I agree we're many decades out from earnestly colonizing Mars. We'll have to get much wealthier, where "wealth" = new innovations in human wellbeing *and* reduced scarcity of those we have. But: the light bulb is <150 years old. There are people alive today born before penicillinhttps://twitter.com/KevinSimler/status/1142923685809938432 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @webdevMason
This is a project that is exactly as many decades away as we want it to be.
4 replies 4 retweets 46 likes -
Replying to @DavidDeutschOxf @webdevMason
When/how would living on Mars ever be anything but a net drain on energy/money from Earth? Mars isn't full of energy sources, because it hasn't had life forms that spent hundreds of millions of years capturing and storing the Sun's energy.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @webdevMason
Mars has no knowledge sources. Yet. Knowledge/wealth/civilisation aren't produced by energy sources, but vice versa.
1 reply 5 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @DavidDeutschOxf @webdevMason
Seems mutual. It took knowledge to exploit coal, oil, etc., but greater energy usage created an explosion of wealth/knowledge (I.e., people could specialize in knowledge rather than having to farm/hunt by hand, which is energy-inefficient.)
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Easy low gravity is an absolutely gigantic benefit for Mars, the Moon, and space in general. The challenges of living there will (a) cost a huge amount in the short term; and (b) produce trillion dollar industries over the long term.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @stuartbuck1 and
Do I know this to be true? No. But that's why it's exploration, not betting on certainties. Unknown unknowns dominate. My guess is that betting on Mars is a 100x bet... with a significant probability of 0x outcome.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @stuartbuck1 and
Just one example: think about the challenges for chemists & synthetic biologies & materials scientists on Mars. They're going to be asked - indeed it will be imperative - to solve a whole lot of problems they would never have been asked to solve on Earth.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This isn't exactly the broken windows fallacy, but perhaps a sibling to it? :) I.e., "let's spend immeasurable energy/money/time going somewhere that is near-infinitely more hostile to human existence than earth, but the benefit is that people will be forced to innovate."
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Problems you can't get anywhere else are an immeasurably valuable asset
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.