• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

On the colonization of Mars/space exploration

S

soro

Guest
As of now, it feels like colonizing space will not happen in the foreseeable future. Earth has its host of problems that need to be fixed before giving up and colonizing space. I don't think the technology is even close; at best, we can send a rover to Mars. Actually terraforming Mars and making it habitable would be extremely expensive and difficult with our current technology. Even if we have the technology to make a barren wasteland like Mars habitable, why don't we start with Antarctica?

As of now, sending stuff to Mars would be a waste of taxpayer money like the Mars rovers were. These billions of dollars could've gone to bettering the education system, bettering communities, improving infrastructure, improving the healthcare system, so on.

Even if it were habitable, the Earth would decline because the elites wouldn't have any incentive to better the state of Earth, because they could just escape to Mars once Earth becomes uninhabitable.
 

redhusky

Emperor of Floof! King of the Rats and Spamlord!
As of now, it feels like colonizing space will not happen in the foreseeable future. Earth has its host of problems that need to be fixed before giving up and colonizing space. I don't think the technology is even close; at best, we can send a rover to Mars. Actually terraforming Mars and making it habitable would be extremely expensive and difficult with our current technology. Even if we have the technology to make a barren wasteland like Mars habitable, why don't we start with Antarctica?

As of now, sending stuff to Mars would be a waste of taxpayer money like the Mars rovers were. These billions of dollars could've gone to bettering the education system, bettering communities, improving infrastructure, improving the healthcare system, so on.

Even if it were habitable, the Earth would decline because the elites wouldn't have any incentive to better the state of Earth, because they could just escape to Mars once Earth becomes uninhabitable.
But what if there is cool stuff on Mars!?
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
As of now, it feels like colonizing space will not happen in the foreseeable future. Earth has its host of problems that need to be fixed before giving up and colonizing space. I don't think the technology is even close; at best, we can send a rover to Mars. Actually terraforming Mars and making it habitable would be extremely expensive and difficult with our current technology. Even if we have the technology to make a barren wasteland like Mars habitable, why don't we start with Antarctica?

As of now, sending stuff to Mars would be a waste of taxpayer money like the Mars rovers were. These billions of dollars could've gone to bettering the education system, bettering communities, improving infrastructure, improving the healthcare system, so on.

Even if it were habitable, the Earth would decline because the elites wouldn't have any incentive to better the state of Earth, because they could just escape to Mars once Earth becomes uninhabitable.


Here's the problem in a nutshell that people completely forget about, through metaphor:

I'm going to offer you a once-in-a-lifetime vacation trip, and all you have to do is tell me if you'd go even if the price was FREE, ok?

The room and resort you'll be staying in is relatively barren. There are no real things to offer you in terms of comfort, and no television or entertainment of any kind except what you bring with you. You cannot even really call someone without extreme complications. There are no stores and only the most basic of services available to you. The only people to talk to are the people that are in the resort...staff and fellow guests. The food is extremely basic as only greenhouse plants can be grown, and absolutely no meat. Here's hoping they had a good growing season last time or else there will be limited food and absolutely nothing you can do about it. ALL water is recycled to drink, including your piss and sweat.

You might want to explore the area somewhat, but you literally cannot leave as the outside air and environment is toxic and uninhabitably cold. Not that there is anything to see anyway...ALL the environment is a reddish dusty desert with absolutely no plant nor animal life at all. What, you think they are going to relocate all earth's animals like some kind of ark, just so we're not the only thing alive on that mudball? How will THEY all adapt??? Also again it's inhumanely cold so you need a space suit just to walk around and enjoy the nothingness. There is no culture to explore as you and your fellow guests are the only known living thing on the entire planet. You can't even enjoy the sunlight, as it's far weaker and smaller, and obviously no beaches, lakes, not even a blade of grass to offset the monotony. The sky is a dull red and weather consists of wind or no wind only.

Oh, and if literally anything goes wrong with the door seals, the temperature controls, the oxygen scrubbers, or literally anything else, everyone is dead within minutes to an hour.

See the problem? It SOUNDS cool to be "a martian colonist" but a few second of thought and you realize there simply is no REASON to go there right now except to plant a flag on it. That's literally it! Other than that, we'd be staring at rocks through glass all day...every day...enjoying our greenhouse carrots until we die of boredom. If humans were trapped on a martian colony we'd be devoting every scrap of resources to getting OFF that frozen hellhole!

