[vacuity]

Is it an act of hatred to say that humans shouldn't expend huge amounts of effort and energy to try to populate Mars so that humans can escape the very human act of polluting the Earth? When this human pollution kills millions a year and plenty of other organisms? Is it a celebration of humanity to continue buying chocolate or clothing or rugs, even if they are clearly the result of exploited or downright slave labor?

Or is it just that you suppose that we, as humans who have privilege and comfort, deserve to continue and expand those qualities? You "personally" want to see lights from the moon? You think Mars "desperately" needs habitation? I'm not sure how you're any less self-important about this topic than your opposition.

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "humanity", because it sure doesn't seem like the same kind of "humanity" that MLK Jr. described. I'm sure there are plenty of people you could speak for. Don't presume that's everyone worth considering.

[JumpCrisscross]

> we, as humans who have privilege and comfort, deserve to continue and expand those qualities

Cutting down forests for farms asserts a human privilege. Arguing for colonies on the Moon or Mars isn't asserting a human privilege, it's arguing for a biological one: the privilege the living should enjoy over the non-living.

[vacuity]

Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed for the former to work? I don't follow.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't?

When we cut down forests for farmland, we're saying our (human) need for that land supercedes the needs of the creatures living on it. That the needs of humans trump those of other living things. (While cute to debate, this isn't ever actually in doubt. Effective arguments for conservation, et cetera, come down to decidedly human systems of values and ethics.)

When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people. That tabula rasa makes the previous discussion about humans versus other living things moot.

Instead, the practical trade-offs aren't about any inherent rights dead things have (they don't), but how it impacts life on Earth. In particular, for humans.

[vacuity]

That makes a lot of sense. I acknowledge there is an asymmetry that favors Moon development. I think "while cute to debate philosophically" is itself an amusing stance, given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically, but not the main point. My main gripe is that, if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival, why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table? (If you don't, your motivation is just shallow greed.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically

My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.

> if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival

I don't. To the extent there's a contender for necessary for human survival, it's farmland. This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

> why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table?

One, it's literally easier to colonise the Moon than do this on a global scale. Two, because that's a separate topic.

[vacuity]

> My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.

After which you take it as given that humans come first even metaethically? You can't from-first-principles your way around it; even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis. It's obviously the same with me, and not a matter of right or wrong, but not acknowledging it is wrong.

> This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

I addressed this in my last sentence. So then ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part. Again, I'm utimately going off of aesthetics too. It's just that you should recognize that, and not make arguments that revolve around not recognizing it.

[jfactorial]

> When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people

I think the key distinction in this discussion is your view that the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people

You're describing the Moon Treaty, which was never ratified [1]. It would have made the Moon the common heritage of all manking [2]. The Outer Space Treaty is far less restrictive [3].

And even if the Moon Treaty were in effect, it still wouldn't make lunar colonisation an assertion of human privilege. It would be an assertion of certain humans' privileges over others. But there is no non-human concern in play to any practical effect.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty#Provisions

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_humanity

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Provisions

[jfactorial]

No, I'm describing the first bullet point of the Outer Space Treaty:

"The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind."

Outer space meaning the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, and Province of all mankind meaning an area of special knowledge, interest, or responsibility belonging to all mankind. Perhaps others don't read it this way, but this is the meaning of my comment.

[WalterBright]

Belonging to all people means the Tragedy of the Commons.

[jfactorial]

Only if there is no policing of it. Natural preservation from mankind's industry is possible. It's quite a depressing thought that anything belonging to humanity is doomed.

[goatlover]

Doubt MLK Jr had much to say about Mars colonization. Why would he be opposed to it as long as Martian settlers were treating each other equally?

I don't like the view that we shouldn't go to space as long as there are problems on Earth to fix. There are always problems to fix. It's an excuse to never explore space. There's no reason that going to Mars would prevent addressing pollution on Earth. I don't even see how they're related. If anything, trying to live on Mars would probably help us deal with climate change on Earth.

