I don't expect you to respect my judgement of you at all. However, in addition to the aforementioned, you are also not very interesting at conversation. You talk a lot though.
Whereas with you, it's the things you haven't said which are the most significant:
1. Given the opportunity, you could not describe a reason why we should give credence to the claims of climate denialists
2. You asserted that correlation with the predictions of black radiation calculations was a measure of the accuracy of GCM calculations but you are unable to explain why this would be.
3. You claimed that GCM models indicate a probable rise (P > 0.95) of between 1 and 7 degrees, but you can't actually justify these figures against what is actually observed.
Anything else you'd like to retract whilst we are at it?
So are we meant to believe that people who claim the earth is not warming have done these calculations correctly? Because regardless of which model you use (including the single black body radiative, which is the crudest) they all point to various degrees of warming, and are therefore more accurate (thermodynamically) then claiming that there is no warming, that warming is not possible, and then pretending that nothing is happening.
Any claim regarding climate is tested using the same criteria.
I don't care what you believe.
So that's a no? We have no reason to believe or give credence to these people?
Currently, we can calculate the total warming effect of the atmosphere to within roughly 10 degrees of accuracy (ie, compared to an atmosphereless earth acting with black-body radiation).
Can you elaborate, in detail, on why the amount of deviation from a black body radiation calculation would be considered a measure of accuracy?
[no response]
So you can't elaborate?
To compensate for this, instead of calculating the total forcing of the atmosphere (check the IPCC report, it's not there), they try to calculate the change that would occur. For example, if CO2 doubled, how would the global temperature change? Unfortunately, even there we have a huge range of estimates, from less than 1 degree C to over 7 degrees. That's the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'total chaos.'
Actually, that's a difference between significant and harmful and irredeemable. And also: there's something very wrong with your estimates. We've already experienced approximately 0.9 degrees of surface warming. That doesn't account for oceanic warming, it also doesn't account for inertia - that is, the lag between C02 entering the atmosphere and the observable warming from that CO2. So I have to say that your estimate of 1 degree at the low end looks unbelievably low for a 95th percentile.
Are you sure you read it right?
[no response]
Are you still checking your figures? Or should I assume that you accept you were wrong about the range of prediction for surface warming per doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial ppm, for later reference?
In general you've given me the impression that you're somewhere between ignorant and an idiot.
Given that you have been consistenly wrong so far, is your judgement on my intellect likely to be accurate or significant?
Except they can't....Sure, they can do it in a jar without any difficulty, but on an earth with a dynamically changing atmosphere, where not all parts even contain the same amount of greenhouse gases, it's very very hard.
So are we meant to believe that people who claim the earth is not warming have done these calculations correctly? Because regardless of which model you use (including the single black body radiative, which is the crudest) they all point to various degrees of warming, and are therefore more accurate (thermodynamically) then claiming that there is no warming, that warming is not possible, and then pretending that nothing is happening.
Any claim regarding climate is tested using the same criteria.
Currently, we can calculate the total warming effect of the atmosphere to within roughly 10 degrees of accuracy (ie, compared to an atmosphereless earth acting with black-body radiation).
Can you elaborate, in detail, on why the amount of deviation from a black body radiation calculation would be considered a measure of accuracy?
To compensate for this, instead of calculating the total forcing of the atmosphere (check the IPCC report, it's not there), they try to calculate the change that would occur. For example, if CO2 doubled, how would the global temperature change? Unfortunately, even there we have a huge range of estimates, from less than 1 degree C to over 7 degrees. That's the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'total chaos.'
Actually, that's a difference between significant and harmful and irredeemable. And also: there's something very wrong with your estimates. We've already experienced approximately 0.9 degrees of surface warming. That doesn't account for oceanic warming, it also doesn't account for inertia - that is, the lag between C02 entering the atmosphere and the observable warming from that CO2. So I have to say that your estimate of 1 degree at the low end looks unbelievably low for a 95th percentile.
but it does illustrate the problem with the entire "debate" about how climates change on Earth.
No it doesn't. It illustrates a typical use of fallacy.
Perhaps if you took the time to explain this apparent conflict of information you'd be helpful yourself. As it is, you've offered even less to the discussion than the initial sarcastic/humorous post in the thread.
The fact that there is no such conflict is obvious to anyone with a basic, starting understanding of the underpinning theory of anthropogenic climate change. Regardless of whether you accept that theory or not. If the OP is ignorant to that extent, that is their own fault, and likely they could only be that ignorant by being wilfully so. It is not the job of those adhering to scientific orthodoxy to explain that orthodoxy to others - if you want to contribute to a scientific discussion, you need to grasp both the scientific method and at least the basics of the theory that you are debating.