And don't go talking about relocating the population of Earth as the desperation reason to go...we grew up ON earth and adapted TO earth. Take away literally ALL of nature and we'd go mad. You want to spend the rest of your life locked in a mall with absolutely no chance of ANYTHING different??? That's not the future of humanity to me, that's the 8th level of Dante's hell!!! We'd be better off trying to rebuild our own planet LONG before redesigning the entire species and all the other species on the planet to another radically different ecosystem.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I do not think that space science is a waste of money, because expanding our understanding of the universe and practising large and difficult projects that require international cooperation is useful for the human endeavour.

I do not think the idea of Earth's richer classes escaping to Mars is a realistic concern we have to face.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Nooo when will we manage to have revenge on the Martians? :C
 
S

soro

Guest
Here's the problem in a nutshell that people completely forget about, through metaphor...

Excellent metaphor. Living on Mars would sound cool until you think about it for more than ten seconds. It's basically a life sentence in prison; you would go insane. Having the technology to potentially SURVIVE on Mars is vastly different than having the technology to make Mars a safe, worthwhile place to live.

I do not think that space science is a waste of money...

Humanity has plenty of time to focus on space travel and understanding the universe as long as we live. Why not spend billions of dollars on to improve conditions on Earth first? What's the rush to go to space?
 

MaelstromEyre

Slippery When Wet
At this point, I think it's impractical. It's not inhabitable as it is, and travel to and from would require insane amounts of planning and preparation. It's been decades since anyone has even been close to the moon, and right now we have bigger issue to deal with on this planet.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Excellent metaphor. Living on Mars would sound cool until you think about it for more than ten seconds. It's basically a life sentence in prison; you would go insane. Having the technology to potentially SURVIVE on Mars is vastly different than having the technology to make Mars a safe, worthwhile place to live.



Humanity has plenty of time to focus on space travel and understanding the universe as long as we live. Why not spend billions of dollars on to improve conditions on Earth first? What's the rush to go to space?

Overcoming the technological challenges required to further space exploration results in increases in knowledge that have domestic applications; space exploration forces development in material sciences and engineering.
The Global Positioning System, cordless power tools, efficient solar panels, jet engine materials and so forth have all resulted in one way or another from human endeavours in space.

Overall space is a positive thing for economic activity, and also it's cool.
 
S

soro

Guest
Overcoming the technological challenges required to further space exploration results in increases in knowledge that have domestic applications; space exploration forces development in material sciences and engineering.
The Global Positioning System, cordless power tools, efficient solar panels, jet engine materials and so forth have all resulted in one way or another from human endeavours in space.

Overall space is a positive thing for economic activity, and also it's cool.

Most technological innovations that stem from space exploration came from the 1960's to the 1980's/90's. Basically we've had very little innovations in 30-40 years that improve daily life (correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any) from researching space; I can't see it being worth spending billions and billions of dollars. It has improved military technology though, which happens to be another massive money sink.
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
Most technological innovations that stem from space exploration came from the 1960's to the 1980's/90's. Basically we've had very little innovations in 30-40 years that improve daily life (correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any) from researching space; I can't see it being worth spending billions and billions of dollars. It has improved military technology though, which happens to be another massive money sink.

Well you are definitely wrong on that one, as space exploration DOES improve technology by side-effects of the research. The EXPLORATION side might seem like baby-steps right now, but the knowledge gained by trying to build it carries over to daily life constantly. Pretty juch any tech you enjoy has a space-tech origin. (satelites for cellphones, gps, velcro, radiation shielding, submarine tech, oxygen scrubbers, etc...the list really DOES go on and on...)
 

oappo

Well-Known Member
As of now, sending stuff to Mars would be a waste of taxpayer money like the Mars rovers were. These billions of dollars could've gone to bettering the education system, bettering communities, improving infrastructure, improving the healthcare system, so on.

You could argue the same of any budget honestly. Especially if you live in the US where they spend a nice fat chunk of their budget on military.