[vacuity]

I invoked MLK Jr. in pointing to problems on Earth, including pollution, as an example of how we are not serving "humanity" in MLK Jr.'s spirit. I think your technology advancement argument is far-fetched, even though I acknowledge the historical basis. In part due to reasoning in another comment of mine:

> I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.

[freejazz]

> I don't even see how they're related

You can't see how terraforming Mars and solving Earth's climate crisis could be related? And you want us to consider your opinions at all?

[goatlover]

I don't care, but I did say it might in my last sentence.

[mulmen]

Colonizing the moon and improving life on Earth are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Both are possible and the space program has given us constant technological improvements to help improve life on Earth. We’re more likely to do both together than picking only one.

[erik_seaberg]

Escaping pollution is not a reason for going. Creating habitable areas on/under Mars is clearly harder than maintaining habitable areas on/under Earth. We have people who are much more motivated to do it and we might learn more from it, though.

[vacuity]

Granted, I overstated the escaping pollution part. It seems like people are not alarmed enough about climate change and pollution to believe extinction[0] will happen anytime soon. That would mainly be the motivation for rich people, and not just pollution but many other issues they are not interested in solving.

Frankly, the least selfish reason to go to Mars is to avoid extinction. Barring that, is it such a great thing for "humanity" to explore Mars for curiosity, commercial ventures, and leisure? Apparently many of the commenters here seem to extol things that can be great for "humanity" while lashing out at mentions of real issues not getting enough attention right now. I'll restate what I said: is it so important that we with privilege continue to have greater privilege? Or if you believe we can just fix these issues and get our space exploration too: do you really think that will happen with reasonable likelihood? The feel-good narrative of having our cake and eating it too is just too delectable.

And to those of you saying I would shut down everything for one cause, you're blatantly wrong. I'm saying we should focus on this cause and look to the remainder for things like space exploration. What we have in reality is focusing on things like space exploration and hoping. We are misallocating resources. Yes, perhaps we will get magical technology from the money currently going into it, or from space exploration. I ask you if you think the likelihood is reasonable. If you're here to talk about mere possibilities, don't complain when others bring up feasibility.

[0] Or just a lot of people dying, doesn't have to be nearly everyone.

[erik_seaberg]

The resources are 0.004% of the population of one wealthy country, who devoted themselves to shaping about 400 tons of stainless steel. Nothing constructive comes of starving a project that size, certainly not the global carbon sequestration I'd like to see.

[s1artibartfast]

Why not both populate Mars and improve earth? I dont think they are mutually exclusive.

[freejazz]

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.

[JumpCrisscross]

> One of those is actually an urgent need

We're on Hacker News. Divide a population in two, tell one of them what they have to work on and let the other fuck around with whatever they fancy. Tell me you'd have any uncertainty around which will innovate more.

Like sure, it would be great if everyone dropped what they were doing to work on climate change. But we aren't and don't want to. You're never going to convince all of the engineers inspired by going to space to work on a slightly-better solar panel. But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space.

[vacuity]

> But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space.

That "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd. One of the bigger, more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything. I consider it wishful thinking.

[JumpCrisscross]

> "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd

Not really something you have to hypothesise about. Cordless tools, water-purification technologies, integrated circuits and all manner of imaging, navigation and battery technologies came out of the Apollo programme.

> more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything

Irrelevant to proving or disproving mutual exclusivity between "populat[ing] Mars and improv[ing] earth."

(Also, wrong. The Outer Space Treaty and failed Moon Treaty inspired significant portions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, including the assertion that the seabed is the common heritage of mankind.)

[vacuity]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388

Last paragraph mainly.

[s1artibartfast]

Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?

[freejazz]

Because one is an urgent need, the other isn't and also presupposes a solution to the first problem. Perhaps you can explain why this doesn't matter.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont see that way at all. Space exploration in no way hampers or restricts our ability to improve earth. The two can be done in parallel.

Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?

