Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn't we do those things directly, without going there?

It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.

I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that's why we poors support it, but that doesn't "pay the bills." What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 hours ago* (3 children)

The eggs in a basket argument is just unhealthy existential dread at a planetary scale. Keeping humanity alive by grasping at uninhabitable rocks and poor simulacrums of Earth is like keeping an octogenarian alive with more and more invasive treatments.

The patient was born to walk in nature and enjoy food and sunsets; humanity evolved specifically to flourish on our blue marble with its delicate biosphere. Is it ethical to keep the patient alive with life support when they can't walk or eat? Is it ethical to keep humanity alive in bubbles with pale imitations of earth on lifeless rocks?

We should accept that all things end and be more honest about these discussions. Humanity is no longer in its optimistic youth. We've matured to the natural limits of our species (and beyond them in some aspects), ask what we can do with the finite time and resources we have and not just where we can grow next.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (2 children)

    The eggs in a basket argument is just unhealthy existential dread at a planetary scale. Keeping humanity alive by grasping at uninhabitable rocks and poor simulacrums of Earth is like keeping an octogenarian alive with more and more invasive treatments.

    Yeah because an asteroid could NEVER hit the earth and wipe is out.

    The patient was born to walk in nature and enjoy food and sunsets; humanity evolved specifically to flourish on our blue marble with its delicate biosphere. Is it ethical to keep the patient alive with life support when they can’t walk or eat? Is it ethical to keep humanity alive in bubbles with pale imitations of earth on lifeless rocks?

    Nobody was born to do anything. It's what they could achieve in existing. If they go to the outer reached, they go to the outer reaches, you have no say in that. Your moral opinion will not matter.

    We should accept that all things end and be more honest about these discussions. Humanity is no longer in its optimistic youth. We’ve matured to the natural limits of our species (and beyond them in some aspects), ask what we can do with the finite time and resources we have and not just where we can grow next.

    You can accept them over in your corner, and stuff-you telling me to be more honest while you're trying to control society and keep doomsaying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    Yeah because an asteroid could NEVER hit the earth and wipe is out.

    I could have a heart attack or stroke and die tomorrow. So what? There's probably extensive measures I could take to mitigate that (constant biometric monitoring, spending all my money on a personal physician entourage, strict diet and fitness regimen, etc...). Each of those extremes has a cumulative negative effect on my lived quality of life. Is it worth living in a state of paranoia to eek an extra decade out of life?

    It's what they could achieve in existing.

    What achievement is building a colony of chemically sedated and artificially sustained peons on Mars at 1000x the cost of sustaining them on earth? Why is that a loftier and more noble goal than using those resources on, say, 1000 years of cultural/artistic development?

    control society and keep doomsaying

    Apparently looking at the raw truth of entropy and ecology is doomsaying. That's just physics my dude, do a little soul searching and come to terms with mortality.

    As for controlling society, you're right: let's not talk about the absurd cost of our options for space colonization and how little benefit the human race gains from it. There's no way to control our actions, just close your eyes and imagine star trek utopias while we burn Earth's limited fuel reserves throwing metal at Mars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment