The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

JGM · 2002-06-29 10:51:58

I'm tempted to make this a poll but that feature seems to be having some trouble so I'll just try to spark some discussion. There are two contrasting viewpoints regarding the urgency of launching a human mission to Mars. The first view, as expressed in Zubrin's writings and in the Benford article and interview here, uses the Ming Dynasty analogy to illustrate how we can't assume that our civilization will always be capable or have the will to launch a major initiative like settling another planet. If we don't do it soon we may never do it, in other words.

The contrasting viewpoint is expressed by Chris McKay in his answer to the third of the questions: how did life begin?, are we alone?, and where are we going? He expresses a faith in the progress of science and technology resulting in a continual cheapening of the costs of such a venture. This is the "If Columbus had waited long enough he could have flown to the New World" view.

I tend to lean in the direction of the more pessimistic view, but find Chris's arguments offering glimpses of hope. Perhaps a bigger question would be what is our role in this? Do we have the luxury of waiting out the answer or is it incumbent upon us to work toward influencing the outcome. If we are at such a critical juncture as a species where do we focus our efforts? Is the Mars effort only symptomatic of some larger flaw in society we need to help correct?

Joel

Phobos · 2002-06-29 14:27:06

I think we should be striving to colonize Mars as we speak. Of course, it will be a long time before a Mars colony comes into existence, but if we don't start developing the technology and desire now and wait a hundred years for someone else to do it, it could easily be to late. In a hundred years it's very possible that the governments of space-faring nations might not allow people the personal liberty of going into space. The more tyrannical a government, the less likely it is to allow immigration of its citizens. So if it's possible I'm somewhere in-between McKay and Benford, I don't think we need to absolutely rush colonization, but we can't just sit around and forget it either. The human race needs to race forward!

quasar777 · 2002-06-30 10:13:22

it`s doubtful there is any hurry to get to mars.

Phobos · 2002-06-30 17:28:26

Events can always change for the worse or better though, and very quickly. Just look at how the Soviet Union fell. If you were to ask a Soviet citizen in 1987 that their country was going to completely collapse in just a few years they would probably have laughed. It wouldn't take that much political effort to totally demolish manned spaceflight anyhow. With all of these international, particularly U.N., treaties prohibiting the private exploitation of space, it's possible immigration of private citizens could end up outright banned. There's sure to be a big debate on whether immigration into space should be allowed to happen once it's feasible and the radical environmentalists and other assorted groups will likely lobby hard to keep people pinned down on this planet. So even though it's doubtful that we need to hurry, I'd rather it happen sooner than later while laws are still somewhat friendly to allowing private citizens to go into space.

Aetius · 2002-06-30 20:22:08

I share Zubrin's views regarding the urgency of becoming a two-planet species. The misanthropes who hold so much sway within the radical wing of the environmental movement will stop at nothing to end human spaceflight. Establishing a successful colony on Mars will bring the deathblow to the dream they dare not voice: The dream of an impoverished, miserable, 'sustainable' human future. A lot of their prattle about how indigenous peoples lived in 'harmony' with nature seems like a thinly veiled endorsement of discredited 18th century notions about the "Noble Savage". Stone Age barbarians lived in 'harmony' with their surroundings only because they lacked the means to do otherwise in the long term.

McKay is off-base in his assertions, in my opinion. I'm a bit more pessimistic. If we don't start working for a permanent human presence on Mars now, our species could lose the opportunity. We are only one large-scale bioterror attack or nuclear exchange away from a new Dark Age. Too much is at stake.

Palomar · 2002-06-30 22:10:30

I share Zubrin's views regarding the urgency of becoming a two-planet species. The misanthropes who hold so much sway within the radical wing of the environmental movement will stop at nothing to end human spaceflight....A lot of their prattle about how indigenous peoples lived in 'harmony' with nature seems like a thinly veiled endorsement of discredited 18th century notions about the "Noble Savage". Stone Age barbarians lived in 'harmony' with their surroundings only because they lacked the means to do otherwise in the long term.

