Get rid of that sack of ***.

That not a constructive way to voice your opinion, and it also happens to be against the forum rules.

I dont care.

Very non-constructive.

OK fine. you know what I think of BIll Mahar?
... ... ...

Other people in this thread seem to be trying to discuss a topic. You derailed that topic because someone posted a video where the topic was discussed, but you disliked someone in the video, so instead of addressing the topic, you proceeded to attack that person, derail the thread, and accuse most of the people in the developed world - including, I would wager, most of the adults on this forum - of having a "mental disease".

If casting aspersions and making generalizations and irrelevant comments is what you like to do online, then you should probably find a different forum to do it in.

Agreed.

Look, if you have anything else to say, I'd love to hear it, but we should continue this discussion in the Totally off-topic thread. I'm always looking for new perspectives. (Right now I'm fairly liberal, but I'd love to hear why you think our policies are flawed)

Get rid of that sack of ***.

That not a constructive way to voice your opinion, and it also happens to be against the forum rules.

I dont care.

Very non-constructive.

OK fine. you know what I think of BIll Mahar?
... ... ...

Other people in this thread seem to be trying to discuss a topic. You derailed that topic because someone posted a video where the topic was discussed, but you disliked someone in the video, so instead of addressing the topic, you proceeded to attack that person, derail the thread, and accuse most of the people in the developed world - including, I would wager, most of the adults on this forum - of having a "mental disease".

If casting aspersions and making generalizations and irrelevant comments is what you like to do online, then you should probably find a different forum to do it in.

Ill discuss this with you on PM

His main point is important.

Actually he had no point, he's a comedian. Even if that was his real opinion it is pretty stupid.

(and as far as I'm concerned we shouldn't take it for granted that future technologies will make everything OK).

We shouldn't take it for granted that it won't either. Developing technologies for habitats in space and on Mars though would guide tech in the right direction, doing nothing means we learn nothing and nothing changes.

But no, lets whine and call it dumb because we can't handle sarcasm.

It doesn't belong in this thread then, even if it is an off topic thread. If you want to post comedians and sarcastic videos, share them in the off topic thread. Posting that video here as if it has any real valid criticism on Mars colonization is a silly thing to do.

Besides, it's space colonies we should be focused on, not Martian surface colonies. We need significant infrastructure in space to become a multi-planet species, not a few domes on the surface of Mars.

Why not both?

deleted

I am hoping we can live long enough to travel like in Elite Dangerous.

Its not just about Mars colonization. It's also about the attitudes (and carelessness) our culture has towards Earth. Just because you think it's stupid doesn't make it stupid.

I keep hearing assertions that people who support settling Mars view Earth as disposable, yet I've never seen any evidence of this. I have never met anyone - not one person - who supported settling Mars and who had a careless attitude towards Earth and the environment. And no one who has ever asserted that such people exist has shown me any evidence to support their claim. That includes Mr. Maher. Can you point to some?

Because in space, we can create 1G habitats. On Mars, we can't.

And just why is 1g preferable to 0.38g? Or 0.5g? Or 0.25g? At 1g, a fall from standing height - as in simply falling over while standing - is often harmful, and can even be fatal. That's insane. And from what I understand of human physiology in reduced-gravity environments, humans can function totally normally from about 0.2g and up. Reductions in bone and muscle mass can be countered and don't matter as much anyway if you're living in lower gravity for your whole life.

IMO we will be more prepared to be a spacefaring species with greater infrastructure in orbit/space then if we have a Mars colony.

You seem to be implying that if we settle Mars, no one will bother to develop Earth orbit and deep space destinations. I am willing to bet the value of the crown jewels of England that that won't be the case. BOTH will be extensively developed, because there are more factors motivating the development of space than simply choosing one place to settle. Many more. I'd be shocked if more than 30% of our space-directed efforts were directed at Mars in the long term, even with colonization. Probably the amount will be much less.

