Maybe a colony on Venus would be an even more exciting challenge than Mars?

Right, you don’t prop up con men, just their ideas.

There is no merit to going to Mars other than to distract people from real issues. I have no doubt that at some point, if humanity survives the upcoming centuries, we will put a research outpost on Mars. I do however very much doubt that we’d build a large, thriving colony there even millennia in the future, for the same reason that we don’t go building cities on the bottom of the ocean, in the middle of the desert or at the peak of mountains. There’s just no reason to do so.

You are severely underestimating the effort that it takes to send people to Mars, unless you want them to expire there quickly. So yes, sending people to Mars really does compete with other efforts. Therefore we have to weigh the utility of such an undertaking against its benefits. It is true that sometimes “crazy” projects like this does reveal findings that you weren’t actively looking for. But that is the best argument for this crazy idea - that maybe it will turn up something unexpectedly cool! And I don’t see why we would divert a significant amount of resources to something like that when we have so many other fields that desperately need attention, where we know that we will find good and useful stuff without endangering the lives of people.

You mentioned soil research as one avenue for why going to Mars might help. Why do we need Mars to practice growing food without soil? What is it about Mars that provides a significant advantage for that type of research? None, you say? Then I say, let’s do it on Earth or in orbit.

I am also confused as why you keep referring to Earth’s moon as “Luna”. In my experience that’s mostly practiced when we’re comparing solar systems to each other, and in that context the Earth would be named “Tellus”. Although I think it’s rare to call them anything except “Earth” and “the Moon” in practice, at least it was when I did my physics degree.

Of course not. But it’s people like you on the aggregate that prop up con men, and it does directly compete with effective measures to fix our own planet.

Start. By. Feeding. Children.

Then you can have as many space colonies as you want.

Haha okay, I’m the misanthropic one for pointing out the normal course for allocating resources for scientofic efforts? I want science to continue to be directed toward tangible goals, with an emphasis on things that help people. That’s how it’s normally done. It has worked very well in the past and I see no evidence that we need some tween boy fantasy to improve upon a proven concept.

Lol okay no, there’s no reason to continue this exchange any further. You’d have a billion people holed up on a dead planet flr what, “science”? Get the fuck out of here with that Mengele nonsense.

It’s still a moronic goal to focus on at this point in our evolution. We’re trying to run before knowing how to walk.

There are about a hundred things that are more readily achiveable and useful than going to Mars or even the Moon. We have a climate crisis here on Earth, we’re facing severe challenges in agriculture, and almost a billion people live in abject poverty.

On that last point: what do you think unlocks more scientific potential - funneling trillions into research for a colony on the Moon, or making sure hundreds of millions of children get food, water, medicine and an education? My bet is on the latter, by a loooooooong fucking margin. You’ve got your Mozarts and Einsteins wasting away in squalor, and that’s just a bad use of our potential. Morality doesn’t even have to enter the equation.

I’m not hung up on the disgusting billionaires. They’re not the only narcissists around.

The Moon and Mars are not interchangeable. They’re vastly different. The Moon is in Earth’s orbit. That’s why we went to the Moon in 1959 and haven’t even tried to go to Mars in 2026.

All interesting research can be done on Earth, the Moon or space telescopes. Mars is not interesting except for taking samples, and robots can do that.

Mars does not help with developing farming technologies without soil. You’re thinking of low-gravity environments I take it?

You’re describing Mars being a barren wasteland as a good challenge to try to solve. Fuck that. Start by solving the challenges we have on Earth. Show me you can fix a broken arm before insisting that you’re going to do brain surgery. Hence why you should terraform the Sahara before talking about building a civilization on a dusty hellscape that is a six month journey away from everything we need to live.

Bro. The Sahara desert is over 9 million square kilometers. Let’s say our wildest dreams could be realized and we managed to re-green half of the Sahara, it would still leave an area larger than all of India (~3.5 Mkm2) for your highly specialized mice and lizards. They’d be fine.

Now, let’s talk space. My point is - if you think that you could use the “empty real estate” on Mars, then why don’t you try it out on fucking Earth first, where you have shorter supply lines and access to manpower? A little demonstration of your incredible powers!

You know - if you think you can fly, don’t jump out of a window. Try taking off from the ground first. Test your wings in a safe environment.

Oh, what’s that, YOU FUCKING CAN’T? Okay then don’t talk shit.

I didn’t say we can’t have goals. I just don’t think that going to Mars is a good goal, and I think that the argument that we need a stupid goal to achieve good science is, well, stupid.

Sure. Let those goals be useful and reachable, not some narcissist’s fantasy about colonizing a dead planet.

Let’s say that if the nutrients of the Sahara were consumed by plants and animals in the Sahara, then the Amazon would be deprived. Let’s say the Amazon would disappear.

In turn, we’d get a forest in the Sahara that would be about 30% bigger than the Amazon. So a net win I guess?

Anyway, it’s not the point. I’m just saying it’s moronic to belive that we can terraform fucking Mars.

It’s what plants crave.

Bye-bye is probably a bit of an overstatement. Yes plants need phosphorous, and some more than others, but I don’t think the Amazon would disappear without the phosphorous influx from the Sahara. Change - sure, probably - but there’s still plenty of nutrients and water for vast forests to continue existing there.

For the most part, the resources that we need to survive are renewable if we use them responsibly. And the things that aren’t renewable we can be quite economical about using and should last centuries if not millennia into the future, when hopefully we have better technology to give us alternatives.

We do not need to terraform the Sahara to save Earth. The point is that if you’re so gung-ho about terraforming things, how about you start with a smaller challenge that’s closer to supply lines and labor?

Going to Mars is just a bad plan, period. There’s nothing on Mars for us. Going to the Moon, fine, the low gravity and the Helium-3 and the short distance I can definitely see an argument being made for it. But Mars? There’s no reason whatsoever to go there.

That’s just funding research with extra steps.

Science on the aggregate gives excellent return on investment. Unfortunately politicians want an extravagant excuse for funding it, but it would be much more efficient not to do the gimmicks, just do the science and not allow public sentiment to dictate what’s viable.

We must terraform Mars and live like kings!

How about you start by terraforming the Sahara desert or shut the fuck up, Elon.

Here’s how you can make pretty good coffee at home with this $0.99 pour over funnel from IKEA!

First, grind your freshly roasted specialty beans on this $1200 tabletop grinder, then fold a cone from this $1 a pop paper filter, now place your coffee mug on this designer scale with a built-in timer for only $399. Remember to boil your water in a $500 pot, and then you’re ready to pour!!!