|
|
|
|
|
|
by inglor_cz
1082 days ago
|
|
|
Your posts sound like they are coming from a seriously depressed person. Maybe that is the real problem. Depression is running rampant in the 20-something cohort, much worse than it did in mine when I was the same age as you. I believe that the main culprit is the relentless torrent of negativity that comes from the Internet and especially the social networks. Most media and even many individuals push bad news on you in order to win your attention and raise their status or clout. Or even money. And they cause large scale misery. I doubt that the world is objectively worse off in 2023 than it was in 2000, I would even say that it has grown a bit better. (For example, a lot more people in the developing world are food-secure.) But the perception of the world has gone from "bearable" to "irredeemable shithole" among way too many people. IMHO this is even worse than objective trouble such as climate change; widespread depression results in unwillingness to even try to improve things. "How are we supposed to terraform a planet when we can't even fix our own? Who do I have to be to be allowed to have this opinion?" We cannot terraform Mars in 2023. But we couldn't even fly to space in 1923, and we might be able to terraform Mars in 2123. Every passing year brings some new development, and these developments compound our abilities. Also, here you are mixing two different sorts of questions. Fixing Earth's climate is mostly a political question, not a question of technology. It might be harder than future terraforming of Mars because you need to bring many important nations on board, and humans are notoriously bad at large scale cooperation. On Mars, there are no nuclear superpowers opposing your plans. |
|
|
That's a personal attack and that's against the spirit of this website. Please do not do that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> We cannot terraform Mars in 2023. But we couldn't even fly to space in 1923, and we might be able to terraform Mars in 2123. Every passing year brings some new development, and these developments compound our abilities.
This does sound reasonable to me. What does not sound reasonable is cutting corners today in the name of "technological innovation" for something that we might be able to do in the future we are currently destroying.
The young naive person that I am thinks that in reality, this is mostly for defence purposes, to put military bases and equipment in space.
If colonization there will be, it will be only for rich people, which will pay a lot of money to get irreparable DNA damage while reading Icarus in space. Kind of funny when you think about it.
> Also, here you are mixing two different sorts of questions. Fixing Earth's climate is mostly a political question, not a question of technology.
I guess what made me angry here. This attitude is exactly why the planet is in the state it is right now. I'm not even talking about fixing, I'm talking about not destroying. You kids - if any - will have to fix the damages caused by SpaceX, but you can prevent it now.
> It might be harder than future terraforming of Mars because you need to bring many important nations on board, and humans are notoriously bad at large scale cooperation. On Mars, there are no nuclear superpowers opposing your plans.
I believe the complete opposite of your statement: it's easier to take care of our planet than terraforming another one, and on Mars there will definitely be nuclear superpowers opposing your plans. But I guess we will never agree on that.