*Agreed! About 6 years ago, I happened to read a book which turned my head -- from a very unexpected quarter. The book [the title of which I cannot recall; sorry] attempted to recount various "mystical/religious traditions" supposedly used/observed by the Sumerians [at the time I was studying comparative religion and mythology -- in my usual agnostic fashion]. However, the editor of the book was no mystic himself; as a matter of fact, in the Introduction, he pointed out quite bluntly his opinion -- and the quoted opinion of another author -- that the current day's extreme fascination with mysticism and radical "green" issues, if taken to their logical end, would plunge civilization back into the dark ages; he cited some examples of former civilizations. Carl Sagan would've liked this Introduction. I'd been so absorbed in my comparative [and other] studies that this obvious correlation didn't occur to me until it was right under my nose.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the self-appointed spokesman for "The Noble Savage" 18th-century idea; actually, one could rightfully say he fathered it. Rousseau's ideas in this regard resulted in the loss of friendships amongst his fellow "philosophes," most notably that of Denis Diderot's friendship. Also, Rousseau and Voltaire were absolutely ::at odds:: on this matter [and many other matters besides]. Upon reading Rousseau's notions of "the noble savage" and etc., Voltaire took up pen and wrote: "I have received, monsieur, your new book against the human race...never has so much intelligence been deployed in an effort to make us beasts. One wants to walk on all fours after reading your book, but since I lost the habit more than sixty years ago, I fear I cannot recover it."

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-01 02:23:14

Hi Aetius and Cindy!
I usually find myself in agreement with your comments and this topic presents no exception to that general rule!
I am unimpressed by the notion of the "Noble Savage", which I regard as a fallacy. Native Africans, Americans, and Australians lived in harsh environments and were tough and uncompromising people. It is not usually given much publicity for reasons of political correctness, but the warfare between various indigenous tribes was frequent and brutal. Women and children were shown no mercy in these exchanges and the massacres were bloody and total.
The idea that these primitive societies somehow engaged in environmental protection policies of a voluntary and self-sacrificing nature is, to me, "cloud-cuckoo-land" stuff of the highest order! Aetius cuts to the reality of the situation by pointing out that the environment was only spared because primitive societies lacked the means to affect it to any significant degree. Not so the megafauna here in Australia, though. We had giant marsupial fauna up until some thousands of years ago, and goannas (a kind of large lizard) up to 7 metres long! There is evidence that many such species owe their extinction to the hunting activities of aborigines. And I understand the mammoths and mastodons of Europe and America met a similar fate.
I believe it was Isaac Asimov who argued, very persuasively,
that the only cure for too much technology is more and better technology! We can never go back to some imagined rural idyll where all is peace and harmonious interaction with nature .... because it was never like that in the first place!! It's a myth! Life was hard, brutal, and short. That's why we took the path to higher technology, to lift ourselves out of a harsh and grinding existence.
The 'greenies', though many of their aspirations are worthy ones, are living a fantasy if they think that abandoning technology and progress is a viable option. If they oppose space exploration (and exploitation), then they are seriously misguided because, in the longer term, it represents an opportunity to locate industry off-Earth. It also offers a means of preserving life for the future in the event that an asteroid obliterates it here on our home world. Such blinkered and ignorant people must be opposed vigorously and, ideally, re-educated as soon as possible.
I have tried to put across elsewhere in Forums the opinion that going to Mars is something we should do sooner rather than later. America and Europe currently have the ability and the wealth needed to establish a colony on Mars. But history shows again and again that the fortunes of nations can change in remarkably short time-frames. Even 30 years can make an enormous difference to the wealth of a country due to totally unforeseen circumstances.
The US is talking about humans-to-Mars in maybe 20 or 30 years. She is obviously comfortable in her wealth and power and feels she has the luxury of time on her side. I hope she is right to feel that way but I'm afraid I don't share her relaxed confidence!
If we have the ability to go to Mars, and we do, then let's get the show on the road .... NOW!!

rhw007 · 2002-07-01 11:25:46

I share Zubrin's views regarding the urgency of becoming a two-planet species. ...McKay is off-base in his assertions, in my opinion. I'm a bit more pessimistic. If we don't start working for a permanent human presence on Mars now, our species could lose the opportunity. We are only one large-scale bioterror attack or nuclear exchange away from a new Dark Age. Too much is at stake.

