because space is more than us and it isn't us. It gives us a non-nation based activity to pursue that is greater than the whole of earth. It represents new frontier, new resources and ways of thinking that transcend this planet. It is a form of evolution and of freedom that isn't shackled so much by our self-made problems of earth.
There are new mistakes to make and that's super appealing.
We can't even cope with the environmental issues that we have on our own planet, so we avoid that and instead look to plaguing the rest of the solar system and beyond? Good grief.
You could have said the same thing about literally any exploratory initiative since humans first started using tools 50 000 years ago. Spending some tiny portion of resources expanding the scope of human presence does not preclude attacking more immediate challenges.
Are you suggesting that not going to Mars will solve all our environmental problems? This isn't an either-or question.
If we really wanted to, there's no reason we couldn't do both and they're is a blocking issue for the other and some of the technology and science for both are complementary (planetary science, solar and battery technology, environmental control, automation).
I personally would vote in favor of putting space exploration on hold until we get a handle on the quickly accelerating environmental disaster we humans have set up that seems that it may just wipe ourselves out.
Personally.
One needs beauty in the world, yes, but one also needs to breathe.
This doesn't make any sense though, as there's no reason they should be exclusive priorities. I, personally, would vote in favor of putting many things on hold until we increase humanity's resilience to catastrophic events by settling on other planets, but I recognize that priorities aren't mutually exclusive.
Anyway, what's the point of focusing all efforts on Earth if human civilization is going to die out here anyway? That's the path we're currently on, and stopping space exploration isn't going to magically fix that. Wanting other baskets for the egg of human civilization is just pragmatism.
Environmentalists will never be satisfied. There is always something to improve.
If humanity dies or goes pre-industrial because someone engineered a supervirus and we refused to put effort into space travel, all our conservation efforts won't really matter much.
Yeah, we're going to plague a bunch of inanimate objects, and defile the sanctity of the asteroid belt. It amuses me that "atheists" have decided life itself is a plague threatening some great holy Natural-Universe. Your distaste for the people around you is showing.
Dunno if you've heard, but this Universe is condemned. In about a hundred trillion years it'll run out of hydrogen and burn out. Might as well enjoy it while we can.
It's not the technology to tackle environmental issues that is lacking, it's the political will. Not going to space doesn't magically solve the problem of entrenched carbon-emitting interests having the power to block a short-term mandatory transition to renewable energy.
Given that, it absolutely makes sense to colonize space, as Mars can't be ruined in the same way that we're ruining Earth, and the petroleum mining industry won't be coming along for the ride.
What if space based Earth science is what it takes to solve our environmental issues? Sagan's Blue Marble has done more for environmental preservation than decades of armchair environmental activism.
Research is needed, it's hard to predict, and Development for space forces the movement of practical, envelope pushing movement of research and theory into at some hard problem solving in ways that just more research doesn't accomplish.
Space isn't solely responsible for solar cells, but I can't help but note these entries in the timeline.
1950s - Bell Labs produce solar cells for space activities.
1954 - On April 25, 1954, Bell Labs announces the invention of the first practical silicon solar cell
1958 - T. Mandelkorn, U.S. Signal Corps Laboratories, creates n-on-p silicon solar cells, which are more resistant to radiation damage and are better suited for space. Hoffman Electronics creates 9% efficient solar cells. Vanguard I, the first solar powered satellite, was launched with a 0.1W, 100 cm² solar panel.
Would the solar cell technology we enjoy today have developed as quickly or at all with that little extra push of space investment to move it along? Would the research ever have ended up as practical without hard engineering problems to solve along the way?
I think you'll find similar connections for fuel cells, and battery tech. You see metals research now which is applicable for the space application first, but the engineering knowledge will likely get re-applied in more expanded mundane applications in due time...
