Slashdot Mirror
'Colonizing the Red Planet,' a How-To Guide
Velcroman1 writes "A manned mission to Mars would be the greatest adventure in the history of the human race. And one man knows how to make it a reality. In fact, he just wrote the book on it — literally. Joel Levine, senior research scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center and co-chair of NASA's Human Exploration of Mars Science Analysis Group, just published 'The Human Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet.' The book reads like a who's who of Mars mission science, featuring senators, astronauts, astrophysicists, geologists and more on getting to Mars, studying its atmosphere and climate, the psychological and medical effects on the crew and other details. The most interesting bit: Levine presents is a solution for funding the trip, something unprecedented for NASA: advertising. 'The suggestion is marketing to different corporations and professional sports leagues for advertising, which is something NASA never does.'"
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.
How much does it cost to (re-)name Mars?
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
Advertising!
The best way to make an expensive thing look cheap.
Evil people are out to get you.
So the new shuttles will have decals on them like NASCAR? Will we hear over the radios "Houston, we have a problem, but first a message from our sponsors"? Maybe every 10 minutes in the colony they play an announcement saying "This next 10 minutes of being able to breathe brought to you by $COMPANY".
You can never go back
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
This is a collection of papers. Levin is credited in the article for other peoples' work. But at a glance, there looks to be a lot of great work there.
Further, I don't buy the slashdot summary claim that Mars exploration or settlement (using current cost basis) can be funded solely through advertising and sponsorship. Sure if one looks at something like the Superbowl, World Cup, or the Olympics, you see many billions of dollars a year changing hands. That sort of money should be enough to run a space program. The problem is that Mars exploration doesn't have the guaranteed high interest viewership on a regular basis. Sure the actual first landing will be a big draw. But not so much the second, or third, etc. A long term program will need continuous funding over long periods of time. There's nothing to offer comparable permanent excitement to the repeated extremely popular contests of media sports.
OTOH, such a thing could be good funding for a first mission or two, especially if cost of access to space should go down considerable.
For me, the most interesting part is section 9, "Mars Base, Exploration, and Colonization of the Red Planet". Any sort of long term human activity on Mars, be it some sort of scientific mission, a new hobby for the extremely wealthy, or somebody else, is going to have to solve the sorts of problems discussed in this section.
In that short lived tv show Defying Gravity, wasn't that how they secured a lot of funding? They would shoot video of them doing something for some company and the entire world would watch it because it was the most amazing mission the world had ever seen. Some people might consider that selling out the mission or the science. However, I say better to get there sometime in the next two decades riding on the collective backs of the commercial industry then get there sometime next century with the "no-strings attached" money of people's collective good will. We'll get there sooner this way, and we can all benefit from the resulting advances in knowledge and science.
I agree completely with you. The few ones going to Mars will do it at the expense of the entire living humans left back with their problems and much less ressources to solve them. I don't agree to pay to see few ones escaping the problems we are having here and thinking they can have there own Dharma Initiative on Mars at the expense of others.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Really, what's on Mars that can't be done more cheaply by building near earth orbital environments?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Keep this book away from me! This guy's gonna spoil the next few episodes of Pioneer One for me if I'm not careful. D:
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Reply to: Mission to Colonize Mars Greatest Adventure? No, It would be a HUGE Waste of Earthly Resources. The Yield would be Nil.(Period)
Isn't that really the problem with anything we do as humans? In reality everything we do is a meaningless waste of resources. Everything, if you look out far enough, yields nil (well, except if we create strong AI). We just hate to admit it to ourselves.
I disagree with you about it being the greatest adventure though! It'd be the greatest thing I've ever seen!
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
The worst places on Earth are far easier to explore and colonize than Mars. Even Luna is easier to work with. A base on Luna is mostly a logistic problem; with enough lift capacity, it could be done today. But none of this will ever happen with chemical rockets, except as a nationalistic ego trip.