Even if we have the technology to make a barren wasteland like Mars habitable, why don't we start with Antarctica?
That'd screw up the ecosystem more than it already is. Not to mention there is the political aspect to consider. That alone complicates things greatly

You could also make the argument of "if we have the technology to make a barren wasteland habitable, why don't we spend that money and other resources on bettering our home countries?"
 
Last edited:
S

soro

Guest
Well you are definitely wrong on that one, as space exploration DOES improve technology by side-effects of the research. The EXPLORATION side might seem like baby-steps right now, but the knowledge gained by trying to build it carries over to daily life constantly. Pretty juch any tech you enjoy has a space-tech origin. (satelites for cellphones, gps, velcro, radiation shielding, submarine tech, oxygen scrubbers, etc...the list really DOES go on and on...)

I don't see why these inventions had to have come from space exploration. They just happened to. I'm sure most of this tech could have and would have been discovered by R&D in other areas. Also, sending satellites into space is also not the same thing as trying to colonize Mars.

You could argue the same of any budget honestly. Especially if you live in the US where they spend a nice fat chunk of their budget on military.

The US military spending is also a massive waste.

That'd screw up the ecosystem more than it already is. Not to mention there is the political aspect to consider. That alone complicates things greatly

You could also make the argument of "if we have the technology to make a barren wasteland habitable, why don't we spend that money and other resources on bettering our home countries?"

How would it screw up the ecosystem? And I do think making Antarctica habitable isn't worth it at all right now. What I'm saying is if we need more space for whatever reason, then it's a better option than going to another planet. Inhabiting Mars is only worth if there is imminent danger of extinction on Earth.
 

Stray Cat Terry

테리 / 特里 / テリー
Here's the problem in a nutshell that people completely forget about, through metaphor:

I'm going to offer you a once-in-a-lifetime vacation trip, and all you have to do is tell me if you'd go even if the price was FREE, ok?

The room and resort you'll be staying in is relatively barren. There are no real things to offer you in terms of comfort, and no television or entertainment of any kind except what you bring with you. You cannot even really call someone without extreme complications. There are no stores and only the most basic of services available to you. The only people to talk to are the people that are in the resort...staff and fellow guests. The food is extremely basic as only greenhouse plants can be grown, and absolutely no meat. Here's hoping they had a good growing season last time or else there will be limited food and absolutely nothing you can do about it. ALL water is recycled to drink, including your piss and sweat.

You might want to explore the area somewhat, but you literally cannot leave as the outside air and environment is toxic and uninhabitably cold. Not that there is anything to see anyway...ALL the environment is a reddish dusty desert with absolutely no plant nor animal life at all. What, you think they are going to relocate all earth's animals like some kind of ark, just so we're not the only thing alive on that mudball? How will THEY all adapt??? Also again it's inhumanely cold so you need a space suit just to walk around and enjoy the nothingness. There is no culture to explore as you and your fellow guests are the only known living thing on the entire planet. You can't even enjoy the sunlight, as it's far weaker and smaller, and obviously no beaches, lakes, not even a blade of grass to offset the monotony. The sky is a dull red and weather consists of wind or no wind only.

Oh, and if literally anything goes wrong with the door seals, the temperature controls, the oxygen scrubbers, or literally anything else, everyone is dead within minutes to an hour.

See the problem? It SOUNDS cool to be "a martian colonist" but a few second of thought and you realize there simply is no REASON to go there right now except to plant a flag on it. That's literally it! Other than that, we'd be staring at rocks through glass all day...every day...enjoying our greenhouse carrots until we die of boredom. If humans were trapped on a martian colony we'd be devoting every scrap of resources to getting OFF that frozen hellhole!

And don't go talking about relocating the population of Earth as the desperation reason to go...we grew up ON earth and adapted TO earth. Take away literally ALL of nature and we'd go mad. You want to spend the rest of your life locked in a mall with absolutely no chance of ANYTHING different??? That's not the future of humanity to me, that's the 8th level of Dante's hell!!! We'd be better off trying to rebuild our own planet LONG before redesigning the entire species and all the other species on the planet to another radically different ecosystem.

Not variable diet, barren terrain, and all red, limited space for promenade....

I will get insane(more than now), and I can't say I won't turn into an animal. I mean... go crazy. We can only hope I don't murder someone or even unpower the habitat systems or stuff to end us all there.

