17
   

The meaning of getting to Mars? Your view?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:16 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I could just straight ask you why living on small hunter-gatherer huts is bad for us?


Obviously, any discussion on what is "good" or "bad" for us is a value judgment. It is a subjective decision. On the other hand, both you and I are obviously choosing modern life over the alternative.

Life in these small hunter-gatherer communities was pretty awful by my modern perspective.

People spent the majority of their time subsisting with little time to enjoy for themselves. If they or their children got a bacterial infection now easily cured with a pill, they simply died. The infant mortality rate in these societies is over 100 times that of we have, and less than half of children in these societies live past the age of 15.

Of course, if you would have lived in these societies, having half your children die would be a normal part of life. You might not even be sad... the solution is to just have the women have more children. You might accept this as the normal part of a happy life.

I am pretty happy we advanced.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:17 am
@maxdancona,
Well, I would prefer to do it the old fashion way, face to face, smelling your existence, looking at your body language and be able to hit you with a punch if needed to and go for some honey on a tree after making peace.
There is nothing simpleton on simple lives nor nothing that complicated on complex ones.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:19 am
@hightor,
Quote:
How many other species and eco-systems would be flourishing around the planet instead of being driven to extinction and destruction from over-hunting, resource extraction, industrial pollution, topsoil depletion, wars, and climate change?


Ive jumped off your truck there. How many species came along, lived and quietly went extinct without any help from humans?? Remember of all species that ever lived (Raup estimated it was almost 3BILLION through geologic time) 99.9999% are extinct.




Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:24 am
@maxdancona,
Yes...I was expecting the age and diseases pet talk straight after...
How about the hell of living forever on the horizon for replacement and mental poor health in exchange for antibiotics. As I said its a fractal when you think you solved in one corner a new samish corner opens up elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:27 am
@farmerman,
...and that gets back to what I was saying just now to Max...its a pattern and tech wizardry just changes the scale of the targets but doesn't solve the meta-problem. Gather resources, reproduce, and avoid death for as long as you stay fit or sane.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:32 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The fact that you are expressing this in a written language on a computer connected to a planet wide network strikes me as funny.

That's because I happen to live right here, max, right now.
Quote:

I don't think you hate human progress as much as you pretend.

I don't "hate" human progress. I'm not a Luddite or a hermit. I simply don't think that we're equipped to handle all the technology we're equipped to invent. I'd like to see us employ our skills toward achieving a sustainable economy which isn't predicated on eternal growth. While leaving the planet will always be an inspirational concept, seriously entertaining the idea while simultaneously letting our planet turn into a garbage dump strikes me as irresponsible...and all too human.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:37 am
@farmerman,
Quote:

Ive jumped off your truck there.

Oh good — I was afraid I'd have to kick you off. Smile
Quote:
How many species came along, lived and quietly went extinct without any help from humans??

That's the point. We don't need to help the process.
Quote:
Perhaps the most conspicuous aspect of the diversity of life on the planet is the enormous range of the diversity of sizes of organisms. Indeed, large animals and trees (such as elephants, rhinos, whales, and large trees such as redwoods, sequoias, and mountain ash) are also often seen as charismatic and are often used as flagship species for conservation decisions. Large animals and trees are often highlighted as they have inspired much conservation effort and policy and effectively convey conservation principles to the public1,2. However, there is debate on if the charismatic nature of a species is a good indicator of conservation value or even a good predictor of conservation efficiency1,3,4.

One of the primary signatures of the Anthropocene has been a progressive elimination of the largest organisms5,6,7,8, especially if one of the first antecedents of the Anthropocene is argued to be the decimation of the Pleistocene megafauna9. Throughout most of the Phanerozoic, large animals and trees have been ubiquitous across the globe, except immediately following major extinction events in Earth history. Human activities are now disproportionately impacting the largest animals and trees2,8. This downsizing of the biosphere started in the Late Pleistocene with the extinction of much of the megafauna and continued through the rise of human societies marked by the exploitation of forests, ongoing hunting of large animals and clearing of land for agriculture and industry10. Here we coin the term megabiota to refer collectively to the largest plants and animals in the biosphere (i.e. the megafauna and megaflora). The megabiota are disproportionately impacted by land clearing, landscape fragmentation, hunting, overfishing, selective logging, human conflict, and climate change. As a result, populations of free ranging biodiverse megabiota on the planet have continued to be whittled down.

The megabiota are disproportionately important for biosphere functioning
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:46 am
@hightor,
"We don't need to help the process"

..not so fast "superman"!
I am a contrarian not to troll but to indulge my mind in playing Devil's advocate. It entertains me and distracts me.

Sooo, who said helping the process of mass extinction is not natural, maybe even necessary anyway?
We don't like the moral burden it brings upon our needy consciences, (I hate it) but I am not at all sure it's not natural.
Who knows, garbage may be good for innovative chemistry or pushing natural selection to higher new challenges...we might get out better off in panspermia with a complex chemistry "garbage" resistant microbe going down to space later on.
Wink
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:46 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
One problem will be Nitrogen
.
Again, Ive never talked about colonization of Mars as an earth substitute because when the sun starts burning helium, it will probably take out Mars too in the "glow".

