this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
1097 points (98.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
6016 readers
4012 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Agreed. But unless we spread out, we could be dooming ourselves. Imagine hundreds of thousands of years ago. If early humans had stayed in a single valley, never venturing further, simply because that place had everything we needed, a single natural catastrophe could've wiped us out. The same logic applies here.
We have the resources, capabilities and collective willpower to spread ourselves among the stars. We've never had that kind of power, we should take it while we still have the chance. We can do two things at once.
Simple solution; reduce childbirth. Let the people who don't want to have kids not have kids and the ones that want kids have them. However, that would involve giving proper reproductive health rights. Childbirth is already in decline, which is why many world leaders are panicking, but just because a politician is panicking doesn't mean it's wrong, but I digress...
For some reason, we as humans believe that the only solution for overpopulation is to cut losses and run when we have enough knowledge on what to do to reduce the degradation of the planet. But to too many people, the solution is to go start overpopulatinh other planets. It's just rinse and repeat. If we can't even get our shit together here, then what cosmic right do we have to go do it to another planet?
Reduce childbirth all you want (and I support it, we've massively overexpanded our population, far beyond what Earth can support sustainably) but that won't help if we get annihilated by an asteroid, supervolcano or nuclear war.
And what's stopping that from happening anywhere else. What right do we have to overpopulate another planet?
We'll have reduced the chance of something wiping out everything we hold dear by a factor of two.
Be honest. Trying to exclude the basic animal instinct of survival, who will you hold dear that will be affected by any of that? Sure, we can predict cosmic catastrophic events, but we still can't stop them. And looking at a perspective that capitalists ((at least in the most recent history (current affairs)) have been the most interested in finding something off the planet and trying to figure out Mars.
Now, I also consider that going to Mars would be a long process. I bet my life that the first few crews that head toward Mars will either die or never be heard from again. There might be that one or two Wayland's, but the vast majority of people who can afford to leave the planet won't do so until they can be guaranteed a high chance of survival. Meaning that they'll let a multitude of people die before they'll allow themselves to be hurried off to a brand new start. You should know as well as I do that those billionaires aren't going to save the masses. So even if sustainable existence occurs in our lifetime, are you sure the people you hold dear are going to be saved? And what right do we have to overpopulate another planet?
Huh? Sure we can prevent some cosmic events (asteroid redirect) and even mitigate others, by having backup of life elsewhere in the solar system. We have the technology, would you rather everything dies because of some ideal? Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
As to your last points, that's how it's been done during the last few expansions. But spaceships are expensive - tonnage to mars is insanely expensive. The incentive is to get a return on your investment: a sustainable colony. Sure, the billionaires won't be the first, but someone has to be. And what right do we have? It's our imperative to ensure the continuation of life by spreading it through the cosmos. Anything less would betray our base genetic instincts.
So people are investments? And we have to ensure life stays or humans?
Yes. Life >= humans.
What right do we have? It's our imperative to spread not just ourselves, but life itself throughout the cosmos. Anything less would betray our base genetic instincts.
So you're saying that life doesn't already exist in the cosmos?
That's the thing - we don't know.
It's highly probable that we aren't the only life in the universe. The only thing that makes it impossible is we aren't smart enough to know yet, but most signs point to that we can't be the only life in the universe
We only have one data point. Until we have conclusive evidence of life beyond this world, we need to operate as if we're the only ones.
Why?
Because that's what we know! Now you're just arguing for argument's sake.
No I'm not. Just say you don't have an answer for that haha
My answer is that we have to work with the best evidence available because informed decisions lead to better outcomes...
Is that so? And what does "informed decision" mean to you?
Making a decision based on the best evidence available... I feel like I'm repeating myself. Oh, I see. You're trolling.
Is everyone who challenges your ideas a troll? Sorry. I'm still not trolling you OR arguing just to argue.
And let's talk about the best decisions. Did Vlad The Impaler think it was the best decision? What about Ghengis Khan? Kubla Khan? Nobunaga Oda? Mitsuhede? Washington? King George? The list goes on and on... So who's right, and who's wrong?
They all had the best evidence available, yet thought that the best way was to oppose a different idea
Then what are you saying? That we paralyze ourselves?
What I'm saying is the best evidence available might not be the right evidence
So when do we make decisions?
All the time, but every aspect should be considered. For example, there was one commenter in this chain that mentioned the potential of bacterium on Mars. If they exist and we land on Mars then we inadvertently impact said bacterium and potentially impact Mars on a scale that we can't comprehend or at the very least understand. Is that right or wrong?
Sure, we should consider the possibility of life on Mars. But we've already impacted possible organisms by sending spacecraft there. Even if you sterilize your craft in an autoclave and send it through the vacuum of space for months to years, there's no guarantee that all terran organisms will be inert. Samples taken from an asteroid during the recent Hayabus-2 mission were found to have terrain organisms on them. If you want to completely cordon off martian ecology, you should've convinced NASA and the Soviets back in the 70s.
Bottom line is, we've already irreversibly changed the course of martian ecology, if there is any. What remains? Check if there's actually anything alive over there. The best way to do that is with boots on the ground. The best places to look for life on Mars are:
All of which are much easier to explore with humans.