Or, you know, you might want to look in it, since if you are basing your theory on these things, then it's up to you to do the research which demonstrates how they are significant.
One is the actual thermal record over geological time, which shows intervals of extremely rapid natural warming and cooling. Second, you might want to consider the fact that much of that record is essentially smeared out by imprecision in the proxies used so that one is comparing two different kinds of averages -- one averaged over a very short time interval, and another where the average might well be over a period longer than the entire time we have had thermometers.
So, in fact, you have no proof of your assertion that there have been previous periods of warming in the same timescale as the present warming phenomenon? Thanks for letting us know.
Curiously, not even most climate scientists would assert such a thing, I don't think. Some might. For one thing, there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for roughly 16 years, in spite of "man".
Nothing that the article says would draw you to that conclusion. Quite the opposite. Have you observed any out of cycle changes in the earths orbit over the last 100 years? Where were these findings published?
And what happened to the warming that should have arisen from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases?
Yep. And to be frank, it's a small, round dry ball with pretty much nothing on it. The next step would be to send a robot to somewhere interesting and have a look at that.
If we're now in a position to send men, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can. Good for science and engineering.
"Because it's hard" is not a reason, because you can use it as an excuse to justify anything. Witness:
If we're now in a position to send mules, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
If we're now in a position to do chemistry, then let's cook crystal meth on Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
And humans may be fragile but they are also versatile. Won't a manned mission be able to do more than a robotic one?
No. The thing with Mars is: there isn't a lot there. It's more notable for it's absence of things - no air, no potable water, no predators, no game to catch. None of the things that humans are attuned to look for are there. "Life" on Mars (if we extend this to robots) is a series of routine, mundane tasks. Doing routine, mundane tasks is what we invent machines to do on our behalf. Machines are our genius. Were it not for machines, we would still be occupied with the tasks that occupy the time of other high order predators - running down prey, watching for yet larger predators, looking for water, looking for a place to sleep. Don't hate on machines bro.
Life on Mars consists of the following: Move from place to place, map the terrain and look for interesting things on the ground. Machines are better at moving around, as we know from earth experience, where virtually everything is moved with machines rather than donkeys or on the backs of women. Machines are better at mapping terrain, since humans need a machine (e.g. theodolite or similiar) to do that. Machines are better at looking for stuff, since humans on Mars can use exactly one of our senses, and machines can be built with numerous, very funky and specialised senses. Machines are just better at this - just as they are better at digging, better at killing, better for moving around. No need for us to get in a tizz about it. After all we invent machines to cater to our own limitations.
I think what you meant to say is that like Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech. The problem here is not to do with "free speech" but with the fact that public servants must be apolitical in the exercise of their duties. The troubling (very troubling) element of this is that she has been sacked for something that she said outside of the exercise of her duties, and outside the context in which she could have been seen as representing the Department of Immigration. The duty of a public servant to be apolitical does not extend to personal politics and private conversations outside of work and never has.
We'll see if this actually stands up in the High Court.
In practice, this is unworkable - how can someone be sacked for holding a political view that does not impact the exercise of their duties? that screams discrimination, it screams an unworkable scenario for the exercise of government. It stinks - and the governments policy on refugees stinks as well, it's cruel and inhumane and repugnant to right minded people, it's unaustralian, it brings shame to this country, and it's architects ought to be ashamed..
If the child is part of this group then it will die of starvation or whatever, just as they will, except of course, they chose to die, and the child didn't. It's an ethical minefield.
No... if having a child on mars is an ethical minefield, then having a child on earth is also an ethical minefield.
How come people living in 3rd world countries on earth aren't required to sterilze themselves?
People who live in 3rd world countries don't have a choice. These people do. They say they expect to die. Under what circumstances would they even consider having children?
Survival of the human race depends on reproduction.
These people and the so called "colony" aren't going to survive. As I said, if they have babies, those babies will die just as soon as they will. This is not a survivable scenario.
Yes, I'm sure you've never used a VCR, or a computer, or any of the other cool things that came out of the Apollo program,
Well, I don't drink Tang.
I have used various technologies which arose independently of the Apollo program, like VCRs and computers.
which, when you get right down to it, is ego on a national scale.
It was, in summary a dick waving contest, which is why the public lost interest in it almost straight away, and it was cancelled. Why anybody thinks that this scam, would be of any more interest, given that Mars One will never go to Mars, and doesn't intend to go to Mars. It exists to scam people.
And, given the odds you're an American
Odds are that I'm not. And I'm not.
People throw their lives away all the time. You might see what this group is doing as pure ego stroking.
Actually I see them as gullible proles how fell for a transparent scam.
