But surely shouldn't overpopulation lead to wanting to go somewhere else?
Well...you seem to be arguing in favour of a horrendously expensive project to make Mars habitable. How about spending those horrendous amounts on Earth to (1) improve our atmosphere, (2) lower CO2 levels (easiest way - plant huge areas of forest) - and (3) irrigate the desert areas to produce more good land for people to live on (and for those trees to grow on)?
Your fantasy would require a system for us Earthlings to choose who goes to Mars, and how to (1) force them to go there if they don't want to, or (2) choose one person over another. Even if that were remotely possible, they'd have to live in circumstances very different from those we have evolved to live in. In particular, gravity that's 38% of Earth's, temperatures that never rise above about -63 degrees C, very low atmospheric pressure, requiring (at least at present) permanent pressure suits or (perhaps in the future) 'bubbles' in which cities can be constructed. The atmosphere is mainly CO2 (obviously they need to plant very special trees at -63 degrees!). And the colony can only survive, of course, if it's large and varied enough to allow breeding (this isolation would eventually result in a new species of human, of course). And none of this deals with the need, at least for the foreseeable future, for everything to be transported to Mars from Earth.
And, above all, none of this tackles the fact that most people will have no choice but to remain on Earth, with far fewer resources, since so much is being consumed building a Martian overspill colony. A sort of galactic Telford.![]()
Last edited by Pabmusic; 08-08-12 at 14:14.
Well, there go all my daydreams!!![]()
Sorryto be the harbinger of bad news. It's all George W Bush's fault.
He announced ambitious plans in 2004 for manned missions to the Moon and Mars, which led to speculation about colonisation.
Then someone pointed out the cost.
Obama was left having to pull the plug.
![]()
![]()
[These emoticons can be fun, can't they?]
Last edited by Pabmusic; 09-08-12 at 01:06.
Very interesting edition of Radio 4's Material World devoted to updates on the Curiosity Project
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ljl5n#synopsis
Pabmusic: isn't this a tad oversimplified? Surely the sun generates its energy entirely by the fusion of hydrogen into helium? It'll only generate heavier elements when it gets close to dying and it's exhausted its hydrogen, and even then it won't make any very heavy elements such as useful metals (the divide comes somewhere roundabout carbon IIRC). The heavier elements (already existing in the sun and its planets) were made in long-vanished and recycled supernovae. This is the extraordinary sense in which 'we are stardust'.