-
Five Questions about Mars Colonization as "backup" for Earth (for people who think it's an obviously good idea but maybe haven't thought it all the way through) …
-
0. Are we talking about "backing up" the biosphere or human life here?
-
1. What is your threat model for things that "take down" Earth? Do any of them actually leave, for example, Antarctica less habitable than Mars?
-
2. Is there an "existential threat" to Earth that actually leaves the planet with fewer than 1 million people somewhere on Earth? If not, isn't Earth itself a superior backup than even the most wildly optimistic Mars colony?
-
3. What share of living humans / species constitute a "backup" that is independently viable? What is the level of industrial, agricultural, and medical infrastructure required to survive without Earth?
-
[Side question] 3a. Would creating and transporting said infrastructure meaningfully tip the balance towards ecological catastrophe here on Earth?
-
4. What share of living humans / species would have to be saved to meaningfully mitigate the loss of our home planet?
-
5. What would a "restore from backup" strategy look like? And how would Mars be a better staging ground than say McMurdo Station plus seed banks and zoological parks? Better than the moon? In other words, why backup to Mars?
-
I obviously have opinions on these, but I'm more interested in listening than arguing… @Robotbeat @OmanReagan @leashless @elonmusk @luismen1991
-
The implicit theory behind my questions: There are many ways to envision a back up for planetary catastrophe. But...
-
Most circumstances will push you to design one that is closer, even on the planet.
-
Two motives won't: selling rockets and a cultural imperative for expansion.