[Arizhel]

The same argument could be made about just about any human activity that isn't obviously beneficial to humanity, the environment, etc.

Is reading a discussion on HN morally defensible? You could be spending that time helping humanity somehow.

Is working at a tech start-up making mobile apps morally defensible? You could be working at a soup kitchen instead.

Is playing a video game morally defensible? You could be assisting volunteering at a shelter instead.

Is having heat in your house morally defensible? You could be turning it off to save money which you could send to help alleviate poverty, though this will require you to endure freezing temperatures in your home.

[erikpukinskis]

Of course. If the Mars mission were properly marketed, as entertainment with a little planetary science sprinkled in, I would have no issue with it. As reality TV it is a sensible investment, and will bring joy to many.

But it's marketed as somehow important to the survival of humanity, and that's a lie. There are no scenarios, even vaguely theoretical ones, where Mars is more hospitable than Earth any time in the next million years.

I feel almost exactly the same way about Burning Man. To the extent that it's marketed as a dance party in the desert for the wealthy, I think it's a wonderful thing. I respect that it holds important religious services for many people.

When people start talking about how it's an evolution of society, or somehow a solution to the world's problems, I take issue.

FWIW, I would answer the titular question in the affirmative: Yes, a Mars mission is morally defensible. It's just not good for society right now. Still, we should probably do it sooner than later, since we're about to burn our oil reserves. This might be our last chance to get out to the asteroids and build the factories to seed the space economy. But again, from Earth's perspective this is all just entertainment.

[hot_brick]

Is paying for you own cancer treatment morally defensible? You could be paying for someone else's cancer treatment.

[Arizhel]

Exactly. If you're 50 and paying for your own cancer treatment, that's morally indefensible if there's anyone younger than you who needs cancer treatment!

[hackeraccount]

Save the Whales? Why, if there are people starving? Preserve Yellowstone? Why, if there are people starving?

[Arizhel]

You can take this to further lengths to demonstrate the shortsightedness:

Why should we worry about fixing up the problem with lead in drinking water in Flint as long as there's people there living in poverty and starving? We should just let everyone drink leaded water until the poverty problem is fixed.

Why are we wasting money on developing more efficient farming techniques as long as there's people starving? That money should be spend on feeding people instead.

---

This is basically what the article is arguing: that we shouldn't develop new technologies as long as there's people living in poverty. Never mind that the new technologies developed improve the economy greatly and help life more people out of poverty.