Exodus

Elon Musk argues that we must put a million people on Mars if we are to ensure that humanity has a future

by 6900 6,900 words
  • Read later or Kindle
    • KindleKindle
Illustration by Michael Marsicano

Illustration by Michael Marsicano

Ross Andersen is deputy editor at Aeon Magazine. He has written extensively about science and philosophy for several publications, including The Atlantic and The Economist.

‘Fuck Earth!’ Elon Musk said to me, laughing. ‘Who cares about Earth?’ We were sitting in his cubicle, in the front corner of a large open-plan office at SpaceX headquarters in Los Angeles. It was a sunny afternoon, a Thursday, one of three designated weekdays Musk spends at SpaceX. Musk was laughing because he was joking: he cares a great deal about Earth. When he is not here at SpaceX, he is running an electric car company. But this is his manner. On television Musk can seem solemn, but in person he tells jokes. He giggles. He says things that surprise you.

When I arrived, Musk was at his computer, powering through a stream of single-line email replies. I took a seat and glanced around at his workspace. There was a black leather couch and a large desk, empty but for a few wine bottles and awards. The windows looked out to a sunbaked parking lot. The vibe was ordinary, utilitarian, even boring. After a few minutes passed, I began to worry that Musk had forgotten about me, but then suddenly, and somewhat theatrically, he wheeled around, scooted his chair over, and extended his hand. ‘I’m Elon,’ he said.

It was a nice gesture, but in the year 2014 Elon Musk doesn’t need much of an introduction. Not since Steve Jobs has an American technologist captured the cultural imagination like Musk. There are tumblrs and subreddits devoted to him. He is the inspiration for Robert Downey Jr’s Iron Man. His life story has already become a legend. There is the alienated childhood in South Africa, the video game he invented at 12, his migration to the US in the mid-1990s. Then the quick rise, beginning when Musk sold his software company Zip2 for $300 million at the age of 28, and continuing three years later, when he dealt PayPal to eBay for $1.5 billion. And finally, the double down, when Musk decided idle hedonism wasn’t for him, and instead sank his fortune into a pair of unusually ambitious startups. With Tesla he would replace the world’s cars with electric vehicles, and with SpaceX he would colonise Mars. Automobile manufacturing and aerospace are mature industries, dominated by corporate behemoths with plush lobbying budgets and factories in all the right congressional districts. No matter. Musk would transform both, simultaneously, and he would do it within the space of a single generation.

Musk announced these plans shortly after the bursting of the first internet bubble, when many tech millionaires were regarded as mere lottery winners. People snickered. They called him a dilettante. But in 2010, he took Tesla public and became a billionaire many times over. SpaceX is still privately held, but it too is now worth billions, and Musk owns two-thirds of it outright. SpaceX makes its rockets from scratch at its Los Angeles factory, and it sells rides on them cheap, which is why its launch manifest is booked out for years. The company specialises in small satellite launches, and cargo runs to the space station, but it is now moving into the more mythic business of human spaceflight. In September, NASA selected SpaceX, along with Boeing, to become the first private company to launch astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). Musk is on an epic run. But he keeps pushing his luck. In every interview, there is an outlandish new claim, a seeming impossibility, to which he attaches a tangible date. He is always giving you new reasons to doubt him.

I had come to SpaceX to talk to Musk about his vision for the future of space exploration, and I opened our conversation by asking him an old question: why do we spend so much money in space, when Earth is rife with misery, human and otherwise? It might seem like an unfair question. Musk is a private businessman, not a publicly funded space agency. But he is also a special case. His biggest customer is NASA and, more importantly, Musk is someone who says he wants to influence the future of humanity. He will tell you so at the slightest prompting, without so much as flinching at the grandiosity of it, or the track record of people who have used this language in the past. Musk enjoys making money, of course, and he seems to relish the billionaire lifestyle, but he is more than just a capitalist. Whatever else might be said about him, Musk has staked his fortune on businesses that address fundamental human concerns. And so I wondered, why space?

Musk did not give me the usual reasons. He did not claim that we need space to inspire people. He did not sell space as an R & D lab, a font for spin-off technologies like astronaut food and wilderness blankets. He did not say that space is the ultimate testing ground for the human intellect. Instead, he said that going to Mars is as urgent and crucial as lifting billions out of poverty, or eradicating deadly disease.

‘I think there is a strong humanitarian argument for making life multi-planetary,’ he told me, ‘in order to safeguard the existence of humanity in the event that something catastrophic were to happen, in which case being poor or having a disease would be irrelevant, because humanity would be extinct. It would be like, “Good news, the problems of poverty and disease have been solved, but the bad news is there aren’t any humans left.”’

Musk has been pushing this line – Mars colonisation as extinction insurance – for more than a decade now, but not without pushback. ‘It’s funny,’ he told me. ‘Not everyone loves humanity. Either explicitly or implicitly, some people seem to think that humans are a blight on the Earth’s surface. They say things like, “Nature is so wonderful; things are always better in the countryside where there are no people around.” They imply that humanity and civilisation are less good than their absence. But I’m not in that school,’ he said. ‘I think we have a duty to maintain the light of consciousness, to make sure it continues into the future.’

Daily Weekly

People have been likening light to consciousness since the days of Plato and his cave because, like light, consciousness illuminates. It makes the world manifest. It is, in the formulation of the great Carl Sagan, the Universe knowing itself. But the metaphor is not perfect. Unlike light, whose photons permeate the entire cosmos, human-grade consciousness appears to be rare in our Universe. It appears to be something akin to a single candle flame, flickering weakly in a vast and drafty void.

Musk told me he often thinks about the mysterious absence of intelligent life in the observable Universe. Humans have yet to undertake an exhaustive, or even vigorous, search for extraterrestrial intelligence, of course. But we have gone a great deal further than a casual glance skyward. For more than 50 years, we have trained radio telescopes on nearby stars, hoping to detect an electromagnetic signal, a beacon beamed across the abyss. We have searched for sentry probes in our solar system, and we have examined local stars for evidence of alien engineering. Soon, we will begin looking for synthetic pollutants in the atmospheres of distant planets, and asteroid belts with missing metals, which might suggest mining activity.

The failure of these searches is mysterious, because human intelligence should not be special. Ever since the age of Copernicus, we have been told that we occupy a uniform Universe, a weblike structure stretching for tens of billions of light years, its every strand studded with starry discs, rich with planets and moons made from the same material as us. If nature obeys identical laws everywhere, then surely these vast reaches contain many cauldrons where energy is stirred into water and rock, until the three mix magically into life. And surely some of these places nurture those first fragile cells, until they evolve into intelligent creatures that band together to form civilisations, with the foresight and staying power to build starships.

‘At our current rate of technological growth, humanity is on a path to be godlike in its capabilities,’ Musk told me. ‘You could bicycle to Alpha Centauri in a few hundred thousand years, and that’s nothing on an evolutionary scale. If an advanced civilisation existed at any place in this galaxy, at any point in the past 13.8 billion years, why isn’t it everywhere? Even if it moved slowly, it would only need something like .01 per cent of the Universe’s lifespan to be everywhere. So why isn’t it?’

‘If you look at our current technology level, something strange has to happen to civilisations, and I mean strange in a bad way’

Life’s early emergence on Earth, only half a billion years after the planet coalesced and cooled, suggests that microbes will arise wherever Earthlike conditions obtain. But even if every rocky planet were slick with unicellular slime, it wouldn’t follow that intelligent life is ubiquitous. Evolution is endlessly inventive, but it seems to feel its way toward certain features, like wings and eyes, which evolved independently on several branches of life’s tree. So far, technological intelligence has sprouted only from one twig. It’s possible that we are merely the first in a great wave of species that will take up tool-making and language. But it’s also possible that intelligence just isn’t one of natural selection’s preferred modules. We might think of ourselves as nature’s pinnacle, the inevitable endpoint of evolution, but beings like us could be too rare to ever encounter one another. Or we could be the ultimate cosmic outliers, lone minds in a Universe that stretches to infinity.

Musk has a more sinister theory. ‘The absence of any noticeable life may be an argument in favour of us being in a simulation,’ he told me. ‘Like when you’re playing an adventure game, and you can see the stars in the background, but you can’t ever get there. If it’s not a simulation, then maybe we’re in a lab and there’s some advanced alien civilisation that’s just watching how we develop, out of curiosity, like mould in a petri dish.’ Musk flipped through a few more possibilities, each packing a deeper existential chill than the last, until finally he came around to the import of it all. ‘If you look at our current technology level, something strange has to happen to civilisations, and I mean strange in a bad way,’ he said. ‘And it could be that there are a whole lot of dead, one-planet civilisations.’