I'm unwilling to concede that that means nothing good will come of it, though.
Yes, hopefully in the future people won't be so easily scammed.
Mars has a gravity of ~38% of earth's gravity. This would make it ideal for refining materials gathered from asteroids. You wont have to worry about your processes not working due to a lack of gravity, a lot less energy would be required to descend and ascend with loads of ores/refined metals and other goods.
The first thing to do would be determine what possible substance you could mine from asteroids that would make such an enterprise worthwhile. As others have pointed out, there is no substance that would not be cheaper to make in a nuclear reactor, pound of pound, then mining from an asteroid - let alone the huge overhead of sending mining equipment to Mars, and then lifting the final product out of the gravity well of Mars - what an absurd proposition.
The lack of civilization means that you wont have to worry about the NIMBY culture when building your nuclear reactors to power the massive refineries and other such industrial sites. Heck, you could even use uncontrolled descents to deliver raw materials (full asteroids if they are not too big) planet side...
I don't think many people would take that job - living in an asteroid impact zone, in an area where civilising influences are being deliberately suppressed? Better to return the nomadic life of 4000 years ago. You will live a longer , more fulfilling life in greater comfort.
The only real hurdles to a mars colony is getting there, becoming self sufficient
No, the primary hurdle is finding a reason to go that is not gob smackingly stupid and naïve.
The mistake that they made was to give $38 to these scammers in the first place. Does anyone honestly believe these people have any intention of even "looking into" a manned spaceflight to Mars?
Fetuses don't work against gravity to move their bodies.
Irrelevant.
There's a pressure gradient to be felt across their bodies, but it's small as a consequence of their bodies being small.
Irrelevant.
Do you think the whales will magically be unaffected by a micro gravity environment even though land based mammals clearly are? That the effect of microgravity is confined to needing to find new means of propulsion and pressure differientials in the surrounding media? It has nothing to do with those things.
You have absolutely no data showing that in-utero animal development is affected by gravity.
Absolutely no data?. Feel free to continue to deny science. What's next, will you allude to a conspiracy of science trying to keep down the plucky efforts of the cultists who are trying to establish themselves on Mars - on somone else's dime?
Yet you feel qualified to extrapolate from that zero data to a conclusion that humans can't (or probably can't) reproduce on Mars.
On the basis of available data, yes. Rather than getting all huffy and self righteous, maybe you should provide data to indicate why, against the flow of evidence, we would expect either adults or developing humans to be unaffected by the low gravity on Mars as opposed to the microgravity in LEO. See here, here and here. Don't just quote your religious texts, don't just get angry because there are people who don't believe. We are not condemned due to not being members of the Mars cult.
You say I'm in denial, but you're obviously presenting baseless speculations as if they were established facts.
I say you're in denial, because your tactics so far resemble those of climate denialists:
(a) Shout loudly about how there is no evidence or research, when there is
(b) Bring up irrelevant samples of information (in your case, factoids about buoyancy) and act as if they cancel out fundamental forces
(c) Claim the supposed lack of data supports your side that there a zero long term effects from micro/partial gravity on humans when the lack of data (if there were a lack of data) would allow us to draw no conclusions.
Here's a fact for you: no large animal species has ever been observed during pregnancy in any gravity environment except Earth's.
Once again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15607544. The reason no large mammals have been transported into LEO or similiar is that we have technology that allows that to happen. Let alone beyond LEO. Yet Mars One justs collected $3.8 MILLION dollars, they do not have a spacecraft, any roadmap to build a spacecraft, or a habitat.
In fact, they do not intend to go to Mars.
What they intend to do, and have in fact done already, is to make money from the gullible.
Fetuse in flotation, which is pretty much the same as zero G except for the resistance provided by the aqueous medium. There is no reason to expect that the minute differences would affect fetuses.
So you imagine that somehow, amniotic fluids cancel out gravity waves? *facepalm*
Just an FYI - uteruses aren't anti gravity devices. Foetuses feel gravity just the same as born people do.
There's also no logic in either of your false choices. First, because there are no observations of effects of fractional gravity on adults and because there could be effects is not the same as there would be severe and detrimental effects.
The OP is probably referring to the fact that conception and gestation are likely impossible on Mars due to it's low gravity.
That's not a fact. That's unfounded speculation.
Not exactly: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15607544. The premise of the study is logical: to stave off the effects of low gravity, martians need to rigorously exercise. Constantly. Fetuses cannot do that. The need to exercise will increase dramatically during developmental phases. That is, in utero and childhood.