We had such grand plans:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/taskgrp.html

Besides humanity's own stupidy for STILL living in the Dark Ages where the following still prevail that we are:

1.

Palomar · 2002-07-01 15:46:10

Shaun: "We can never go back to some imagined rural idyll where all is peace and harmonious interaction with nature .... because it was never like that in the first place!! It's a myth! Life was hard, brutal, and short."

*So true. I really enjoy reading about the 18th century, but I wouldn't have wanted to have lived back then. Though some of the most sublime and beautiful art, music, furnishings, clothing, architecture, and philosophy came from that era, so did grinding poverty, plagues [smallpox, Bubonic], torture was legal, people were still burned to death at the stake, etc., etc. No one was complaining when electricity, telephones, refrigeration, and advanced surgical procedures came on the scene -- mankind didn't reject it.

Shaun: I have tried to put across elsewhere in Forums the opinion that going to Mars is something we should do sooner rather than later...The US is talking about humans-to-Mars in maybe 20 or 30 years. She is obviously comfortable in her wealth and power and feels she has the luxury of time on her side. I hope she is right to feel that way but I'm afraid I don't share her relaxed confidence!

*Yes, 20-30 years from now the USA economic situation may be very different; we've got a big AIDS/HIV population...and then there's the matter of the aging "baby boomer" generation and the terrific strain their ever-increasing healthcare issues will put on Social Security, Medicare, etc. I've read that by 2030 in America, there will be 4 senior citizens [70+ years old] to every 1 healthy, young worker. We're also now facing a unique situation of special nursing home facilities for aging [senior citizen] cocaine and heroin addicts; I'm surprised they've lived long enough for this to even be a problem. I don't foresee a very wonderful economy for the USA in the coming decades. I hope I'm wrong.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-01 15:54:36

"I have received, monsieur, your new book against the human race...never has so much intelligence been deployed in an effort to make us beasts. One wants to walk on all fours after reading your book, but since I lost the habit more than sixty years ago, I fear I cannot recover it."

LOL! Voltaire had a wicked sense of humor.

that the current day's extreme fascination with mysticism and radical "green" issues, if taken to their logical end, would plunge civilization back into the dark ages; he cited some examples of former civilizations.

I think a good example of the mystical aspect of extreme environmentalism is the concept of Gaia, that the Earth is somehow one gigantic living being and that humanity is more often than not her nemesis. It's a kind of anthropomorphism of the entire planet. I think this mystical quality is important for a lot of people because it builds an emotional bridge to their beliefs. Unfortunately such emotionally motivated beliefs often obliterate any sense of rationality. The anti-technologists don't understand that we could save our rainforests and our air by developing new, cleaner technologies and resources. But they'd rather have us get rid of all of our technology and other "unnatural" evils, which in my opinion, would only make a bigger mess of the planet.

The idea that these primitive societies somehow engaged in environmental protection policies of a voluntary and self-sacrificing nature is, to me, "cloud-cuckoo-land" stuff of the highest order! Aetius cuts to the reality of the situation by pointing out that the environment was only spared because primitive societies lacked the means to affect it to any significant degree. Not so the megafauna here in Australia, though. We had giant marsupial fauna up until some thousands of years ago, and goannas (a kind of large lizard) up to 7 metres long! There is evidence that many such species owe their extinction to the hunting activities of aborigines. And I understand the mammoths and mastodons of Europe and America met a similar fate.