It is true that no civilisation can last long in this Universe if it stays confined to a single planet. The science of stellar evolution is complex, but we know that our mighty star, the ball of fusing hydrogen that anchors Earth and powers all of its life, will one day grow so large that its outer atmosphere will singe and sterilise our planet, and maybe even engulf it. This event is usually pegged for 5-10 billion years from now, and it tends to mark Armageddon in secular eschatologies. But our biosphere has little chance of surviving until then.

Five hundred million years from now, the Sun won’t be much larger than it is today but it will be swollen enough to start scorching the food chain. By then, Earth’s continents will have fused into a single landmass, a new Pangaea. As the Sun dilates, it will pour more and more radiation into the atmosphere, widening the daily swing between hot and cold. The supercontinent’s outer shell will suffer expansions and contractions of increasing violence. Its rocks will become brittle, and its silicates will begin to erode at unprecedented rates, taking carbon dioxide with them, down to the seafloor and into the deep crust. Eventually, the atmosphere will become so carbon-poor that trees will be unable to perform photosynthesis. The planet will be shorn of its forests, but a few plants will make a valiant last stand, until the brightening Sun kills them off, too, along with every animal that depends on them, which is to say every animal on Earth.

In a billion years, the oceans will have boiled away altogether, leaving empty trenches that are deeper than Everest is tall. Earth will become a new Venus, a hothouse planet where even the hardiest microbes cannot survive. And this is the optimistic scenario, for it assumes our biosphere will die of old age, and not something more sudden and stroke-like. After all, a billion years is a long time, long enough to make probabilistic space for all kinds of catastrophes, including those that have no precedent in human memory.

Of all the natural disasters that appear in our histories, the most severe are the floods, tales of global deluge inspired by the glacial melt at the end of the last Ice Age. There are a few stray glimmers of cosmic disasters, as in Plato’s Timaeus, when he tells the story of Phaeton, the son of the Sun god, who could not drive his father’s fiery chariot across the sky, and so crashed it into the Earth, burning the planet’s surface to a crisp. Plato writes:
That story, as it is told, has the fashion of a legend, but the truth of it lies in the occurrence of a shift of the bodies in the heavens which move round the Earth, and a destruction of the things on the Earth by fierce fire, which recurs at long intervals.

A remarkable piece of ancient wisdom, but on the whole, human culture is too fresh an invention to have preserved the scarier stuff we find in the geological record. We have no tales of mile-wide asteroid strikes, or super volcanoes, or the deep freezes that occasionally turn our blue planet white. The biosphere has bounced back from each of these shocks, but not before sacrificing terrifying percentages of its species. And even its most remarkable feats of resilience are cold comfort, for the future might subject Earth to entirely novel experiences.

Some in the space exploration community, including no less a figure than Freeman Dyson, say that human spaceflight is folly in the short term

A billion years will give us four more orbits of the Milky Way galaxy, any one of which could bring us into collision with another star, or a supernova shockwave, or the incinerating beam of a gamma ray burst. We could swing into the path of a rogue planet, one of the billions that roam our galaxy darkly, like cosmic wrecking balls. Planet Earth could be edging up to the end of an unusually fortunate run.

If human beings are to survive these catastrophes, both the black swans and the certainties, we will need to do what life has always done: move in the service of survival. We will need to develop new capabilities, as our aquatic forebears once evolved air-gulping lungs, and bony fins for crude locomotion, struggling their way onto land. We will need to harness the spirit that moved our own species to trek into new continents, so that our recent ancestors could trickle out to islands and archipelagos, before crossing whole oceans, on their way to the very ends of this Earth. We will need to set out for new planets and eventually, new stars. But need we make haste?

Some in the space exploration community, including no less a figure than the physicist Freeman Dyson, say that human spaceflight is folly in the short term. We humans are still in our technological infancy, after all, only a million years removed from the first control of fire. We have progressed quickly, from those first campfire sparks to the explosions we bottle in tall cylinders, to power our way out of Earth’s gravity well. But not everyone who sits atop our rockets returns safely. To seed a colony on another planet, we need astronaut safety to scale up. Perhaps we should park human missions for now, and explore space through the instruments of our cosmic drones, like the Voyager probe that recently slipped from the Solar System, to send us its impressions of interstellar space. We can resume human spaceflight later this century, or next, after we have reaped the full fruits of our current technological age. For all we know, revolutions in energy, artificial intelligence and materials science could be imminent. Any one of them would make human spaceflight a much easier affair.

‘There is an argument you often hear in space circles,’ I said to Musk, ‘where people say the focus on human space travel in the near-term is entirely misplaced – ’

‘What focus? There isn’t one, you know,’ he said, cutting me off.

‘But to the extent you’re advocating for one,’ I said, ‘there is an argument that says until we ramp up technologically, we’re better off sending probes because, as you know, the presence of a single human being on a spacecraft makes the engineering exponentially more difficult.’

‘Well, we are sending probes,’ Musk told me. ‘And they are very expensive probes, by the way. They aren’t exactly bargain-basement. The last RC car we sent to Mars cost more than $3 billion. That’s a hell of a droid. For that kind of money, we should be able to send a lot of people to Mars.’

There is a story Musk likes to tell, part of the founding myth of SpaceX, about how he stayed up late one night searching NASA’s website for information about a crewed mission to Mars. This was back in 2001, when the space shuttles were still flying, their launches providing a steady drumbeat of spectacle, just enough to convince the casual observer that human spaceflight wasn’t in serious decline. Today, it is impossible to sustain that delusion.

The idea that humans would one day venture into the sky is as old as mythology, but it wasn’t until the scientific revolution, when the telescope made the sky legible, that it began to seem like a realistic objective. In 1610, the astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote, in a letter to Galileo:
Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travellers, maps of the celestial bodies.

After the hot air balloon and airplane were invented, a few visionaries moved on to planning for space colonisation itself. But it wasn’t until the Space Race, the extraordinary period of progress that began with Sputnik in 1957 and ended with the first Moon landing in 1969, that the idea of cosmic manifest destiny moved from the fringe to the mainstream. In the ensuing decades, it would inspire whole literatures and subcultures, becoming, in the process, one of the dominant secular narratives of the human future. But reality has not kept up.

It has been three years since NASA, the world’s best-funded space agency, fired a human being into orbit. Americans who wish to fly to the ISS must now ride on Russian rockets, launched from Kazakhstan, at the pleasure of Vladimir Putin. Even the successful trips are, in their own way, evidence of decline, because the space station sits a thousand times closer to Earth than the Moon. Watching NASA astronauts visit it is about as thrilling as watching Columbus sail to Ibiza. But that’s as good as it’s going to get for a while. The agency’s next generation rocket isn’t due until 2018, and its first iteration will barely best the Saturn V, the pyrotechnic beast that powered the Apollo missions. American presidents occasionally make bold, Kennedy-like pronouncements about sending humans to Mars. But as Musk discovered more than a decade ago, there are no real missions planned, and even optimists say it will be 2030 at the earliest. 

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Only a few decades ago, it seemed as though we were entering a new epoch of exploration, one that would shame the seafarers of the High Renaissance. We would begin by mastering lower Earth orbit, so that visits to space were safe and routine. Then we’d go to the Moon and build a permanent base there, a way station that would let us leap to the planets, each in quick succession, as though they were lily pads on a pond, and not massive moving worlds spaced by hundreds of millions of miles. We’d start with Mars and then shoot through the asteroid belt to Jupiter and its ocean-harbouring moons. We’d drink in Saturn’s sublimity, its slanted rings and golden hue, and then head for the outer giants, and the icy rubble at the Solar System’s edge. The Sun would look small out there, and the stars beckoning. We would spread through the Milky Way’s safe zone, the doughnut of gas and fire, billions of stars strong, that surrounds our galaxy’s violent core, and then we’d press out into intergalactic space. We’d use wormholes or warp drives, or some other vaguely sketched physics, to pretend away the millions of light years that separate us from Andromeda and the glittering web beyond it, whose glimpsable regions alone contain hundreds of billions of galaxies.

When Musk realized there were no missions to Mars on the books, he figured Americans had lost interest in space exploration. Two years later, the public response to the Columbia shuttle disaster convinced him otherwise. ‘It was in every newspaper, every magazine, every news station, even those that had nothing to do with space,’ he told me. ‘And yeah, seven people died and that was awful, but seven people die all the time, and nobody pays any attention to it. It’s obvious that space is deeply ingrained in the American psyche.’ Musk now sees the Space Race as a transient Cold War phenomenon, a technological pissing match fuelled by unsustainable public spending. ‘The Soviets were crowing after Sputnik, about how they had better technology than we did, and so therefore communism is better,’ he told me. ‘And so we set a really tough target and said we would beat them there, and money was no object. But once the ideological battle was won, the impetus went away, and money very quickly became an object.’