Of course, there have been no experiments that confirm these observations but we are choosing between 2 contrasting speculations:
(a) that despite our observations of the effects on post development adults, developing humans will be unaffected by low gravity or
(b) based on our observations of the effects on adults, developing humans will also be affected, severely and detrimentally, more so if the cannot be made to exercise.
Out of those speculations, we should pick the one that is logical.
Of course, when you limit the discussion to the ultimate outcome, this is true for just about any activity that can be contemplated. You can live out your life, in all likelihood a mere cog in the machine called civilization, or you can be cremated and have your ashes scattered in some place of significance to you.
I'm not telling these people what they can do with their own money. As long as it's their money, and not someone elses. As long as it's understood that this is about personal ambition and ego (as you have helpfully pointed out).
So, are you planning on killing yourself today, or will you try to do something truly memorable instead?
Well, that's a bit off topic, however - if I had $38000000 dollars I would not spend it on some death cult ritual, no building a monumental pyramid, self aggrandising statue made of gold, or scattering of my ashes on another planet. If I'm to be remembered beyond my death, I don't particularly want to be remembered for my ego, or my fascination/fear of death or even fear of life.
In earthly reality land, we have some significant problems to deal with. Climate change, for instance. The collapse of the rule of law and democracy. These problems need people who will stand and fight, not live for escapist fiction based fantasies about life on another planet. Not people who would rather cash in and commit suicide on Mars. In future generations, these schemes will come to have a kind of infamy, along with climate denialists and their cash cow sponsors. If I'm to be remembered, I'll be remembered for standing on the side of good.
Not saying you aren't right. You are - full scale, cooperative, organised violence will likely be limited due to a lack of resources. My geographic comment was related to the fact that people will live underground and the underground will be prized ground whereas the surface will have no strategic value. Any parties engaged in fighting will be looking to preserve tunnels and infrastructure because they are such a premium. Thus territorial disputes, limited though they be, will be much more in the style of close urban warfare than wide geographic disputes e.g. artillery or tank battles.
I'm not sure there is a distinction between the two things the OP mentioned "civil unrest" and "war" or how, in such a setting, we would denote the difference anyway.
The OP is probably referring to the fact that conception and gestation are likely impossible on Mars due to it's low gravity. And if a child is born there are still more hurdles:
1. The child will be unable to travel to Earth, because the higher gravity of earth will kill him or her.
2. If the child is part of this group then it will die of starvation or whatever, just as they will, except of course, they chose to die, and the child didn't. It's an ethical minefield. If these people are serious about going to Mars, rather than paying $38, they should volunteer to be sterilised if chosen. This way, the severe ethical and medical issues associated with procreation can be avoided. Oh, and instead of $38 each, they should be paying $38000000 dollars apiece. At that kind of money, and with 100 K people pitching in, we are getting closer to a viable enterprise. Of course, for that money, what they will get is to be able to fly their cremated remains to Mars and have them scattered on the surface by an automated probe. Same outcome.
But to address your points specifically:
Virtually no crime, pretty much nonexistent unemployment,
If as settlement is ever established on Mars, in the long term crime is likely to be a huge problem, owing to the desperate circumstances arising from the incredibly bad economic conditions. Mars will be in a very disadvantageous position WRT to Earth. They will lack power, industrial skills, economies of scale freedom of movement, everything that goes to making a society prosperous. Mars has nothing the Earth dwellers want or need, and craves the things the Earth can provide. Earth dwellers can travel to Mars, and then back to Earth, Long term Mars residents cannot travel to Earth. Mars lacks the water and sunlight to be competitive or even self sufficient agriculturally, it lacks the power, and likely, the metals needed for industrialisation, it cannot support a population large enough for a diversified economy. Mars will be a ghetto. Unemployment and crime will be rampant.
lots of free space,
Hypothetical residents on Mars will live underground in tunnels - they have to, due to the deadly radiation. They will rarely, if ever, venture to the surface. Space will be at an absolute premium, more like living on a submarine than living on Earth.
no environmental issues,
Well, Mars is dead, so it's true that we are unlikely to cause any environmental damage. Economic activity will be low to non-existent so Mars is unlikely to have many problems with industrial pollutants. However living quarters will be cramped and sanitation poor, plus many of the techniques used to move pollutants out of our nests on the earth (like flushing them into rivers) won't work on Mars - the water recycling strategies used on the ISS and similar will likely fail early in the piece owing to a lack of parts and the impossibility of buying new ones.
no civil unrest or wars anywhere on the horizon.
Mars will resemble the classic breeding ground for civil unrest for the reasons given above. Wars, maybe not, because there will never be enough people there to ever go to War, and the classic geographical style war is impossible anyway.
Mmm, no. I haven't seen any evidence that murderers or genocidists are unafraid of death, these seem like completely unassociated traits.
