Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?

Because our government doesn't have the money to do either, much less both. We aren't paying the bills as it is. Maybe China, Germany or Korea will do one or the other, but the US won't. Some might find that offensive, but that doesn't change the reality that the US public likes to dream big but is not willing to sacrifice even a little for it.

So what? The species survives.

If we, as a species, foul our own nest to the point where the Earth is uninhabitable then I would question whether the continuation of the species is really a noble goal.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So what? The species survives.

If we, as a species, foul our own nest to the point where the Earth is uninhabitable then I would question whether the continuation of the species is really a noble goal.

I'm sure you will recall that many of the same arguments that you are currently making were made by those who didn't support Kennedy's dream of a man on the moon, either. Almost exactly the same, really. And they were wrong, and we're better for the fact that those who would hold back progress in the name of timidity were ignored.

I'm sure you will recall that many of the same arguments that you are currently making were made by those who didn't support Kennedy's dream of a man on the moon, either. Almost exactly the same, really. And they were wrong, and we're better for the fact that those who would hold back progress in the name of timidity were ignored.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sure you will recall that many of the same arguments that you are currently making were made by those who didn't support Kennedy's dream of a man on the moon, either. Almost exactly the same, really. And they were wrong, and we're better for the fact that those who would hold back progress in the name of timidity were ignored.

So you think we should fake some more moon missions for progress?

Cyclo is going to know the name of this thing, i always forget. It is possible to use any old trash you want as propulsion fuel, using metal rods wrapped in plain old copper wire, and through which a very modestly low voltage current is passed. This is one of the wonderful things about eventually getting to the "asteroid" belt, or the rings of Saturn. You just hook on to a lump of rock, or a huge snowball, and start pooting small amounts out the back with your electro-magnetic impulse engine. The greatest expense is getting set up on the Moon to being with. After that, you can get everything you need elsewhere.

if we can't make a go of it on Earth I seriously doubt we have a chance anywhere.

but at least those neighbors would exist---which is more than can be said about the actual post-Columbus America

What is the value of individual human beings surviving, as compared to the entire species? I don't understand this line of argument at all.

I have very little interest in spending money to ensure that others - or even myself! - survive a few years longer, which is what the fight against Cancer does.

Well, let me explain it to you then. Let's say the Earth hosts 10 billion humans when the Big Killer Meteor approaches. To me, the cost of the meteor strike to humanity exactly equals the value of 10 billion human lives.

Now there's two things humanity can do about it. (Probably more, but let's keep it simple.) One is to go with you and invest our resources in Mars colonies.That way, 9,999,950,000 humans still get wiped out, and 50,000 survive on Mars. (I doubt they'll survive for long once Earth is gone, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

The other approach is to go with engineer's philosophy: We invest the same amount of resources to develop meteor-busting technology. This increases the probability p that those 10 billion humans survive---that instead of one Big Comet, they get hit by a billion shooting stars, each of which allows them to make a wish.

How do we decide between the two approaches? My approach is to allocate each extra dollar according to the statistically expected number of human lives that this dollar will save, given the probability p I just talked about. Because saving Earth protects Vaslty more human lives than colonizing Mars, p has to be very small until engineers approach loses out to yours. Therefore I would invest almost all of humanity's dollars into engineer's approach.

And that's what my line of argument is about.

See? That's where we disagree.


And that'

Scott Aaronson's Shtetl-Optimized journal is almost always thoughtful and entertaining. Yesterday he comments most engagingly on the challenge people have of evaluating low-probability but high-impact events " in this case, whether high-energy physics experiments could cause the catastrophic destruction of the Earth, or maybe the entire Universe [1]. Aaronson mentions "salience bias", the fascinating tendency humans have to worry about dramatic things (explosions, disasters, big fierce animals, etc.), rather than to objectively evaluate the odds.

human race to become extinct in the biosphere for which we evolved, how much smaller of an accident or disaster will it take to kill us off elsewhere?