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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.