this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
25 points (87.9% liked)

Ask Science

8645 readers
1 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 29 points 1 month ago (4 children)

If we had the technology to terraform another planet, it would be far easier to just fix the climate on this planet. People like Elon Musk who are peddling this idea of terraforming Mars for habitation are charlatans.

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To be fair, we know how to raise the temperature on a planet, but have never successfully lowered it

[–] Amaterasu@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

To be fair, some of us know how to lower the temperature but is hard to convince the other part that this is important and requires certain sacrifices, and execute the plan

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

And execute the ~~people~~ plan

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

We’re doing our best! 🙂

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

While I agree Earth first. But just like most humans you are underestimating our level of risk. There is a very legitimate reason to have a goal of not putting all our eggs in one planet. That's just a much more long term goal than our climate issues, but we shouldn't stop trying to progress our technology for that end.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

True, but colonizing other planets is more distant a goal than making our own stable.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I agree that redundancy is a good way to mitigate risk, but there are so many problems between us and successfully colonizing another world that this is basically a pipe dream.

Astronauts experience a lot of health issues.

After less than a month in space, the tubules that fine-tune calcium and salt balance showed signs of shrinkage, which the researchers say was likely due to microgravity rather than GCR.

The study suggests that optic disc edema and choroidal folding contribute to spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome, whose symptoms include headaches and visual impairment such as far-sightedness (hyperopia), which causes near objects to appear blurred due to lower visual acuity at short range.

The scientists said the heart tissues "really don't fare well in space," and over time, the tissues aboard the space station beat about half as strong as tissues from the same source kept on Earth. [...] Previous studies showed that some astronauts return to Earth from outer space with age-related conditions, including reduced heart muscle function and arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats), and that some, but not all, effects dissipate over time after their return.

And of course there's all the problems caused by radiation exposure once you're outside the Earth's magnetic field (Mars doesn't have a global magnetic field). Basically, we can put ourselves in a tin can and venture into space, but the human body evolved in Earth's gravity and radiation profile and it doesn't do well outside of that. At the present you'd have to be suicidal to try to live long-term away from Earth, and I don't think these are problems that we can just engineer our way out of.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

None of those problems get solved if you use the enormity of the task to excuse giving up. Everyone working on these projects is well aware of these issues. It does not devalue the work. But do not confuse my support of continuing towards the goal with support for goofballs like Elon Musk.

If we had listened to people like you during the infancy of the US space program we would have deprived the world of a lot of technological progress.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

We will not accomplish any of this. Because we don't even care for the biosphere of the planet we already have in the best state of "terrafoming" ever.

Humankind will speedily regress to much lower levels of organisation and technology soon. It's inevitable.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Technically yes, but having people in this one probably makes it more complex.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

The quarterly earnings report takes precedence over not destroying the planet.

We absolutely have the ability to fix this planet, it’s just too inconvenient. People would literally prefer famine, disease, war, and death to going without comforts and conveniences.