Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".

So the warming could in fact be much worse than what the models predict? Talk about your doom and gloom.

So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.

Strawman.

And what mostly doesn't make sense is the thought process that convinced you that this has anything to do with whether robots are superior to humans for space exploration.

Well, one of these things happened. I guess you can't count, in addition to not being able to remember your own statements -specifically this one:

You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.

So, let's be clear: in your mind, my motorcycle HAS a space gear? I can engage this gear and rocket into space?

And notably, my self funded travels (a) tend not to lead to my death (b) have an actual, stated purpose, that when asked, I can articulate clearly.

So the purpose of humans travelling to Mars is for humans to travel to mars? And therefore, the purpose of bandicoots travelling to Mars is for bandicoots to travel to mars. Oh. Hang on. Remind us again: Why is your plan better than the one with the bandicoots? I guess you forgot to tell us.

Oh, I didn't say that you and you cohorts were smart enough to land a human safely on Mars. You aren't even smart enough to be able to articulate why you would send a human (as opposed to, say a bandicoot) in the first place.

Afraid it does.

Someone who isn't you.

Not my space ambitions. The ambitions of humanity. Shout and scream all you like, that won't stop the pursuit of knowledge, even the pursuit of things that you are uncomfortable knowing about. We don't need your 5 bucks. If you like, you can sign a piece of paper saying you won't pay for science, and we'll make sure you don't enjoy the benefits of the research the rest of us paid for.

You don't get to dictate to us on which science is useful or which is not. You don't get to control what interests others. You don't get to suppress facts that you don't like, and you don't get to decide if a piece of science gets funded or not based on your level of comfort with the research.

So suck it up.

I've already told you. People value their lives. They aren't likely to sacrifice their lives for a few months of "fun". So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months), then the logical assumption is they expect something in return for that sacrifice. Reading the likes of the Mars One website, or slashdot, one gets a general feel for what this return is, they expect to be part of some great human effort that pushes the boundaries, that is exciting and replete with meaning because it benefits humanity. They also expect living on Mars to be, well exciting - for the short time between arriving and dying.

The reality, of course, is that human spaceflight to Mars is a dead end. Plans to settle permanently on Mars derive mostly from texts written by Zubrin, these are fundamentally flawed and collapse under even the most casual analysis. So any tentative settlement will also collapse. Add to that is the lack of public support. This lack of support arises partly from diminished nationalism, but also from the fact that human based space technology was surpassed, long ago, by robotic technology - robots have reached the edge of the solar system, and humans are cleaning the toilet in LEO. If humans make it Mars, they will do so long after robots arrived: so the notion that this is pioneering is of course laughable.

Human based space travel has lost the race and lost it's purpose, evidenced clearly by the fact that advocates for this activity can no longer articulate a purpose.

All of these realities will become clear to prospective martians, either before they leave (in which case, they will no longer be willing to sacrifice their life to this venture and exit) or after, in which case they will express this regret in ways that embarrass the proponents of the scheme, and terminate future ambitions of that sort in short order.

That would be an incapacity the inability to feel empathy (even involuntary) is an inability not an ability. But you've made it clear that you actually find the suffering of others entertaining, so I'm not surprised to learn that you lack empathy.

So the upshot is, you clumsily tried to stick a label on me and it fell off. Ah well.

Mars is interesting scientifically, which is why we send robots there to explore it. It is a boring place for humans to live, because owing to the fact that it is bathed in deadly radiation, humans on mars, if they ever went, would have to live underground like worms, never seeing the stars. Potentially, they could take a robot to roam around on the surface and explore while they suck in the regolith in their dark, cold, cramped, stinking worm holes, bent over a monitor with a live video stream from the robot.

And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.

You should abandon every vestige of the science you despise, and go and live in the forest, in a shack you've made yourself, and refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet. Hop to it, there's a good fellow.

I'm not even making an argument per se. I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket. A list of the top 10 reasons will suffice. I'm waiting.

So therefore, you would have no issues with digging into your own pocket to fund the guy who wants to send bandicoots.

I'll tell you if and when you've provided a sufficient argument to convince me to give you money. Otherwise I might give the money to the guy with the bandicoots instead.

You DID explain your reasons - you wanted to see someone die on Mars on live TV. You though their sufferings and deprivations would bring you delight.

That is not a sufficient reason for us to fund your hobby either.

They don't.

Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

Yeah good luck with this line of argument. Does my motorcycle have a space gear that I'm unaware of? Can you cite the relevant page in the manual? Can you cite my request for $0.5 Trillion to fund my space motorcycle travels?

You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.

A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?

Well, no, because, as you explained in the other thread, the reason why you want a manned mission to Mars is so that you can watch them die, because you think that would be entertaining.

It would be, except for the fact that this is your argument, and the only one you've supplied so far, as why we should fund a program to send a human to do a job that a robot does better.

You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.

Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.

You apparently think it's significant that I travel for pleasure - however you can't explain why.

That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.

I find it interesting that you care so much about them going, but don't care at all about their welfare, and indeed, seem happy to exploit their gullibility. Perhaps this is the key difference in our positions - you want to exploit the gullible for your own entertainment, I am not willing to do so.

Or not, since I didn't just pick a number, a fact that should be obvious to the most casual reader.

If you are ignorant of the reasons why the number is so low, then feel free to ask for the analysis, and if you disagree with that analysis, then argue for why it is wrong. Don't try to argue from ignorance, that is a fallacy.