NASA’s share of the US federal budget peaked at 4.4 per cent in 1966, but a decade later it was less than 1 per cent, where it has remained ever since. The funding cut forced NASA to shutter the Saturn V production lines, along with the final three Moon landings, and a mission to Mars slated for the late 1980s. That’s why the agency’s website looked so barren when Musk visited it in 2001.

Aghast at this backsliding, and still thinking it a failure of will, Musk began planning a Mars mission of his own. He wanted to send a greenhouse to Mars, filled with plants that would become, in the course of their long journeying, the most distant travellers of all multicellular life. Images of lush, leafy organisms living on the red planet would move people, he figured, just as images of the Earth rising, sunlike, on the lunar plain had moved previous generations. With a little luck, the sentiment would translate into political will for a larger NASA budget.

When Musk went to price the mission with US launch companies, he was told transport would cost $60-80 million. Reeling, he tried to buy a refurbished Russian intercontinental ballistic missile to do the job, but his dealer kept raising the price on him. Finally, he’d had enough. Instead of hunting around for a cheaper supplier, Musk founded his own rocket company. His friends thought he was crazy, and tried to intervene, but he would not be talked down. Musk identifies strongly as an engineer. That’s why he usually takes a title like chief technical officer at the companies he runs, in addition to chief executive officer. He had been reading stacks of books about rockets. He wanted to try building his own.

Great migrations are often a matter of timing, of waiting for a strait to freeze, a sea to part, or a planet to draw near

Six years later, it all looked like folly. It was 2008, a year Musk describes as the worst of his life. Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy. Lehman had just imploded, making capital hard to come by. Musk was freshly divorced and borrowing cash from friends to pay living expenses. And SpaceX was a flameout, in the most literal sense. Musk had spent $100 million on the company and its new rocket, the Falcon 1. But its first three launches had all detonated before reaching orbit. The fourth was due to lift off in early Fall of that year, and if it too blew apart in the atmosphere, SpaceX would likely have numbered among the casualties. Aerospace journalists were drafting its obituary already. Musk needed a break, badly. And he got it, in the form of a fully intact Falcon 1, riding a clean column of flame out of the atmosphere and into the history books, as the first privately funded, liquid-fuelled rocket to reach orbit.

SpaceX nabbed a $1.6 billion contract with NASA in the aftermath of that launch, and Musk used the money to expand rapidly. In the years since, he has reeled off 15 straight launches without a major failure, including the first private cargo flights to the ISS. Last year, he signed a 20-year lease on launch pad 39A, the hallowed stretch of Cape Canaveral concrete that absorbed the fire of Apollo’s rockets. Earlier this year, he bought a tract of land near Brownsville, Texas, where he plans to build a dedicated spaceport for SpaceX. ‘It took us ages to get all the approvals,’ he told me. ‘There were a million federal agencies that needed to sign off, and the final call went to the National Historic Landmark Association, because the last battle of the Civil War was fought a few miles away from our site, and visitors might be able to see the tip of our rocket from there. We were like, “Really? Have you seen what it’s like around there? Nobody visits that place.”’

Musk isn’t shy about touting the speed of his progress. Indeed, he has an Ali-like appetite for needling the competition. A Bloomberg TV interviewer once asked him about one of Tesla’s competitors and he laughed in response. ‘Why do you laugh?’ she said. ‘Have you seen their car?’ he replied, incredulously. This same streak of showmanship surfaced when Musk and I discussed the aerospace industry. ‘There have been a number of space startups,’ he told me. ‘But they have all failed, or their success was irrelevant.’

But SpaceX does have competitors, both industry giants and scrappy startups alike. The company has just spent three years in a dogfight to become the first commercial space outfit to launch US astronauts to the space station. The awarding of this contract became more urgent in March, after the US sanctioned Russia for rolling tanks into Crimea. A week later, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin quipped: ‘After analysing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the US deliver its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.’

SpaceX was an early favourite to win the contract, but it was never a lock. Critics have hammered the company for delaying launches, and in August it suffered a poorly timed mishap, when one of its test rockets blew up shortly after lift-off. In the end, NASA split the contract between Boeing and SpaceX, giving each six launches. Musk said that he would move into human missions, win or lose, but his progress would have been slowed considerably. The contract is only for short hops to lower Earth orbit, but it will give Musk the chance to demonstrate that he can do human spaceflight better than anyone else. And it will give him the money and reputation he needs to work up to a more extraordinary feat of engineering, one that has not been attempted in more than four decades: the safe transport of human beings to a new world.

Great migrations are often a matter of timing, of waiting for a strait to freeze, a sea to part, or a planet to draw near. The distance between Earth and Mars fluctuates widely as the two worlds whirl around in their orbits. At its furthest, Mars is a thousand times further than the Moon. But every 26 months they align, when the faster moving Earth swings into position between Mars and the Sun. When this alignment occurs where their orbits are tightest, Mars can come within 36 million miles, only 150 times further than the Moon. The next such window is only four years away, too soon to send a crewed ship. But in the mid-2030s, Mars will once again burn bright and orange in our sky, and by then Musk might be ready to send his first flurry of missions, to seed a citylike colony that he expects to be up and running by 2040.

‘SpaceX is only 12 years old now,’ he told me. ‘Between now and 2040, the company’s lifespan will have tripled. If we have linear improvement in technology, as opposed to logarithmic, then we should have a significant base on Mars, perhaps with thousands or tens of thousands of people.’

Musk told me this first group of settlers will need to pay their own way. ‘There needs to be an intersection of the set of people who wish to go, and the set of people who can afford to go,’ he said. ‘And that intersection of sets has to be enough to establish a self-sustaining civilisation. My rough guess is that for a half-million dollars, there are enough people that could afford to go and would want to go. But it’s not going to be a vacation jaunt. It’s going to be saving up all your money and selling all your stuff, like when people moved to the early American colonies.’

Even at that price, a one-way trip to Mars could be a tough sell. It would be fascinating to experience a deep space mission, to see the Earth receding behind you, to feel that you were afloat between worlds, to walk a strange desert under an alien sky. But one of the stars in that sky would be Earth, and one night, you might look up at it, through a telescope. At first, it might look like a blurry sapphire sphere, but as your eyes adjusted, you might be able to make out its oceans and continents. You might begin to long for its mountains and rivers, its flowers and trees, the astonishing array of life forms that roam its rainforests and seas. You might see a network of light sparkling on its dark side, and realise that its nodes were cities, where millions of lives are coming into collision. You might think of your family and friends, and the billions of other people you left behind, any one of which you could one day come to love.

The austerity of life on Mars might nurture these longings into regret, or even psychosis. From afar, the Martian desert evokes sweltering landscapes like the Sahara or the American West, but its climate is colder than the interior of Antarctica. Mars used to be wrapped in a thick blanket of atmosphere, but something in the depths of time blew it away, and the patchy remains are too thin to hold in heat or pressure. If you were to stroll onto its surface without a spacesuit, your eyes and skin would peel away like sheets of burning paper, and your blood would turn to steam, killing you within 30 seconds. Even in a suit you’d be vulnerable to cosmic radiation, and dust storms that occasionally coat the entire Martian globe, in clouds of skin-burning particulates, small enough to penetrate the tightest of seams. Never again would you feel the sun and wind on your skin, unmediated. Indeed, you would probably be living underground at first, in a windowless cave, only this time there would be no wild horses to sketch on the ceiling.

‘Even at a million people you’re assuming an incredible amount of productivity per person, because you would need to recreate the entire industrial base on Mars’

It is possible that Mars could one day be terraformed into an Earthly paradise, but not anytime soon. Even on our planet, whose natural systems we have studied for centuries, the weather is too complex to predict, and geoengineering is a frontier technology. We know we could tweak the Earth’s thermostat, by sending a silvery mist of aerosols into the stratosphere, to reflect away sunlight. But no one knows how to manufacture an entire atmosphere. On Mars, the best we can expect is a crude habitat, erected by robots. And even if they could build us a Four Seasons, near a glacier or easily mined ore, videoconferencing with Earth won’t be among the amenities. Messaging between the two planets will always be too delayed for any real-time give and take.

Cabin fever might set in quickly on Mars, and it might be contagious. Quarters would be tight. Governments would be fragile. Reinforcements would be seven months away. Colonies might descend into civil war, anarchy or even cannibalism, given the potential for scarcity. US colonies from Roanoke to Jamestown suffered similar social breakdowns, in environments that were Edenic by comparison. Some individuals might be able to endure these conditions for decades, or longer, but Musk told me he would need a million people to form a sustainable, genetically diverse civilisation.

‘Even at a million, you’re really assuming an incredible amount of productivity per person, because you would need to recreate the entire industrial base on Mars,’ he said. ‘You would need to mine and refine all of these different materials, in a much more difficult environment than Earth. There would be no trees growing. There would be no oxygen or nitrogen that are just there. No oil.’

