Do not let them mislead you. I think the CT and big Tesla is NOT about Sustainability, but it is about Thrivability (e.g., on Mars and beyond).

[Richard V.]

Do you know the definition of sustainable? If so please cite it here. Thx.

Good question!

The message I posted on Tweeter today is here:

 

[JBee]

Good question!

The message I posted on Tweeter today is here:

In the grand scheme of things sustainability means the "capacity to endure". So in other words do things that will ensure our survival and don't do things that will promote our demise.

From that perspective, given the risks involved with operating a one planet civilisation, it would be a good risk control mechanism to improve our chances of surviving by creating a multi-planetary civilisation.

The flip side of this is that we often manifest fears that never eventuate, and cause harm to those who don't share our fears, because they are not accommodating to our risk management controls. So a balance needs to be found, between identifying actual risks and what timeframe they are relevant, and proposing and building mitigation controls against those risks. In essence, do not use fear as a motivator for decisions, rather use substantative facts.

There is a hint of fight or "flight" in going multiplanetary and there's also an argument to be made that humans, and in particular their systems of fallacies, are their own worst enemy. A lot of those human induced risks are actually due to too much centralisation of power, money and resource control. So given that it expected around a million people are required on Mars to make it self sustaining (I think with the right tech it could be much less) then on earth that should be achievable with much less people. Imagine a world where the bulk of necessary products and services are produced and offered locally, without the burdens involved with trading between countries and cultures that are all currently scrambling for survival and global dominance.

 

[Richard V.]

In the grand scheme of things sustainability means the "capacity to endure". So in other words do things that will ensure our survival and don't do things that will promote our demise.

From that perspective, given the risks involved with operating a one planet civilisation, it would be a good risk control mechanism to improve our chances of surviving by creating a multi-planetary civilisation.

The flip side of this is that we often manifest fears that never eventuate, and cause harm to those who don't share our fears, because they are not accommodating to our risk management controls. So a balance needs to be found, between identifying actual risks and what timeframe they are relevant, and proposing and building mitigation controls against those risks. In essence, do not use fear as a motivator for decisions, rather use substantative facts.

There is a hint of fight or "flight" in going multiplanetary and there's also an argument to be made that humans, and in particular their systems of fallacies, are their own worst enemy. A lot of those human induced risks are actually due to too much centralisation of power, money and resource control. So given that it expected around a million people are required on Mars to make it self sustaining (I think with the right tech it could be much less) then on earth that should be achievable with much less people. Imagine a world where the bulk of necessary products and services are produced and offered locally, without the burdens involved with trading between countries and cultures that are all currently scrambling for survival and global dominance.

Hi JBee, thanks for taking the time and effort to give a definition of "sustainability" in the context of thinking about going to Mars as a risk mitigation strategy for humanity. Yes, survival of humanity at the scale of a planet like earth with billions of people is quite the challenge on its own when we think of it. Considering that every one matters equally, maintaining every life is an amazing accomplishment in itself. In my view, there is no "central office" that could manage that, nor would we want one to flatten humanity to such a level.
Over time, it has taken a very complex mix of local and non-local goods and services to give us the necessities of life and maximize the comfort for all. As we know, competing resources lead to conflicts. Surviving and living comfortably on Earth has proven to be near impossible for all of human life. Is it wrong to seek comfort and happiness? As parents, we not only want our children to be loved, safe and fed, but also to be flourishing, because we are not going to be there forever.
How would we do survive with an infinitely smaller group of people on another "new" planet and assume this new risk mitigation project would be viable? Do we do a sort of resource gap analysis to convince us that it could be attempted? This is like a young man leaving home and thinking it is going to be easy. You better be prepared young one! Going to a new planet and trying to survive there on our own is going to be a monstrous, nightmare rich mission to accomplish.
We (humans) take too many things for granted here on Earth. Life, as we know it here has become intertwined with products and services that are as diversified and rich as the abundance we have here right now. Mars has much less to offer.
Going to Mars is like saying to Tesla that they should vertically integrate to the "n" level including feeding and caring for people, not just building and maintaining Bots on Mars. The more I think of it, even doing that on Mars would be incredibly difficult. Trading between countries and cultures is so imbedded into our way of life, that not doing so would actually kill people in need of various products and services.
"Saving the planet" cannot be done by allowing people to suffer and die for ideas and/or fears of missing out of what is needed to survive. Let's not kill ourselves trying to survive with ill-formed plans. For example, the farmers in the Netherlands are facing the situation of feeding people, yet they must do it sustainably in the long term.
Going to Mars is a long shot that I believe will need to be made. In the meantime, we must be mindful about our current and future needs right here on Earth.
Lastly, "global dominance" is an ill-conceived idea of an uneducated schoolyard bully. We have to do better here on Earth, try to collaborate for the wise use of our resources and diversify by going to another planet.

 

[Richard V.]

No answers yet from Commander Chris Hatfield on whether he would go to Mars...
Bonus Arena, Hull (@bonusarenahull) / Twitter

Extract:
Referred to as “the most famous astronaut since Neil Armstrong”. @Cmdr_Hadfield served as NASA’s Director of Operations and the first Canadian commander of the International Space Station.