Consider your job. Is it easier than living on a beach while picking fruit and fishing? If the answer is "no", then why do you do it?
There were 3 major reasons I voted for Obama:
1. Sensible universal health care. (semi-FAIL)
2. Maintain net neutrality. (semi-FAIL)
3. A JFK-esque speech to get us going to Mars. (TBD)
The few ones going to Mars will do it at the expense of the entire living humans left back with their problems and much less ressources to solve them.
Fair trade. Keep in mind that the humans left on Earth have serious problems because they don't attempt to solve them, not because they don't have the resources to solve them.
I know this is going to be a hugely unpopular opinion on Slashdot, but has anyone actually made a decent argument to answer why, instead of how? I've never heard one. People usually just stare at me, when I ask, then say something akin to, "Because it's there." or "You weren't alive when we landed on the moon. You just don't understand." Occasionally I hear something like, "It's an investment in science (or the tech industry)," which is much better than "you just don't get it", but still hardly a winning argument, in my opinion. I'm not against space travel, but I'd like to see some compelling arguments, rather than nerd rage.
And, yes, maybe I would have said the same thing about the European obsession with exploring the New World. So what? What good idea has ever suffered from a little debate?
for a number of reasons, not least of which its "fake" magnetosphere, which mars does not have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Induced_magnetosphere
also note:
cloud city anyone?
living chambers or entire cities, pressurized to earth-friendly atmospherics, floating like balloons. with human-friendly gravity and a good-enough magnetosphere, and, on top of the clouds, a much nicer temperature (although the venusian day > venusian year! so you'd have a hot and cold cycle that's pretty dramatic)
still, all this points to life above the venusian clouds as something better than mars. colonial life, floating on the venusian cloudtops. on a number of merits, compared to mars, with much less atmosphere, no magnetosphere and paltry gravity to offer... venus comes out the superior choice. and then there's the closer solar proximity (power source anyone?)
one drawback to venus is it seems to boiled off most of its hydrogen. but mars seems to have done that too, so the deficiency is simply a problem with both mars and venus
overall, venus is the future folks, not mars
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I agree that various powerful organizations, not all of them governments, can be counted on to stake out turf and use this for their own advantage. But
A.) There are plenty of powers other than corporations.
B.) Staking out turf doesn't need to be zero-sum or destructive. At least not for the next few decades.
There's no reason that Wisconsin can't arrange to send Official Wisconsin Cheese and Salmon to be used by Mars settlers in return for an endorsement. And U. W. has more than enough of a space science program to get a fifty kilo payload to mars orbit as long as it can survive slow/frugal trajectories and launch. Same for an Official UCLA remote filming rig. Which could fight for better coverage with ILM and Digital Domain roving camera rigs. Or New Zealand Wool Mission staff sweaters. And so on.
And now that we have a version of IP 6.0 that works in space, there's no reason we can't set up shared parking orbits with traffic control, and shared taxiing from orbit, allowing portioned out tasks to do this in ways that don't have to be predatory.
And oh by the way, lots of that kind of stuff can get going with the tech that we have right now.
http://streetcarstospaceships.typepad.com/s2s/2008/09/no-more-waiting-lets-start-sending-supplies-to-mars-now.html
well, the modern life is about 10^6 times more pleasant than the hunter gatherer existence, so i will disagree with you there.
Oh boy, won't this be fun? Artist's conception...
Program Intellivision!
Colony should be able to sustain itself someday. Top temperature of -5 C does not look like some place that can sustain people from planet Earth. They might be able spend some time there, but they won't last for long without supplies coming from Earth. I am even not sure if Mars atmospheric pressure level allows humans to breath without aids. Forget all Sci-Fi movies that you saw and look for better planet.
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.
That will buy old Bill a lawsuit from Mars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(chocolate)
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything ...