I'll only volunteer if they give me trillions of cash to spend before leaving, so that I have nothing left on Earth to experience new anymore. This way, I'll be able to at least get interested in exploring the new red dirtball.

And the money being said, imagine all those taxes going to every single volunteers....It's not gonna happen unless someone up there is insane enough to do so...
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
I don't see why these inventions had to have come from space exploration. They just happened to. I'm sure most of this tech could have and would have been discovered by R&D in other areas. Also, sending satellites into space is also not the same thing as trying to colonize Mars.

Actually sending the satellites to space IS the same as colonization, in the sense that both need to work out similar problems, and one is a literal stepping stone to the other. If you can't put a hunk of metal into space safely, you cannot ever put a colony of humans on another planet. Dead stop sentence. So everything learned from the satellite experiences was carried over to the human side of things. What you're saying is like asking decades ago "why are we bothering to send up monkeys and dogs into space? We need to know if HUMANS can survive, so stop wasting time!" One literally chains off the other.

Would the tech have been discovered without space research? Possibly, but then you get into the thrill factor for funding. You know a shitload of MEDICAL tech came from space exploration as well, right? Would a doctor have discovered it if they weren't trying to keep someone alive in a vacuum? Yeah, but over a MUCH longer time as they would have limited funding...space exploration on the other hand gave them shitloads of funding and shortcuts as well. (there are some research you NEED space for).

Besides, be honest...if it wasn't space research funding the tech development (NASA is the military indirectly) it would be the military directly. If you can't go somewhere cool, learn about new resources to exploit, or make a big boom to kill people with, people aren't interested in putting in the money because they miss the side-benefits that usually occur, like you just did. Space is sexy and interesting, so they can get people behind it for support. Blowing up shit is also fun and sexy and thus Americans love their military like their favourite pet, giving them all they could ever want as long as they keep making pretty booms. But the money is ALWAYS there for research...those are just the only 2 avenues people care about. All you have to do to get proof of that is look at your own federal budget. PURE research projects without those 2 caveats are starving, and other projects have direct support from Nasa/Military. Everything else is in begging-for-scraps mode.
 
S

soro

Guest
Actually sending the satellites to space IS the same as colonization, in the sense that both need to work out similar problems, and one is a literal stepping stone to the other.

Sure, they both involve sending stuff into space. However, colonizing a planet is VASTLY more difficult and expensive than sending satellites into space. We have the technology for satellites, and when we eventually are able to start colonizing planets, satellite technology would definitely be a stepping stone. The argument is about colonizing planets though. We, as a species, are not ready for populating other planets.

Would the tech have been discovered without space research? Possibly, but then you get into the thrill factor for funding. You know a shitload of MEDICAL tech came from space exploration as well, right? Would a doctor have discovered it if they weren't trying to keep someone alive in a vacuum? Yeah, but over a MUCH longer time as they would have limited funding...space exploration on the other hand gave them shitloads of funding and shortcuts as well. (there are some research you NEED space for).

Space did lead to some medical advances, but I don't think it would be as effective in saving people as putting the billions of dollars towards improving healthcare. Unfortunately, the US healthcare system leaves many people untreated. More lives would be saved than if we happened to discover medical tech from space, which is not guaranteed at all.

Besides, be honest...if it wasn't space research funding the tech development (NASA is the military indirectly) it would be the military directly. If you can't go somewhere cool, learn about new resources to exploit, or make a big boom to kill people with, people aren't interested in putting in the money because they miss the side-benefits that usually occur, like you just did. Space is sexy and interesting, so they can get people behind it for support. Blowing up shit is also fun and sexy and thus Americans love their military like their favourite pet, giving them all they could ever want as long as they keep making pretty booms. But the money is ALWAYS there for research...those are just the only 2 avenues people care about. All you have to do to get proof of that is look at your own federal budget. PURE research projects without those 2 caveats are starving, and other projects have direct support from Nasa/Military. Everything else is in begging-for-scraps mode.

