I remember @cstross suggested something along those lines. I can’t find it online though, maybe it was someone else.
Send them to Venus. They believe climate change is a myth so it should be the perfect place for them.
2 Likes
This article was not only so poorly written that it was a struggle to read, but also so chalked full of negativity that this author is obviously a close-minded individual. The people who wish to explore space have many motives that are by no means “crazy”, and getting the heck away from a civilization that is on the verge of collapse seems reasonable. Most of these people are higher evolved individuals, who care about doing something bigger with their time than drinking beer and getting laid. “Oh no, I might miss the World Cup!”, is not of concern to them. Might some of the candidates be a little nuts? Certainly, but how is their thinking more insane than those who live for sporting events and accept being programmed drones who do nothing but consume and destroy this planet. The title alone warns the reader of how misinformed the rest of the article must be. Why couldn’t it have read “Meet the people who have volunteered to LIVE on Mars indefinitely?” One reason that these highly intelligent, mostly sane people want to leave is because of the widespread ignorance of this world’s inhabitants, whose population is well represented by the content of this article.
2 Likes
it is indeed, a motive as old as humanity itself.
One might say a bogeyman that has always been around the corner.
No offense intended, but the only correct answer is ‘because it was not posted at your blog’. But other people are so shortsighted.
1 Like
Because immortality?
I don’t think most people would assume that “indefinitely” would imply that they will live forever on another planet, but I suppose it could just say “spend their life on Mars”. I am simply stating that to say they are “volunteering to die on mars” is about the most negative and misleading way to title this article.
3 Likes
It does make it sound more like euthanasia is a key selling point.
1 Like
There are way way worse places to die than Mars. For example, Earth.
2 Likes
Totally! No offense taken. I just thought that the title gave the impression that this was a voyage for people to go die on another planet, as if that was the end goal, rather than an exciting mission to colonize a new world and live there. Thank you for the feedback.
Well maybe, but presumably they’re coming for the low-grav sex party anyway.
Look around. She is forced to live between people that are an exact opposite. A place far away with similar intelligent and curious people suddenly sounds like a pretty attractive option.
1 Like
I’m as concerned about climate change as any sensible person, but Mars doesn’t even have breathable air. Climate collapse (and associated famines/mass death/mass migration/etc) or not, Earth will still be vastly more habitable than Mars in 35 years time, 100 years time and most probably 250 years time.
2 Likes
My criticism is merely over word choice and the tone of this article. I fully understand that they are going to die on Mars, and this was never in question. My sister is still in the running to be one of the candidates, hence I am aware of what this voyage entails. Earth is a wonderful place, but humans are greedy parasites that make it a lame party.
1 Like
probably will do pretty well out of correctly estimating the amount of money random people on the internet will send him for an obviously never-going-to-happen mars mission tho
I admit that if I’d trust my health more, I’d be on the list as well.
1 Like
Oh please. Claiming 3d printing is just sculpting is like claiming the automated assembly line is just the newer forge and anvil.
Can 3d printing be used for sculpture? Sure. But it also is, and will continue to utterly revolutionise manufacturing.
5 Likes
3-d printing has a limited use, like home hobby, and custom one off medical work, but the claims of it revolutionizing manufacturing are a bit exaggerated. It has been around 25+ years now and has not taken over anything other than its original purpose, prototyping. This is coming from a mechanical engineer, who uses cad/ cam systems daily…
This is also completely missing the point of 3-d printing not being a new invention. Cnc controls, glue guns, and additive manufacturing (like clay sculpting) are nothing new, it is just combining them in a novel way. The point still stand that the last new invention was the semi-conductor.
Again: crash program from one of the most powerful nations in the world, drawing freely on the greatest minds of the world, with a budget of $135 billion, adjusted for inflation. Brilliance, passion and gosh-darn American know-how can accomplish a lot, but they can’t replace money and manpower.
Maybe I’m wrong about these guys. If they make their $6 billion budget, I’ll at take a second look. But right now the only thing they have going for them is that they really really want it, and that makes for good ad copy but doesn’t actually get anything done.
1 Like
You are getting really angry that people are saying bad things about some corporation. And you’re demanding evidence from us, but you’re not providing any for your own position. Can we have an actual debate instead of just personal attacks?
2 Likes
I think people understood what you were saying the first time!
Doing away with mass production in favor of custom manufacturing is precisely what is revolutionary about it. This is a step in the right direction.
So what? It’s novelty is irrelevant to me. You are the one who insists on making a point of this.
You seem to have a very reductionist view of technological progress. Sure, semi-conductors comprised a new class of materials to exploit, but it was the many instances of innovation between then and now which has made them useful. How about the fact that even now people discover/implement new kinds of gates? Otherwise the stuff is merely fancy rock. Here’s an easy example of subsequent invention which springs to mind - how about superconductors? Or nuclear reactors? Or entire classes of medicine? Or synthetic genes and organisms? When we use a certain specific (and arbitrary) invention as a benchmark of progress and dismiss everything else, this is a historians view of dissecting dead data. Even your example of semiconductors was not so much an event as a process which unfolded over 150 or so years, longer than any human lifetime. A new invention doesn’t need to spawn a whole new industry to be a new invention.
2 Likes
