Comment by sown | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sown | Hacker News Reader

You know what's terrifying to me about colonization? The chance of failure. It just seems...more probable. In the Americas there were numerous failed colonies. The Virginia company's Jamestown had half the colonist die in the first year, and 400 replacements came but by 1610 there were only 65 or so left alive. On Mars, there isn't a blade of grass, a gasp of air, and perhaps not many drinks of water waiting for us.

It'd be agonizing to read or watch daily reports (if we're allowed to see them) about colonists dying of starvation, thirst or asphyxiation (or something else!), one by one until the transmissions simply stopped. I know these are the risks but that doesn't lessen the dread when it happens.

One thing that reminds me is The Lady Be Good, a WW2 plane crashed in the Libyan desert. A few of the crew members wandered off. The co-pilot's last diary entry is kind of chilling (http://ladybegood.net/diaries/index.htm): " No help yet, very (unreadable) cold nite."

Do you agonize over the fact that 90 people died today in car accidents in the US? About a 1/3 are related to drunk driving.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...

Someday when 90 people die on Mars, people will say we should never have gone. The incredible loss of life...

There are 7 billion people on the planet and we're all going to be dead in about 100 years. Stop being afraid.

There's a lot of americans that have bad blood with the space program; deaths in a colonization program would just fuel them.

I'm pretty sure the number of deaths doesn't matter either. Only a few people died in the boston bombings and that didn't stop the entire country from turning upside down over it for a few weeks.

That's why I think that China, given time, might be in a better position for Mars colonization. Democracy is afraid of bold moves in space, while the Chinese regime will see it as a long-term chance to bolster it's position in the eyes of common people.

The willingness for a ordinary Chinese man to see his sons die in car crashes, wars or terraformed planets is exactly the same as it is for any other ordinary father anywhere else and anywhen.

Just because governments may be willing to advance on a wave of bodies, does not make it something the population will tolerate, or for long.

But democracy is just government. Americans might still take the initiative to colonize Mars with or without the United States helping them along.

>There are 7 billion people on the planet and we're all going to be dead in about 100 years. Stop being afraid.

I think this could be applied to a lot of things. Great little nugget of wisdom.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that this is totally irrelevant to any real individual's world view: Why should the fact that people die and suffer make death and suffering somehow things to be ignored?

I stopped riding motorcycles because the knowledge of the risk I was taking became too much. But if we simply say "well, people die, we'll all be dead soon enough," not only do we give ourselves license to simply ignore a whole lot of awful things that either should change or could change our perspective, we throw out the logic we'd otherwise sensibly apply to our own lives.

Most of us make enough poor decisions as it is without the additional rationalization "none of it matters in the long term anyway."

> There are 7 billion people on the planet and we're all going to be dead in about 100 years. Stop being afraid.

I never said we shouldn't go. You did not refute my central point. Instead, you seem to be implying that I am saying we shouldn't go because of my fear of the danger which is tantamount to calling me a coward. I don't know why you would say such a mean thing. :(

Those are the risks. It would be naïve of us to completely disregard them no matter how exciting the news of colonization would be. The moon landing, for example, almost didn't happen at the last minute due to some unforeseen (yet masterfully handled) issues during the landing itself.

I don't think (hopefully avoided) disasters will keep future colonists from following in the footsteps of their predecessors. After all, look how many people perished reaching the poles or climbing Everest. They do it because want to, not necessarily because they can or because it's safe.

> They do it because want to, not necessarily because they can or because it's safe.

I think they'd do it for the money some how. In the Americas, that was mostly the motivation for the Virginia Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company were commercial ventures. People went to Jamestown hoping to find gold. Eventually word got out that the survival rate was in the very low double-digit percentage and they had to start offering people large tracts of land. Eventually the colonies started to export tobacco back to Europe and the tax revenues generated was always welcome.

If those colonists go, it'll because they're dying to get rich.

I can't deny some of the drive for exploration is financially driven, but you'll find no shortage of volunteers just to claim the bragging rights. Then, of course there's an entire legion of folks ready to do anything for God and Country, so plenty of volunteers there too.

And plenty of people who want the freedom to be found in establishing a new frontier and leaving old institutions and constraints behind.

> If those colonists go, it'll because they're dying to get rich.

I'm not sure if awesome puns are allowed on HN, but I upvoted you anyway.

By "the moon landing" do you mean the first? There have been six manned moon landings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Manned_Moon_landi...

OTOH, most seventeenth-century colonists got on ships expecting their existing knowledge of agriculture, medicine, construction, diplomacy, warfare, etc. to be as applicable in the new world as it was in the old.

But we already know that Mars can't naturally sustain human life, and that colonists will need to build and maintain self-contained systems to grow food, clean water, recycle/dispose of waste, protect them from the elements, etc. And we already know how Mars differs from Earth in available solar energy and atmospheric composition; we understand in advance what resources might be extracted from Martian rock and soil.

So we can prototype Martian survival systems in advance, and simulate them, prior to actually going to Mars, something that seventeenth-century colonists not only lacked the means to do, but which likely never even occurred to most of them in the first place.

I'm sure there will still be "unknown unknowns" for the colonists to deal with, but I doubt that the risk exposure will be quite as life-or-death as the Jamestown or Roanoke colonists' was.

I think complacency and assurance of success played a role in the failures of early colonies. Did people really know it would be that hard? Certainly in the case of colonizing Mars, people will know about the lack of air, water, etc, and will rigorously prepare for them, with more advanced technology to boot. All things considered, I feel a Martian colonization effort today has a much better chance of success than the early American colonies. Not guaranteed, but better.

Strangely, there's probably a huge amount of people who would love nothing more than to have all of that attention and then die on mars with everyone watching.

Mars does have a risk that the early settlers didn't have though, which is an instantaneous death of the entire community due to some type of life support system failure. That would be extremely heartbreaking.

I'd hope that by the time there's attempts at a major colony on Mars, we'd be smart enough to set up multiple redundant systems for everything even if it costs more...

Is it worse for the survivors to be able to talk with a person facing certain death, or is it better to just find out that the person died?

Anyone signing up for this will understand the risks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com