In contrast though, Mars One and it's quasi-religious disciples are something of a death cult. According to their proposal, the deaths of 7 billion people, the consequential loss of whole cultures, families, nations is considered a successful outcome. Of course the fact that this proposal amounts to genocide is never discussed.
Every time this topic arises I post this question. Nobody ever answers.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't expect you to respect my judgement of you at all. However, in addition to the aforementioned, you are also not very interesting at conversation. You talk a lot though.
Whereas with you, it's the things you haven't said which are the most significant:
1. Given the opportunity, you could not describe a reason why we should give credence to the claims of climate denialists
2. You asserted that correlation with the predictions of black radiation calculations was a measure of the accuracy of GCM calculations but you are unable to explain why this would be.
3. You claimed that GCM models indicate a probable rise (P > 0.95) of between 1 and 7 degrees, but you can't actually justify these figures against what is actually observed.
Anything else you'd like to retract whilst we are at it?
So are we meant to believe that people who claim the earth is not warming have done these calculations correctly? Because regardless of which model you use (including the single black body radiative, which is the crudest) they all point to various degrees of warming, and are therefore more accurate (thermodynamically) then claiming that there is no warming, that warming is not possible, and then pretending that nothing is happening.
Any claim regarding climate is tested using the same criteria.
I don't care what you believe.
So that's a no? We have no reason to believe or give credence to these people?
Currently, we can calculate the total warming effect of the atmosphere to within roughly 10 degrees of accuracy (ie, compared to an atmosphereless earth acting with black-body radiation).
Can you elaborate, in detail, on why the amount of deviation from a black body radiation calculation would be considered a measure of accuracy?
[no response]
So you can't elaborate?
To compensate for this, instead of calculating the total forcing of the atmosphere (check the IPCC report, it's not there), they try to calculate the change that would occur. For example, if CO2 doubled, how would the global temperature change? Unfortunately, even there we have a huge range of estimates, from less than 1 degree C to over 7 degrees. That's the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'total chaos.'
Actually, that's a difference between significant and harmful and irredeemable. And also: there's something very wrong with your estimates. We've already experienced approximately 0.9 degrees of surface warming. That doesn't account for oceanic warming, it also doesn't account for inertia - that is, the lag between C02 entering the atmosphere and the observable warming from that CO2. So I have to say that your estimate of 1 degree at the low end looks unbelievably low for a 95th percentile.
Are you sure you read it right?
[no response]
Are you still checking your figures? Or should I assume that you accept you were wrong about the range of prediction for surface warming per doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial ppm, for later reference?
In general you've given me the impression that you're somewhere between ignorant and an idiot.
Given that you have been consistenly wrong so far, is your judgement on my intellect likely to be accurate or significant?
Except they can't....Sure, they can do it in a jar without any difficulty, but on an earth with a dynamically changing atmosphere, where not all parts even contain the same amount of greenhouse gases, it's very very hard.
So are we meant to believe that people who claim the earth is not warming have done these calculations correctly? Because regardless of which model you use (including the single black body radiative, which is the crudest) they all point to various degrees of warming, and are therefore more accurate (thermodynamically) then claiming that there is no warming, that warming is not possible, and then pretending that nothing is happening.
Any claim regarding climate is tested using the same criteria.
Currently, we can calculate the total warming effect of the atmosphere to within roughly 10 degrees of accuracy (ie, compared to an atmosphereless earth acting with black-body radiation).
Can you elaborate, in detail, on why the amount of deviation from a black body radiation calculation would be considered a measure of accuracy?
To compensate for this, instead of calculating the total forcing of the atmosphere (check the IPCC report, it's not there), they try to calculate the change that would occur. For example, if CO2 doubled, how would the global temperature change? Unfortunately, even there we have a huge range of estimates, from less than 1 degree C to over 7 degrees. That's the difference between 'nothing happening' and 'total chaos.'
Actually, that's a difference between significant and harmful and irredeemable. And also: there's something very wrong with your estimates. We've already experienced approximately 0.9 degrees of surface warming. That doesn't account for oceanic warming, it also doesn't account for inertia - that is, the lag between C02 entering the atmosphere and the observable warming from that CO2. So I have to say that your estimate of 1 degree at the low end looks unbelievably low for a 95th percentile.
Are you sure you read it right?
-401 Obvious troll was obvious.
but it does illustrate the problem with the entire "debate" about how climates change on Earth.
No it doesn't. It illustrates a typical use of fallacy.
Perhaps if you took the time to explain this apparent conflict of information you'd be helpful yourself. As it is, you've offered even less to the discussion than the initial sarcastic/humorous post in the thread.
