[Dr David Thork]

Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.

.. but Earthlings can become Marslings, simply by 'moving house'.

In the words of the Duke of Wellington ...

just because you are born in a stable does not make you a horse

[AATW]

Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.

A name that basically no-one uses.

Should New-Yorkers live in New York all their lives?

[Dr David Thork]

Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.

A name that basically no-one uses.

Should New-Yorkers live in New York all their lives?

That would be better for everyone.


... ah this is upper fora ...

Ok, I think creatures evolved on earth should live in the environment they are best suited. I wouldn't advocate draining the sea to make it habitable for scorpions and snakes.

[AATW]

Ok, I think creatures evolved on earth should live in the environment they are best suited. I wouldn't advocate draining the sea to make it habitable for scorpions and snakes.

We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.
Moving to a new planet would merely be an extension of that. Quite a big extension, admittedly.

[Dr David Thork]

We also have environmental laws.

You can't just build a city in Antarctica just because we have the technology. You can't build on greenbelt land. You can't build on designated areas of natural beauty. Why wouldn't Mars be designated an area of outstanding natural beauty? Why is it ok to terraform it and turn it into a shit hole?

[Pete Svarrior]

We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.

>humans are not really evolved to live in the (more or less) place of origin of humans

That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.

[AATW]

That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.

*sigh*.

The general point you are pretending not to understand for some reason is that humans currently live in regions where without the technology to build shelter and clothes and other ways to moderate the temperature they wouldn't be able to. Maybe Yakutsk is a better example.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/10604877/In-pictures-Yakutsk-in-Russia-the-coldest-city-on-Earth.html

[AATW]

Why is it ok to terraform it and turn it into a shit hole?

Well, given that it cannot currently sustain complex life, as far as we know, it's debatable how much damage we can actually do.

[markjo]

Since when is the desire to explore and learn considered a vice?

When you're wasting resources to "explore" a place that you already know is a barren wasteland, then it is in fact a vice, especially when your exploration efforts cost billions of dollars in an era where we are already hopelessly in debt.

It seems to me that they're discovering that Mars might not be as barren a wasteland as they once thought.  Besides, doesn't it seem prudent to thoroughly explore a planet that you hope to colonize some day?  Or do you think that humans should stay a one planet species?

Don't use weasel words like 'human'.

Do I think Earthlings should live on earth? Well now the clue is in the name.

Huh?  Since when is 'human' a weasel word? 

[markjo]

We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.

>humans are not really evolved to live in the (more or less) place of origin of humans

That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.

Interesting.  I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.

[AATW]

We are not really evolved to live in Dubai, but we have the technology to make life there bearable.

>humans are not really evolved to live in the (more or less) place of origin of humans

That's... quite a claim you've got there. I guess Paleolithic technology must have been amazing.

Interesting.  I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.

Then we invented the parasol and moved to Dubai.
Point was, and remains, we have colonised parts of the planet that would could have had we not had the technology to do so.

[Pete Svarrior]

The general point you are pretending not to understand

I'm not pretending not to understand anything. I just don't like people believing in things for the wrong reasons, even if I don't dispute their actual conviction.

Have humans spread to places they wouldn't otherwise have been able to live thanks to technological advances? Eh, arguably - it's not the craziest or most controversial of claims. Bit malformed, but I can guess roughly what you're getting at.

Is the fact that humans live in Dubai a good reason to believe it? Absolutely not - hominids inhabited the Persian Gulf before Steve Jobs even invented humans.

Yakutsk is slightly less wrong, but still ridiculously wrong, unless you think that Neolitic technological advances were particularly relevant here.

Interesting.  I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.

That's okay. We're used to you thinking things that are simply incorrect.

[edby]

Interesting.  I thought that humans evolved in the plains of Eastern or Central Africa, not the Middle-eastern desert.

That's okay. We're used to you thinking things that are simply incorrect.

Reference please.

[AATW]

Yakutsk is slightly less wrong, but still ridiculously wrong, unless you think that Neolitic technological advances were particularly relevant here.

