[lorenzorhoades]

As you have admitted in your post, that there is a none zero chance of humans becoming extinct. Don't you think it would be worth it to have some non-zero portion of the population and global budget working on ensuring our survival? Also, there are many commercial benefits that can be realized, not just idealistic ones. Mars has alot of deturium which could prove useful in fusion, it's lower delta V makes it a prime logistical hub for mining the astroid belt, etc etc. Read a plan for mars, and i think it will change your perspective.

[lisper]

> Don't you think it would be worth it to have some non-zero portion of the population and global budget working on ensuring our survival?

Yes, of course. I even think it's worth while putting some of that effort into looking into colonizing Mars (though I think there is a lot more low-lying fruit that is being neglected in terms of improving our overall odds of survival). All I'm saying is that we're nowhere near ready to talk about actually doing it yet.

[lorenzorhoades]

> a lot more low-lying fruit that is being neglected in terms of improving our overall odds of survival.

Can you elaborate? You talking politically?

[lisper]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The most immediate threat to the survival of civilization is climate change, and we are doing less than we could to stop it at the moment in no small measure because of politics. There's also a significant threat from medium-sized asteroids that could be addressed fairly cheaply (a few billion dollars) and isn't. Nuclear war is an entirely political threat. World-wide famine is a possibility, but that is much more likely to kill us by leading to a nuclear war than it is to kill us directly.

Beyond that, I just don't see any credible existential threats.

[Arbalest]

I still think we should be moving cities off of prime arable land and moving to deserts.