I asked Musk how quickly a Mars colony could grow to a million people. ‘Excluding organic growth, if you could take 100 people at a time, you would need 10,000 trips to get to a million people,’ he said. ‘But you would also need a lot of cargo to support those people. In fact, your cargo to person ratio is going to be quite high. It would probably be 10 cargo trips for every human trip, so more like 100,000 trips. And we’re talking 100,000 trips of a giant spaceship.’

Musk told me all this could happen within a century. He is rumoured to have a design in mind for this giant spaceship, a concept vehicle he calls the Mars Colonial Transporter. But designing the ship is the easy part. The real challenge will be driving costs down far enough to launch whole fleets of them. Musk has an answer for that, too. He says he is working on a reusable rocket, one that can descend smoothly back to Earth after launch, and be ready to lift off again in an hour.

‘Rockets are the only form of transportation on Earth where the vehicle is built anew for each journey,’ he says. ‘What if you had to build a new plane for every flight?’ Musk’s progress on reusable rockets has been slow, but one of his prototypes has already flown a thousand metres into the air, before touching down softly again. He told me full reusability would reduce mission costs by two orders of magnitude, to tens of dollars per pound of weight. That’s the price that would convert Earth’s launch pads into machine guns, capable of firing streams of spacecraft at deep space destinations such as Mars. That’s the price that would launch his 100,000 ships.

All it takes is a glance over your shoulder, to the alien world of 1914, to remind yourself how much can happen in a century. But a million people on Mars sounds like a techno-futurist fantasy, one that would make Ray Kurzweil blush. And yet, the very existence of SpaceX is fantasy. After talking with Musk, I took a stroll through his cathedral-like rocket factory. I wandered the rows of chromed-out rocket engines, all agleam under blue neon. I saw white tubes as huge as stretched-out grain silos, with technicians crawling all over them, their ant-farm to-and-fro orchestrated from above, by managers in glass cube offices. Mix in the cleanroom jumpsuits and the EDM soundtrack, and the place felt something like Santa’s workshop as re-imagined by James Cameron. And to think: 12 years ago, this whole thrumming hive, this assembly line for spaceships, did not even exist, except as a hazy notion, a few electrified synapses in Musk’s overactive imagination.

Who am I to say what SpaceX will accomplish in a century’s time? For all I know Musk will be hailed as a visionary by then, a man of action without parallel in the annals of spaceflight. But there are darker scenarios, too. Musk could push the envelope, and see his first mission to Mars end in tragedy. Travel to Mars could prove elusive, like cold fusion. It might be one of those feats of technology that is always 25 years away. Musk could come to be seen as a cultural artifact, a personification of our post-Apollo hangover. An Icarus.

I asked Musk if he’d made peace with the possibility that his project could still be in its infancy, when death or infirmity forces him to pass the baton. ‘That’s what I expect will be the case,’ he said. ‘Make peace with it, of course. I’ve thought about that quite a lot. I’m trying to construct a world that maximises the probability that SpaceX continues its mission without me,’ he said. I nodded toward a cluster of frames on his wall, portraits of his five sons. ‘Will you give it to them?’ He told me he had planned to give it to an institution, or several, but now he thinks that a family influence might be stabilising. ‘I just don’t want it to be controlled by some private equity firm that would milk it for near-term revenue,’ he said. ‘That would be terrible.’

‘We need to be laser-focused on becoming a multi-planet civilisation. That’s the next step’

This fear, that the sacred mission of SpaceX could be compromised, resurfaced when I asked Musk if he would one day go to Mars himself.  ‘I’d like to go, but if there is a high risk of death, I wouldn’t want to put the company in jeopardy,’ he told me. ‘I only want to go when I could be confident that my death wouldn’t result in the primary mission of the company falling away.’ It’s possible to read Musk as a Noah figure, a man obsessed with building a great vessel, one that will safeguard humankind against global catastrophe. But he seems to see himself as a Moses, someone who makes it possible to pass through the wilderness – the ‘empty wastes,’ as Kepler put it to Galileo – but never sets foot in the Promised Land.

Before I left SpaceX, I wanted to know how far Musk thought human exploration would go. When a man tells you that a million people will live on Mars within a century, you want to know his limits, if only for credibility’s sake. ‘Do you think we will go to the stars?’ I asked him.

‘Wow,’ he said. ‘It’s pretty hard to get to another star system. Alpha Centauri is four light years away, so if you go at 10 per cent of the speed of light, it’s going to take you 40 years, and that’s assuming you can instantly reach that speed, which isn’t going to be the case. You have to accelerate. You have to build up to 20 or 30 per cent and then slow down, assuming you want to stay at Alpha Centauri and not go zipping past.’ To accentuate this last point, Musk made a high-pitched zooming noise, like kids make when playing with toy spaceships.

I pressed him about star travel a bit more, but he stayed tight. ‘It’s just hard,’ he said. ‘With current life spans, you need generational ships. You need antimatter drives, because that’s the most mass-efficient. It’s doable, but it’s super slow.’

‘So you’re skeptical,’ I said. He cracked then, but only a little.

‘I’m not saying I’m skeptical of the stars,’ he said. ‘I just wonder what humanity will even look like when we try to do that. If we can establish a Mars colony, we can almost certainly colonise the whole Solar System, because we’ll have created a strong economic forcing function for the improvement of space travel. We’ll go to the moons of Jupiter, at least some of the outer ones for sure, and probably Titan on Saturn, and the asteroids. Once we have that forcing function, and an Earth-to-Mars economy, we’ll cover the whole Solar System. But the key is that we have to make the Mars thing work. If we’re going to have any chance of sending stuff to other star systems, we need to be laser-focused on becoming a multi-planet civilisation. That’s the next step.’

You can see why NASA has given Musk a shot at human spaceflight. He makes a great rocket but, more than that, he has the old vision in him. He is a revivalist, for those of us who still buy into cosmic manifest destiny. And he can preach. He says we are doomed if we stay here. He says we will suffer fire and brimstone, and even extinction. He says we should go with him, to that darkest and most treacherous of shores. He promises a miracle.

Read more essays on cosmology, space exploration and transport

Comments

  • Waterbergs

    Miracle or no Elon should start with getting his maths right. It would take 100's of millions of years to bike to Alpha Centauri, not the 100's of thousands he claims. And yes, factors of 1000 do make a significant difference.

    • http://twitter.com/guillaume86 Guillaume Lecomte

      It's not what he implied, he said that if we can continue our technological evolution at the rate of the last decades, then in a few hundred thousands years we should be able to "bicycle" to other stars (meaning it would be equivalent to a 15 mins trip with an very affordable personal vehicle).

      • Waterbergs

        No, really don't think so. Firstly Alpha will never be anything less
        than a massive trek away. As Elon later discusses, it could only ever be a multigenerational journey. Here he is talking speed and distance - as
        he makes clear later in the paragraph dicussing how far other
        civilizations could have got even travelling slowly. Its just a mistake,
        we all make them.

    • Vladislaw

      so you have no problem with the idea that someone can use a bicycle to travel to different star systems... your problem is with how long it would take? ...sheesh...

      • Waterbergs

        Er, no. I don't think Elon was proposing a real cycling journey, neither was I. He was trying to use cycling to illustrate the distance involved along the lines of "at the speed of a jumbo jet it would take 5.5 million years to get to Alpha". He just got his time out by a factor of a thousand.

  • cuibono1969

    What a magnificent piece of writing, vaulting between the lyrical and the practical. Kudos to Mr. Anderson, and to Elon for inspiring it.

    • Don DeHart Bronkema

      Lawman: Kudos [ku-DAWSS] is singular; the pl form is Kude [KOO-di] or kuDYE…there's no such beast as 'a' kudo…pls join us grammar & syntax police in purging our blessed tongue of solicisms…recall Eric Blair, who said the first goal of every despot is to wreck the language [quod erat argumentum]…anyway, my amigo Elon is mitey impressive; smartest guy ever met…he'd get a perfect raw-score for creativity, if a test thereof were feasible…as for Colonia Martialis--it's vital--but nobadi will lissen, & funding is controlled by House Heidelbergs…NASA, however, has stealth-contracted 50K for preliminary math on spacetime surfing a la Alcubierre [permitting settlement of galaxy w/in 100,000 years]; white holes, by contrast, would slash colonization to a mere 10,000 years, assuming co-op of ambient species…this octogenarian's 14 year-old dottir says she'll go w/'Uncle' Elon if, meanwhile, her mind & memory can be uploaded to successive clones, stored, or transmitted to Mars for safekeeping…all we have to do is circumvent collapse of the wavefront [she claims].

      • David Mowers

        Language is an evolving form of human artistic expression and you obviously do not understand it or it's application.

        Without the manufacture of new terms there would be no, "language."

