Mars: One Way

[xoxoxoBruce]

Some are, for their children and children's children, but they are a minority with out any clout. But people worrying about eating tomorrow, have neither the knowledge or resources to do anything but try to survive. Action has to come from the "first world" countries, and we know who has the power there. So in the end, the future is in the hands of a few wealthy people. Until the masses get off their ass, accept science, get politically active, and make the government responsive, it won't happen.

Still, there are a lot of people making small contributions. Like when they started recycling here. There wasn't a lot of grumbling, people in general knew it was a good idea. But when it was discovered that most of the plastic they collected was being burned in the incinerator, a lot of people changed their mind.

[it]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Still, there are a lot of people making small contributions. Like when they started recycling here. There wasn't a lot of grumbling, people in general knew it was a good idea. But when it was discovered that most of the plastic they collected was being burned in the incinerator, a lot of people changed their mind.

See but that's not a contribution, it's reducing damage.

The planet is not better off because they are there and making sure that some of the products that took polluting the air to get to their place and get all the parts together are then getting recycled to not be burned and produce more air pollution. It is only less worst off then if the same people were replaced by those who would have added the extra bit of air pollution at the end to the air pollution they have already financed. That is not healing, it's minimal damage control, if you would imagine a point system, it's not a gain o +3 points, it's a loss of -7 instead of -10. If someone punched you but took a lot of effort and restraint to not punch you harder, you are not better off for their interaction with you, and neither is the planet.

This means that even in the hypothetical scenario where for some reason all the really environment-caring people left earth completely and moved to mars, earth would still get less pollution then it does now from those people over their lifetime.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bullshit, in order the help you have to first stop hurting. Every step in stopping the hurting helps, and only baby steps are within the power of the masses. That's first world masses, as I said.

If you think all the volunteers to populate Mars would be bunny lovin' treehugger vegans, your dreaming. It would be science fiction freaks, depressed failures who feel they've nothing to lose, and a few curious scientists who wouldn't get along with the other two.

[it]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Bullshit, in order the help you have to first stop hurting. Every step in stopping the hurting helps, and only baby steps are within the power of the masses. That's first world masses, as I said.

If you think all the volunteers to populate Mars would be bunny lovin' treehugger vegans, your dreaming. It would be science fiction freaks, depressed failures who feel they've nothing to lose, and a few curious scientists who wouldn't get along with the other two.

I was presenting that as the extreme: If you are saying that people's ability to care for a planet would be split between earth and mars, for a hypothetical 50% 50% scenario which would reduce the the amount of caring for earth by 50%, then I am saying that even if you took away all the people who'd otherwise provide earth with the most environmental-caring, a 100% of the people who care about the environment, even then, earth's ecology would still benefit more from them not being on earth in the first place and thus not having a negative impact at all then from them being here and providing their "care" which is reducing their negative impact.
Obviously, it's unlikely that everyone in the green movement would be the ones to leave earth and colonize mars, in fact they might very well be more likely to stick around - in part because a lot of them care more about the aesthetics and surrounding of nature then about preserving it - but that means that you would still have people who care about the environment here on earth.

So why would they suddenly stop caring just because there is another planet? Do people care less about their countries because people in another country are doing better? Are people in Africa going "well at least the people in Sweden are enjoying healthcare so overall I wouldn't be too worried about malaria"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I didn't say that.

[it]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I didn't say that.

Ok, in that case I am not sure what you are saying.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I said people who have a nagging concern about future generations but feel helpless to makes a difference, can drop the feeling with Mars being an option.