I forgot to mention that my assumption is that we don't live in a magical fairy land where bad things don't happen. Should have mentioned it.

Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.

You find the thought of people suffering and dying on TV entertaining. I see.

That problem is easy to diagnose. You lack basic empathy for others, and therefore, cannot judge how people will behave when they act on feelings related to decency and empathy, and responsibility.

Then there is no need for us to spend money sending people to Mars. You can go away satisfied, we'll get on with the science, because unlike you, we find joy and satisfaction in answering the questions that plague us, even when answering those questions has no real impact on you and the things you judge to be important. Whether you know it or not, we live in an amazing universe far greater and more astounding than we can grasp, and learning new things about it is an absolute joy. We are tiny, and that means the percentage information which intersect with our lives is tiny, tiny compare to the whole body of information. Right now, I'm typing on a computer that is made partly of aluminium. You don't know or care where aluminium comes from. I do know. The aluminium I'm touching with my finger was forged in the heart of a dying star that exploded billions of years ago, and scattered it's elements across the galaxy, where the young earth drew it into it's fiery embrace and held it until someone dug it up. Then they made it into a computer, and I type on it. The universe is amazing, I'm amazed and excited by the things we are learning about it, and your views on it are worthless, your notion that only the information that impacts you personally is important is contemptible.

Fascinating. Do you just randomly insert this topic into every conversation or am I just blessed by being subjected to you bizarre and randomised philosophical meanderings about people of whom I know nothing and care even less?

So, by your reasoning, science should be done on mars by humans because otherwise we would find out things that we wouldn't need to know if we didn't live on Mars? And you see no problem with that reasoning?

I can't of course judge their motivation. But they do seem most inclined to use space technology as a symbol of the status of their respective nations (much as the US once did with Apollo). This being the case then it seems likely that - if they ever go to Mars - these efforts will be abandoned shortly after reaching the first milestone.

No, it isn't. Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody. What matters is your ability to formulate an argument touching upon (a) The reason why we should send a human to do something that a robot can do better, and cheaper (b) The reasons why that human should be you.

"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old. Did your mother teach you nothing.

I would have thought that conclusion was obvious. It won't happen because you want it to - because your feelings are irrelevant. If I wanted it, it still wouldn't happen, because MY feelings are also irrelevant. Don't you understand that? At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.

Why is that? I suggest it is because this group of people have failed to articulate a strong reason to revive the practice of sending humans to do a robots job. You need to articulate and objective reason for us to do this. Then you might convince enough people that it is a good idea. So far, you have not done so.

No it isn't, you've just failed to listen. Read my remarks again.

That's a fair question, I don't think there is an exact answer. However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief. Although there is no set time to for a grieving process like that, it seems reasonable that 12 months would be in the upper bound, based upon:

1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)

2. Potentially the person has already said goodbye to the people they love, recognising that neither party will see the other again.

So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to. This would be a terrible shock, but they haven't long to live anyway, so the grief would likely be intense, but timeboxed. Whether they will have progressed through the stages to acceptance by the time they die (24 months approximately) , and what that acceptance could look like in an environment of social isolation, without hope in the future, and where you've chosen to sacrifice your life for a cause that you now realise is meaningless - we can only speculate.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll try and answer anyway. It's our habit to abstract death away. So people might volunteer for a trip to Mars, having been warned that they will die there either before, or shortly after, arriving. They may abstract away the fact of that, and so might we, the people who remain behind.

However, abstraction and idealism always give way in the face of reality. No matter how idealistic you are, you can't flap your wings and fly. Reality is brutal. And so will the reality of this plan be brutal. As the mission progresses, and the participants face the reality crushing their ideals, they will start to die before our eyes. They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide. And we will watch it all on youtube and on the TV. It will be a bloodbath, and no-one who remembers it will ever advocate going to Mars again.

Are you saying scientific missions (like Voyager, Cassini Huygens, MESSENGER, Spirit and Opportunity etc etc) are not important? That astronomy is not important? If so, then you are unambiguously, and utterly wrong. If not, then perhaps you should explain yourself.

Quite frankly, that makes no sense at all. Who (or what) are these navel gazers? Why would science matter more to people on Mars than it does to people on Earth?

There's your problem right there. "I want to go" is not a good enough reason. Taking you as an example, if there ever were a viable attempt to reach Mars, you would not be selected. Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.

No, that's an example of desire. I desire a bacon & egg muffin. Which is not a problem, unless I have an expectation that someone else ought to pay for my muffin. Which brings us back to the Mars joyride.

A small number of people want to go to Mars, a yet smaller number will actually get to go. Even the most optimistic estimates (and they are fantastically optimistic ) put the number at 100 people per year. Inevitably, this means that within our lifetime, the enormous cost of sending those people will be borne by those who don't go, and who therefore need to be convinced to fund the adventures of those who do.

In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons. And I don't travel on someone else's dime. If I desire to go to Paris for a holiday (for instance), I'm not under any delusions that other people ought to pay for me to go.

Well, you might need to buy a box of tissues. The fundamental problem with the plan to send a man to mars still remains, and until that is solved, nobody is going to Mars in person. The problem? We simply aren't interested enough to invest the money and energy to do it. The reason is that the future of space travel lies with machines, whereas human space travel lies in the past. We all know it, we've known it for years. Manned space travel is like restoring steam trains these days. Sure, there's a few enthusiasts. But few people ride in steam trains, and few ever will, except for the purposes of nostalgia.

No, we don't have to do that.

I choose neither.

Machines don't need oxygen. Problem solved.