        • Don DeHart Bronkema

          Of course it evolves, now faster than ever--lexically…seems to me we should preserve as much as we can, for the sake of stirps & historians alike…syntelligence may soon render shifting nuances easy to grasp, but what if, meanwhile, we collapse back to a simulacrum of the pre-Watt era…why not make it easier for survivors to access & appreciate our beleaguered prosody?

          • David Mowers

            You better run, they just issued a warrant for your arrest on murdering of grammar Nazis.

          • Don DeHart Bronkema

            As the chief said, 'you heap-funny guy'…since respondent is a militant grammar-Nazi himself, wouldn't that be sewer-syde?…we're compelled by the vaGARies of history--& now by the flood of tekkie-terms--to master new words…we fascisti hope to preserve as much as possible of 'sprach-an-sich'--a splendid resource for nuance, out-classing all others…deprived of this patrimony, how can we repell the cabal-Caliphate [ka-LEE-fayt] of billionaire banker-brokers & their slavering, Bible-pounding, jingo-racist myrmidons?… monetarist, supply-side/tricky-down greed has cast us down to the abyssal penury of [ahem] cartonic subpontification…the juggernaut of syntelligence will liberate us from the Koch-Brotherite gulag [& its pursuant simulacra], but privacy must perish in brain-to-brain commo & surveillance, according to Delphi-projections & forecasts by the Oxford Institute for Transhumanism…in return, we'll get humanist-technocratic peace, equity & interstellar settlement…galaxie, en fin nous voici!

          • David Mowers

            STOP MAN YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE WITH THIS BANTER!

          • Don DeHart Bronkema

            Best to you in the alembic of time...

      • omgamuslim

        I see no problem. Kudos to Mr. Anderson, and [kudos] to Elon for inspiring it.

        • Don DeHart Bronkema

          Omegamigo: these octo-cataracts must make their exit [under the aegis of Obamacare]...respondent concedes his orthographic fascism as well [fonetix wood sayv tym, but boggle our decendants, obliterating all manner of word-play]…flux drives everything [Heraclitus], but why not preserve as much of the past as feasible? classical usage is a splendid tool for thermodynamic 'conservation of nuances'...innovation shouldn't enjoy reflexive priority…career counsel for Millennials & X-ers: respondent's pre-teen decision to master English grammar in 90 days was career-critical, propelling him to the top in a half-dozen disciplines before age 30…even accountants & physicists can be crippled by Escher syntax--respondent saw it often as he accelerated past those better qualified--despite his unimpressive somatype & lousy personality...meanwhile, what's your position on the 'N' issues respondent addresses on this & other sites--esp. v-a-v necessary but tragic, easily demonstrable, illusions like consciousness & volition…then there's the ontological conundrum--but sufficient unto the day is the terror thereof.

  • vcragain

    His visionary ideas are quite amazing...but I doubt anyone actually wants to go to Mars and stay there. I think the thoughts of all the beauty left behind would cause so much grief they would commit suicide eventually (assuming they could not return).
    Our future could be on this gorgeous planet, but we have to control ourselves first, and I am not very confident that we are smart enough - but the discussion is very interesting because I think we are all beginning to realize this planet IS doomed - by us if we do not change our ways, let alone all the possible dangers from other planetary bodies and climate changes/cycles both caused by us, & not of our doing.
    Since we KNOW how innocent we are of the truths of our existence, we may yet learn of other existences beyond our current understanding - just because we can see does not mean what we see is all there is, as any scientist can tell you, BUT we seem to be preoccupied with the physical only, forgetting our own limits.
    I hope that we can expand our consciousness to understand what this all is and why - this subject makes us all crazy and I certainly hope we are not alone in the multi-universes of the cosmos
    Finally - if there is a super-being watching, I dearly wish for it to allow us to understand this existence ! Where are you - we are so hungry for knowledge !!!!!

    • John Cody

      I would dearly love to go to Mars and stay there, to be a frontiersman
      exploring a new planet, to break new ground for humanity, to do
      extraterrestrial field geology, to see my home world as a morning star.
      I'm saving my pennies.

      • Joshua Elledge

        I'm with you John.

    • Erick

      There are thousands of people who have already signed up for a one-way trip to Mars.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One
      When my kids are grown and flown the coop, I will volunteer as well.

    • ApathyNihilism

      There are many humans who would like to escape the mass of humanity.

    • Oliver Milne

      I find a lot of people 'doubt anyone would want to go'. I also find a lot of people would jump at the chance. Why don't the former know about the latter? Why don't we talk about this stuff? Because it sounds like science fiction? Maybe it's too heavy and sincere for casual conversation, so it doesn't come up. Those of us who believe in this cause - and it is a cause - need to stop being so embarrassed about it.

      Easier said than done, of course.

    • Feodalherren

      Sign me up right now. I'll go.

      Edit: I'm also an engineer so I wouldn't be useless out there.

    • alf

      I would go.

    • kinkajoo

      @vcragain I don't think you're looking widely enough at humanity. There are people on Eath who live in all sorts of conditions of isolation voluntarily or involuntarily. Think of the various religious hermits and cave dwelling lamas we are familiar with. It's also something so radically removed from current experience it's maybe hard to tell what the effect on someone's psyche would be like.

      ?

  • Jzues

    Elon will CHANGE the whirld!

  • james

    Fuck humanity. Our past history shows no reason not to expect more of the same.The powers of technology magnify the flaws of human nature.Living on Mars would be like living on life-support in an ICU.

  • John Cody

    Questions for Elon:

    Which exotic life extension treatments are you considering/undergoing? If none, why not?

    Do you ever worry about industrial sabotage? There must be a lot of people working for launch providers around the world who want to see Falcons fail.

    • Matt

      For clarification, this is only a guess and nothing more.

      I'd wager that Elon may be conflicted on the potential for technology to greatly expand the human lifespan. He strikes me as a humanist with a bit of utilitarianism. We're already pushing the limits in regards to carrying capacity on this planet (assuming a Western lifestyle). While increasing the lifespan of humans would be beneficial in regards to space exploration and colonization, increasing lifespan here on Earth to well over 100 years would further exhaust resources. Very much a double-edged sword.

      For me personally, I question the ethics of it. Utilizing science to cure disease and then dying of natural old age is one matter, but to artificially extend someone's life to 110, 120, or 130+ years old is questionable. If this treatment was available, it most certainly wouldn't be affordable (at least initially). I worry that it would further separate the haves from the have nots and widen the schism we're already seeing. Artificial life expansion could create some insurmountable political and economic cleavages within society.

      Food for thought at least?

      • Jesper Kjaer

        "I pressed him about star travel a bit
        more, but he stayed tight. ‘It’s just hard,’ he said. ‘With current life
        spans, you need generational ships."
        No mention of life extension. It adds a litte to Matts conclusion. Also the fact the he talks about giving away his firms to the family.

        • http://www.fija.org Jake Witmer

          There are only 24 hours in a day. I think his focus is admirable. There will be some lulls in between now and the optimal launch windows coming up, and those other problems already have a far more vigorous start. I tend to align closer to you and Kurzweil than Musk in prioritizing this, but Musk's billions could have him overtake my "priority" in a split second, so I don't rule anything out.

          I'm just glad someone is working on space exploration, and not willing to let the naysayers piss on his parade.

          • lokanadam

            agree ! but i wonder how many hours in a martian day

          • philw1776

            24 as well

      • gh79

        Artificially increased lifetimes would increase the crowding and force emigration to Mars. The European renaissance would not have happened if a continent used to low population densities after the plague was not faced with suddenly exploding population which led to overcrowding. Feudalism could no longer feed and find jobs for all the people and they left the country to go found colonies (sometimes enslaving the natives in the process).
        Increase lifespans to 200 and people will HAVE to go to Mars or at least the asteroids to get raw materials.

  • Thingumbob

    Musk is wrong on "the next step." It is mining Helium 3 on the moon for fusion fuel. The Chinese government is planning this now.

    • Joshua Elledge

      That's exactly what I was thinking!

    • TheKirkster

      Based on current progress towards fusion energy generation, my guess is that we'll have put humans on Mars before we have commercial fusion power generation. If ITER ends up being the route to fusion energy, well, their current schedule calls for producing excess energy sometime around 2025, and then it would be 10 years (optimistically) to build a demo plant (called "DEMO" in fact). And by 2035, I think we'll have been to Mars.

      Plus - while I've always been a proponent of fusion power, and I think it will be accomplished (possibly before ITER gets there), I'm not so sure it will be commercially viable. The price of solar and wind has been steadily dropping, and the price of energy storage is also finally dropping. By 2030, solar may be so cheap that the cost of constructing a huge fusion reactor, plus the steam turbines and generators, just won't make sense. We'll see.