Of course privatizing space will lead to corporate naming. Keeping to a more scientific naming scheme is one of the advantages of government leadership in space exploration. If government abdicates that role then corporations will fill that vacuum.
The Sex in Space article is interesting but seems to read as if it is from the 1960's. Many monkey studies are quoted. I thought psychology had advanced beyond this point.
Real estate, yes, but I suspect at some point in the next couple of hundred years (if not sooner) we're going to start running up against some pretty major resource walls. Remember, the early colonization efforts by the Europeans had little to do with colonization itself, and everything to do with making money. It's little wonder that the early colonization efforts were the founding corporate enterprises.
I can't imagine anyone seriously wanting to live on Mars, the Moon, or anywhere else out there. But at some point we'll want to start eating the resources out there; the metals, the minerals, the huge amount of hydrocarbons, and that's going to mean having the technological means to go get them. I rather look at this period as something like the Portuguese explorations of the African coast in early and mid 15th century; though clearly not very profitable.
The only way we're ever going to do manned missions beyond near Earth orbit as a continuous and expanding venture, and that's profit. Idealism is a Golden Age SF-Star Trek notion, and not one you can sustain something as complex and expensive as space travel on. At some point, whether because we figure out some way of getting into space and to other planets for cheap or because of some sort of resource scarcity here on Earth, it's going to have to pay for itself, much as the European colonies in the New World ultimately had to be able to feed and clothe themselves, to provide the core resources and technologies to keep the people breathing. If you don't have that, then it's a no go.
It isn't going to happen in my life time. If I'm really lucky, maybe I'll see the first manned mission to Mars, but beyond that, I'll wager we're probably looking at another hundred years or more before the technology and the economic attractiveness of space create a point at which manned interplanetary travel and colonization (and I use that word hesitantly, I really don't foresee some future Pilgrims founding a colony out there, it will be commercial or nationalistic interests, not idealistic ventures) become feasible.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wasn't this already done in a TV show or movie? They had setup cameras on the entire ship that was used to go to Mars, and were airing it as a Reality TV show with advertising spots, equipment / clothing etc with logos for more advertising, etc etc.
Anyone know the name? I don't think it made it past 2 episodes if it were a TV show.
Considering budget problems, a cheaper, and already being implemented, is to turn red an already colonized planet, like this one. Governments just dont need to do anything, and will be there by the end of the century.
On which facts do you base your assumption humans left on Earth do not attempt to solve their problems? What about those leaving?
Achille Talon
Hop!
This "book," or rather, this arranged collection of papers, can be read simply by clicking links on the web page in the summary. The only reason to buy it would be for the convenience of the printed form (at a $100 price!). No pdf or kindle version seems to be available.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
well, the modern life is about 10^6 times more pleasant than the hunter gatherer existence, so i will disagree with you there.
It's not more pleasant than the easiest hunter gatherer existence.
On which facts do you base your assumption humans left on Earth do not attempt to solve their problems?
Roughly a sixth to a third of humanity has figured out how to feed itself and a significant part of that has figured out peaceful resolution to conflict. That alone takes into account roughly a tenth of all deaths avoidable or otherwise over the past century.
The naming rights section just fuckin' killed me for its raw retardness about economics.
The reason a corporation pays $400m for the naming rights to a stadium is because there's a high level assurance the fucking thing will be built.
Selling rights to shit in a Mars mission has one fatal flaw: there's no proof the goddamned thing will ever happen. Only a complete dumbfuck or someone totally desperate to see their idea get off the ground would make this sales pitch without realizing the simple assurances that all corporations expect in exchange for their promotional consideration.
Space settlement will start occurring when the minerals crisis starts hitting here on Earth in about 20 to 30 years. And we're not gonna hit Mars -- it's going to be prospecting the asteroids for scarce minerals.
When your business model is "Shit! Corporations'll fall for any bullshit!" then you are legally required disclaim yourself as a dumbfuck in all future conversations.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
That website (Journal of Cosmology) is right up there with the worst ever designed.