I agree that it probably wasn't out of purely altruistic reasons that these "primitive" societies engaged in environmental preservation, but a lot of them did have high respect toward nature. They most likely did because their livelihood depended heavily on a healthy ecology and their religious beliefs often demanded that respect be given to various entities in nature. From a societal standpoint, I've been reading about Native American history and I've come to think we could learn a lot from them. There was a common belief in one tribe, for instance, that every decision you make should be made with the next seven generations in mind. We need that ethic in our society. We've become to shortsighted and can't see beyond today. It would probably be a lot easier to convince someone in that tribe the need to expand into space than your average modern person who thinks space travel is a waste of time because there's no immediate benefit!

Adrian · 2002-07-01 17:19:16

(pops head into thread)

As the Chinese Poet Li Chin Fu said in 500BCE,

"If you are thinking a season ahead, sow a seed.
If you are thinking ten seasons ahead, plant a tree.
If you are thinking a century ahead, educate the people."

rhw007 · 2002-07-01 19:00:24

I think a good example of the mystical aspect of extreme environmentalism is the concept of Gaia, that the Earth is somehow one gigantic living being and that humanity is more often than not her nemesis. It's a kind of anthropomorphism of the entire planet. I think this mystical quality is important for a lot of people because it builds an emotional bridge to their beliefs. Unfortunately such emotionally motivated beliefs often obliterate any sense of rationality

Actually, the brutal truth of HOW you think, move fingers and then type what you think on these marvelous machines of ours comes from sparks of chemically induced electricity flowing across the holes (synapses) of your mind. Is it so prepostorous for the electromagnetic spectrum field that inhabits a human and enables it to function to 'think' that a similar electromagnetic spectrum field isn't somehow 'aware' of the Universe on its own level? Talk about anthropomorphism in the extreme. Who is REALLY electromagnetically 'powerfull' enough to say to the Universe:
It can't be that way?

Adrian · 2002-07-01 21:07:00

rhw007: I don't mind topic drift too much. I'm guilty of it myself, with my poetic interjection. But this stuff about the electromagnetic pattern of the universe being alive sounds suspiciously like 'Intelligent Alien Life' to me, and you know that there's a forum just for that. I would rather not see it here, based on a very tenuous link from the thread. So if you would like to continue discussing it, start up a new thread in that forum. If I see any more posts about it here, they'll be deleted (there's already a post about this in Meta New Mars).

JGM · 2002-07-02 00:34:05

this stuff about the electromagnetic pattern of the universe being alive sounds suspiciously like 'Intelligent Alien Life' to me, and you know that there's a forum just for that

In defense of rhw007, this did lead pretty directly from the Gaia hypothesis which would seem to be an important part of the discussion. Personally, I have no problem with holding the view that mankind's technological efforts are nothing to be ashamed of - being entirely 'natural' - and also finding the Gaia hypothesis to be a helpful way of understanding some of the mysteries of the Earth. Mystics have been derided for millenia by rationalists for talking nonsense. I've had my mystical moments when I experience the ineffable, the eternal ground of being, the Tao. It's impossible to speak of it in a scientific way but it is still entirely real to the one who experiences it.

Where I think environmentalists fall short is in assuming that we as a species are apart from nature. Our technological efforts are no less a part of Gaia's development than is a beaver dam or a redwood forest. I think of Gaia as a glimpse of the true interconnectness of the universe but with an Earth-centric perspective. Mars Society member Gus Frederick, an environmental technologist if there ever was one, one said that humanity is Gaia's sex organs and, through us, Gaia is about ready to spread its seed to other planets. Another way of looking at it is that we are Gaia's brain.

Either way you look at it, if the Earth is a living entity then I can't see how its extension into space via humanity's technology is a bad thing. To me, Gaia - which fully includes humanity - is like a multidimensional plant that's running out of room to grow. Maybe the enviro-technologist's battle cry should be "Gaia is suffocating- let her breathe free!"

Joel

Adrian · 2002-07-02 00:59:36

While I have no problem with the weak Gaia hypothesis (living systems modify their environment, and that complex ecosystems tend to be stable), which just makes scientific sense, the strong Gaia hypothesis (the Earth *is* a super-organism) doesn't really have much proof and doesn't have use beyond anything more than a shorthand. Which is why there isn't much research being done on it.

