But the thing is, most things that we say will "wipe us off the planet" actually leave Earth still more habitable than Mars is today. It's just that when we talk about those scenarios, we acknowledge that we have no way to survive such utter deprivation, while with Mars we wave our hands and say "Oh, we'll figure it out." Being able to survive on Mars means being able to survive under totally inhospitable conditions. That alone takes a lot of doomsday scenarios off the table even if we never go to Mars.
I'm not arguing for underwater cities or against going to Mars. I'm just saying that the cost and effort of getting everything to Mars is the easy part, and is not the part that will actually ensure humanity's survival.
But the thing is, most things that we say will "wipe us off the planet" actually leave Earth still more habitable than Mars is today.
Exactly right, how this escapes people I am unsure. The absolute worst climate predictions, asteroid impacts or seismic events wouldn't be nearly as hard to recover from than trying to get to and then live for a single day on Mars.
There's over 50 years of colonization of Antarctica, and that's not self-sufficient. Tristan da Cunha, one of the most inaccessible permanently occupied places on the Earth, depends on the UK for support when there are major infrastructure failures.
These are successful, by at least some definitions, but are not self-sufficient. Why are you more optimistic about a Mars colony than our experience with places on Earth which are much less inaccessible and more inhabitable might suggest?
It depends on the goals of the project I guess. I don't think of Antarctica as a colonization effort so much as a research outpost. There are people living there year 'round, but there hasn't been an effort to move people out there en masse.
If future Mars missions are launched with the goals of establishing a research station, then yeah, I don't expect it to become self-sufficient.
But, if future Mars missions are launched with the expressed goal of establishing an independent colony, then I think there's at least a chance it might work.
Certainly there are a lot of challenges. We probably don't even know what all of the challenges are yet. For all we know, Mars could be host to a deadly microorganism, some extremophile we've never seen before. It could go the way of the Roanoke colony, with a total loss of the whole colony.
I would still go anyway though. Because maybe, after fifty years of chipping away at it, we would have learned enough and developed enough new technology as a result of the effort to have made it all worthwhile.
It is a huge risk for a potentially huge payoff. I'm always amazed when HN, of all places, doesn't see it that way.
Chile and Argentina have colonies there, to strengthen their territorial claims. You might not have heard of it but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica has. Quoting from it "On the other hand, it is the very impracticability of permanent colonization that has contributed to the failure of any of the territorial claims to receive international recognition."
If Chile or Argentina could find a way to practicably expand their settlement on the continent, rather than subsidize it like they do now, then they likely would. That they haven't suggests they haven't figured out how.
In any case, Tristan da Cunha is in a much more hospitable area, but its self-sufficiency is shaky. One fire, for example, can ruin their economy and require external support.
I'm amazed that you think it requires an attempt at permanent colonization of Mars in order to get the benefits, when we would get the same benefits here on Earth, should we try to have a permanent, self-sufficient colony on Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, or Nunavut, with lower risks.
Get as many people as excited about the prospect of living in Antarctica (or wherever you'd like) as Mars, and then you can see about those benefits.
Maybe you can even suggest it to Musk. "Mr. Musk, I disagree that Mars is exciting. Please stop building rockets, and start looking into colonizing something safer here on Earth. Thank you."
That's a very different argument. That's "we will colonize Mars because it's our dream", not "we will colonize Mars because the benefits in technology payoff are worth it."
People climb Everest because it's their dream, because the intangibles are worth the tens of thousands of dollars to them. Chile and Argentina subsidize their colonies on Antarctica because of dreams of land.
But even Denmark hasn't figured out how to make Greenland profitable. It continues to subsidize life on that island. That's about 60,000 people who would love to be self-sufficient. Is the problem only that they are insufficiently excited? Or that there aren't enough people there? How many more do you need?
Yes, but in Mars you're ,in theory, prepared to live and maybe thrive in that harsh enviroment, and it might actually help earth population to know how to survive an enviromental disaster.
Short term, i agree it makes little sense to try to colonize other planet, but looking at it as a long term survival of the species type of affair, it makes a lot of sense.
What cataclysm do you envision destroying life on Earth if we have the technology to survive on Mars? Surviving on Mars means that we can survive in freezing temperatures, with deadly levels of radiation, without a breathable atmosphere, without fertile soil, with little to no liquid water, and with no source of power but sunlight that's 60% weaker than on Earth.
Destroy life on earth. I phrased it as a tautology to be humorous, but very large impacts are possible. I doubt life would survive an impact such as the one we hypothesized to have created the moon.
I'm not arguing for underwater cities or against going to Mars. I'm just saying that the cost and effort of getting everything to Mars is the easy part, and is not the part that will actually ensure humanity's survival.