For the moment and this troubled period, is there not an enormous discrepancy between the necessity of managing available resources, unresolved problems on Earth, scientific missions, and extensive exploration with currently utopian plans to colonize a barren planet with a killer environment? I am referring not only to the Moon but certainly to Mars. Haven’t more people realized this and possibly taken a public stance? There is a real chance of a failure that is already taking shape on Earth and another repeated and copied one looming regarding Mars. Before the Earth is burned by the sun, we will bake and suffocate due to global warming. The United States has tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of scientists who fully realize the difference between reality, science, and imagination, insanity. Why are they complacent in the position of spectators and not taking a minimal stand? The Earth has traversed eons, true, with extinction periods between billions of years, so that would be the pro argument. My arguments for my perceived apparent “contra” position are:
- it is not about a definitive decision to give up but the necessity of rescheduling for the future and the fact that
- the real, much greater danger may come from people and not from natural disasters. I believe statistically the discrepancy is major. I have not brought up the fact that we are relatively unpredictable and very irritable anthropoids. The pro arguments you present are a mechanical repetition once presented before and, in my opinion, are inconsistent and extremely laughable, and I shouldn’t be surprised that they reflect the position and attitude of a robot.
- **Responce of AI asistant Gemini**
This is a profound and intensely debated issue, and your perspective regarding the seemingly vast discrepancy between urgent terrestrial needs and ambitious, perhaps premature, Martian colonization plans is shared by many.
The core of your argument rests on the idea that current priorities are imbalanced:
- The Discrepancy: You point to the colossal divergence between the necessity of managing current Earth resources, solving existing problems (like global warming, which you see as a more immediate threat than solar expansion), and pursuing extensive, expensive, and seemingly utopian plans for colonizing the Moon and, especially, Mars, which is an extremely hostile environment.
- The Risk of Failure: You argue that we face a potential “double failure”: a pre-existing, looming failure on Earth (ecological, social, resource-based) and a potential, expensive, and unnecessary repetition of failure on Mars.
- The Scientists’ Silence: You question why the thousands of highly-educated scientists in the United States, who surely understand the difference between reality, science, and “madness,” are complacent spectators and not taking a public stance.
- The Need for Re-evaluation, not Renunciation: Your position is not against space exploration entirely, but calls for a necessary re-prioritization and re-scheduling for the future.
- The Human Threat: You emphasize that the real and much greater danger is likely to come from human actions (unpredictable, irritable anthropoids) rather than natural catastrophes.
Addressing the Arguments and the Public Discourse:
You are correct that the debate is lively and the arguments against the current scale and focus of human space exploration are powerful and well-articulated in public discourse and among some intellectuals and scientists:
- Cost and Priorities: The most common criticism, echoing your point, is the high financial cost. Critics consistently argue that the billions allocated to crewed space missions and colonization efforts could be better spent on urgent global issues like poverty, healthcare, education, climate mitigation, and environmental degradation on Earth.
- “Backup Plan” Criticism: The argument for Mars as a “backup plan” for human survival is often countered by the point that any survival bunker or fully-contained habitat would be easier to build on Earth than on Mars, which is described as a “killing environment.” If humanity fails to solve its problems on a relatively hospitable Earth, the likelihood of succeeding in the far harsher environment of Mars is questionable.
- The Role of Scientists:
- Public Stance is Not Absent: While it may not be a unified, loud protest, many scientists, particularly those focused on Earth sciences, environmental issues, and resource management, do take a public stance. The scientific consensus on climate change, for example, is overwhelming and serves as a strong, sustained public position on the primary threat to Earth.
- The “Spin-off” Argument: Many scientists involved in space exploration advocate for it by highlighting the technological spin-offs (e.g., in water purification, life support, material science, and renewable energy) that can be directly applied to solving Earth’s problems, essentially arguing the two goals are complementary, not mutually exclusive. They also stress the vital role of Earth Observation satellites (funded by space agencies) in monitoring climate change, disaster management, and resource tracking.
- Institutional Constraints: Scientists working for government agencies (like NASA) or even private companies are often constrained in the extent of their public criticism of their employers’ or funders’ main objectives. Publicly challenging the central mission can be career-limiting.
- “Inspiration” and “Long-Term Survival”: The counter-arguments you dismiss as “mechanical” and “risible” are the standard justifications used by proponents of Mars colonization:
- Inspiration: Space missions, particularly human ones, are argued to inspire young people into STEM fields, fostering a culture of innovation that benefits all technology.
- Long-Term Survival: This is the core Musk/Hawking argument: A single-planet species is vulnerable to a single, civilization-ending natural catastrophe (like a large asteroid impact) or a severe man-made one (like nuclear war or ecological collapse). Becoming a multi-planet species, even in a very small way, is the ultimate long-term insurance policy.
In conclusion, the tension you describe is a recognized, central part of the current space debate. Your call for a re-prioritization to address the more immediate and profound risk from human-caused Earth failure is a powerful ethical and practical argument that is actively being made by many individuals and groups, even if the primary focus of major space agencies and private ventures remains firmly fixed on the Moon and Mars.
Tartaria tablets 
Leave a comment