SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ed Regis writes in the New York Times that today we an witnessing an outburst of enthusiasm over the literally outlandish notion that in the relatively near future, some of us are going to be living, working, thriving and dying on Mars. But unfortunately Mars mania reflects an excessively optimistic view of what it actually takes to travel to and live on Mars, papering over many of the harsh realities and bitter truths that underlie the dream. "First, there is the tedious business of getting there. Using current technology and conventional chemical rockets, a trip to Mars would be a grueling, eight- to nine-month-long nightmare for the crew," writes Regis. "Tears, sweat, urine and perhaps even solid waste will be recycled, your personal space is reduced to the size of an SUV., and you and your crewmates are floating around sideways, upside down and at other nauseating angles." According to Regis every source of interpersonal conflict, and emotional and psychological stress that we experience in ordinary, day-to-day life on Earth will be magnified exponentially by restriction to a tiny, hermetically sealed, pressure-cooker capsule hurtling through deep space and to top it off, despite these constraints, the crew must operate within an exceptionally slim margin of error with continuous threats of equipment failures, computer malfunctions, power interruptions and software glitches.
But getting there is the easy part says Regis. "Mars is a dead, cold, barren planet on which no living thing is known to have evolved, and which harbors no breathable air or oxygen, no liquid water and no sources of food, nor conditions favorable for producing any. For these and other reasons it would be accurate to call Mars a veritable hell for living things, were it not for the fact that the planet's average surface temperature is minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit." These are only a few of the many serious challenges that must be overcome before anyone can put human beings on Mars and expect them to live for more than five minutes says Regis. "The notion that we can start colonizing Mars within the next 10 years or so is an overoptimistic, delusory idea that falls just short of being a joke."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @03:49PM
"We shouldn't bother going to Mars because there's bigger problems here on Earth we should worry about first" - once again the fallacy of relative privation [wikipedia.org] rears its head.
(Score: 3, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday September 22 2015, @04:03PM
I'm not really sure your argument applies.
The two problems are interrelated, so it's not really an appeal to an unrelated issue.
Going to Mars and colonizing it is possible and also desirable.
However, it is also an incredible use of resources: human, technical and material.
We have problems requiring similar types of technical investment, especially in our rollout of renewable energy and mitigation of climate change.
There's possibly also a psychological connection. If we think that it's practical to colonize and presumably terraform Mars, it may assuage some of our guilt for the wanton destruction of our own ecosystem.
The problems at home are pressing and urgent and require out attention,
yet they also seem insurmountable, leading to a type of learned helplessness which makes it more comfortable to daydream.
I want to see us go to Mars, when we've secured our foundations first,
then even the stars are not too far away.
It's a cosmic game, fellow humans, our Sun has fuel for enough time that we can and should consolidate our most important spacecraft first, Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:09PM
Is not an argument, "We shouldn't do/worry about X because Y and Z are more important/bigger problems" is the definition of the fallacy of relative privation; the parent's "argument" is merely pointing out that the GP's assertion is not logically valid.