Well, given that according to the definition of Neolithic
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/neolithic

Anthropology. of, relating to, or characteristic of the last phase of the Stone Age, marked by the domestication of animals, the development of agriculture, and the manufacture of pottery and textiles: commonly thought to have begun c9000–8000 b.c. in the Middle East.Compare Mesolithic, Paleolithic.

Yes I do. If by technology you think I mean rad air-conditioning or cosy central heating then obviously we were able to survive in inhospitable climates before that - although it's notable that Dubai didn't become a major city until the invention of air-conditioning.
Even the ability to start and control fire - something which goes back hundreds of thousands of years:
https://www.history.com/news/human-ancestors-tamed-fire-earlier-than-thought
Is something I'd regard as a 'technology' necessary to survive in those climates. I'm using the word in the loosest possible terms.

[Pete Svarrior]

although it's notable that Dubai didn't become a major city until the invention of air-conditioning

It's not notable, and it's not true. Dubai was still a relatively small city at the time of electrical air conditioning becoming commonplace. It was, however, also a relatively large city for its times long before the invention of electrical aircon - it was an important port, after all.

Its population really started to skyrocket in 1968 (many decades after the invention of electrical aircon), when the main source of income changed from pearls to oil.

[Rushy]

I guess all of those major middle eastern cities simply appeared overnight after the air conditioner was invented and certainly haven't existed for several thousand years.

[AATW]

Ah, the old FE tactic of deliberately missing the point and derailing the thread.
The point was, and remains, we have developed technologies which allow us to survive in climates where we wouldn't otherwise be able to.
So why not Mars.
Well, to answer my own question there I'm not sure if our technology is quite that advanced yet, but people live in space for fairly long periods of time which is not the most hospitable climate, so in principle...

[Pete Svarrior]

The point was, and remains, we have developed technologies which allow us to survive in climates where we wouldn't otherwise be able to.

You haven't substantiated that point. The best you've got so far is that sometimes we've come up with technology that allowed us to increase the population density of areas we already survived in - and that's ignoring the fact that your premises and conclusions are entirely disconnected.

Well, to answer my own question there I'm not sure if our technology is quite that advanced yet, but people live in space for fairly long periods of time which is not the most hospitable climate, so in principle...

Your principle is that we can supposedly send big metal boxes full of air into space. Let's entertain the idea for a moment. Why would we bother landing them on Mars? What benefit is there from chunking these eternal prisons onto a planet? They might as well just float around the Earth - easier to resupply.

[AATW]

This started when Thork suggested that as humans are from earth we should stay on earth.
I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.
We have the technology to survive in environments which we wouldn't naturally survive in so why shouldn't we go to Mars, if we have the technology?
Your question seems to be "why should we". Well, in the spirit of adventure I guess. Why go to the Poles or climb Everest? There's no actual "need" to do these things.
There is a school of thought that long term it's the only way we survive as a species because we'll probably bugger up this planet so much we won't be able to stay here, or a massive meteorite will come and do to us what it apparently did to the dinosaurs. For now though, I think it would be worth doing for the same reason we went to the moon "not because they are easy but because they are hard" (and yes, a big poke in the eye to those pesky Ruskies).
I don't think that there is any principle that because we are from earth we should stay here.

[Pete Svarrior]

This started when Thork suggested that as humans are from earth we should stay on earth.
I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.

But these are completely incomparable. I can stop being in New York simply by walking to Jersey, and I'll be completely fine. Well, mostly fine. I'll be in Jersey.

We have the technology to survive in environments which we wouldn't naturally survive in so why shouldn't we go to Mars, if we have the technology?

You still need to substantiate that assertion. We have the technology to make life better in harsh environments, and we supposedly have the technology that lets us put a liveable environment in a big box. Neither of these translate into a technology that lets us meaningfully colonise Mars. Again, if you're just imagining a crapton of biodomes like in sci-fi movies - cut the middle-man, plonk them in orbit around the Earth. The outside will be deadly either way, so who needs a planet?

I don't think that there is any principle that because we are from earth we should stay here.

Again, I don't necessarily completely disagree with what you're trying to argue. But blimey, the reasons you're presenting are way off.