I seriously doubt that anyone who actually lives as a hunter-gatherer....or hell, how about a step up to subsistence farmer, would agree that they have it "easy".
THL phish sticks
In all seriousness, I think any World Cup would be more heavily viewed than a Mars landing. We're just not thinking very hard about the people we begrudgingly share this planet with. They like thems some soccer. Just sayin'.
Now, if the World Cup were held on Mars (The Off-world Cup?), then we're talkin' some numbers.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Would be "The Planet Mars, sponsored by Sprint". You can't rename a whole planet -- people would forget where the story is set and start tuning out.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Do you know this from your extensive hunter-gatherer experience?
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
The best way to make an expensive thing look cheap.
I totally agree, but I don't care how cheap it is if it gets us to Mars.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Colonizing Mars is a great idea, but we really need to do a little bit of research to make sure it is even possible. Before we invest a lot of time and energy into getting to Mars we need to build an orbital centrifuge to determine how much gravity is required for mammals and other life forms to be able to reproduce. If 1/3rd G is not enough for people to have babies then large centrifuge nurseries will have to be built for child rearing. If that is the case then it may be easier to colonize the asteroid belt or other bodies in the solar system with lower gravity and minimal atmosphere to make centrifugal nurseries easier.
Really, what's on Mars...
Mars.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Eventually humans need to expand off planet. The sooner that is done the better.
Do you keep offsite backups? Same philosophy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Balloons. Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere is less dense than a high CO2 atmosphere at the same pressure. Therefore a bubble of breathable air would float in Venus's atmosphere.
And at about 50km altitude (about 10,000 rods), atmospheric pressure is 1atm, temperature range is 0-50deg C.
Sky cities.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
the point is there is very little ice on mars
Compared to Earth perhaps.
But there's a huge amount there if you are talking about a colony, and probably quite a lot more to be had with some digging.
I admire your thinking but a ground based habitat is way safer and less prone to disaster. A floating city sounds awesome until we stumble across something like a rare Venusian maelstrom in the upper atmosphere that wipes out anything floating...
Basically, if we're going to go off and wrestle with another planet we need to start with something weaker than us, not stronger.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Great, another penal colony full of criminals and malcontents.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Probably the closest you can come to that sort of life is to go hardcore backpacking in alaska, or the upper peninsula of Michigan. But even then, you really start to appreciate things like goretex, bug spray, water filtration, cooking fuel, etc. Plus, the social rules of modern civilization will still hold.. so you're much less likely to get raped or murdered. We are so far removed from the true hunter gather experience that it's easy to glamorize it. It wasn't a party.
Oops. Didn't see Circle's comment.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
In many ways my job IS easier than "living on a beach while picking fruit and fishing." My job doesn't involve being thrown in jail for vagrancy, stealing fruit, fishing without a license. As a result of my job, and my whole society, I have a roof over my head when it rains, heat when it gets cold, access to delightful food from across the globe, and the beach is about a 40 minute drive.
-- QED
A small nuclear reactor could provide plenty of heat for any colonists, and there are a lot of raw materials on Mars. -5c isn't great to support life just ambling around, but with intelligence and applied material science it would work just fine.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In many ways my job IS easier than "living on a beach while picking fruit and fishing." My job doesn't involve being thrown in jail for vagrancy, stealing fruit, fishing without a license. As a result of my job, and my whole society, I have a roof over my head when it rains, heat when it gets cold, access to delightful food from across the globe, and the beach is about a 40 minute drive.
So you "win" the argument by regulating into impossibility the alternatives? That's not useful.
Forget advertising, a porn based reality show would easily pay for the whole thing. Millions would pay to see sex in space.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I seriously doubt that anyone who actually lives as a hunter-gatherer....or hell, how about a step up to subsistence farmer, would agree that they have it "easy".
