We mostly need people who're interested/good at chemistry to work a bit harder. The more chemistry students who get good at chemistry, the more likely we are to have one of them get a breakthrough.
So, why aren't we on Mars yet?
- Thread starter Pasi Nurminen
- Start date
We mostly need people who're interested/good at chemistry to work a bit harder. The more chemistry students who get good at chemistry, the more likely we are to have one of them get a breakthrough.
For everyone saying we have more important things to do: There will ALWAYS be something more important to do first. Because of that, it's useless to say "we must do this thing first!" It's possible to do them both simultaneously.
To anyone thinking Mars is the most important thing for humans to do: It isn't.
To anyone thinking Mars is the most important thing for humans to do: It isn't.
That's not true, actually. There are hundreds of things that you could personally do to help reduce these problems.
In addition, when these problems are handled, the world (and thus, your world) will be a better place. For example, there is a horrible economic opportunity cost to HIV/AIDS right now: if the crisis is solved, there will be a host of economic resources freed up (or even created). These resources will eventually trickle towards you, such that you benefit.
In addition, when these problems are handled, the world (and thus, your world) will be a better place. For example, there is a horrible economic opportunity cost to HIV/AIDS right now: if the crisis is solved, there will be a host of economic resources freed up (or even created). These resources will eventually trickle towards you, such that you benefit.
Actually it will effect you. Global warming could leave you starving, AIDS could kill off your friends, poor infrastructure in Africa or elsewhere may cause economic depression where you live.
Don't be such a pessimist. These problems can be solve, but sadly human nature meant that we prefer to ignore them rather than trying our best to solve them.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Humanity's had a good run, so let's give up while we're still ahead. 
El Koeno
Emperor
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,926
I think a manned trip to Mars would consume more resources than we could ever hope to get out of it. We might get some useful knowledge out of it, sure. But it doesn't make sense to spend huge amount of resources, to put somebody on another planet and justifying it by saying it generates useful knowledge for us back on earth. It would be way more efficient if we put all those resources on either finding ways to improve things down here directly, or simply just consume them and have some fun (like making the cup of coffee mentioned earlier).
Mandeville
Prince
I have often been asked: if we have travelled between the stars, why can we not launch the simplest of orbital probes? These fools fail to understand the difficulty in finding the appropirate materials on this Planet, of developing adequate power supplies, and creating the infrastructure necessary to support such an effort. In short, we have struggled under the limitations of a colonial society on a virgin planet. Until now. - Col Corazon Santiago, Planet: A Survivalists Guide
azzaman333
meh
Right now we don't have the technology to send humans to Mars cheap enough that anyone will want to.
However, if we haven't landed humans on Mars by 2050 humanity is some combination extremely lazy, extremely selfish and extremely stupid.
However, if we haven't landed humans on Mars by 2050 humanity is some combination extremely lazy, extremely selfish and extremely stupid.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
But its my only hope of getting off this lousy rock.
Masquerouge
Deity
Not only should we send men to Mars ASAP, but I can also provide you with the list of men we should send to Mars.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
There is no benefit to colonizing Mars over colonizing the moon, space, or new areas on earth. But that is not to say we shouldn't do it just that it is not particularly important.
azzaman333
meh
We should still be preparing to send people there in the near future. If we **** up Earth bad enough we need to go somewhere or die out. Personally, I think that going to Mars is better than dying out.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
Tell me how we could screw up the Earth bad enough so that it is less hospitable than Mars. And even if we did, it would still be much more affective to colonize the oceans, or the moon, or in space around the Earth.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
If it was up to the private sector to do any exploration, we'd never have discovered America, much less gone to the Moon.
I see. So, what you're saying is that because it was a public operation that discovered America and landed on the moon, a private operation cannot possibly land on the Moon, or Mars. That is some very interesting logic. I shall have to ponder this more.
You've just made my case. The private sector is FAR more efficient than the government.
I think the asteroid belt is where we should be colonising.
1) lower gravity fields make it cheaper
2) you can hollow out and spin an asteroid for people concerned with bodyweight
3) there are different types of asteroids, which means that they are made of different materials to harvest/mine (and those materials aren't 'deep' like they are on Earth
I quite liked www.permanent.com ... there's a lot of poking around possible
John: I agree on the efficiencies aspect, but the difference between gov't and private is that gov't can invest in things that lead to the public good. Private industry has no motivation to do so. We see this all the time in Basic and Applied research: you need Basic research to get results to shove into Applied research, but the private market is loathe to invest in Basic research.
1) lower gravity fields make it cheaper
2) you can hollow out and spin an asteroid for people concerned with bodyweight
3) there are different types of asteroids, which means that they are made of different materials to harvest/mine (and those materials aren't 'deep' like they are on Earth
I quite liked www.permanent.com ... there's a lot of poking around possible
John: I agree on the efficiencies aspect, but the difference between gov't and private is that gov't can invest in things that lead to the public good. Private industry has no motivation to do so. We see this all the time in Basic and Applied research: you need Basic research to get results to shove into Applied research, but the private market is loathe to invest in Basic research.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
The next planetary body that we colonize should have exceptional water resources available to us. Beyond that, any other factor is of little importance in comparison. Europa may be a good candidate.
azzaman333
meh
We need to start working on technologies that will allow Mars to be a decently hospitable planet before Earth gets that bad. Which is why we need to send people there in the next 40 years IMO.
El Koeno
Emperor
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,926
Or we know what's worth our trouble and what isn't, we're selfless enough not screw up more than one planet, and quite smart.
The private sector cannot do it. It isn't a matter of being efficent, its a matter of space exploration being a MASSIVE undertaking, sort of like a national highway system, but bigger. There is no incentive for a company to do it, because it would cost enormous amounts of money, and the economic payback, in the short to medium term, would be pretty small.
The private sector has done what, launched one or two rockets? The public sector did that nearly 50 years ago.
Similar threads
- Poll