The fact that there is no such conflict is obvious to anyone with a basic, starting understanding of the underpinning theory of anthropogenic climate change. Regardless of whether you accept that theory or not. If the OP is ignorant to that extent, that is their own fault, and likely they could only be that ignorant by being wilfully so. It is not the job of those adhering to scientific orthodoxy to explain that orthodoxy to others - if you want to contribute to a scientific discussion, you need to grasp both the scientific method and at least the basics of the theory that you are debating.
You might want to look at two things.
Or, you know, you might want to look in it, since if you are basing your theory on these things, then it's up to you to do the research which demonstrates how they are significant.
One is the actual thermal record over geological time, which shows intervals of extremely rapid natural warming and cooling. Second, you might want to consider the fact that much of that record is essentially smeared out by imprecision in the proxies used so that one is comparing two different kinds of averages -- one averaged over a very short time interval, and another where the average might well be over a period longer than the entire time we have had thermometers.
So, in fact, you have no proof of your assertion that there have been previous periods of warming in the same timescale as the present warming phenomenon? Thanks for letting us know.
Curiously, not even most climate scientists would assert such a thing, I don't think. Some might. For one thing, there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for roughly 16 years, in spite of "man".
Go for you, contradicting the actual observations. That puts your statements in the right light.
And what happened to the warming that should have arisen from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases?
We've already sent robots.
Yep. And to be frank, it's a small, round dry ball with pretty much nothing on it. The next step would be to send a robot to somewhere interesting and have a look at that.
If we're now in a position to send men, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can. Good for science and engineering.
"Because it's hard" is not a reason, because you can use it as an excuse to justify anything. Witness:
If we're now in a position to send mules, then let's get our ass to Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
If we're now in a position to do chemistry, then let's cook crystal meth on Mars. Why? Because it's hard, and because we can.
And humans may be fragile but they are also versatile. Won't a manned mission be able to do more than a robotic one?
No. The thing with Mars is: there isn't a lot there. It's more notable for it's absence of things - no air, no potable water, no predators, no game to catch. None of the things that humans are attuned to look for are there. "Life" on Mars (if we extend this to robots) is a series of routine, mundane tasks. Doing routine, mundane tasks is what we invent machines to do on our behalf. Machines are our genius. Were it not for machines, we would still be occupied with the tasks that occupy the time of other high order predators - running down prey, watching for yet larger predators, looking for water, looking for a place to sleep. Don't hate on machines bro.
Life on Mars consists of the following: Move from place to place, map the terrain and look for interesting things on the ground. Machines are better at moving around, as we know from earth experience, where virtually everything is moved with machines rather than donkeys or on the backs of women. Machines are better at mapping terrain, since humans need a machine (e.g. theodolite or similiar) to do that. Machines are better at looking for stuff, since humans on Mars can use exactly one of our senses, and machines can be built with numerous, very funky and specialised senses. Machines are just better at this - just as they are better at digging, better at killing, better for moving around. No need for us to get in a tizz about it. After all we invent machines to cater to our own limitations.
We'll see if this actually stands up in the High Court.
In practice, this is unworkable - how can someone be sacked for holding a political view that does not impact the exercise of their duties? that screams discrimination, it screams an unworkable scenario for the exercise of government. It stinks - and the governments policy on refugees stinks as well, it's cruel and inhumane and repugnant to right minded people, it's unaustralian, it brings shame to this country, and it's architects ought to be ashamed..
Now fire me if you dare.
If the child is part of this group then it will die of starvation or whatever, just as they will, except of course, they chose to die, and the child didn't. It's an ethical minefield.
No... if having a child on mars is an ethical minefield, then having a child on earth is also an ethical minefield. How come people living in 3rd world countries on earth aren't required to sterilze themselves?
People who live in 3rd world countries don't have a choice. These people do. They say they expect to die. Under what circumstances would they even consider having children?
Survival of the human race depends on reproduction.
These people and the so called "colony" aren't going to survive. As I said, if they have babies, those babies will die just as soon as they will. This is not a survivable scenario.
Forced sterilization is a cop-out.
Nobody is forcing them to go to Mars.
Feel free to publish your own proof of your assertions.
Yes, I'm sure you've never used a VCR, or a computer, or any of the other cool things that came out of the Apollo program,
Well, I don't drink Tang.
I have used various technologies which arose independently of the Apollo program, like VCRs and computers.
which, when you get right down to it, is ego on a national scale.
It was, in summary a dick waving contest, which is why the public lost interest in it almost straight away, and it was cancelled. Why anybody thinks that this scam, would be of any more interest, given that Mars One will never go to Mars, and doesn't intend to go to Mars. It exists to scam people.