[freejazz]

I didn't say they couldn't be done in parallel.

>Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?

No, I'm not sure how that follows at all.

[vacuity]

> in no way hampers or restricts

Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources, social attitudes, etc., even if massive amounts of resources were thrown at it. People would rather work on space exploration because it's more exciting and hopeful.

[vacuity]

I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.

[JumpCrisscross]

> By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax

The history of conquest on Earth shows no such example. If anything, given a choice, humans will happily push the unsavoury to the periphery. I'd much rather e.g. risky biological, chemical and nuclear research happen on the Moon or Mars than Earth.

The honest truth is our first colonies on Mars will be Jamestowns. Unlike the Jamestown in our past, however, this one's horrors will be broadcast real time. The deadliness of space almost promises that we'll be keenly reminded of how special our safe harbor. Not that we'll forget it.

[s1artibartfast]

Why do you thinking settling mars would have any impact on our efforts to improve earth?

What are the incentives that are wrong with Mars?

[vacuity]

My belief is that many people will think "Oh good! A safe harbor where we can fix our mistakes!" My problems with this: 1) Is everyone going to Mars in a reasonable time frame, or are people going to be left behind? Permanently? 2) Are we actually going to fix the Earth? Let's assume many people will be there for a while longer. 3) Are we going to not wreck Mars?

[s1artibartfast]

#1 That is an extremely dumb thought to project on everyone else. Mars isn't an a replacement for earth, and wont support even a tiny fraction of the population in the foreseeable future. Why do you believe people will think this?

#2 I hope we fix earth, but we either will or wont completely independent of Mars policy. Again, I dont see how they are related. Is the idea to prevent Mars activity as a motivating punishment (e.g. Birthday parties are cancelled until you clean your room)?

#3 What does "wrecking Mars" mean? What is a good Mars and what is a bad Mars?

[vacuity]

To 3, I'll vaguely say "like how we are wrecking the Earth". To 1 and 2, I think you have a far more optimistic view of the technical and social aspects of this issue than I do. Dangerously so. Enough people look at Musk and others talking about Mars, or "believe in the technological revolution", or don't care about the Earth, that fixing the issues on Earth is a very urgent matter with not enough mindshare.

[WalterBright]

I did not suggest otherwise.

[s1artibartfast]

I was responding to vacuity, not you. They hold the position that Mars activities should not take place until we fix earth, if ever.

[WalterBright]

I don't see where you inferred these questions from my statement.

[fsckboy]

human pollution kills millions a year? the only thing reducing the human population is decreased desire to have children by people who can afford them. Otherwise, more people are born, live longer, and die than ever before.

[vacuity]

> Air pollution accounted for 8.1 million deaths globally in 2021 [0]

> In 2019, air pollution caused about 6.7 million deaths. Of these, almost 85% are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes. This makes air pollution the second leading cause of NCDs globally after tobacco. [1]

[0] https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/air-pollution-accounte... [1] https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-what-are-health-con...

[fsckboy]

my point was that all of the activities that we humans engage in are the activities that create the pollution;

but they are also the activities that extend our life expectancies. You can't separate them.

Claiming that pollution is killing without point out the benefits of what is creating the pollution is lying. Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived. It is the essence of intellectual vacuuity to miss that.

[vacuity]

> Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived.

It is indeed true that we have unprecedented life quality among more people than ever. It is also very true that industrialization has played a gigantic part in that. However, from one line of history does not come them all. We do not know that this exact path of industrialization was or continues to be necessary. If, in an alternate history, there were less humans with very high quality of life for longer and then they discovered less polluting forms of industry to reach this point, were they worse off? Are you saying we are already minimizing pollution to the level necessary for progress, or quickly working on it? If you're trying to justify the current level of pollution with the current level of progress, you have a lot of explaining to do. Cutting down plastic bag usage alone would probably be high impact for reducing pollution/environmental harm and low impact on impeding progress.

[mulmen]

An unborn hypothetical baby is not a human death.