●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bymi( 197448 ) writes:
Before a human walks on Mars, there ought to be some humans born in Antarctica [wikipedia.org] — an environment much more welcoming to our species than the red planet.
Yeah, it is only a continent, not a planet, but it is so much easier to get to and live on, that there really is no excuse to go to Mars, until Antarctica (as well as Siberia, Australian Outback, Sahara and other deserts, American Midwest, Canadian woods) are settled to a population density exceeding 1 finger per square mile.
Mars is fascinating, but a
byrtb61 ( 674572 ) writes:
Can't reach out into the rest of the galaxy without getting to Mars first. Also space colonies, moon colonies and, asteroid colonies, even flying permanent habitation Arcs to explore the rest of the galaxy. So more space for the cheetos crowd to breed in intoxicated boredom, not so much. A better future for those who reach out for it, that makes a lot more sense. Worrying about whether or not completely tastesless and useless poseurs can pose about with their resources wasting and pointless pollution gener
byswb ( 14022 ) writes:
So keeping the economy turning on space development rather than useless shit for the rich and greedy, is a much sounder investment in our shared resources.
I kind of like that argument, not that I think it will sway anyone, but it does strike me that the current economic environment (or at least the stage-managed debate about it) is structured around an argument which is based around the dichotomy of haves vs. have nots, of which both sides can make more or less reasonable claims and which seems to have no solution satisfactory to either side.
Helping the have nots carries moral weight, but its complete lack of demonstrated progress undermines it as ineffective, wasteful and in some manner an unjust taking, even if the objections to it seem cynical and only based around the desire for gluttonous consumption.
Spending that money on space travel seems to escape the dichotomy somewhat and might even be argued to be more broadly economically beneficial in the long run.
Parent
twitter
facebook
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...