As for the 'electromagnetic spectrum field' that 'allows a human to think', well, this is just woolly thinking. The EM field of humans is a byproduct of the neural impulses in our brain. Thus, it does not follow that the EM field of the universe, which is, let's face it, pretty spread out, would result in some kind of awareness. And this really *is* an end to the EM awareness speculation in this thread.

BTW, if mystics talk nonsense and make unfounded predictions then they'll be called out for it. But if someone talks about having a mystical experience, they won't be derided by scientists. Scientists might wonder where this mystical experience comes from and investigate it though, and people might not like their findings, but what the hell, that's science.

JGM · 2002-07-02 08:27:22

OK then, back to the main question: is there a real urgency to get to Mars? The concensus so far seems to be yes, which shouldn't be too surprising since this is New Mars. I think where the Gaia/environmentalist part enters is in identifying who the enemy is- who or what is most likely to cause us to miss our chance. Several have pointed to the radical environmentalist crowd as likely to be influential in swaying humanity against an interest in space. Phobos, OTOH, mentioned the dangers of space militarization and the likely barring of emigration to other planets by free individuals.

If you look at Benford's analogies, the Ming Dynasty as well as the Moslems, both share a wave of conservatism as a strong factor in causing their societies to retreat from the exciting new worlds that their strength and exploratory zeal had exposed them to. We could see exposure to space as causing this same type of reaction. After all, it's only been half a century since we were totally grounded within the gravity well. As global warming heats up and other human-induced climatic factors become evident the environmentalists will be able to make a compelling argument- no doubt through liberal use of exaggeration and hyperbole- that we've overstepped our bounds and the planet is paying the price.

I wonder if it's possible to begin a wave of cautious enthusiasm for space rooted in a responsible and far-sighted approach to the future that can counteract the doomsayers and conservatives. I don't think we foster this wave by bashing the Earth defenders or by beating the drums of terraformation and rapid exploitation of Mars. We need to find a middle path, aligned with the mainstream environmental movement which draws on the natural tendency of many people to care about and love nature, and outline sensible steps forward to an exciting future that includes a balanced and stable Earth ecosystem. We need to emphasize that the choice is not to solve Earth's problems or to explore space. We can have our cake and eat it too.

Palomar · 2002-07-02 10:47:49

Mystics have been derided for millenia by rationalists for talking nonsense. I've had my mystical moments when I experience the ineffable, the eternal ground of being, the Tao.

*I've read [before I began reading Voltaire...I'll get to him in a minute] The Tao of Pooh, The Te of Piglet, The Way of Chuang Tzu, and various writings of Bruce Lee dealing with Taoism.

I don't consider Taoism as mystical, any more than grass, a rock, or my body is mystical. They simply ARE -- the evidence for them is there; they exist.

That's my understanding of Taoism -- it is knowledge/consciousness of existence. It is knowledge/awareness of interconnectedness, individuality, and relatedness. It is the philosophy of Life.

By the way, Voltaire had very high regard for this sort of Eastern philosophical thought; he does not give it a name [maybe not having known what it was called], but he was a Deist -- and the way he relates his knowledge of Eastern philosophy sounds very much to me like Taoism. I think Voltaire could easily have equated his Deism with Taoism...but, of course, I cannot speak for him and I'm not attempting to; I'm just relating my impressions gathered from his writings.

Also, mystics have derided rationalists too. It's worked both ways.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-02 15:43:04

I wonder if it's possible to begin a wave of cautious enthusiasm for space rooted in a responsible and far-sighted approach to the future that can counteract the doomsayers and conservatives. I don't think we foster this wave by bashing the Earth defenders or by beating the drums of terraformation and rapid exploitation of Mars. We need to find a middle path, aligned with the mainstream environmental movement which draws on the natural tendency of many people to care about and love nature, and outline sensible steps forward to an exciting future that includes a balanced and stable Earth ecosystem. We need to emphasize that the choice is not to solve Earth's problems or to explore space. We can have our cake and eat it too.

