Comment by rqtwteye
5 days ago
I definitely prefer spending the money on fusion over rushing a Mars mission. Fusion is probably cheaper than Mars and will actually benefit humanity. Which is not something I can say about going to Mars (or even the moon).
A Mars mission would benefit humanity, but less directly. The past lunar missions and space program benefited humanity in many ways.
For pure return on investment, I agree with your take.
Provided of course that any future threats to humanity as a single planet civilization don’t materialize. There’s a low and uncertain tail risk ignored in our calculation.
Are you saying that the benefit to humanity of a Mars mission is that if the Earth explodes, we have an uninhabitable planet (under any realistic expectations) to stay on?
No, he clearly said that a "second home for humanity" is of dubious (but potentially nonzero) value.
Rather, the main benefit would lie in the technological advances made in order to enable such a Mars mission in the first place (similar to advances during Apollo).
3 replies →
No, for a succesful Mars mission certain scientific progress has to be made. Unlike in economy, in science such things trickle down to us mortals.
2 replies →
No, that’s not what I’m saying. That seems of questionable value. Unless some crazy tail event happens that makes it valuable.
The benefit to humanity is the technological advancement.
The planet Mars is a gift from God for humanity
Thats what they said about lead!
A 'gift of God'?: The public health controversy over leaded gasoline during the 1920s: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1646253/
https://hal.science/hal-03924698/document
> The planet Mars is a gift from God for humanity
I bet I can guess the name of the god too!
God really lowered his standards after he created Earth.
“Well, created one nice one, and one desolate, irradiated, lifeless shit-hole! My work here is done!” Haha