Excellent thought--though perhaps a station orbiting another world
would be better. Trouble is--folks who can't afford that and still
want nano will do it here.
On 1 Feb 2001, at 10:18, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> Spike Jones wrote:
> > > Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the Mars Direct project could be accomplished by private
> > > > industry maybe not with Bill Gates wealth, but the wealth equivalent of
> > > > Microsoft. We could certainly do it with a mere 20% of the national
> > > > surplus of the coming decade, and leave a permanent presence.
> > >
> > > Samantha Atkins wrote: I agree. But this is a far cry from what was
> > > proposed by denis, which
> > > was to have Mars be a backup in case something happened to earth. The
> > > Mars direct approach would take decades to build up that kind of
> > > presence and civilization on Mars. - samantha
> > Of course. What I am proposing is not to reproduce earth civilization
> > on Mars. This is a long-after-nano kind of task. What I have in mind
> > is much more modest: preserving an example of earth-based life in
> > the event that Bill Joy is right: that we get nano and it gets away from
> > us and slays everything on the planet.
> If Bill Joy's concerns are justified (i.e. not in the dino-killer
> asteroid strike to Tunguska Event range of probability) then I would
> advocate that nano should only be tested OFF earth. On that basis,
> colonizing the moon and mars in order to build nanotech development
> infrastructure is of paramount importance and totally justifies the
> investment. The potential benefits of nanotech are too great to not
> develop it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:34 MDT