True, I think we should be more careful of how we present our views against extremists or we'll be easily smeared and lumped in with the slash and burn crowd. I think the best way to defeat these anti-human environmentalists would be to get some well-known pro-environmental organizations on our side. I noticed that the Sierra Club actually donated to the Mars Society. They could prove invaluable in persuading the public against the extremists if they support manned missions to Mars.

Palomar · 2002-07-02 16:05:10

I think we should be more careful of how we present our views against extremists or we'll be easily smeared and lumped in with the slash and burn crowd. I think the best way to defeat these anti-human environmentalists would be to get some well-known pro-environmental organizations on our side. I noticed that the Sierra Club actually donated to the Mars Society. They could prove invaluable in persuading the public against the extremists if they support manned missions to Mars.

*I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, many humans have a tendency to quickly slap a label onto others, and thereby lump each other into "categories," many of which have assumptions as broad as the Grand Canyon; it's a convenient cop-out for folks who don't want to take the time to THINK THROUGH what the other person is saying, much less give the other person the benefit of the doubt that they may actually have something worthy of further investigation and consideration in what they're saying/proposing. Labelling also has the unfortunate [but very real tendency, in my experience] to promote "guilt by association" -- or, as is often the case, SUPPOSED association.

It's not fair to assume all environmentalists are fanatics who tear their hair out when anyone so much as accidentally steps on ant hill.

Yeah, the Mars Society needs to carefully define itself in this manner, and try to draw in support from the more reasonable and moderate sectors of the environmentalist sector.

--Cindy

JGM · 2002-07-02 17:46:06

I noticed that the Sierra Club actually donated to the Mars Society. They could prove invaluable in persuading the public against the extremists if they support manned missions to Mars.

I've thought along the same lines and am even a member of a yahoo group called Greens4Mars that tried to foster this kind of connection. Unfortunately, discussion has pretty much died down to nothing over the last year or so (unless I somehow got unsubscribed ??? ).

One place where I think there's a natural intersection is in our mutual desire to explore exotic and desolate landscapes. A lot of Sierra Clubbers are backpackers and could probably relate to the thrill of backpacking in .38G through Valles Marineris or on Olympus Mons. Maybe it's time to found a Planetary Exploration Society or something like that and try to attract some mutual membership across the divide between techies and tree huggers.

Aetius · 2002-07-02 21:23:40

I am very skeptical that any Mars-oriented group will be able to enlist the aid of 'mainstream' environmentalist groups. The very idea of settling Mars is the antithesis of everything most environmental activists stand for. The Mars Society is also unlikely to get positive press coverage from the Left-dominated mass media outlets in the USA or anywhere else. The world's space programs, for the most part, are simply extensions of the military-industrial complex. Regardless of how much you or someone else might gush over the Sierra Club (or other group with similar aims), I have a gut feeling that the people who lead these groups will never think of Mars the way you do. I believe that any serious attempt to win their approval will either lead them to demand changes to the Mars Society's goals which many members might disapprove of, or will simply attract more unwanted attention from the aforementioned hostile elements of the 'Earth First' movement.

"Earth defender" sounds very poetic at face value. But since we're talking about Earth's living things, is it fair to apply that blanket label to groups like Earth Liberation Front (whose preferred weapon is arson)? Environmental lawyers who will rob thousands of logging industry workers of employment, to save an 'endangered' owl or frog? I don't think it is.

Supporting legislation to help ensure clean air and water is just good government. But a lot of this talk about preserving 'biodiversity' seems like a way of achieving radical Green aims through seemingly harmless regulation. Look at the staggering amounts of money the states in the western USA spend fighting lawsuits from these groups.

JGM · 2002-07-03 08:36:05

"Earth defender" sounds very poetic at face value. But since we're talking about Earth's living things, is it fair to apply that blanket label to groups like Earth Liberation Front (whose preferred weapon is arson)? Environmental lawyers who will rob thousands of logging industry workers of employment, to save an 'endangered' owl or frog? I don't think it is.