So what? I've determined that hunter-gatherer is easier than civilized man (even if you don't agree for what would normally be considered very good reasons) and hence, by the argument of the original poster, we should all be living on the beach.
Of course it is. Orders of magnitude easier.
Probably the closest you can come to that sort of life is to go hardcore backpacking in alaska, or the upper peninsula of Michigan. But even then, you really start to appreciate things like goretex, bug spray, water filtration, cooking fuel, etc. Plus, the social rules of modern civilization will still hold.. so you're much less likely to get raped or murdered. We are so far removed from the true hunter gather experience that it's easy to glamorize it. It wasn't a party.
I'm thinking a beach in Tahiti. That's clothing optional and most of the wee nasties that we suffer from, probably won't exist on an isolated island in an uncivilized world. Really, this ignores the key point which is that I decided that hunter-gatherer was easier than civilized Earth-dwelling humans. It doesn't matter that my reasons are totally bogus in your viewpoint. After all, Alaska is a terrible place in winter, hence, by the logic of the original poster, we shouldn't have colonized it.
What the argument ignores is that we can adapt to any climate via technology. So claiming that colonization of Mars is silly becaue Mars has extremely low air pressure and almost pure CO2 atmosphere, ignores that we aren't going to breathe the Martian atmosphere nor live exposed to Mars climate. We already live in controlled habitats called buildings. We'd just do the same on Mars.
A near Earth orbital environment cannot be a self sustaining colony. Mars can. The project will capture the imagination of the world, well at least the imagination of those who have one. It will inspire a generation, probably several generations to become scientists and engineers. It will drive the development of nearly every type of technology to meet the challenges. It should be done, not because it will be easy but because it will be hard. It's time for humanity to take a lasting step into the rest of the universe. It's time for some of us to begin to make a life off this Earth.
But the main reason is this. I want to go there, and that will be much easier if someone else goes first and builds a hotel with a nice view.
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." -JFK
-- QED
Of course it is. Orders of magnitude easier.
Last I checked picking fruit was pretty damn easy. Fishing might be a bit of a challenge, but my point is that there are places on Earth that have plentiful food supply, mild climate, and would be pretty easy living for a civilized person who got dumped there naked and clueless. If we're judging how we do something by how easy it is to live there, then the same argument that supposed keeps us from doing stuff on Mars, would keep us from doing stuff in any place unpleasant on Earth.
In terms of physical effort, my job is way easier than fishing for a living or picking fruit. And it has a higher payoff. Those are hard jobs to do if its your only source of food.
Why don't we colonize the moon first? Its closer to Earth then Mars, we found ice water to drink, we can get back to Earth quicker if something goes terribly wrong, we can make Hydrogen from H20 to power our machines. Am I wrong?
Colonizing Mars is just silly. The atmospheric pressure is about 1% of Earth's. Enough to have sandstorms, not enough to be useful. And it's 95% carbon dioxide. If the pressure was higher, there'd be some hope of terraforming, but no.
Colonizing and terraforming are two entirely different things. The former is practical with today's technology, the latter is not with any technology in the foreseeable future. As for the Martian atmosphere, it is in fact very useful. Parachutes and gliders work quite well in it, and the value of an abundant supply of CO2 is not to be underestimated. As for oxygen, the entire planet is covered in iron oxide. Add power and voila.
The worst places on Earth are far easier to explore and colonize than Mars.
I don't think that's correct. Real estate at the bottom of the Marianas trench is far less hospitable than Mars. The thing is, Mars has an abundant supply of that most valuable commodity: flat places to stand.
Even Luna is easier to work with.
I don't think that's correct either. Mars has far more abundant supplies of raw materials, and at least some atmosphere. All lunar landings have to be done on rockets. You can fly an airplane on Mars, not so on the moon.
A base on Luna is mostly a logistic problem; with enough lift capacity, it could be done today.
That is also true of Mars.
But none of this will ever happen with chemical rockets...
You're sure about that?