I don't see why space is romanticized. Also, I don't think spending a trillion dollars on the military is something most Americans agree with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stray Cat Terry

테리 / 特里 / テリー
Actually sending the satellites to space IS the same as colonization, in the sense that both need to work out similar problems, and one is a literal stepping stone to the other. If you can't put a hunk of metal into space safely, you cannot ever put a colony of humans on another planet. Dead stop sentence. So everything learned from the satellite experiences was carried over to the human side of things. What you're saying is like asking decades ago "why are we bothering to send up monkeys and dogs into space? We need to know if HUMANS can survive, so stop wasting time!" One literally chains off the other.

Would the tech have been discovered without space research? Possibly, but then you get into the thrill factor for funding. You know a shitload of MEDICAL tech came from space exploration as well, right? Would a doctor have discovered it if they weren't trying to keep someone alive in a vacuum? Yeah, but over a MUCH longer time as they would have limited funding...space exploration on the other hand gave them shitloads of funding and shortcuts as well. (there are some research you NEED space for).

Besides, be honest...if it wasn't space research funding the tech development (NASA is the military indirectly) it would be the military directly. If you can't go somewhere cool, learn about new resources to exploit, or make a big boom to kill people with, people aren't interested in putting in the money because they miss the side-benefits that usually occur, like you just did. Space is sexy and interesting, so they can get people behind it for support. Blowing up shit is also fun and sexy and thus Americans love their military like their favourite pet, giving them all they could ever want as long as they keep making pretty booms. But the money is ALWAYS there for research...those are just the only 2 avenues people care about. All you have to do to get proof of that is look at your own federal budget. PURE research projects without those 2 caveats are starving, and other projects have direct support from Nasa/Military. Everything else is in begging-for-scraps mode.

Yes, the space is sexy as well as big booms... mmm~

And so do cats!
 

oappo

Well-Known Member
How would it screw up the ecosystem?
A number of reasons;
-More disturbance
-Increased pollution
-Elevated temperatures
-indirect and direct habitat destruction
-more Invasive species

I suppose the specifics depend on what/how you terraform, but these issues would certainly come with increased habitation if nothing else.
 

Ovidia Dragoness

Udder Derg
Banned
I would like to point out that part "why not start with antarctica?" makes absolutely no scientific sense at all. When terraforming, it affects the whole planet due to a change in atmosphere. You can't have a localized change. The gases you put out in antarctica would spread across the globe and actually further global warming.
 
S

soro

Guest
I would like to point out that part "why not start with antarctica?" makes absolutely no scientific sense at all. When terraforming, it affects the whole planet due to a change in atmosphere. You can't have a localized change. The gases you put out in antarctica would spread across the globe and actually further global warming.

Terraforming doesn't exist yet. Assuming it will do something without any basis doesn't make scientific sense. Does making Antarctica habitable have to involve increasing the temperature of the entire planet?
 

KD142000

Leather-clad Lobo
I do not think that space science is a waste of money, because expanding our understanding of the universe and practising large and difficult projects that require international cooperation is useful for the human endeavour.

I do not think the idea of Earth's richer classes escaping to Mars is a realistic concern we have to face.
We still don't know everything about Earth and like the OP said, Earth's got some problems, most notably with the people living on it.

No offence, but we've gone to the moon already. We've sent rovers and satellites up. We've sent space telescopes to look at what lies beyond. I think that's enough. No one expected we'd ever get to that point, so let's just put the trophy in the fancy case and be done with it, at least until we've sorted out the issues we're facing in the here and now.

Mars is a wasteland that humans can't inhabit and I have no idea why anyone would want to inhabit it. What's there for us except more things to exploit and another environment to ruin?

I don't think we'll ever truly understand the universe and I highly doubt understanding it would make us better. We're all still apes with a penchant for getting our own way.
 

Ovidia Dragoness

Udder Derg
Banned
Terraforming doesn't exist yet. Assuming it will do something without any basis doesn't make scientific sense. Does making Antarctica habitable have to involve increasing the temperature of the entire planet?
Greenhouse gasses do increase temperatures. This is a fact no matter if terraforming is real yet.
 
S

soro

Guest
Greenhouse gasses do increase temperatures. This is a fact no matter if terraforming is real yet.

Maybe terraforming wasn't the right word then if it involves greenhouse gasses.

What I said was:

Does making Antarctica habitable have to involve increasing the temperature of the entire planet?

That's the thing. Maybe or maybe not, we don't know yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top