In the same paragraph that I used the term "Earth defender" I qualified my view by saying that I'd like to find common ground with the "mainstream" environmental movement. The quote above seems to indicate you'd be more comfortable with pigeon-holing all of those who care about the Earth with a convenient label so can oppose them more readily.

I think this kind of us vs. them mentality is counterproductive. You also suggest that the leadership of the Sierra Club doesn't think like I do about Mars. It would surprise me very much if they did. If so they'd probably be in the Mars Society instead. What I spoke of was finding common ground. There are countless people on this planet who love the thrill of hiking up into a spectacular alpine valley or experiencing the solitude of the desert. Many of them haven't yet given much thought to what wonders await on other worlds. I'm just thinking it wouldn't hurt to expand their horizons a little bit.

There are forces that oppose us in our objectives to get a wave going in support of manned missions to Mars. Generally, however, I feel that our biggest enemy is apathy and lack of vision. We can do more by helping to ignite the passions of those who are natural explorers than we can by trying to isolate and attack the naysayers.

I believe that any serious attempt to win their approval will either lead them to demand changes to the Mars Society's goals which many members might disapprove of, or will simply attract more unwanted attention from the aforementioned hostile elements of the 'Earth First' movement.

This sounds like fear speaking. Worrying about our ideals being diluted by contact with strangers who think differently than we do sounds very much like the attitude that destroyed the Ming Dynasty. If we're sure enough in our vision it's we who will be opening minds rather than the closed minded working to shutter ours. If we insist that the Mars Society only be composed of those who agree to a very stringently defined platform of goals and objectives we'll dwindle rapidly into total irrelevance. I believe this movement has to grow to succeed. That means finding new blood not among our natural constituency and offering our vision of a new view of humanity. A multi-planet species that respects the web of life wherever it resides. We are a product of our biosphere. It just makes sense to consider the health of this biosphere that feeds and nourishes us as we move forward and expand into space.

Phobos · 2002-07-03 16:41:10

"Earth defender" sounds very poetic at face value. But since we're talking about Earth's living things, is it fair to apply that blanket label to groups like Earth Liberation Front (whose preferred weapon is arson)? Environmental lawyers who will rob thousands of logging industry workers of employment, to save an 'endangered' owl or frog? I don't think it is.

I agree that we aren't likely to get much love from 99% of the environmental groups out there, but if we could just get some support from a respected group or two (after all the Sierra Club did donate) and couple that with possible support from respected scientific institutions (and maybe other liberal organizations like teachers' unions) I think we'll be able to make a good case to the public against the shouting fanatics in groups like ELF and PETA (someone's gotta protect those little microbes!)) not to mention the anti-nuclear crowd. Yeah, I think groups like ELF hurt their cause more than they help it. Burning down people's houses and torching research labs will just make you look like what you are--a terrorist.

There are forces that oppose us in our objectives to get a wave going in support of manned missions to Mars. Generally, however, I feel that our biggest enemy is apathy and lack of vision. We can do more by helping to ignite the passions of those who are natural explorers than we can by trying to isolate and attack the naysayers.

My fear though is that these groups will succeed in killing any passion a lot of people have for colonizing Mars. And I agree with what you wrote earlier, that we should put topics like terraforming on the backburner so we don't look like fools willing to slash and burn a planet from the get-go. We can just sneak in terraforming later. I believe one of the largest segments of the population that will be against Mars will be the people who think the money should be spent on solving social problems instead. These people don't understand that opening up space and developing the technology to exploit its wealth could go a long way in actually helping the world out of some of its problems. A lot of these problems are political in nature that no amount of money will solve anyhow. These people are a lot like the "Ming-Dynasty" folks who think we should rot on this planet until we create some perfect utopia that will never happen.