Face it. There's no good off-Earth real estate in this solar system.
That's probably how the early Africans felt about the rest of the world too.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Then I will not be one of the early adopters to see how well
they run something they have never done before.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Sitting in a chair reading slashdot, watching youtube videos, playing mindcraft, IMing with friends, and occasionally answering the phone is pretty damn easy too.
But yes "ease" is not the only factor, but that was never implied by the original claim anyway.
If you have two options A and B. Both have the same benefits but B is easier (read has fewer costs) than A. B should be done, not A.
Clearly sitting sitting on the beach and picking fruit does not have the same benefits as working in an office, so they aren't interchangable.
Colonizing mars and colonizing moon, however, have very similar benefits. I guess a mars colony might possibly survive some mega-asteroid type event that could take out both the moon and the earth at once, but the odds of that are so ridiculous I think it can be ignored.
The potential for doing discovering life on mars (or discovering the remains of life that was there) do make for a benefit over the moon in terms of doing science in person - but we haven't yet so anyway so that remains just a potential benefit.
well, the modern life is about 10^6 times more pleasant than the hunter gatherer existence, so i will disagree with you there.
It's not more pleasant than the easiest hunter gatherer existence.
True, but that's only possible in a few places, like tropical island paradises. That lifestyle is no longer possible for the vast majority of the population. So the rest of us work, and live a life that is almost as comfortable. I have basically a zero risk of starvation, far lower risk of disease or illness than any hunter-gatherer, and I have an easy job that takes up only about 1/4 of my waking hours.
There's also strong evidence that the 'paradise' islands were regularly raided by the neighboring warrior tribes from the more ordinary islands to steal the food and rape the women.
Historically, humans lived a far more violent life than modern people. See this TED video: A brief history of violence.
But yes "ease" is not the only factor, but that was never implied by the original claim anyway..
I disagree. The original poster spoke of nothing else.
Colonizing mars and colonizing moon, however, have very similar benefits. I guess a mars colony might possibly survive some mega-asteroid type event that could take out both the moon and the earth at once, but the odds of that are so ridiculous I think it can be ignored.
I'm a big fan of lunar colonization, but the two don't have similar benefits. Mars has broad coverage of the elements that have been shown to be necessary for civilized human habitation. The Moon is always going to require imports for any human society it supports. Second, Mars is already a far more interesting place scientifically than the Moon not just for the possibility of life, but because it shows even more than Venus how the Earth might have evolved in the absence of life. Mars also probably has the best preserved and accessible record of the history of the Asteroid Belt. It is alone among the other planets than Earth as a place that humans can easily walk on the surface.
While the Moon has a harder time obtaining the basic resources that a colony would need, it has a much easier time integrating itself into a Earth-oriented economic system. Much shorter time to market does that for you.
True, but that's only possible in a few places, like tropical island paradises. That lifestyle is no longer possible for the vast majority of the population. So the rest of us work, and live a life that is almost as comfortable. I have basically a zero risk of starvation, far lower risk of disease or illness than any hunter-gatherer, and I have an easy job that takes up only about 1/4 of my waking hours.
Recall that I'm arguing in the same vein as the original poster. It doesn't matter if everyone can't enjoy the tropical island paradise. It's an easier environment than where almost all of us currently live, hence, we should all be living on the beach.
A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure...New climate, recreational facilities...absolutely free. Use your new friend as a personal body servant or a tireless field hand -- the custom tailored genetically engineered humanoid replicant designed especially for your needs. So come on America, let's put our team up there...Let's go to the colonies.
This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World.
We Martians would like to remind you of that famous Earthling work "The War of the Worlds".
We could not succeed in our invasion and settlement of Earth because of your Earth's microbes and diseases.
We don't look forward to our new Earthling Overlords, and remind you that we have our own microbes and diseases.
That's a nice looking planet you have. Pity if anything were to happen to it...
I am anarch of all I survey.
