[haswell]

I was primarily responding to this:

> The real quest is getting multi planetar.

Which when viewed as the "real" quest, has potentially problematic downstream effects. My point was that there are many people who see who see the world as something to escape and live lives prioritizing things that harm our long term ability to survive here in the pursuit of that escape.

I appreciate the clarification that this is not what you meant. It wasn't clear that the "real quest" had any connection to the side quest since they seem unrelated.

> Multi-planetary life is life more resistant to medium to large cosmical calamities.

I don't disagree. But I strongly believe that stabilizing the home base is a higher priority in the near term i.e. at a time when the planet is in a precarious place, spending enormous amounts of resources trying to colonize mars is a questionable priority when we have more immediate problems that would benefit from such lofty ambitions.

[Ygg2]

> I appreciate the clarification that this is not what you meant. It wasn't clear that the "real quest" had any connection to the side quest since they seem unrelated.

Thanks, I'm pretty sure I know what I meant. I meant a gaming analogy (main quest/ side quest) not the Christianity metaphor. Just because you perceive as such doesn't mean I meant it as that.

> But I strongly believe that stabilizing the home base is a higher priority in the near term i.e. at a time when the planet is in a precarious place

Sure, just make sure you're not waiting for Godot (I meant the play, but pun is intended).

Earth is never a stable place. Ecosystems are a constant rise and collapse of dietary chains, continents aren't standing still, and cataclysms are a dime a dozen. Organisms causing mass extinctions are also nothing new under the Sun. Albeit, we do hold a speed run record I believe.

[haswell]

> Just because you perceive as such doesn't mean I meant it as that.

Fully agree, nor was it my intent to imply otherwise. But once uttered, we can't control how other people interpret our words. I see clarifying these differences in interpretation and gaining a shared understanding as the primary purpose of a thread like this.

> Earth is never a stable place. Ecosystems are a constant rise and collapse of dietary chains, continents aren't standing still, and cataclysms are a dime a dozen. Organisms causing mass extinctions are also nothing new under the Sun. Albeit, we do hold a speed run record I believe.

Again, agree. And yet, despite that instability, life on earth has rebounded or remained abundant up to this point given large enough timescales. What is different now is that we have some control over what may be the next major cataclysm. Whether or not we figure out how to collectively exert that control is another question entirely.

All I'm saying I that I hope we're not spending time trying to terraform mars while our own planet dies. If we can make mars habitable, we can rectify the situation here barring cosmic scale events that doom earth entirely.

[Ygg2]

> But once uttered, we can't control how other people interpret our words.

Sure I could. If the HN had an edit button.

Death of the author, eh? I don't prescribe to that notion. It makes every interpretation valid. Even if the one interpreting them is tripping balls.

> All I'm saying I that I hope we're not spending time trying to terraform mars while our own planet dies.

If we are waiting until every human being is content and happy, and environment is perfectly stable, we'll be waiting past heat death of the universe.

[haswell]

> If we are waiting until every human being is content and happy, and environment is perfectly stable, we'll be waiting past heat death of the universe.

Do you feel that’s a good faith interpretation of my point given what we’ve discussed?