And, given the odds you're an American
Odds are that I'm not. And I'm not.
People throw their lives away all the time. You might see what this group is doing as pure ego stroking.
Actually I see them as gullible proles how fell for a transparent scam.
I'm unwilling to concede that that means nothing good will come of it, though.
Yes, hopefully in the future people won't be so easily scammed.
Mars has a gravity of ~38% of earth's gravity. This would make it ideal for refining materials gathered from asteroids. You wont have to worry about your processes not working due to a lack of gravity, a lot less energy would be required to descend and ascend with loads of ores/refined metals and other goods.
The first thing to do would be determine what possible substance you could mine from asteroids that would make such an enterprise worthwhile. As others have pointed out, there is no substance that would not be cheaper to make in a nuclear reactor, pound of pound, then mining from an asteroid - let alone the huge overhead of sending mining equipment to Mars, and then lifting the final product out of the gravity well of Mars - what an absurd proposition.
The lack of civilization means that you wont have to worry about the NIMBY culture when building your nuclear reactors to power the massive refineries and other such industrial sites. Heck, you could even use uncontrolled descents to deliver raw materials (full asteroids if they are not too big) planet side...
I don't think many people would take that job - living in an asteroid impact zone, in an area where civilising influences are being deliberately suppressed? Better to return the nomadic life of 4000 years ago. You will live a longer , more fulfilling life in greater comfort.
The only real hurdles to a mars colony is getting there, becoming self sufficient
No, the primary hurdle is finding a reason to go that is not gob smackingly stupid and naïve.
It's a scam.
Fetuses don't work against gravity to move their bodies.
Irrelevant.
There's a pressure gradient to be felt across their bodies, but it's small as a consequence of their bodies being small.
Irrelevant.
Do you think the whales will magically be unaffected by a micro gravity environment even though land based mammals clearly are? That the effect of microgravity is confined to needing to find new means of propulsion and pressure differientials in the surrounding media? It has nothing to do with those things .
You have absolutely no data showing that in-utero animal development is affected by gravity.
Absolutely no data?. Feel free to continue to deny science. What's next, will you allude to a conspiracy of science trying to keep down the plucky efforts of the cultists who are trying to establish themselves on Mars - on somone else's dime?
Yet you feel qualified to extrapolate from that zero data to a conclusion that humans can't (or probably can't) reproduce on Mars.
On the basis of available data, yes. Rather than getting all huffy and self righteous, maybe you should provide data to indicate why, against the flow of evidence, we would expect either adults or developing humans to be unaffected by the low gravity on Mars as opposed to the microgravity in LEO. See here, here and here. Don't just quote your religious texts, don't just get angry because there are people who don't believe. We are not condemned due to not being members of the Mars cult.
You say I'm in denial, but you're obviously presenting baseless speculations as if they were established facts.
I say you're in denial, because your tactics so far resemble those of climate denialists:
(a) Shout loudly about how there is no evidence or research, when there is
(b) Bring up irrelevant samples of information (in your case, factoids about buoyancy) and act as if they cancel out fundamental forces
(c) Claim the supposed lack of data supports your side that there a zero long term effects from micro/partial gravity on humans when the lack of data (if there were a lack of data) would allow us to draw no conclusions.
Here's a fact for you: no large animal species has ever been observed during pregnancy in any gravity environment except Earth's.
Once again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15607544. The reason no large mammals have been transported into LEO or similiar is that we have technology that allows that to happen. Let alone beyond LEO. Yet Mars One justs collected $3.8 MILLION dollars, they do not have a spacecraft, any roadmap to build a spacecraft, or a habitat.
In fact, they do not intend to go to Mars.
What they intend to do, and have in fact done already, is to make money from the gullible.
It's a scam.
There's a fact for you.
Are you words supposed to relate to this topic somehow? Because at the moment they do not through any conceivable mechanism.
He might.
Fetuse in flotation, which is pretty much the same as zero G except for the resistance provided by the aqueous medium. There is no reason to expect that the minute differences would affect fetuses.
So you imagine that somehow, amniotic fluids cancel out gravity waves? *facepalm*
Just an FYI - uteruses aren't anti gravity devices. Foetuses feel gravity just the same as born people do.
There's also no logic in either of your false choices. First, because there are no observations of effects of fractional gravity on adults and because there could be effects is not the same as there would be severe and detrimental effects.
You're in denial.
Well, thanks for letting me know, I'll be sure to note that down.
Any other sounds you'd like to share?
The OP is probably referring to the fact that conception and gestation are likely impossible on Mars due to it's low gravity.
That's not a fact. That's unfounded speculation.