Doesn't look at all like a proof or even support of what you are saying. And what let you think those leaving will behave differently? Did the first Europeans in America behave very differently than in Europe? They managed to exterminate caribe tribes and slavage the others. There is absolutely nothing in the human history to support your assumptions.
Achille Talon
Hop!
It really depends on what group of humans you're talking about. The Pacific Northwest, for instance, was so abundant in biological resources, that the work week was less than 20 hours. That left lots of time for art, showing off, and other social pursuits. It was a pretty comfortable existence.... until the Haida came around to bust your ass and take slaves.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Subsistence farming is a completely different subject. Life as a hunter-gatherer is in many ways a lot easier than modern life. Some hunter-gatherers only had to work for 7 hours a week. The big problem with that kind of lifestyle is that you need a lot of land for it. We don't have enough land to let a significant part of the human population life as hunter-gatherers. And any farming society can easily drive hunter-gatherers off through sheer numbers.
Hunter-gatherer really is the easiest lifestyle there is, but it's a luxury we can't afford anymore.
Doesn't anyone RTFA anymore? Richard C Hoagland is one of the cited authors in the article about terraforming Mars.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars102.html (he says that NASA nuked Jupiter with Galileo!)
Most of the chapters were amazing and very scientific, but when I saw that name mentioned the whole document took a nose dive in credibility.
--M
# grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
Doesn't look at all like a proof or even support of what you are saying. And what let you think those leaving will behave differently? Did the first Europeans in America behave very differently than in Europe? They managed to exterminate caribe tribes and slavage the others. There is absolutely nothing in the human history to support your assumptions.
No support except that it is true and evident to anyone that bothers to look. Can the developed world feed itself? Yes. Has the developed world gotten into any wars between members of the developed world? Not in the past 60 years. That's roughly a sixth of the world's population right there. I figure a good fraction of the remainder of the world doesn't have to worry about feeding itself, so conservatively, doubling that number makes sense for discussing food distribution.
Now let's look at the behavior of people in the New World. Creating a superpower where remarkably little existed before, in the span of a few centuries, is different behavior. All the European powers can trace their existence to the post-Roman empire cultures. No similar heritage was shared by the US. And Slashdotters frequently comment on the difference in behavior between US citizens and Europeans.
Ah, memories!
What an epic nutjob. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
At what point are we scratching an itch that developed in such a different context that there is simply no rational way to justify it anymore?
You are mistaken in your belief that there is no evolutionary advantage to colonizing beyond earth, that we have moved beyond the context of survival. A species with a single habitat, earth in this case, is more vulnerable than a species with multiple habitats. A large enough asteroid or a large enough volcanic eruption could wipe out the species. As an asteroid did for the dinosaurs and as a volcano nearly did for humanity in the past. Our species may have *barely* survived a "recent" event:
"The Toba supereruption (Youngest Toba Tuff or simply YTT[1]) occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia), and it is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this supervolcanic event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter, which resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Some hunter-gatherers only had to work for 7 hours a week.
They then had to spend another fifty hours travelling, since the things you hunt tend to move away from you, and the fruit growing wild is a lot more sparse than you'd find in a farm, with the possible exception of tropical areas.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
That doesn't mean you have to spend 50 hours travelling, that just means you can't feed as many people as you can with farming. You don't have to travel to get food, you have to travel to meet people.
Regardless of if it is a web site or traveling to Mars, if someone says something is to be funded by advertising, what they mean is they don't know how to get the money.
It is likely that the economy overspends on advertising by a large degree. Most of it is in untracked, and Google and others succeed with relatively limited tracking - just showing someone looked at something, not tracking it back to sales at all.
Given the unpaid externalities of advertising -- for example, not being able to find the site you are looking for in the first page of search results, and slow loading web pages crapped up with ads, etc -- we should not encourage this type of behavior, and when two equal options are available, choose the one less advertised.