This is why it’s silly hearing billionaires, who do the most damage to our planet, telling us how urgently we need to “get off this rock” which has supported life for millions of years in favor of some dead planet. It’s really just an extension of capitalism that demands infinite space to exploit, instead of being content with sustainability.
It should also be a strong strong signal to stop listening to the apes that are hoarding all the bananas, and instead, eat that banana-hoarding abhorrence.
Elon’s argument for why we need to spread to other planets holds true even if everything on Earth were going perfectly.
It’s not about getting everyone off Earth - it’s about creating a backup for humanity on other planets. This ensures that the only known flame of consciousness in the universe isn’t extinguished by a nuclear war, pandemic, supervolcano, or asteroid impact. It’s about not having all your eggs in one basket.
Our bodies are simply not made to leave earth for a long period. It’s a lofty goal but completely unrealistic when considering our biology has evolved specifically to live here.
Has no one learned anything from War of the Worlds?
Also, remember how humanity really messed things up when we started colonising other parts of our globe? We brought disease, we murdered and we polluted.
By extension it would give more of an excuse for the top 1% to give even less of a fck about earth and the climate.
Next thing you’d see is all the rich bailing to another planet while those who can’t afford it are left with what’s left of earth and the hellscape they left behind (and probably still have more agency over earth than those still living on there).
That’s quite cynical view. There’s about 0% chance of that happening during their lifetime. Or you think they’ll just want to go to mars and sit inside some capsule for the rest of their lives? C’moon now…
No, it would be cynical to say that all talk of space colonization is actually a lie to spur interest in government funded space technology, which gets contracted out to one major company owned by the richest man in the world who has become that rich off the back of other government subsidies.
That’s still not an argument against the need to have a backup of humanity somewhere beyond Earth. Your desire to stick it to the man won’t mean much if we go extinct.
This is not risk free. When you give people access to space and still have terrorism and wars, things can end badly quickly.
There’s also a valid argument around where to best focus those resources now. We are nowhere near ready for space colonization on any scale, let alone sustainable ones.
A City on Mars by the Wienersmiths dives into some of these challenges if you are interested.
He meant the budget spent on space is enormous and there are more urgent priorities on Earth solve so he does get it.
We already have Mars populated by human-made robots, and one going to Europa moon, terraforming means you’re thinking of making it habitable for humans, a huge difference from sending robots to do researches to understand better the moons/asteroids/planets.
The point you try saying his argument which seems against billionaires to be invalid instead of arguing against any other point he made just points out your focus is being an apologist for the wealthy to keep doing what they do best, starve and explore everyone else.
Great argument for and example of how the US government isn’t taxing wealth nearly enough, if we have homeless people and billionaires funding sci fi fantasies for their own amusement in the same country.
This is why it’s silly hearing billionaires, who do the most damage to our planet, telling us how urgently we need to “get off this rock” which has supported life for millions of years in favor of some dead planet. It’s really just an extension of capitalism that demands infinite space to exploit, instead of being content with sustainability.
It should also be a strong strong signal to stop listening to the apes that are hoarding all the bananas, and instead, eat that banana-hoarding abhorrence.
Bananas make for a terrible time value storage in the real world
In donkey Kong country tho? He who controls bananas controls the universe
Elon’s argument for why we need to spread to other planets holds true even if everything on Earth were going perfectly.
It’s not about getting everyone off Earth - it’s about creating a backup for humanity on other planets. This ensures that the only known flame of consciousness in the universe isn’t extinguished by a nuclear war, pandemic, supervolcano, or asteroid impact. It’s about not having all your eggs in one basket.
Our bodies are simply not made to leave earth for a long period. It’s a lofty goal but completely unrealistic when considering our biology has evolved specifically to live here.
Has no one learned anything from War of the Worlds?
Also, remember how humanity really messed things up when we started colonising other parts of our globe? We brought disease, we murdered and we polluted.
If you can make people survive on Mars, you’re more than able to make pockets of humanity survive those disasters on Earth
By extension it would give more of an excuse for the top 1% to give even less of a fck about earth and the climate. Next thing you’d see is all the rich bailing to another planet while those who can’t afford it are left with what’s left of earth and the hellscape they left behind (and probably still have more agency over earth than those still living on there).
That’s quite cynical view. There’s about 0% chance of that happening during their lifetime. Or you think they’ll just want to go to mars and sit inside some capsule for the rest of their lives? C’moon now…
No, it would be cynical to say that all talk of space colonization is actually a lie to spur interest in government funded space technology, which gets contracted out to one major company owned by the richest man in the world who has become that rich off the back of other government subsidies.
Wait–
That’s still not an argument against the need to have a backup of humanity somewhere beyond Earth. Your desire to stick it to the man won’t mean much if we go extinct.
This is not risk free. When you give people access to space and still have terrorism and wars, things can end badly quickly.
There’s also a valid argument around where to best focus those resources now. We are nowhere near ready for space colonization on any scale, let alone sustainable ones.
A City on Mars by the Wienersmiths dives into some of these challenges if you are interested.
We will most likely always have terrorism and wars. That’s not an argument against letting wealthy individuals fund a private space race.
He meant the budget spent on space is enormous and there are more urgent priorities on Earth solve so he does get it.
We already have Mars populated by human-made robots, and one going to Europa moon, terraforming means you’re thinking of making it habitable for humans, a huge difference from sending robots to do researches to understand better the moons/asteroids/planets.
The point you try saying his argument which seems against billionaires to be invalid instead of arguing against any other point he made just points out your focus is being an apologist for the wealthy to keep doing what they do best, starve and explore everyone else.
It’s private wealth, not government funding. They’re free to use their wealth how ever they see fit as long as it’s legal.
Ad-hominem is not argument to the contrary either.
Great argument for and example of how the US government isn’t taxing wealth nearly enough, if we have homeless people and billionaires funding sci fi fantasies for their own amusement in the same country.
Asteroid impact can solve homelesness too.
I still think populating other planets is a worthy cause. We should do that while taxing the billionaires more.