There is one other point you seem to be missing: economic viability. It will always be more economical to settle Mars than deep space, because Mars has abundant and easily accessible natural resources. Deep space, in almost all cases, does not. This makes it much harder and more expensive to build and maintain large settlements in deep space or Earth orbit (in fact, Earth orbit would be the most expensive place of all).

I am 100% in favor of deep space settlements and colonies. I just don't see any conflict between that and Mars colonization, nor do I see a compelling argument for prioritizing deep space habitats over Mars ones.

being sarcastic doesn't invalidate his point.

I think it does.  Sarcasm implies a general disdain for something suggesting either a bias or preconceived notion.  Sarcasm is not meant to be taken seriously.

I don't think we can seriously talk about long-term colonization unless we are prepared to solve the low-gravity issue.

Because in space, we can create 1G habitats. On Mars, we can't.

It may not be required, and if people are going to stay on Mars then it won't be a problem. There are also solutions to creating 1G environments on Mars.

Skip to 44:45
[youtube]ikoNQNj9ZnU[/youtube]

This nullifies the rest of your problems, as does HarbingerDawn's post.

The human rights issue here cannot be ignored.

I disagree. You educate the people on the risks vs rewards, you tell them there is a chance they will die, and they make the choice to go. There were no human rights concerns when western civilization settled the Americas and there shouldn't be when Mars is settled, the only concern should be to inform people as to the dangers they will face.

I guess I should have expected emotional responses to my views against Mars colonization on here of all places.

Hardly emotional. My views on the colonization on Mars are based on objective reality, what there is currently, what is technologically possible, what will be possible in the future that is currently known to be possible, and on what countless studies have shown for human tolerance.

Mars is doable, it will be difficult, but it can be colonized with modern technology.

If the planet is to have any use at all it should be nothing more than a source for material resources to build more ships and space stations.

I don't disagree, I think space colonization is important and the future as well, but currently the infrastructure to do so doesn't exist. The infrastructure to colonize the Moon and Mars does exist to some extent, it just needs to be scaled up. The sooner we spread the human race out, the better our chances for reaching a point in the future where space colonies can be built en masse.

This is work that should be completed by robots on the surface, not humans (who can supervise the operation from an orbiting habitat).

Didn't you just say

we can't prepare for technology we don't even know is possible. There's a difference between being bold pioneers and being irresponsible.

deleted

I still think the ethical issues regarding Martian children are important.

What about the ethical issues regarding children today? Arbitrary creation of new sentient beings with a very high likelihood of their experiencing significant amounts of suffering in their lives. And that's TODAY, on EARTH. How can that be justified in the first place?

deleted

I'm not sure if that can be supported rigorously.  A large percentage of people on Earth born today suffer for a variety of reasons -- whether it be malnutrition, insufficient or contaminated water, lack of basic health care, living conditions, family conditions, oppression, violence and warfare, slavery or sex trafficking... the list goes on and on.  There are a lot of problems on Earth currently and a different set of potential problems on a Mars colony, and it's not clear how to compare them quantitatively or even if such a comparison would really be meaningful.

even if such a comparison would really be meaningful.

I don't think they would be.  Personally I think going to Mars would most likely help to solve problems back here on Earth.

[hr]

[youtube]3aBOhC1c6m8[/youtube]

[youtube]cGYKCTFIZLI[/youtube]

I saw an old X-files episode recently which I had missed when it originally aired, where a politician was injected with nanotechnology and then a russian spy was able to flat line him and then bring him back and told him if certain legislation didn't go through that he wouldn't come back from the next flat line. Nanotech being controlled remotely is pretty scary.

A common concern people have about AI is that at some point AI will surpass human intelligence generally, and then AI will simply improve itself exponentially and humans become irrelevant and are supposedly doomed.  They say that we need to think about this now and find a solution before this happens.  We might only be decades away.

It's difficult problem, but the simple answer is not to worry and just ask the AI to solve it for us when then time comes.  Or?