Is a mission to Mars morally defensible?

https://aeon.co/essays/is-a-mission-to-mars-morally-defensible-given-todays-real-needs

by markmassie • 9 years ago

13 14 9 years ago

dpark• 9 years ago

Musk wants to innovate and leave Earth, rather than to take care of it, or fix it, and stay.

Come on. This is bullshit. Musk is also pushing environmentalism here on Earth with SolarCity and Tesla. Going to Mars and taking care of Earth are in no way mutually exclusive.

huxley• 9 years ago

Musk is like an incarnation of Delos D. Harriman [1], if environmentalism gets him to Mars then he will be an environmentalist.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon

Arizhel3• 9 years ago

The same argument could be made about just about any human activity that isn't obviously beneficial to humanity, the environment, etc.

Is reading a discussion on HN morally defensible? You could be spending that time helping humanity somehow.

Is working at a tech start-up making mobile apps morally defensible? You could be working at a soup kitchen instead.

Is playing a video game morally defensible? You could be assisting volunteering at a shelter instead.

Is having heat in your house morally defensible? You could be turning it off to save money which you could send to help alleviate poverty, though this will require you to endure freezing temperatures in your home.

hackeraccount• 9 years ago

Save the Whales? Why, if there are people starving? Preserve Yellowstone? Why, if there are people starving?

Arizhel3• 9 years ago

You can take this to further lengths to demonstrate the shortsightedness:

Why should we worry about fixing up the problem with lead in drinking water in Flint as long as there's people there living in poverty and starving? We should just let everyone drink leaded water until the poverty problem is fixed.

Why are we wasting money on developing more efficient farming techniques as long as there's people starving? That money should be spend on feeding people instead.

---

This is basically what the article is arguing: that we shouldn't develop new technologies as long as there's people living in poverty. Never mind that the new technologies developed improve the economy greatly and help life more people out of poverty.

hot_brick• 9 years ago

Is paying for you own cancer treatment morally defensible? You could be paying for someone else's cancer treatment.

Arizhel3• 9 years ago

Exactly. If you're 50 and paying for your own cancer treatment, that's morally indefensible if there's anyone younger than you who needs cancer treatment!

erikpukinskis• 9 years ago

Of course. If the Mars mission were properly marketed, as entertainment with a little planetary science sprinkled in, I would have no issue with it. As reality TV it is a sensible investment, and will bring joy to many.

But it's marketed as somehow important to the survival of humanity, and that's a lie. There are no scenarios, even vaguely theoretical ones, where Mars is more hospitable than Earth any time in the next million years.

I feel almost exactly the same way about Burning Man. To the extent that it's marketed as a dance party in the desert for the wealthy, I think it's a wonderful thing. I respect that it holds important religious services for many people.

When people start talking about how it's an evolution of society, or somehow a solution to the world's problems, I take issue.

FWIW, I would answer the titular question in the affirmative: Yes, a Mars mission is morally defensible. It's just not good for society right now. Still, we should probably do it sooner than later, since we're about to burn our oil reserves. This might be our last chance to get out to the asteroids and build the factories to seed the space economy. But again, from Earth's perspective this is all just entertainment.

mesozoic• 9 years ago

If you care about humanity existing in the far future then definitely yes.

shiftpgdn• 9 years ago

Love that this opens with "Whitey on Mars." Total trash. Keep this garbage off of HN please.

fibo• 9 years ago

A mission to Mars is science fiction at least until 2050 or more. We don't have the technology, we could land a 1 ton spaceship with a robot, but a space ship with enough food, water and air to let people travel for 6 months would be too heavy for current technology and crash on landing.

What is not moral is the fact that it is becoming a sort of big brother show based on no scientific assumptions.

doikor• 9 years ago

I think we do have the technology. Just not the budget it would take to do in near future with the technology available. To make it economically feasible is going to take some time.

If US put the same kind of money into NASA they did during the Apollo days (so 4% of federal budged instead of 0.5% for a decade or two without changing the plan/goal of NASA with every administration change) a lot of stuff would be possible.

If you had an "infinite" budged you could just build a VERY big space craft in orbit and use that. But the money isn't there so it isn't happening until SpaceX or whoever lowers the launch prices further (SpaceX Falcon Heavy and/or ITS/MCT for example)

gozur88• 9 years ago

We could do it by 2025 if we really wanted to. It would take multiple launches and a separate lander, but we could do it if we were willing to spend the money.

googletazer• 9 years ago

Aeon is Tumblrs less popular pseudo-scientific cousin. Trash

Is a mission to Mars morally defensible?

Related Stories