      • Thingumbob

        Firstly, you do understand that we would have had fusion by now if the budgets weren't decimated. (Obama just shut down Princeton program for instance.) Secondly, we now require tremendous amounts of energy for desalination, space program and high speed rail infrastructure. Thirdly, MHD from fusion will supplant steam and revolutionize manufacturing.

        • Vladislaw

          The President sends a NON BINDING budget to congress, if congress wants to they can fund it and the president has to actually veto the funding ... the President didn't veto any funding so CONGRESS voted to NOT FUND IT... civics 101..
          THIS President has not been able to tell this congress anything.. with almost 500 fillibusters cloture motions .. it is silly to say the President ended anything ..He didn't want a monster rocket for NASA but the PORKONAUTS in congress have voted to fund it .. to the tune of 3 billion a year for SLS./ORION.

        • Tom Billings

          The fusion budgets have not been decimated. They have been politically over-concentrated in a field, tokomaks, that benefited Senators and congressmen with an interest in Princeton, for nearly 40 years by now. The alternatives to tokomaks have been starved of funding, largely because you could not write as many plasma physics doctoral thesis about them as about tokomak experiments. Beyond getting more energy out than was put in we must reach engineering breakeven (more electricity out than put in) and economic breakeven(more money value out than invested). Tokomaks are light years from the last.

          It is far more likely, IMHO, that Field-Reversed Coil fusion devices, or Polywells, or Dense Focus Plasma Fusion concepts, will get to economic breakeven far before tokomaks can hope to do so.

          • Thingumbob

            The Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act of 1980 was sabotaged by funding cuts year after year. For example, in 1986 the Mirror Fusion Test Facility at Lawrence Livermore was mothballed after it was constructed without being allowed to complete a single experiment! In 1989, the Compact Ignition Tokamak was cancelled due to a 50 million cut in fusion research. And yes, the alternatives should have been funded as well. There should have been a crash program across the board. The Federal Reserve has spent hundreds of billions bailing out criminal practices of the dealers in derivative securities on Wall Street, while the space program and fusion research have gone begging.

        • kinkajoo

          I thought fusion was spiked for the last few decades because it didn't provide material for bombs.

  • manonthemoon

    Stunningly written. I feel like I have travelled to Mars and back with this article.

  • Daniel Staton

    One of the more inspirational articles I've read recently, nicely written. I believe :-)

  • fireflyeyes

    I really do believe if anyone living now can seriously change the world and humanity's course in the long term, Elon Musk is probably the guy. He's a very rare type of person.
    He's ridiculous intelligent, business savvy, completely fearless, with a huge
    vision and the money, practicality, and scientific know how to make it happen. And
    he doesn't care about money except insofar as it lets him work on the
    projects he wants. He wants to be the Man Who Saves Humanity. I wonder if he's an Asimov fan, because as far as I can tell he wants to be Hari Seldon.

    • tomwest

      I'm reminded more of Heinlein's Harriman (from 'The Man Who Sold The Moon')...

      • fireflyeyes

        That definitely would work. I really think he more wants to be "The man who gave humanity the stars" than owning any particular planetary body for himself.

        Funny enough, after I wrote my comment, just for fun I googled Elon Musk and Hari Seldon and apparently he consides Foundation and Seldon as major influences on his life's work. So I think we can safely assume he's building up a shadow society to carefully guide civilization for thousands of years into our best possible future...

        • tomwest

          Well, I wish they'd hurry up: http://xkcd.com/1274/

        • CaptainNemo

          He is creating the First foundation on Mars, while the Second foundation is left back here on Trantor, sorry Earth.

      • http://davidhdennis.com/ David H Dennis

        That's precisely what I thought. Elon Musk is often a bit too huckster like, like D D Harriman, and yet like D D he also gets the job done.

        I think Heinlein would love him.

        But I wonder what he would think of accepting government aid for Tesla?

        I kinda forgive him for it, because he has accomplished so much while others (i.e. Fisker, etc) have accomplished so little. But it's still annoying to me ideologically.

        D

        • Don DeHart Bronkema

          Huckster is as huckster does...absent Max Push, zero happens.

      • http://www.fija.org Jake Witmer

        I was thinking more along the lines of Stuart LaJoie in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

    • Piers Rippey

      He's also definitely read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. His vision for how we colonize the solar system is identical.

    • martykayzee

      He is the engineer to Sagan's scientist.

    • Don DeHart Bronkema

      It's the absence of pusillanimity that strikes me as well.

  • Cristian Prundeanu

    Ross Andersen, this is beautifully crafted writing. You have the ability to awaken minds from the slumber in which we too often sink during our mundane struggle for day-to-day survival. Off-topic, I hope to come across much more of your output, perhaps even a few sci-fi novels.

    Back to this topic, this is extraordinarily inspiring. I wish Elon Musk all the health and success one can possibly have, so that our dream of reaching for the stars can be upheld and fought for just a little longer. It is rare and incredibly powerful to have a man in his position - visionary enough to want to go beyond immediate gain, and wealthy/powerful enough to be able to make a difference. Dreams of this caliber are so fragile, it's almost scary to think how mere circumstances could foil them...

    As far as possible explanations for being the only known intelligence, how come we are willing to make room in our thoughts even for outlandish petri dish or simulation theories, but don't spend one word considering the (much more likely) possibility that it is so because we are not the product of random events, but instead of purposeful directing by a divine hand? How is it easier to credit some highly improbable string of fortunate randomness instead?

    • http://twitter.com/markusvonroder Markus Roder

      Because a "divine hand" STILL needs an explanation how it got there, while explaining absolutely nothing in and of itself. Plus, "divine", really? Unless you are talking about Shermer's Last Law.

      • Cristian Prundeanu

        This is a common logical fallacy. The "divine hand" - or God, if that is better expressed - does not need explanation in order to be a valid alternative. For example, the fact that we can't explain the Big Bang doesn't invalidate it as a theory for the origin of the universe.

        As for it explaining something: remember, the question was why we know of no other technologically intelligent life form. If we are indeed purposefully (and uniquely) created instead of having appeared randomly, well then there's the answer.

        What I was asking is why this possibility isn't even mentioned, when other much more complicated or unlikely theories are considered.

        • Alex

          It isn't more likely. By definition, supernaturalism is less likely than a natural explanation because it posits a whole other class of entities completely alien to those that comprise the natural world, in other to explain the same observations.

          There might be something positive to say about your view, but this is not it.

          • Cristian Prundeanu

            Doesn't the "petri dish" idea also posit a whole other class of entities, able to manipulate our entire universe in a contained environment? And wouldn't the simulation theory entail an entire other system which would run the simulation?

          • Alex

            That not a new class, but other objects within the same class: natural (physical) entities.

            However unlikely zookeeper aliens or futuristic 'universe in a box' hobbyists are, they're both still physical entities whose nature and origins are explained entirely by physical law. As wacky as they are, they're less metaphysically/ontologically promiscuous as supernaturalism. In virtue of this one reason (to say nothing of other reasons) they are more likely to be true.

          • Richard Lacy

            Both the "divine hand" and "alien zookeeper" are creators. They don't explain the origin of the universe; they merely push the question back a step: where did the divine/alien being come from?

            Calling something alien or divine is just a matter of labels. I would only object to 'divine' because of the baggage. There is no reason to assume, even if there is a creator, that it is a omnipotent, loving, comprehensible or singular one. The 'divine hand' could be a many purple-smelling claws; we just don't know.

            The zookeeper argument does have one thing going for it: Given sufficient tech; a civilisation could easily create hundreds or perhaps billions of simulations, each one indistinguishable from reality for their inhabitants. Indeed, each civilisation in those simulations could create still more simulations, and so on, nesting to whatever degree. A lot.

            Given that there is only one 'base' reality and a ridiculous number of possible (probable?) simulations; it seems to be gross arrogance to assume we're in the 0.00manyzeroes001% of lifeforms who happened to be born in base reality, and not a simulation.

            It's just a thought though. Makes little practical difference.

    • Vladislaw

      explain how it is much more likely that a "divine" being or God if you will did it? Is your proof for everything going to be the christian bible? Stone age goat herders who though volcanoes were god talking know more about creation then today's scientists? ... please explain ..

      • Cristian Prundeanu

        It's interesting to see so much contempt and preemptive aggression in just a few words - and against an argument which hasn't even been made yet. If you are truly interested to discuss this (and although I suspect this isn't the best place to carry a lengthy discussion), I'll be glad to respond to the best of my abilities, but let's leave the spoon-fed arguments and rants at the door.

        First, the correct capitalization is "Christian Bible". Your lack of understanding, respect or belief in it does not change spelling rules.

        Back to your question - you are making a good point. How is it possible (if you exclude divine inspiration) that "stone age goat herders" were able to put together numerous scientific statements which we are barely starting to confirm now, thousands of years later? As examples, the fact that our planet is round (as opposed to flat), rotating and drifting in space without a fixed reference point, or the ongoing expansion of the universe, or the initial single continent (Pangea), or (most recently confirmed) the fact that matter can be created from light.

