| > Your posts sound like they are coming from a seriously depressed person. Maybe that is the real problem. 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. |