BBC Focus Magazine

[Shadowwolf]

In the opinion piece “Mars can wait. Oceans can’t,” published recently on CNN.com, Amitai Etzioni says that we should defer Mars exploration because the seas have a higher priority. While I have the highest regard for ocean exploration, the fact of the matter is that there are numerous agencies – including the U.S. Navy, the navies of other countries, academic institutions, research organizations, corporations and James Cameron personally – that are more than adequately financed and equipped to carry it out.

The idea that we need to suspend space exploration in order to provide the necessary resources to probe the oceans is categorically absurd. So let’s call it like it is: The argument that we should explore the oceans instead of space is not a call to search the seas, but simply a disingenuous way to give up our effort to reach the Red Planet.

But why should we try? There are three reasons.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/23/why-we-shouldnt-wait-to-go-to-mars/?hpt=hp_c2

So does Zubrin make a good case, should we be making a better effort to get out there than we are or should we forget about such stuff beyond the odd robotic mission to focus on Terra and the oceans?

[M Paul Lloyd]

The irony of all this is the fact that we seem to want private enterprise to fund space exploration when the likley retuns are minimal to zero and in fact the deep oceans has more potential returns for investors whilst we should be putting public money into exploring Mars and beyond.

I think any environmental concerns are simply going to get swallowed up in our desperate struggle for the planets diminishing resources.

[KingPhillip]

1. It is a platitude to cite Columbus "exploring" as analogous to exploring Mars.

2. The support Espana gave, instead of Italia, was political in nature.

3. "We" is quite exclusionary at this point in time. We are quite collaborative globally in many other scientific endeavours. Thus, public support should be withheld until and unless "war", "power", and "control" are removed from the premise of "exploring" Mars. Given our human nature, that is unlikely to happen.

If it's knowledge we seek, that can be transmitted via robotics. Cosmologists gain knowledge in similar fashion, through photons from the distant past. Experiments in Earth labs confirm, refute or further our understanding.

If it's challenge we seek, humans are the doors that slam shut on such ventures. We train, we exploit, we give out pharmaceuticals and we'll never be assured the crew we send out will survive, thereby upping the cost and the challenge.

There's probably a saying about the future will always be there in front of us. We can take small steps or giant strides. We are too encumbered now and risk tripping, stumbling and falling by taking strides.

Economic stimulus seems sensible. That can be accomplished without human exploration of Mars.

[M Paul Lloyd]

"We" is quite exclusionary at this point in time.

When I say "We" I accept that I have excluded a large part of the human population but equally I cannot see how the starving of Africa (or where ever) will benefit from deep ocean exploration any more than they will from our exploits on other planets, be that human or robotic?

Thing is if we continue to restrict ourselves to living on this small rock we call home then we are doomed, the human population will keep on expanding and technology will find ways to cope with that increase until such time as all the resources are used up and every square foot of the globe is occupied... and then what? If all our efforts have been invested in survival on our overcrowded world what will be left for us to build a fleet of spaceships with? Well as I see it we won't have anything, we will in effect be bankrupt and teetering on the verge of a mass extinction that could propel us back to a new stoneage.

I am convinced that humans have a destiny that goes way beyond the Earth and even beyond our own solar system. It won't happen overnight but it will in time and I don't think that staying in our own back yard is at all healthy.. in my opinion of course.

[Shadowwolf]

I tend to agree with the good Mr M, we do nothing but faff about this rock and we may well find ourselves well behind the curve if serious problems arise.

I don't think that public support should be withheld until war, power etc. have been removed because that seems highly unlikely given what humans are, besides, it is not as if politicians engage in war and power struggles always contrary to the public, they often enthusiastically support them. There is no homogeneous entity of a pacific public to withhold their necessary support until the politicians meet the requirements; some are against the idea and others are for it. Public opinion when negative, as best as I can tell, is often largely motivated by an overly cursory and short sighted fixation on program costs and what risks they personally would or would not find acceptable. Thus we get the call to instead spend the money on feeding poor people - but not reduce the defence budgets - and ignore the people who are prepared to take a gamble. It would help if the actual comparatively low cost could be effectively communicated along with the idea that risk is okay for those prepared to take it.

Whilst robots can do some of it, the point was that they are at least currently not as proficient as people are and lack the fine discernment people can bring which is why projects like Galaxy Zoo use people instead of computational analysis. Whilst cosmologists make do with probes and sensors that's partly because they have no choice in the matter, it's not like they have the object of their interest right beside them.

I myself don't see basic Mars exploration as a particularly great stride, to me it is one of those small steps. We've sent the probes and we have the technology, seems like the next small step is to put boots on the ground.

As for his use of 'New World' I think it was just a useful if perhaps poor choice to convey a general concept and too much should probably not be read into it.