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.
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.
> 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.
> "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.)
I may be missing something, but I see zero overlap between space exploration and environmental concerns. They tap into completely different parts of our psyches. The first, exploration, is inherently optimistic. The second, preservation, is inherently risk averse. While there are idiots claiming we'll solve our climate troubles with space, the reality is they're orthogonal pursuits.
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.
This is classic zero sum thinking. A dollar more for space is not a dollar less for the environment, and one more aerospace engineer is not one less environmentalist.
You might as well argue for a global ban on dancing or fun because it is a distraction from improving the earth.
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.
> 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.
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?
#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?
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.
waging war and trying to destroy people's hopes and dreams is a cynical, toxic, failing strategy for environmentalism.
It communicates that environmentalism cant maintain mindshare based on its own merit, and must obstruct and tear down other goals. Unfortunately, this alienates anyone one who holds values on par with environmentalism.