Mars is, to me, a stepping stone , a place to hone our latr missions .
As far as N2 for biotic life, weve only estimated that N2 is 1% of earth;s ATMOSPHERE. The spectrographs on the Mars Rovers have detected quite a lot ofboth hydrous and anhydrite Nitrogen salts in the shallow crust. Stuff like niter, alkali nitrates and even amines.
Any ag we attempt will need large areas grow stuff and even consider some livestock (maybe that will be a real challenge.

All this stuff i doable today (of course with the great difficulty of getting there and setting up.)
EB's idea of sending robots first to prepare the surface and get the engines humming with very few real people
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 06:52 am
@hightor,
The concept of an Anthropocene has been an talked over topic from several of the Bakker types. We are planning to move to a(far as I know) a barren planet and bringing life to it. We are beginning a process that will hve an obvious use down the road when the sun goes into its second, and terminal phase of its own evolution.

Im not willing to either give up because its hard, nor am I signing a death warrant becauae "e deserve to be punished"


Im a real optimist , maybe its one of the things science imparts, curiosity and discovery gives birth to application.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 07:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well, I would prefer to do it the old fashion way, face to face, smelling your existence, looking at your body language and be able to hit you with a punch if needed to and go for some honey on a tree after making peace.
There is nothing simpleton on simple lives nor nothing that complicated on complex ones.


We are talking about the human drive toward knowledge, exploration and progress that drove us out of the stone age, through the ages, onto the moon, until now. That will drive us to Mars and hopefully beyond.

Get rid of that human drive... you might get your simplicity. It will be at the cost of Galileo, Newton, Lovelace, an Bach, Gaudi and Lady Gaga.

If you love art, or philosophy, or architecture or music or science or literature... you should embrace human progress. All this started when Eve ate the apple and left the garden of Eden you imagine.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 07:39 am
@farmerman,
The problem is coning up with a breathable atmosphere. Just ramping up the temperature with CO2 is not a good idea, and nitrogen from Titan is an affordable option (although with high start-up costs) of getting a dense atmosphere which will both warm and protect the surface from stellar radiation. We can breathe an atmosphere with lots of nitrogen in it, and it obviates the need for an expensive process to get nitrogen out of the martian "soil."
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 08:02 am
@maxdancona,
The point was, IS, I am dual in my mode of thinking, and I don't want to give up on either end. So what am I going to do???
To bring it down to Earth I love country life and simple people but I also love the buzz of the city and pseudo intelectual Café debates with narcissistic bastards...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 08:03 am
@farmerman,
When we get a small colony on Mars we need someone to replace this guy:
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 08:07 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I am not talking about Modern country life.

Without the human drive to explore, to discover and create we would be stuck in hunter gatherer societies. Hunter gatherer societies are nothing like like modern "country life".
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 08:28 am
If we don't get away from a dying sun by finding a place to go we might be forced to build artificial worlds that forever roam in hope some will survive or even find a home centuries after leaving. Maybe traveling together, maybe not.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 08:31 am
@maxdancona,
What modern country life I don't like just modern country life and I like the survival style of life to...in fact I like to many things. Anyway your point was well understood the first time around Max. Just to let ya know.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 08:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I am a contrarian not to troll but to indulge my mind in playing Devil's advocate. It entertains me and distracts me.


Me too.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 02:09 pm
The real challenge is to grasp the full ramifications of the constraints of Martian environments. Low gravity and the corresponding thin atmosphere are insurmountable obstacles to terraforming.

Building Mars bases is theoretically possible but ridiculously expensive and wasteful to do so by launching payloads from Earth. It would make far more sense to use robots to use asteroids for raw materials, but first they'd have to be able to harvest energy (nuclear) from the asteroids using robots and using it to build the whole automated factory that would be necessary to make and assemble the Mars base modules. How much of Earth's energy would it take to build and run machines in the asteroid belt capable of turning asteroids into vehicles that could be transported to Mars and soft-landed there? And what's more, if such a source of nuclear fuel in the asteroid belt was found, would the best use for it be to build Mars vehicles/landers/bases?

Even with such modules built and put in place by robots, sending humans to stay in them for a while would be a long arduous journey and going down to the Martian surface wouldn't be much of a respite from the long journey in weightlessness because you would still only weight 1/3 of your Earth weight on Mars.

It would be years before you would get to return to your full Earth weight, and that can't be good for bones, muscles, heart, blood vessels, digestion, cartilage, or probably any other part of your body.

Still, it would be good to keep sending probes to gather more data about Martian climate and environments. Last I heard, they couldn't get the probe to drill deeper than about a foot and I never heard about that problem being resolved; so as far as I know whatever is underneath a foot of sand/dust on the surface is too strong to drill through.

It is probably like the iron of a meteor hardened by being bombarded with unfiltered xrays and cosmic rays all the time. I don't know if there is some limiting factor for how hard iron can become, but the meteorites I've seen are extremely hard and dense and I don't think there is much to break such iron down into soil on Mars the way there is on Earth.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Feb, 2020 02:12 pm
@farmerman,
By the way, even if one sees Mars as just a "brief" stopping place, it will still mean centuries, even millennia of human occupation. That means making it livable.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:49:49