientific study and would pose a challenge as interesting as martian colonies. I'm all for that idea. Should i / do you want to start a thread about that?