*I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, many humans have a tendency to quickly slap a label onto others, and thereby lump each other into "categories," many of which have assumptions as broad as the Grand Canyon; it's a convenient cop-out for folks who don't want to take the time to THINK THROUGH what the other person is saying, much less give the other person the benefit of the doubt that they may actually have something worthy of further investigation and consideration in what they're saying/proposing. Labelling also has the unfortunate [but very real tendency, in my experience] to promote "guilt by association" -- or, as is often the case, SUPPOSED association.

I couldn't agree more. Labels are just a convenient way to short circuit critical thinking.

Bill White · 2002-07-03 18:44:56

I believe one of the largest segments of the population that will be against Mars will be the people who think the money should be spent on solving social problems instead. These people don't understand that opening up space and developing the technology to exploit its wealth could go a long way in actually helping the world out of some of its problems. A lot of these problems are political in nature that no amount of money will solve anyhow.

Let me try a different spin on this point.

In my town it has become popular to "tear down" smaller homes and build huge mansions and McMansions.

Several old timers got together to try to stop this "disgusting" practice of destroying homes of alleged "historic value" even though it increased the value of their own homes and few people really see much "historic value" in many of these homes.

In reality, it seems that many of these old timers resented young kids building newer, bigger houses than their house. I don't care if my house value goes up or not - I want the biggest house on the block.

IMHO - the world's first trillionaire will be made from settling space. As Mark S wrote elsewhere, a Mars based society may surpass Terra in many ways. A young, hungry group of business people have incentive to settle space, but they do not have the money to do it.

OK, so the question becomes why will the wealthy, vested interests pay for Mars? Likewise, why should America pay to found a society that may well supercede American society?

Of course, no one will say their real reasons openly and will disguise their arguments in the language of fringe elements.

If the "powers that be" really and truly wanted to do Mars, neither the environmentalists nor the social do-gooders could stop them.

But why pull the goalie when you are winning by 2 or 3 goals or by 20 or 30 goals?

Phobos · 2002-07-04 17:59:51

OK, so the question becomes why will the wealthy, vested interests pay for Mars? Likewise, why should America pay to found a society that may well supercede American society?
Of course, no one will say their real reasons openly and will disguise their arguments in the language of fringe elements.
If the "powers that be" really and truly wanted to do Mars, neither the environmentalists nor the social do-gooders could stop them.

This is precisely why I think we should strive to colonize Mars as soon as we can! As I said in an earlier post, history has proven that governments tend to give themselves more and more power over the people, often to the point of causing revolutions. If we wait a hundred years the tyrannies that could result may effectively shut down any immigration
out of fear that people will see an outlet for escaping the political power of X countries. One only has to look at countries like the former Soviet Union to see how hard it was for citizens in those countries to actually immigrate to other countries. Of course though, there is a different possibility. A country could blindly decide that it "owns" Mars much the same way the King of England once thought he owned the American colonies and allowed mass immigration to those places. If the USA, China, or any other country believes it can extend its power by shipping a lot of people to Mars to take the land, such a colony could eventually decide to cut ties with the home country and found its own country. But I'm not holding my breath on the latter.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-29 10:51:58

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#2 2002-06-29 14:27:06

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#3 2002-06-30 10:13:22

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#4 2002-06-30 17:28:26

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#5 2002-06-30 20:22:08

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#6 2002-06-30 22:10:30

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#7 2002-07-01 02:23:14

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#8 2002-07-01 11:25:46

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#9 2002-07-01 15:46:10

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#10 2002-07-01 15:54:36

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#11 2002-07-01 17:19:16

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#12 2002-07-01 19:00:24

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#13 2002-07-01 21:07:00

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#14 2002-07-02 00:34:05

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#15 2002-07-02 00:59:36

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#16 2002-07-02 08:27:22

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#17 2002-07-02 10:47:49

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#18 2002-07-02 15:43:04

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#19 2002-07-02 16:05:10

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#20 2002-07-02 17:46:06

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#21 2002-07-02 21:23:40

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#22 2002-07-03 08:36:05

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#23 2002-07-03 16:41:10

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#24 2002-07-03 18:44:56

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

#25 2002-07-04 17:59:51

Re: The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go?

Board footer