Why would prospecting in the asteroid belt be any more free? You would have about as much freedom as someone living on a oil rig or a submarine. What is it that you would intend to do in the asteroid belt that you would be prohibited from doing on Earth?
"It would be both total servitude and total freedom."
Maybe instead of ranting at people for missing the point, you should come up with a better analogy than comparing Hawaii (one of the most to pleasant places on Earth) to Mars (which is an uninhabitable, cold, dead, airless, irradiated rock).
I just responded to the comic you posted, which only implies tourism as a reason to go to Mars. What else is there that Hawaii and Mars have in common? Do you really think will be pineapples plantations on Mars? And why should I be expected to think of arguments for a proposal I think is flawed? Burden of proof lies with those who think sending humans to Mars is justified. But now that you've provided a few more ideas, I'll respond to those.
Science research: going just fine with robots. In fact, we could send thousands of more robots for the cost of one manned mission. Can a single person do more research than a thousand robots? No.
preservation of our species: absolutely irrelevant. There is no plausible scenario where Mars would be more habitable than Earth.
joy of exploration: just a fancy term for tourism
financial gain: additional examples needed.
engineering: engineering is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
The are many avenues for adventure, exploration and discovery. What makes you believe that manned space programs own a monopoly on those values? There are still vast stretches of the Earth than remain unexplored. A single drop of ocean water contains more undiscovered life than the entire planet Mars. Fewer probes have been sent to the bottom of the ocean than to the surface of Mars. Even in your own body, there are entire hidden ecosystems that remain unexplored by science. You're the one who is narrow-minded if your only concept of exploration is to stomp boots on a planet where no boot has been stomped before.
As for survival as a species goes: there is no plausible scenario, including asteroid impact, where Mars would be more habitable than Earth. Even when Earth was hit by an extinction level asteroid, 25% of species managed to survive. That's without any benefit of preparation or technological adaptation. Pretty good odds compared to the exactly zero species that thrive on Mars.
If people want to go to Mars and can do so on their own dime, then more power to you. But Musk's total wealth is only a fraction of NASA's annual budget. So there is due skepticism that all of his public announcements are just a preamble to asking for taxpayer funding.
Without extensive human repair and maintenance, Bertha would be dead in the ground after a few feet. That is a fact. It is not an autonomous system by any stretch of the concept. To suggest that Bertha just a software upgrade away from being able to tunnel a habitat on Mars shows a gross ignorance about how these projects actually work.
I feel sorry for you. Living on Mars would be the total opposite of individual freedom. You be completely dependent on the grace of your corporate overlords just to maintain the very air that you breathed. You would be under complete surveillance 24/7. Every transaction would be monitored and recorded. A Mars colony would be the ultimate police state because compliance would be necessary for survival. Everyone but Musk would be no better than an indentured servant.
If your willing to sacrifice comfort for freedom, you be better off colonizing one of the many uninhabited islands in the Arctic or Antarctica.
There are no plausible scenarios where Mars would be more habitable than Earth. Even if Earth was hit by simultaneous global warming/nuclear war/comet strike, it would still be infinitely more habitable than a dead cold airless rock.
The United States of America doesn't run any elections. 50 different states run 50 different elections using 50 different systems. Some of those systems work well, others not so much.
There are still substantially amounts of unsettled frontier right here on Earth. From Antarctica to the Gobi desert. There are still hundreds of unoccupied islands. All of theses are far, far more accessible and habitable that anything you'll find on Mars.
If you can't make your libertarian fantasy plan work out on an sub-antarctic island, then its certainly doomed to fail on Mars.
You can argue whether Johnson is No True Libertarian or not. But in the last elecion, Johnson received 1,275,951 votes nationally (0.99% of the popular vote), setting a record for the most votes won by a Libertarian Party presidential nominee. He is almost certain to break that record this election. So the one thing you cannot say is that he is driving voters away.
Funding government services and stimulating the economy are not mutually exclusive options. Infrastructure and education can be government services, but they also bolster the economy.
We're already past embryos. New CRISPR/CAS9 methods have demonstrated gene editing in adult mice. There's no technical reason why we won't be able to perform gene therapy on adults humans.
If the adjustments are "simple" fixes like curing a disease by correcting a mutation or two, I see no problem with it.
But if it's about making a "super race" by fiddling with body type or the brain, then I say let other countries be the guinea pigs and learn the hard road lessons of fiddling.
You are implying some arbitrary normal human as a baseline reference. And the only difference between those two scenarios is whether you are moving someone up to that baseline or past that baseline. But why should we set the goalpost at average human instead of setting the goalpost of optimum human potential?
Most of us who aren't Olympic-level athletes and super-geniuses all has some genetic conditions that hold us back from reaching the greatest heights of human achievement. If those conditions can be fixed genetically, then why shouldn't they be? That's like saying that only people who are bad at math should be allowed to use calculators.
Among actual scientists, GMOs are a considered a beneficial technology and legislation to oppose GMOs is ignorant and detrimental to society.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The index funds aren't some magic. They go up in value because the companies they represent go up in value. So, even if your claim were true, it just means that Trump is an average CEO. Not great, not bad. Just average.
Cough. Cough. Oxygen is produced at the anode. Hydrogen is produced at the cathode. The anode and the cathode can be separated by any type of barrier necessary for safety.
