Piwin -> RE: Mars, do we really need to go there? (Feb. 3 2025 11:01:03)
|
Probably nay for now. Most of what we would do on Mars can be done equally well on the Moon, for a fraction of the cost. So, I would start there, figure out what we need to figure out, and then over time, as a result of doing that, the costs for manned Mars exploration should drop considerably, at which point, sure, why not. But I'm European of course. It's a somewhat grounded stereotype that overall we tend to be more risk-averse than our North-American counterparts. I don't see Musk as being a particularly central figure. SpaceX's achievements are considerable, but, as far as I can tell, so far they seem to have little to do with manned Mars exploration, and even less so with establishing a durable presence there. They may be a part of the puzzle, but it's a pretty damn big puzzle. Big enough that it will almost certainly be institutionally-led. Which is why debates over priorities are perfectly justified: it doesn't matter whose sticker is on the ship; tax-payer money will be funding most of it. If there is a necessary trade-off, then I can only hope the other end of that trade-off is something like weaponry rather than deep sea research, which is already cruelly underfunded. Either way, relying on the statements of a single businessman to chart a course to Mars strikes me as a rather ditsy idea. About as ditsy as relying on a fictional Netflix show to accurately predict the future of space exploration. As for incentives, I'd imagine if we reach further back than history, the line between exploration and migration blurs quite a bit. I wouldn't be all that surprised if more trivial and relatable factors, like not getting along with your in-laws or whatever, were more common causes of "exploration" than we tend to think. At that scale, the commercial incentive may turn out to be the exception rather than the rule. Nonetheless, we've been stuck on that exception for so long that it's hard to imagine how it could be any other way. In my own experience, in polite society, to suggest that our socio-economic patterns of organization could leverage the entire spectrum of human qualities, rather than just greed, is to be branded as an idealistic simpleton. So goes it. That being the case, assuming the status quo (which admittedly is becoming harder and harder to assume with each passing day), then greed will likely be the incentive to Mars exploration. All of the above assumes some degree of rational decision-making. In the current context of fear and loathing, all bets are off. If tomorrow a tabloid publishes pictures that prove without a shadow of a doubt that Xi Jinping has bigger hands than all of the men in US government, you might be going to Mars a lot sooner than you think. As a last point, unrelated to space exploration, I'll just point out that assuming that criticisms of free trade necessarily stem from "economic illiteracy" is anachronistic. You could do that in the 90s. But if you're still doing that today, then I'm afraid you haven't followed the remarkable shift that has occurred in North American economics in the last two decades, or at the very least haven't registered its importance. The 2008 financial crisis was probably the biggest trigger in shattering that consensus, but suffice to say that they recognized that, as a profession, they had something of a "spherical cow" problem, and radically shifted away from that, in favor of more ground-up, empirically sound methods of analysis. As one of the more visible examples, Paul Krugman, one of the loudest and harshest critics of anyone who cautioned against the risks of globalization in the 90s, has famously gone on something of a penance tour starting in the early 2010s, acknowledging that they had vastly underestimated the negative effects free trade would have on labor markets and apologizing to many of those he had previously maligned. Within limits of course: he still believes he will be proven right in the long run, but thinks he failed to consider the short-term effects. By "short-term", he means things that have been happening for several decades now... None of that is to say that protectionism is the answer, nor should it be taken as support for current policies. In fact, I suspect that, used as a generalized blunt instrument, it will only worsen the effects that free trade, used as a generalized blunt instrument, had in its time. Krugman thinks so as well. His line of reasoning is temporal. He believes that the harmful effects of globalization, which he failed to predict, are largely behind us now, that economies are now functioning on the assumption of free trade, and so any reversal of that would just generate further harm. But in some ways, the shift in economics wasn't about free trade, but rather about universalist principles. They simply came to realize that economics isn't physics, and that, no matter how elegant the math, it is simply not the case that what works in one specific area will necessarily work in another specific area. And the focus on "macro" without considering what happens at the local level can lead to faulty analyses. Autor, Dorn and Hanson's 2013 paper on the impact of Chinese imports on US labor markets was a good example of this. I don't think anyone serious has dismissed their work as somehow misinformed. On the contrary, it was welcomed as precious insight, a contribution that only more local, ground-up studies could provide and that "macro" studies would necessarily miss. In that context, dismissing the negative effects of free trade because of some association with whichever political opponents you happen to have strikes me as rather misguided. If you can't stand Sanders, Trump, etc. then take it up with Krugman. Or with any economist for that matter, minus the morons that populate the halls of the Hoover Institute. From the perspective of the current consensus in economics (to the extent that there is one), saying "I'm pro free trade" or "I'm pro protectionism" as a generalized position that applies across the board is no longer a tenable position IMHO. Whatever our political inclinations happen to be, we shouldn't ignore what the scholarly, technical literature has to say, even when it's uncertain of itself and rapidly shifting. You can still argue for the 90s view of free trade of course. You just can't dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as economically illiterate. Not anymore. edit: after a trip to the Amazon last year, I can think of one good reason to go to Mars. An entire planet without a single bug on it...
|
|
|
|