        As for likelihood - or probability - once you look at the perfectly functioning universe, from the physics laws to the intricate, wonderfully artistic (and at the same mathematical) patterns found from the microcosmos to the macrocosmos, it becomes painfully obvious that it's a lot more likely for all of it to be designed rather than randomly fall into place. What's more, not only is it extremely unlikely for the universe to be, say, fit for life, but it is also significant that the universe is "arranged" the particular way it is - it conveys a consistent message pointing to a non-random origin.
        I can't provide an exhaustive list, but if you're looking for an example with numbers, the forming of galaxies and stars from the Big Bang's initial hydrogen and helium "soup" wouldn't have happened if, before the first second had elapsed, the parameters of the universe would have deviated by as little as 10 to the power of 59.
        I'd say that alone is enough probability to grant the possibility of non-random design.

        • Vladislaw

          wow ... good luck with that.

        • Vladislaw

          " that "stone age goat herders" were able to put together numerous scientific statements which we are barely starting to confirm now" where is the science that stone age achieved that we still do not understand? Their fusion drives? What "science" did they have that we are barely starting to confirm?

          The shadow of earth on the moon was round and philosophers from forever ago made that realization. It was religion that was against it.

          "once you look at the perfectly functioning universe" How do you know the universe is functioning "perfectly"? when galaxies containing a 100 billion stars and a trillion planets crashes into other galaxies killing off life that is perfect? Like a perfect flood or train wreck I imagine. When a star goes nova and can send our radiation so lethal it will end any planet's life in it's path .. again . perfectly functioning? Like a train wreck I guess.

          "it becomes painfully obvious that it's a lot more likely for all of it to be designed'

          It seems it is only painfully obvious to you. Intelligent design is not the lead theory.. not even in the same ballpark as to what science is saying.. I have more faith in the mind of someone like Hawkings that religious miracles to try and explain life.

          Maybe if you actually spent some time studying religion as a scholar you might learn a few things... you should start here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

          Research everyone .. read every scholars work .. actually apply reason to what the authors write about ACTUAL KNOWN religious history.. but .. you won't .. it will not fit your narrative you need to get through life.

          • Cristian Prundeanu

            "What "science" did they have that we are barely starting to confirm?"
            I provided you with a few examples in the previous post - they are all mentioned in the Christian Bible you asked about. Notice I wrote "scientific statements", not "science". There's a difference between information and its understanding and application. (The people writing it didn't have the scientific foundation to understand the full depth of what they were writing, which is what makes it amazing that those statements exist in such accuracy).

            "philosophers from forever ago made that realization. It was religion that was against it."
            I believe philosophers hadn't yet made their appearance when the oldest fragments of the Bible were written. And please don't confuse religion (as an institution) with Scripture - there are too many historical examples of the latter being misunderstood and misinterpreted by the former, sometimes even on purpose. As someone best put it, it's the Bible that is inspired, not our interpretation of it.

            "When a star goes nova and can send our radiation so lethal it will end any planet's life in it's path"
            Indeed. And, as the article we're commenting on points out, none of this happened during the entirety of the human culture. Lucky break? Maybe, but how exactly do we define "luck" if we're determined to strike a higher power from our thoughts? By design, then? Possibly - and that was precisely my initial point: that puposeful design should be admitted as a possible explanation.

            I'm also reminded of the passage in the last book of the Bible, which predicts an asteroid impact wiping out a lot of people, one third of marine life, and causing one third of the planet's water to become unusable, along with the loss of one third of the light, both during day and night. I dare you to find a scientist (or philosopher) some 2000 years ago who was modeling dust clouds following a hypothetical asteroid impact. They must have had a quite rigorous selection process for goat herders...

            "Intelligent design is not the lead theory"
            Let's not kid ourselves, neither of us is a lead scholar on this topic. Nor was this a matter of establishing which theory is the best one. Most of the theories presented in the article are exactly that: possible scenarios, answers that have a probability greater than zero, however remote or far-fetched they might be. My initial post's question was, therefore, why the possibility of intelligent design isn't even mentioned, although other much less popular (and less probable) ideas are being considered.

            "I have more faith in the mind of someone like Hawkings"
            This is your choice, and of course you are free to take it. You did express this best, however: it's a choice based on _faith_ - whichever way you elect to go, there is no chain of arguments all the way to the bottom; you always reach a point where it becomes faith - whether in God, or in someone like Hawkings. Personally, I prefer the former, but that's my choice. What I'm trying to say is that one shouldn't feel entitled for making either choice, and you certainly can't use it as an argument against the other choice.

            "you should start here [Wikipedia]"
            Really, out of the multitude of atheist arguments, your best one is the Christ myth theory? The very article you link to has a large "criticism" section at the end (which I encourage you to read), pointing out that the vast majority of scholars believe that this theory is bogus. There is, in fact, a very good documentary done by the BBC on the historical (secular) view of biblical times, detailing not only the existence of Christ, but specific events as described in the New Testament.

            Trying to send me off to read every "scholars" work is little more than a cheap exit. I doubt that anyone, even dedicating their life to doing only that, could accomplish this feat. Have *you* read every scholar's work before writing your post and trying to belittle how I choose to "get through life"? I enjoy debating this topic, as I consider it essential, and have done enough research to be able to support my statements. I think it's only fair that I ask you to do the same and to stay on topic, instead of attacking the poster.

        • martykayzee

          The design herring is a conversation stopper. It is neither testable or falsifiable. It is an obstacle, a barrier, and has no place in this discussion. Puritanism, ignorance and superstition will not go to Mars. Mr. Musk, like most of us here, is a doubtless atheist.

          • Cristian Prundeanu

            Marty, it's outright sad how you can be serious about this stance. Since when is censorship and imposing one's exclusive opinion a sign of progress?

            I'm not sure why you mention puritanism, as it's a very specific branch of the Church of England. As for ignorance or superstition, it's true that they won't get us to Mars. Neither will arrogant, intolerant utterings do.

            In order to not let this look like an unfounded return of insults, allow me to explain my statement.
            You see, ignorance has nothing to do with choice. I am aware of both atheist and theist points of view, have made my choice and, in the spirit of the open mind that a modern scientific community must by definition have, I expect that choice to not be mindlessly bashed. But this discussion isn't even about my personal choice.
            As you said yourself, the intelligent design theory is (at least currently) not testable or falsifiable. Therefore, there are no grounds to dismiss it as a theory. After that's understood, if you wish to rank it on the list of existing theories, you can begin to talk about probability, popularity, arguments pro and contra, and so on.

            In other words, just because you have made up your mind doesn't mean: A) that you're infallibly right (that would be arrogant); B) that everyone with a differing opinion is wrong (that's intolerant); and C) that you can afford to bar any conflicting opinion from being considered by anyone else (that's both arrogant and intolerant). In fact, this very attitude has too often hindered the progress of science itself, and that of mankind in a more general sense. It must not be allowed to grow roots in our thinking - and it's this concern that is precisely the driving reason behind my initial question.

            Conversation stopper? It has even engaged you, the holder of this opinion, to participate in this conversation. There isn't much to add to this that can more clearly disprove that statement.

            Obstacle and barrier? To what, exactly? When has tolerance of alternate theories ever been an obstacle to something? Quite the contrary!

            Finally, not counting that the term "superstition" is used here as a derogatory argument (meant to emphasize how much more important your own opinion is), it's simply misplaced. The actual meaning of the word involves "fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck" (Merriam-Webster). The word you are looking for is faith ("belief in the existence of God").

            Before we continue, let's not lose sight of the fact that the initial question wasn't about debating on whether one view should prevail over the other, and not even whether one is superior to the other. It's about keeping an open mind and not selectively eliminating possibilities due to a popular public opinion.

            That being said, choosing either side is ultimately a move done through "faith" (with a more general meaning, as in "faith in something"). Faith in the existence of God will lead you to believe one theory, while faith in the educated guess of a scientist will lead you to believe another. Both are theories, so neither is proven; what's more, most people who firmly position themselves on the latter side don't even begin to understand the scientific details of the arguments in favor of their chosen origin-of-life theory - which makes it even more a decision of faith. What, then, makes their choice so much better than the others, that it's ok to grant it monopoly?

          • martykayzee

            Sophistry, apologetics, false equivalences. A theory is never something to be believed. It never even notices faith. It is built up from a foundation of facts, observations, measurements; not hallucinations resulting from psychosis, wishfulness or midnight indigestion. You are a childhood victim of the religious-industrial complex and have probably served your militarized, avaricious priests quite well. You speak with a forked tongue. Get thee to a nunnery, go.

          • Cristian Prundeanu

            Ran out of intelligent or at least pertinent arguments, have you? I feel for you...
            It's ok though, you more than prove my point about how dangerous closed minded thinking is.