The autoignition temperature for H2 is almost 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It's actually hard to ignite at STP and normal oxygen levels without specialized equipment. Gasoline fumes are are more reactive (ie lower autoignition temperature) than H2 but nobody causes much of a fuss over storing gasoline is properly designed containers at home. Pressurized containers are a hazard by themselves, but safe solutions could be engineered for mass use.
Slashdot Mirror
"It would be both total servitude and total freedom."
Paraphrasing Orwell is not a good sign
Maybe instead of ranting at people for missing the point, you should come up with a better analogy than comparing Hawaii (one of the most to pleasant places on Earth) to Mars (which is an uninhabitable, cold, dead, airless, irradiated rock).
Science research: going just fine with robots. In fact, we could send thousands of more robots for the cost of one manned mission. Can a single person do more research than a thousand robots? No.
preservation of our species: absolutely irrelevant. There is no plausible scenario where Mars would be more habitable than Earth.
joy of exploration: just a fancy term for tourism
financial gain: additional examples needed.
engineering: engineering is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
military dominance: huh?
the list goes on and on: no it really doesn't
As for survival as a species goes: there is no plausible scenario, including asteroid impact, where Mars would be more habitable than Earth. Even when Earth was hit by an extinction level asteroid, 25% of species managed to survive. That's without any benefit of preparation or technological adaptation. Pretty good odds compared to the exactly zero species that thrive on Mars.
If people want to go to Mars and can do so on their own dime, then more power to you. But Musk's total wealth is only a fraction of NASA's annual budget. So there is due skepticism that all of his public announcements are just a preamble to asking for taxpayer funding.
Without extensive human repair and maintenance, Bertha would be dead in the ground after a few feet. That is a fact. It is not an autonomous system by any stretch of the concept. To suggest that Bertha just a software upgrade away from being able to tunnel a habitat on Mars shows a gross ignorance about how these projects actually work.
I feel sorry for you. Living on Mars would be the total opposite of individual freedom. You be completely dependent on the grace of your corporate overlords just to maintain the very air that you breathed. You would be under complete surveillance 24/7. Every transaction would be monitored and recorded. A Mars colony would be the ultimate police state because compliance would be necessary for survival. Everyone but Musk would be no better than an indentured servant. If your willing to sacrifice comfort for freedom, you be better off colonizing one of the many uninhabited islands in the Arctic or Antarctica.
There are no plausible scenarios where Mars would be more habitable than Earth. Even if Earth was hit by simultaneous global warming/nuclear war/comet strike, it would still be infinitely more habitable than a dead cold airless rock.
So the only reason to go to Mars would be tourism? That's not a compelling case.
Bertha is exactly the example that makes me think Musk's plan is unrealistic.
Those are not numbers from the study, so maybe you need to go back do a little reading....
The United States of America doesn't run any elections. 50 different states run 50 different elections using 50 different systems. Some of those systems work well, others not so much.
If you can't make your libertarian fantasy plan work out on an sub-antarctic island, then its certainly doomed to fail on Mars.
You can argue whether Johnson is No True Libertarian or not. But in the last elecion, Johnson received 1,275,951 votes nationally (0.99% of the popular vote), setting a record for the most votes won by a Libertarian Party presidential nominee. He is almost certain to break that record this election. So the one thing you cannot say is that he is driving voters away.
Funding government services and stimulating the economy are not mutually exclusive options. Infrastructure and education can be government services, but they also bolster the economy.
We're already past embryos. New CRISPR/CAS9 methods have demonstrated gene editing in adult mice. There's no technical reason why we won't be able to perform gene therapy on adults humans.
for humanity to survive for the next few hundred years, a precipitous drop in population to more sustainable levels would be wise.
If the adjustments are "simple" fixes like curing a disease by correcting a mutation or two, I see no problem with it.
But if it's about making a "super race" by fiddling with body type or the brain, then I say let other countries be the guinea pigs and learn the hard road lessons of fiddling.
You are implying some arbitrary normal human as a baseline reference. And the only difference between those two scenarios is whether you are moving someone up to that baseline or past that baseline. But why should we set the goalpost at average human instead of setting the goalpost of optimum human potential? Most of us who aren't Olympic-level athletes and super-geniuses all has some genetic conditions that hold us back from reaching the greatest heights of human achievement. If those conditions can be fixed genetically, then why shouldn't they be? That's like saying that only people who are bad at math should be allowed to use calculators.
Among actual scientists, GMOs are a considered a beneficial technology and legislation to oppose GMOs is ignorant and detrimental to society. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The index funds aren't some magic. They go up in value because the companies they represent go up in value. So, even if your claim were true, it just means that Trump is an average CEO. Not great, not bad. Just average.
You still fade away into nothingness. Lots of folks died exploring and colonizing the Americas. Those generally aren't the ones remembered by history.
In what jurisdiction would they sue? The Martian Emperor does not recognize the authority of Terran courts.
Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in all 50 states
Cough. Cough. Oxygen is produced at the anode. Hydrogen is produced at the cathode. The anode and the cathode can be separated by any type of barrier necessary for safety.
The autoignition temperature for H2 is almost 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It's actually hard to ignite at STP and normal oxygen levels without specialized equipment. Gasoline fumes are are more reactive (ie lower autoignition temperature) than H2 but nobody causes much of a fuss over storing gasoline is properly designed containers at home. Pressurized containers are a hazard by themselves, but safe solutions could be engineered for mass use.
I think the graphic rape scenes disqualify it from being Young Adult.