Used to be people just joined the French Foreign Legion.
Many a man would leave his wife and four kids for a pack of cigarettes or a nice cigar.
The comments over there make you wonder how we ever made it out of living in mud huts and crapping in the same streams we get drinking water from.
Items like this, about people eager to participate in the suicide-mission that would likely be any trip to Mars, suggest that what’s operating is less a type of pioneer vision than the sort of grandiosity that led to Jonestown.
People bitch about NASA being risk adverse and then ridicule anyone who isn’t.
Which brings up the details in the question of why go to mars (or anyplace else for that matter?) My proposal answers that question… to IMPROVE the quality of life. That doesn’t happen if you send dependants (not talking about the wife and children but the actual colonist) with no resources. Instead send people that are immediately wealthy and independent on arrival, Not just property but the contractual resources they bring with them.
Don’t send four every 26 months. Send dozen including complete families (no minors at first) every launch window with enough resources to pursue there own independent dreams. Like most of humanity not everyone will fill their dreams like Elon but will find some niche to fill. But some will use their resources to build empires.
re: another thread: That people can’t see this is the answer to the Fermi paradox. The solution to the Peter principle is that some people leave unfulfilling jobs to build new companies. Someday people will leave earth to do the same. Not everybody that leaves a job builds a new company but those that do usually had other jobs that trained them first.
re: and another: This is no different than people considering capitalism evil. Somebody has to do it and show others that claiming land is a good thing that improves everybodies life… not just the claimants.
Used to be people just joined the French Foreign Legion.
Many a man would leave his wife and four kids for a pack of cigarettes or a nice cigar.
The comments over there make you wonder how we ever made it out of living in mud huts and crapping in the same streams we get drinking water from.
Items like this, about people eager to participate in the suicide-mission that would likely be any trip to Mars, suggest that what’s operating is less a type of pioneer vision than the sort of grandiosity that led to Jonestown.
People bitch about NASA being risk adverse and then ridicule anyone who isn’t.
Which brings up the details in the question of why go to mars (or anyplace else for that matter?) My proposal answers that question… to IMPROVE the quality of life. That doesn’t happen if you send dependants (not talking about the wife and children but the actual colonist) with no resources. Instead send people that are immediately wealthy and independent on arrival, Not just property but the contractual resources they bring with them.
Don’t send four every 26 months. Send dozen including complete families (no minors at first) every launch window with enough resources to pursue there own independent dreams. Like most of humanity not everyone will fill their dreams like Elon but will find some niche to fill. But some will use their resources to build empires.
re: another thread: That people can’t see this is the answer to the Fermi paradox. The solution to the Peter principle is that some people leave unfulfilling jobs to build new companies. Someday people will leave earth to do the same. Not everybody that leaves a job builds a new company but those that do usually had other jobs that trained them first.
re: and another: This is no different than people considering capitalism evil. Somebody has to do it and show others that claiming land is a good thing that improves everybodies life… not just the claimants.
It’s immoral that we aren’t doing it.