The article seems to argue that point 2 is strictly false, or a red herring: hum... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		komali2 on Jan 2, 2023 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Why Not Mars The article seems to argue that point 2 is strictly false, or a red herring: humans can do the science on earth, while robots collect data in space. Point 4 seems more a political/economic failure than a valid reason to pour resources into a Mars project.

throw_pm23 on Jan 2, 2023 [–]

Yes, and Point 3 is a fancy version of the broken window fallacy, while Point 1 is a BS "appeal to nature" that can be used to justify anything, including some of the worst things.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact