Why should we go to Mars? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15208938
Colonizing Mars is the only way to preserve capitalism.

As we reach the limits of resource exploitation and productive growth on this planet, we'll have to abandon an economic model that relies on perpetual continuous growth. That sounds hard. However, the universe has functionally infinite resources. Surely it's easier, and morally better, to just colonize the universe than reimagine Western capitalism?
#15208948
late wrote:Look at it this way, you can never not be in Space...

Indeed; it's just that our spaceship happens to be the size of a planet. :)
By late
#15208960
Rancid wrote:
Mars = Red...

Is Mars Communist?



God of War

or maybe God of Lust (I just made that part up)

Either way, angry or horny, he's red.

Or maybe both?
#15208961
Fasces wrote:Colonizing Mars is the only way to preserve capitalism.

As we reach the limits of resource exploitation and productive growth on this planet, we'll have to abandon an economic model that relies on perpetual continuous growth. That sounds hard. However, the universe has functionally infinite resources. Surely it's easier, and morally better, to just colonize the universe than reimagine Western capitalism?


Although I agree with your point that capitalism needs Mars to survive. You are assuming the main motivation is to preserve capitalism. It's not. There are numerous motivations here. From scientific, to nationalism (not capitalism), to individuals lust for power and making their mark on history. There's also just the good old fashion "we're doing it, because we can and it's fucking cool". It gives us something to keep busy on. :lol: I'd rather us to that, than collapse back into the fucking Metaverse or whatever bullshit big tech wants to get us addicted to.

Anyway,

If we have the tech to terraform Mars, that means we have the tech to fix climate change on earth. :)
#15208963
Fasces wrote:Colonizing Mars is the only way to preserve capitalism.

As we reach the limits of resource exploitation and productive growth on this planet, we'll have to abandon an economic model that relies on perpetual continuous growth. That sounds hard. However, the universe has functionally infinite resources. Surely it's easier, and morally better, to just colonize the universe than reimagine Western capitalism?


Reimagining Western capitalism into what exactly? Right now China is one of the greatest sources of pressure on the environment. I'd think communists and fascists would be on board with simply colonizing space.
#15208964
"Capitalism" will never colonize Mars. No profit to be made.

Musk's dreams won't get him anywhere. If he's lucky he will have to opportunity to set up a small research base for NASA.
#15209000
wat0n wrote:
Reimagining Western capitalism into what exactly? Right now China is one of the greatest sources of pressure on the environment. I'd think communists and fascists would be on board with simply colonizing space.



I've been perfectly clear that I view China as a catalyst, not an end state.
Last edited by Fasces on 26 Jan 2022 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15209002
Rancid wrote:
If we have the tech to terraform Mars, that means we have the tech to fix climate change on earth. :)


I dunno. Most people arguing for Moon and Mars settlements in the US usually also talk about using them as platforms for mining asteroids and whatnot.

It's not even about climate change, but the simple fact that most models depend on growth, growth depends on ever increasing consumption of resources, and that most resources are finite... On Earth.
#15209008
Fasces wrote:I dunno. Most people arguing for Moon and Mars settlements in the US usually also talk about using them as platforms for mining asteroids and whatnot.


Mars is completely useless as a platform for mining asteroids. It's too difficult/costly to get down to the surface and up again. You want to avoid gravity wells altogether.

Fasces wrote:It's not even about climate change, but the simple fact that most models depend on growth, growth depends on ever increasing consumption of resources, and that most resources are finite... On Earth.


Nothing leaves Earth but trace amounts of hydrogen. And growth does not depend on increasing consumption of resources.
#15209014
Rugoz wrote:Mars is completely useless as a platform for mining asteroids. It's too difficult/costly to get down to the surface and up again. You want to avoid gravity wells altogether.


This is a response to a point no one made. :roll:

Rugoz wrote:Nothing leaves Earth but trace amounts of hydrogen.


What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?

Rugoz wrote: And growth does not depend on increasing consumption of resources.


Yes, it does. Increasing the size of an economy depends, by definition, on either increasing production or increasing population. Are you seriously suggesting that capitalism is just one step away from creating matter from nothing? No? So you understand that, on Earth there is a finite quantity of matter and that growth cannot be infinite.

Lack of growth is viewed negatively, called things like stagflation. Models that look toward sustainability exist, such as doughnut economics, but are not mainstream. The mainstream economic model used in the West is one that was established during the age of colonialism, and relies on continuous growth, expansion of population, and expansion of consumption. It is unsustainable, unless we go to colonize space where resources are functionally infinite until the heat death of the universe.
#15209060
Fasces wrote:I dunno. Most people arguing for Moon and Mars settlements in the US usually also talk about using them as platforms for mining asteroids and whatnot.

Um I've got a suspicion that the average "Liberal" Space enthusiast is too ignorant or too stupid to realise that the average distance from Mars to an asteroid in the main asteroid belt is much greater than the average distance from Earth to the same asteroid. I'm not saying that average distance is a key determining factor for intermediate bases, just that I've got a suspicion that the average Liberal Space / "Science" lover just imagines that Mars is analogous to the colonisation of the Canaries, say in the discovery and colonisation of the Americas by the Spanish (And their agents).

The Moon is plausibly useful, its only a very modest gravity well, but its got enough gravity to usefully hold things down. I'm not sure for example how the surface gravity of Phobos compares and the Moon has no atmosphere. Mars on the other hand looks to me like it has the ability to make Roanoke Colony look like a great success story of venture capitalism.
#15209061
Rich wrote:Um I've got a suspicion that the average "Liberal" Space enthusiast is too ignorant or too stupid to realise that the average distance from Mars to an asteroid in the main asteroid belt is much greater than the average distance from Earth to the same asteroid. I'm not saying that average distance is a key determining factor for intermediate bases, just that I've got a suspicion that the average Liberal Space / "Science" lover just imagines that Mars is analogous to the colonisation of the Canaries, say in the discovery and colonisation of the Americas by the Spanish (And their agents).

The Moon is plausibly useful, its only a very modest gravity well, but its got enough gravity to usefully hold things down. I'm not sure for example how the surface gravity of Phobos compares and the Moon has no atmosphere. Mars on the other hand looks to me like it has the ability to make Roanoke Colony look like a great success story of venture capitalism.

Precisely right. The ‘colonisation’ of space is a fantasy based on the historical precedent of the colonisation of the Americas from the 16th to the 19th century, the assumption being that it will be just as easy and just as profitable. In reality, there is no similarity at all, either logistically, economically or physically. It’s a ridiculous and childish fantasy.
By late
#15209067
Rich wrote:
Um I've got a suspicion that the average "Liberal" Space enthusiast is too ignorant or too stupid to realise that the average distance from Mars to an asteroid in the main asteroid belt is much greater than the average distance from Earth to the same asteroid. I'm not saying that average distance is a key determining factor for intermediate bases, just that I've got a suspicion that the average Liberal Space / "Science" lover just imagines that Mars is analogous to the colonisation of the Canaries, say in the discovery and colonisation of the Americas by the Spanish (And their agents).

The Moon is plausibly useful, its only a very modest gravity well, but its got enough gravity to usefully hold things down. I'm not sure for example how the surface gravity of Phobos compares and the Moon has no atmosphere. Mars on the other hand looks to me like it has the ability to make Roanoke Colony look like a great success story of venture capitalism.



I'm the average Space enthusiast here, and what I say is that it will be centuries before we are ready to do a colony on Mars. It may never happen, because even after we get the cost of Space travel low, it would be the most expensive thing humanity has done by one or two orders of magnitude. It comes down to being able to develop a few technologies that could facilitate terraforming.

The mining thing is a simple progression. The Moon will be the beginning, but everything after that will require a multinational effort. That would happen because certain things, like rare earth metals, are important, and in limited supply. But, again, I expect mining the Belt to happen in the next century, not this one.

One minor point, the Belt is not friendly to living beings. Mining will prob be done by automated machinery, with remote control filling any gaps. There may eventually be repair crews, but I wouldn't expect anything like that for 200 or 300 years.

What I would like to see is long term projects that do things like investigate the ocean at Europa. NASA has done a ton of great scientific work, but if we were smart, we'd double their funding to do more.
#15209077
Rich wrote:Um I've got a suspicion that the average "Liberal" Space enthusiast is too ignorant or too stupid to realise that the average distance from Mars to an asteroid in the main asteroid belt is much greater than the average distance from Earth to the same asteroid. I'm not saying that average distance is a key determining factor for intermediate bases, just that I've got a suspicion that the average Liberal Space / "Science" lover just imagines that Mars is analogous to the colonisation of the Canaries, say in the discovery and colonisation of the Americas by the Spanish (And their agents).

The Moon is plausibly useful, its only a very modest gravity well, but its got enough gravity to usefully hold things down. I'm not sure for example how the surface gravity of Phobos compares and the Moon has no atmosphere. Mars on the other hand looks to me like it has the ability to make Roanoke Colony look like a great success story of venture capitalism.


The feasability of a narrative has little to do with the efficacy of it. Spending a few billion to feed a fantasy is worth it versus a complete Reimagining of our economic model.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Maybe, if there's one thing I know about, it's be[…]

Banning the Albanian language, humiliation at che[…]

Pretty .... this is really pretty ! ivan any […]

So, Lurkers, please note that Bluto blames Bide[…]