Mars: One Way

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's the same as living under the ocean. Plenty of scenery but you can't relax for a moment because you need life support, and there is constant danger.

[glatt]

Living under the ocean is a hell of a lot easier than going to Mars and living there. And we don't have very many people living under the ocean.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

And we don't have very many people living under the ocean.

But we do have plenty of machines doing that .. both in the ocean and Mars.

People still don't get it. Many still believe we need to deploy humans. Even factories have now replaced humans with something better - machines. And still, some people want to see solutions in terms of a deployed human. So many still cannot change their mindset. Best solution to Mars, oceans, or even factories is machines that replace humans. And do a better job.

[glatt]

Sure, a machine is great for doing a specific task, but if the point is to colonize a place with living creatures, you need living creatures to do that.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Even factories have now replaced humans with something better - machines.

Thanks for the input Skynet.

Please regard this as an attempt at humor.
sincerely,
John Conner

[it]

...I gather you two have a history together?

If the point was to expand our industrial capacity, resources or even knowledge, then mars would make for a pretty horrible target compared to almost any other place in our solar system. Asteroids & comets, rocky planets & moons, those would be the places you'd have a lot less in the way.

The point of our endeavors on earth-like planets would be the same as any other living organism's - to create copies of itself - just on a much larger scale. That point can be greatly aided by machines, but it can't be fulfilled by machines.

[tw]

Originally Posted by traceur

That point can be greatly aided by machines, but it can't be fulfilled by machines.

Already deep sea exploration is done worse by humans; better by machine. That change will only continue. Machines are already doing many jobs better. Over time, machines will do most jobs better. A worse environment means a machine's superiority only increases.

Purpose of Mars (like all exploration and discovery) is the advancment of mankind. That means machines must do more work and do it better. That means humans will no longer accomplish what only machines can fulfill. That is the change that so many have difficulty grasping.

Best colonists on Mars will be man's machines.

[BigV]

You don't know the story about the tar baby, do you?

[it]

I am pretty sure I've had my chance to perform all the roles in that play - the rabbit, the baby, the place the rabbit was running too and the prankster who placed the tar baby in the first place.

This feels like it should be an avenue Q song..

Everybody is somebody's troll
You believe in what you say
But to them you seem so repetitively doll
When echo chambers are stretching Poe's law effect
Your sane is someones crazy shit from a bat

I... completely forgot the music I was imagining with this a second ago. Freaking actual work interfering while I am on the job.

[it]

Huh.

So... I am sorry BigV and xoxoxoBruce for doubting you guys. Thank you for trying to warn me anyway.

[Sundae]

Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
But away from this particular discussion, I can see his point. After all, why should we colonise another planet? Resources would be better resourced by machines.

Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are unable to support.

I'm not talking eugenics, merely population control.
And compare the cost of terraforming Mars to the cost of making - just examples - the Nevada desert or the Australian bush into reasonable habitats. They at least have oxygen and aren't 14 million miles away (sorry if that's wrong, I think I saw it on a move poster for The Martian!)

[it]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.
But away from this particular discussion, I can see his point. After all, why should we colonise another planet? Resources would be better resourced by machines.

Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are unable to support.

I'm not talking eugenics, merely population control.
And compare the cost of terraforming Mars to the cost of making - just examples - the Nevada desert or the Australian bush into reasonable habitats. They at least have oxygen and aren't 14 million miles away (sorry if that's wrong, I think I saw it on a move poster for The Martian!)

No... More real estate isn't quite the point either, any more then resources or research.

It is cheaper to dig deeper here for ores then to deliver them from Mars and it is cheaper to build higher and wider here then send people to Mars.

The value of mars real estate IS that it's far away. Which I suppose in turn creates a somewhat worrying possible answer to my initial question in the thread:

This to me bags the unfortunate question.... How do you - realistically - establish a mars colonization effort?

The drive might not be directly economical, but it can be political - Isolationists groups.

I have to admit that considering the spirit of our time, that's a very chilling vision. The Westboro Baptist Colony?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.

This discussion is predicated on a solution that is becoming less relevant with each decade. Number one objective of mankind is the advancement of mankind; not colonization. Advancement is no longer found in putting people on other continents or worlds. Advancement has changed; it is more about putting man's handywork and tools in places where knowledge can be expanded, resources might be obtained, and new materials might be discovered that become essential to mankind's existence and advancement.

This discussion is predicated on a bogus need. Long before some objective is defined, first, what is the strategic objective? What is necessary to do what is relevant - the advancement of mankind?

Many have automatically assumed colonization is necessary because once it was necessary. I did not miss the point. The point is this discussion ignores what must be accomplished - as if colonization (once considered necessary for the advancement of mankind) is the only solution. Once it was. Human presence is no longer necessary to advance mankind.

As usual, I am have gone beyond what some are unwilling or not ready to consider. Why is human presence essential? Once it was. Starting recently, colonization is better done with man's tools rather than with human presence. That is extremely difficult for some to grasp because it is a very new concept.

Point of this general discussion is fundamentally flawed.

BTW, we have plenty of space on earth for many more people. There is no shortage of real estate despite so many emotional fears that believe otherwise. Instead, what will advance mankind?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Now I know TW is missing the point of the general discussion.

Absolutely right.

Do we really need more space? There is plenty of space still on Earth. We should limit our population instead - even the richest countries in the world have parts of the population they are unable unwilling to support.

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by tw

Number one objective of mankind is the advancement of mankind; not colonization.

Bullshit, that's a fairy tale that's been used to justify funding, and fuckups, forever.
Oh, ninety million native Americans died of introduced diseases... um, we were just trying to advance mankind.
Oh, you have a thalidomide baby... well, we were trying just to advance mankind.
Oh, Sadam didn't have weapons of mass destruction... gosh, we were just trying to advance mankind.

Do you remember July 20th, 1969? I do, like it was yesterday. The Eagle has landed, motherfucker.
I also remember Curiosity rover's touchdown a couple years back, vaguely.

But, but, childish emotion has no place in the advancement of mankind.
It does when it's my nickel, bitch.

[sexobon]

Hey, tw used to be my bitch; but, now you've made him yours. Oh well, what can I do, it's all for the advancement of mankind.

Actually, while tw's obstinacy continues, he has ostensibly been refraining from calling other adults children. Kudos tw.

Healthcare professionals are trained to not call other adults children, refer to them as children; or, treat them as children even if those other adults are developmentally impaired or have dementia and behave like children. Studies have shown that treating any adult aged person in that manner is exceptionally counterproductive to effective communication. Whatever you may think of them, they are still adults with the lifetime experience of an adult, regardless of their intellectual status, who will summarily dismiss people that disrespect them in that way. You can call adults a lot of derogatory things; but, calling them children is a telltale hallmark of a poor communicator. Again, congratulations on the change: it hasn't gone unnoticed.