Not exactly: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15607544. The premise of the study is logical: to stave off the effects of low gravity, martians need to rigorously exercise. Constantly. Fetuses cannot do that. The need to exercise will increase dramatically during developmental phases. That is, in utero and childhood.
Of course, there have been no experiments that confirm these observations but we are choosing between 2 contrasting speculations:
(a) that despite our observations of the effects on post development adults, developing humans will be unaffected by low gravity or
(b) based on our observations of the effects on adults, developing humans will also be affected, severely and detrimentally, more so if the cannot be made to exercise.
Out of those speculations, we should pick the one that is logical.
Of course, when you limit the discussion to the ultimate outcome, this is true for just about any activity that can be contemplated. You can live out your life, in all likelihood a mere cog in the machine called civilization, or you can be cremated and have your ashes scattered in some place of significance to you.
I'm not telling these people what they can do with their own money. As long as it's their money, and not someone elses. As long as it's understood that this is about personal ambition and ego (as you have helpfully pointed out).
So, are you planning on killing yourself today, or will you try to do something truly memorable instead?
Well, that's a bit off topic, however - if I had $38000000 dollars I would not spend it on some death cult ritual, no building a monumental pyramid, self aggrandising statue made of gold, or scattering of my ashes on another planet. If I'm to be remembered beyond my death, I don't particularly want to be remembered for my ego, or my fascination/fear of death or even fear of life.
In earthly reality land, we have some significant problems to deal with. Climate change, for instance. The collapse of the rule of law and democracy. These problems need people who will stand and fight, not live for escapist fiction based fantasies about life on another planet. Not people who would rather cash in and commit suicide on Mars. In future generations, these schemes will come to have a kind of infamy, along with climate denialists and their cash cow sponsors. If I'm to be remembered, I'll be remembered for standing on the side of good.
I'm not sure there is a distinction between the two things the OP mentioned "civil unrest" and "war" or how, in such a setting, we would denote the difference anyway.
1. The child will be unable to travel to Earth, because the higher gravity of earth will kill him or her.
2. If the child is part of this group then it will die of starvation or whatever, just as they will, except of course, they chose to die, and the child didn't. It's an ethical minefield. If these people are serious about going to Mars, rather than paying $38, they should volunteer to be sterilised if chosen. This way, the severe ethical and medical issues associated with procreation can be avoided. Oh, and instead of $38 each, they should be paying $38000000 dollars apiece. At that kind of money, and with 100 K people pitching in, we are getting closer to a viable enterprise. Of course, for that money, what they will get is to be able to fly their cremated remains to Mars and have them scattered on the surface by an automated probe. Same outcome.
But to address your points specifically:
Virtually no crime, pretty much nonexistent unemployment,
If as settlement is ever established on Mars, in the long term crime is likely to be a huge problem, owing to the desperate circumstances arising from the incredibly bad economic conditions. Mars will be in a very disadvantageous position WRT to Earth. They will lack power, industrial skills, economies of scale freedom of movement, everything that goes to making a society prosperous. Mars has nothing the Earth dwellers want or need, and craves the things the Earth can provide. Earth dwellers can travel to Mars, and then back to Earth, Long term Mars residents cannot travel to Earth. Mars lacks the water and sunlight to be competitive or even self sufficient agriculturally, it lacks the power, and likely, the metals needed for industrialisation, it cannot support a population large enough for a diversified economy. Mars will be a ghetto. Unemployment and crime will be rampant.
lots of free space,
Hypothetical residents on Mars will live underground in tunnels - they have to, due to the deadly radiation. They will rarely, if ever, venture to the surface. Space will be at an absolute premium, more like living on a submarine than living on Earth.
no environmental issues,
Well, Mars is dead, so it's true that we are unlikely to cause any environmental damage. Economic activity will be low to non-existent so Mars is unlikely to have many problems with industrial pollutants. However living quarters will be cramped and sanitation poor, plus many of the techniques used to move pollutants out of our nests on the earth (like flushing them into rivers) won't work on Mars - the water recycling strategies used on the ISS and similar will likely fail early in the piece owing to a lack of parts and the impossibility of buying new ones.
no civil unrest or wars anywhere on the horizon.
Mars will resemble the classic breeding ground for civil unrest for the reasons given above. Wars, maybe not, because there will never be enough people there to ever go to War, and the classic geographical style war is impossible anyway.
In contrast though, Mars One and it's quasi-religious disciples are something of a death cult. According to their proposal, the deaths of 7 billion people, the consequential loss of whole cultures, families, nations is considered a successful outcome. Of course the fact that this proposal amounts to genocide is never discussed.
Every time this topic arises I post this question. Nobody ever answers.