Does Humanity Lack Cognitive Capacity For Settling Mars?

[cronus]

Went to the moon decades ago and never been back despite global industrial civilization doubling in size. Got a problem with space? Frightened monkey disease?

[PsychoSerenity]

A large proportion of humans, certainly, that could only dare to risk it in order to triumph over another group of monkeys. But humanity as a whole is still progressing. We'll get there. I'd like to see the chimp that could hold back Brian Blessed from going to Mars if he had the opportunity.

[pErvinalia]

Capitalism. If there's no reasonably short term gain in it, it won't happen for a very long time.

As an aside, I've been thinking about offering myself as a one way passenger to Mars. That's the kind of suicide I could commit. And do something for science to boot.

[Drewish]

Capitalism. If there's no reasonably short term gain in it, it won't happen for a very long time.

As an aside, I've been thinking about offering myself as a one way passenger to Mars. That's the kind of suicide I could commit. And do something for science to boot.

Last time I checked, governments were cutting back on space exploration and wealthy businessmen were ramping up their efforts. Turns out that disfunctional bureaucratic governments are run by politicians who don't think farther than the next election because that's what democracy does, plays to the dumb shits with lots of kids. Capitalism however creates super rich, who then fund big budget vanity projects, which is exactly what space travel is right now. But please, I enjoy seeing people try to blame capitalism for everything they dislike on these forums. Gives me an excuse to educate people.

[pErvinalia]

Governments are cutting back because of pressures from libertarians and neoliberals to cut spending programs. Particularly ones that don't benefit the economy in a short time frame. You can't separate the two. Government and business are fully in bed now. We are basically corporatocracies. You can't blame "democracy".

And honestly, I find it very hard to justify giving some squillionare more money so they can persue vanity projects, many of which won't benefit much at all other than their own egos (just look at one Aussie millionaire (or is he a billionaire now?), member of parliament Clive Palmer whose vanity project is building a full scale titanic replica, and I think he also wants to resurrect dinosaurs or something). Sorry, but you don't leave humanity's future in the hands of some vain wankstains who have no concept of what it's like to be an actual moral empathetic citizen.

Libertarianism belongs in the 1890's. I don't need to be educated about yesteryear's juvenile failed ideology.

[Drewish]

I'm not the one who brought up capitalism. And governments are cutting it because they're strapped for cash. Libertarians would of course push to end drug war expenses, military spending, and welfare first. Or maybe I should just say, "Booga booga!" since apparently I'm the boogie man.

[FBM]

As to the OP, I think it's very clear that we have the cognitive capacity wrt the technology. We so far lack motivation, which is a very different thing.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not the one who brought up capitalism. And governments are cutting it because they're strapped for cash.

Because of structural deficits (i.e. ideologically low taxation rates). Your argument is circular. It's capitalism 101. Profit is the driving force. It's basically an evolutionary system. The system selects for the greatest ability to make profit. Owning government IS the greatest tool in making profit.

[Drewish]

Apparently so. So they like to express other's imagined positions.

[pErvinalia]

[mistermack]

There's no point in settling Mars. None whatsoever. It's fundamentally unsuitable to long-term habitation.
It will be useful for obtaining raw materials, and short term habitation but that's all. You can't live in one-third gravity for long periods without serious harm to your health, or raise children in less that one g.
I suppose you could experiment with lead clothing to reduce the effect of low gravity. It might stop some of the cosmic rays.

I still say that the moon is the big stepping stone, not Mars. Once you have the technology to extract materials from the moon, and manufacture things in space, you've conquered the problem we have at the moment, of the cost of launching hardware into space.

With technology like 3D printers, the prospect of making and maintaining stuff in space is getting a lot closer.
I think people will start looking at the Moon again shortly. Especially now that the Chinese are showing an interest.
After all, the space race WAS a race. It was the Russians that the yanks were racing, and that's why the progress has slowed, as the Russians have stopped racing.

If the Chinese go to the Moon, you can bet that the Americans will want to beat whatever they do.

[laklak]

The vast majority of humanity lacks the cognitive capacity to pick their noses and walk at the same time.

[cronus]

Yes

Whilst giving up the space shuttle can be rationalised away - economics, safety and so forth. It is still eerily reminiscent of what the Soviet Empire did before collapse. Mankind is giving up on space beyond fantasy depictions. I'd go further. It is looking inwards so much that, along with climate change making agriculture unpredictable, it risks returning to its stone age roots over the next few centuries. Sometimes the doctor has to tell you bad news.

[cronus]

Humanity is almost certainly suffering from terminal stupidity as a species and yet claims the stars as a birthright. At least that claim proves the point.

[pErvinalia]

What is "cognitive capacity" anyway? Sounds like some salad you made up. We've definitely got the cognitive skills to get to the planets/stars, what we lack is the social organisation (at present) to do it. That of course ties back to individual cognitive deficits, but segwaying into that recent thread of mine, perhaps failed social organisation is an emergent property of lots of individual social beings. How the fuck do we change emergent properties, if "we" are individuals who don't have access to the means necessary to change properties of a higher level of abstraction/organisation?