The way to save humanity does not involve inhabiting a planet that has zero life sustaining stuff like an atmosphere, a magnetic field, water, a carbon cycle, fuck all. I have a better and feasible plan that would go a long way towards saving humanity. Eliminate the billionaires.
He's a poor communicator, and is wrong on his timespan for earth becoming non-viable.
We have about a billion (not million) years - give or take a billion - before the earth is uninhabitable for human life as we know it. Maybe much less if we keep doing stupid things to destroy our environment, but that's a different problem.
The goal is to remove humanity's dependency on this single planet for survival. Thing is - that's a 10,000+ year goal. It won't happen in our lifetimes and needs tons of technology not invented yet. Hell - we can't keep humans alive in an enclosed biosphere on earth for a year without cheating.
Mars is seen as a logical next step - we've landed robots there, and we've walked on the moon. But there's a ton of work between here and man-on-mars he's glossing over, like "long-term survival without supply from earth". A manned mars mission requires survival in an enclosed ecosystem for 3-5 years, minimum, and more like a decade with a safety factor. That's not a viable thing today.
We should be working on sustainability and not polluting ou
... show more
He's a poor communicator, and is wrong on his timespan for earth becoming non-viable.
We have about a billion (not million) years - give or take a billion - before the earth is uninhabitable for human life as we know it. Maybe much less if we keep doing stupid things to destroy our environment, but that's a different problem.
The goal is to remove humanity's dependency on this single planet for survival. Thing is - that's a 10,000+ year goal. It won't happen in our lifetimes and needs tons of technology not invented yet. Hell - we can't keep humans alive in an enclosed biosphere on earth for a year without cheating.
Mars is seen as a logical next step - we've landed robots there, and we've walked on the moon. But there's a ton of work between here and man-on-mars he's glossing over, like "long-term survival without supply from earth". A manned mars mission requires survival in an enclosed ecosystem for 3-5 years, minimum, and more like a decade with a safety factor. That's not a viable thing today.
We should be working on sustainability and not polluting our own ecosphere, and long-term orbital habitats if we seriously want to send people to mars without it being suicide. But slow and steady doesn't get much attention or funding.
Yes - mars isn't a place fit for human habitation, and probably never will be. But the technology we develop in that effort will reap all sorts of benefits for the real world. Science is worth doing.
My take? If we can get orbital self-sustained habitats really nailed down in the next few thousand years, then the whole solar system becomes our playground given enough time. Living in comfort and safety in an orbital and visiting mars is a lot better than being forced to live on the surface.
So support the destruction of the earth environment so that you can sell insurance. In the end all you have is money. Nothing else. He will always be a blind man.
βMuskβs plan to save humanity- go to Marsβ Well, Elon thatβs a great idea. Please go to Mars and many is won for mankind. And donβt come back for heavenβs sake.
Let's send him to Mars with basic supplies and let him stay there - with no wage slaves, no public resources to steal, and no one else's work and ideas to co-opt and pass off on his own. How long do you think he'll last?
Eric R
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Stephan Matthiesen
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •It's a good plan and we should encourage Musk to travel to Mars immediately. And take the other billionaires with him.
And then pretend that communication has been lost...
cqd_sos
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Atha Ahuluheluw
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Randall Lee
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •I have a better and feasible plan that would go a long way towards saving humanity. Eliminate the billionaires.
Gillinger
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Asshole City it is, then.
Urwumpe
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Well, there is the famous Tsiolkovsky quote about Earth being the cradle of humanity, but one cannot stay in its cradle forever.
But before we colonize Mars, there would be many simpler places around first: The poles, the Marianas trench, the deserts, most of Russia....
JWM
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •C.W. Williams πΊπ¦ ππ¨π¦π¦
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Richard R Lee
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •@georgetakei
Marco Antoniotti
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Fascisti su Marte (2006) β 6.8 | Comedy, Sci-Fi
IMDbJohn Q McDonald
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •K. E. Aplin
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Serge
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •ruurd@mastodon.nl
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Tom Bortels
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •He's a poor communicator, and is wrong on his timespan for earth becoming non-viable.
We have about a billion (not million) years - give or take a billion - before the earth is uninhabitable for human life as we know it. Maybe much less if we keep doing stupid things to destroy our environment, but that's a different problem.
The goal is to remove humanity's dependency on this single planet for survival. Thing is - that's a 10,000+ year goal. It won't happen in our lifetimes and needs tons of technology not invented yet. Hell - we can't keep humans alive in an enclosed biosphere on earth for a year without cheating.
Mars is seen as a logical next step - we've landed robots there, and we've walked on the moon. But there's a ton of work between here and man-on-mars he's glossing over, like "long-term survival without supply from earth". A manned mars mission requires survival in an enclosed ecosystem for 3-5 years, minimum, and more like a decade with a safety factor. That's not a viable thing today.
We should be working on sustainability and not polluting ou
... show moreHe's a poor communicator, and is wrong on his timespan for earth becoming non-viable.
We have about a billion (not million) years - give or take a billion - before the earth is uninhabitable for human life as we know it. Maybe much less if we keep doing stupid things to destroy our environment, but that's a different problem.
The goal is to remove humanity's dependency on this single planet for survival. Thing is - that's a 10,000+ year goal. It won't happen in our lifetimes and needs tons of technology not invented yet. Hell - we can't keep humans alive in an enclosed biosphere on earth for a year without cheating.
Mars is seen as a logical next step - we've landed robots there, and we've walked on the moon. But there's a ton of work between here and man-on-mars he's glossing over, like "long-term survival without supply from earth". A manned mars mission requires survival in an enclosed ecosystem for 3-5 years, minimum, and more like a decade with a safety factor. That's not a viable thing today.
We should be working on sustainability and not polluting our own ecosphere, and long-term orbital habitats if we seriously want to send people to mars without it being suicide. But slow and steady doesn't get much attention or funding.
Yes - mars isn't a place fit for human habitation, and probably never will be. But the technology we develop in that effort will reap all sorts of benefits for the real world. Science is worth doing.
My take? If we can get orbital self-sustained habitats really nailed down in the next few thousand years, then the whole solar system becomes our playground given enough time. Living in comfort and safety in an orbital and visiting mars is a lot better than being forced to live on the surface.
JimJoe
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •epicdemiologist
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •JΓΌrgen Trinkaus
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Louise Auerhahn π³οΈβπ
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Lupino
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •WooShell
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Auld Dick
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Jaime Robertson
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •A. No, nΓ©e: Moose
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Chuck
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •Jan Terpstra
in reply to George Takei π³οΈβπππ½ • • •