Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kagus]

And, additionally... Who even owns Mars? That's a political nightmare waiting to happen, even handwaving all the staggeringly yuge logistics of just getting personnel up there and back.

As for colonization, hoo... It's fun, certainly, but it is by no means a solution to Earth overpopulation. We can try building biodomes in the more inhospitable parts of Earth before trying to build biodomes on Mars, just so we know what we're doing first...

[Starver]

(As much as I'm in to finding new baskets for all the existing eggs to be redistributed to, prior to anything approaching the theoretical ease of space-elevators, we're not going to reduce Earth's population by popping a significant proportion of it onto the top of rockets and suffer more problems from the attempt. That and the problem of selecting those destined to go or not. Do we specifically send the dregs, or purposefully leave them behind, etc?)

[JoshuaFH]

We don't send anyone to Mars. We genetically engineer humans that can better survive on the planet (with the differing gravity and such) and then vat-grow those ones in orbit before sending them down to become the first Martians.

[Hanslanda]

I like Josh's plan.

[Trekkin]

So do I, if only because it pushes back colonizing Mars for generations and in so doing makes budgeting easier.

[SalmonGod]

We don't send anyone to Mars. We genetically engineer humans that can better survive on the planet (with the differing gravity and such) and then vat-grow those ones in orbit before sending them down to become the first Martians.

But... why though?... what is the motivation and benefit for this?  For anyone, including the genetically engineered Martians?  Other than some abstract notion of an imperative to ensure the survival of the species by any means?  And how sincerely is that accomplished when the method involves a complete severance of continuity in terms of historical, cultural, and even biological context from their earthen origins?  I'm not saying necessarily that I'm against doing it.  Whether it's a bad thing to do is another question.  I'm wondering what problem does this approach hope to solve?

[Loud Whispers]

>survival is an abstract imperative

[Maximum Spin]

>survival is an abstract imperative

Imperatives are intrinsically abstract! Nothing bad happens if you don't survive. You don't get a GAME OVER screen or anything.

[JoshuaFH]

We don't send anyone to Mars. We genetically engineer humans that can better survive on the planet (with the differing gravity and such) and then vat-grow those ones in orbit before sending them down to become the first Martians.

But... why though?... what is the motivation and benefit for this?  For anyone, including the genetically engineered Martians?  Other than some abstract notion of an imperative to ensure the survival of the species by any means?  And how sincerely is that accomplished when the method involves a complete severance of continuity in terms of historical, cultural, and even biological context from their earthen origins?  I'm not saying necessarily that I'm against doing it.  Whether it's a bad thing to do is another question.  I'm wondering what problem does this approach hope to solve?

I just think that interplanetary and far space travel is pretty impossible as a species unless you're optimizing the actual travelers to survive it.

[Loud Whispers]

Imperatives are intrinsically abstract! Nothing bad happens if you don't survive. You don't get a GAME OVER screen or anything.

Somehow this defence does not work when I try to justify causing the extinction of penguins; people seem to not understand that survival is abstract and everything must die to my Shadow the Edgehog OC

[Trekkin]

I just think that interplanetary and far space travel is pretty impossible as a species unless you're optimizing the actual travelers to survive it.

Optimizing the travelers is also "pretty impossible" at present.

[Hanslanda]

>survival is an abstract imperative

Imperatives are intrinsically abstract! Nothing bad happens if you don't survive. You don't get a GAME OVER screen or anything.

I feel like the unknowable oblivion of death could be considered a game over screen.

[JoshuaFH]

I just think that interplanetary and far space travel is pretty impossible as a species unless you're optimizing the actual travelers to survive it.

Optimizing the travelers is also "pretty impossible" at present.

at present.

Genetic engineering is a nearer and more realistic goal than Mars colonization, so I think it'd be wise to assume we achieve the former before the latter and plan accordingly.

[SalmonGod]

Survival of the species, specifically, is quite abstract, both in its definitions and motivations.

I have a direct relationship with the world and its inhabitants today, and it's easy to extend that to a concern for the well-being of people even several generations from now.  And humanity reaching great heights in the distant future is a nice daydreaming subject.

But the indefinite survival of the species... where does the personal investment originate to care that humanity never ends?  And how far are you willing to extend your definition of humanity before that investment no longer holds?  Is it strictly our DNA?  Is that all we care about?  Or are there elements of the human experience that we want to preserve?  And could going to extremes in the name of surivival undermine that?  Does a continuity to development of humanity's sense of heritage and history and cultural evolution matter?  Or is it all well and good if we fire off a seed pod to some distant earth-like planet, so that human beings with zero knowledge of where they came from live there?  Just so we can feel safe in the knowledge that if earth gets wiped out, at least there will be living beings somewhere else with human DNA in them?

Yeah, it's a pretty abstract imperative to me.

[JoshuaFH]

Survival of the species, specifically, is quite abstract, both in its definitions and motivations.

I have a direct relationship with the world and its inhabitants today, and it's easy to extend that to a concern for the well-being of people even several generations from now.  And humanity reaching great heights in the distant future is a nice daydreaming subject.

But the indefinite survival of the species... where does the personal investment originate to care that humanity never ends?  And how far are you willing to extend your definition of humanity before that investment no longer holds?  Is it strictly our DNA?  Is that all we care about?  Or are there elements of the human experience that we want to preserve?  And could going to extremes in the name of surivival undermine that?  Does a continuity to development of humanity's sense of heritage and history and cultural evolution matter?  Or is it all well and good if we fire off a seed pod to some distant earth-like planet, so that human beings with zero knowledge of where they came from live there?  Just so we can feel safe in the knowledge that if earth gets wiped out, at least there will be living beings somewhere else with human DNA in them?

Yeah, it's a pretty abstract imperative to me.

If Fermi's Paradox is anything to look at, I think it's safe to assume we're approaching the "Great Filter" and that at this point we're in a battle against total annihilation. A war on entropy that we're probably destined to lose, but we can prolong the existence of intelligent life, or at the very least any life at all.