            As for theories, they can be built upon anything that its author fancies to be relevant, and involve belief that his system of statements leading to that theory is true.
            For instance, there was a theory once that flies spontaneously appear around garbage piles. It was based on casual observation and the fact that it felt right. And (for a while) people had a hard time even trying to disprove it without being marginalized or laughed at.
            Even math is based on - guess what - unprovable statements which we agree to assume to be true. They are called axioms, and the entire modern mathematical infrastructure is built on them.

          • martykayzee

            I once had a hunch that mature houseflies emerged fully-formed from the nostrils of Konservative Kristian Kreationists. To test it, I wrote it up as a hypotheses and looked for a way to view it in theory. I decided to go to the Values Voters Klan and Fux News meeting last week and before I went in arranged a control group of Zombies out on the street who did not have houseflies in their nostrils. Once inside, I observed, counted and documented numerous mature houseflies emerging fully formed from the nostrils of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Billy Graham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Jesus Christ himself. I have submitted my theory to peer review for publication in Scientific American magazine. I look forward to your thoughtful rebuttal. First, however, I suggest you get a good 3rd.-grade education.

          • martykayzee
          • martykayzee
  • Ed Porto

    Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
    In fact, it's cold as Hell
    And there's no one there to raise them if you did

    • MasonBially

      Humanity has raised it's children in worse environments than a bunker on another planet, and like such environments, the community will raise them. Although there is more likely going to be a designated care taker among the thousands. Those children on Mars will likely be quite extraordinary to be raised in such an environment.

      • InStride247

        I fear you missed the Rocket Man sarcasm. Although I'm all about your communal talk of designated care taking. As family-destructive as that sounds to some. (What family structure? I pray thee tell.)

    • martykayzee

      It'll take a village.

  • Guest

    One of the most well-written interviews I've read in recent memory.

  • Amnon Harel

    Missing from the list of extinction events: a direct hit from a galactic gamma ray burst.

    • http://twitter.com/markusvonroder Markus Roder

      Read again, it's mentioned.

  • T_Rat

    I think before we transplant ourselves to other worlds, we need to learn how to use our minds in a less egocentric fashion. The current emphasis on medial prefrontal cortical thinking (default network) facilitates primordial response mechanisms (fear, anger…) that contribute to many societal and psychological ills. Perhaps mental training to preferentially make the lateral prefrontal cortex part of a new default network will become routine. Then human society will not be transplanting it's ills when we spread out to other worlds.

  • Anna Nicole Smith & Wesson

    Ridiculous. The human race has shown time and again it can't take care of its own, in its own backyard, with an abundance of resources. Anyone remember "No Billboards in Space"? Sending our profiteers off-world would mark a tragedy only surpassed by the tragedy which besets us today.

    • InStride247

      While I agree with the overall tone of your frustration, (mankind can't take care of its own) it's likewise taken me one too many years of adulthood to accept the reasoning. The human race is dominated by progress, not care-taking. Those not passionately struggling for the future are brutally left behind. I believe Darwin said this rather simply.

      • Anna Nicole Smith & Wesson

        You said it right- "dominated" by progress

        • Anna Nicole Smith & Wesson

          I would also add that only in a culture so insular, so dominated by the spectacle of consumerism, would technological achievements be celebrated over authentic social transformation. Putting laptops into the hands of the poor did not work, and it's telling of our mindset that this would even seem like a good idea in the first place. Science and technology are not magic. You cannot use them to escape the political, and furthermore they often are accompanied by back-end problems (for examples, see Fukushima nuclear, BP deepwater horizon, fracking, species extinction etc.)

          Although maybe this Mars project has some merit: if we ship off all the greedy, sycophantic consumers and their murderous bosses, maybe we can begin healing back here on Earth. Please, swing over to Liveleak and get acclimated to the real face of humanity in the 21st century.

  • davidestahl

    It seems like most of the discussion, thought and energy is directed at getting to Mars and not much given to surviving on Mars. It is mindful of our experience of going to the moon -- in that case, it was all about getting there and not much seemed to come out of having been there. Given that we want to be on Mars for years via a trip or trips that take nine months, the greater part of our preparation should be on preparing for those years there.

    • Vladislaw

      The world has changed a bit from Apollo and Luna is not Mars. Hell you can use 3d printing and wind generators on Mars and who know what else by 2025-2030. In no time in the history of humanity will going into a new frontier be easier than it is today. Imagine what will be at the fingertips of Mars explorers, every movie, song, book in the history of humanity on a couple zip drives. It will be hard, dangerous with a difficulties .. but the technology that can now be brought to bear is staggering.

      • davidestahl

        Point well made -- today's technology is vastly superior to what was there in the '60's and will be even better in 10+ years time. What I'm looking for are the plans/means of how the requisite infrastructures will be created and maintained, e.g., food, water, sewage, atmosphere, radiation protection and the like. Those challenges seem as great as the 'getting there' part.

    • Tom Billings

      "It is mindful of our experience of going to the moon -- in that case, it
      was all about getting there and not much seemed to come out of having
      been there."

      That was because political propaganda in WW3 was the whole point of the Apollo program. That is why the pols would fund no more lunar work after Apollo. Here we rely on p[rivate funding that is focused on settling the Solar System.

  • http://timrfox.com Tim Fox

    I love Musk. And I love what he's doing. But I know his life story already. I needed something else. Let's get ideas from Musk about new thoughts. It seems that every time people reiterate his past.

  • CD

    Well, I'm particularly excited about the prospect of the first Mars colony being composed of the world's wealthiest people ... Bill Gates, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the Tessier-Ashpool families ...

  • Caleb Slain

    Incredible writing. It feels rarer and rarer that I can say that about an internet article.

    • Don DeHart Bronkema

      incredible is right--in the original sense

  • NELSON

    CIVILIZATION, civiliZation civ-i-li-za-tion for god sake's I read civilisation like 5 times and it pissed me off out of this great article

    • NELSON

      eeegh... nevermind, after more research i found out both ways are fine for some reason, sorry for the interuption

  • http://chrismorrison.info Christopher Morrison

    Bravo. This article underscores my thoughts and motivations.

    In undergrad I focused on aerospace engineering. I ultimately decided that Elon or someone else will solve Earth orbit and I decided to work on the next piece the Solar System. I realized one key missing piece in this puzzle is power. So now I'm a PhD student in nulcear engineer working on space fission. I hope to help solve this piece of the puzzle to help enable the future.

    • Pooua

      That's wonderful! I don't know what kind of employment prospects you have, but I believe our space exploration agencies ought to be put a lot of emphasis on space-based nuclear power/propulsion. I'm particularly interested in antimatter-catalyzed nuclear fission/fusion.

      • http://chrismorrison.info Christopher Morrison

        I hope to be employed at SpaceX when I'm done. In 2012 I met Elon for about 20 seconds at the Caltech commencement. I told him I was working on space fission reactors. He said "That would be very useful for Mars."

        I'm focused on fission at the moment and designs that are ready to be built soon.

        I'm cheering for a fusion breakthrough though. At some point we'll solve that.

        • Pooua

          I'm actually a Computer Science major, but I've been a space exploration enthusiast most of my life. I even got to participate in NASA's National Community College Aerospace Scholar (NCAS) program a few years ago. Some friends and I are trying to put together an educational website about space exploration. My personal ambition to document the commercial space industry melds in nicely with the website's goals. I'm in the process of putting together the website, besides trying to write some of the content and getting somebody out to the new SpaceX location in Brownsville, Texas.

          Would you care to write an article describing space-based nuclear power? I can't offer to pay anything, but we would, of course, credit you.

          • http://chrismorrison.info Christopher Morrison

            I would like to do that. I have it in my mind to write a book about the application of nuclear power in space, so it would be good to start with a few blog posts. You can email me at chris at chrismorrison dot info.

          • Jesper Kjaer

            Can you keep me updated about the web site?
            email: jespern.kjaer at gmail dot com

  • chuckster

    I'm all for Mr Musk and his current endeavors. I am also all for the idea of humanity not having all its eggs in one basket. Furthermore, I think space commerce needs to grow and become an ever-larger part of our economy, and a young billionaire with vision is just the ticket.
    However, I think Mr Musk needs to read a little more speculative fiction to get a better grip on the future, and the possible natures of other beings "out there", as well as the technological hurdles of traveling faster than light I caution Elon to not believe his own press, basking in the label 'visionary' ,and to think in terms of one step at a time. Whatever space infrastructure we create out there, there will still be millions living in muddy malarial swamps here on Earth. I'd hate to plant a flag in the sands of Mars, while a large percentage of humanity looks up at Mars in the night sky, and sees only someone else's party.

  • Martin Tisdale

    we need space craft like in Arthur C. Clarke's "Rendezvous with Rama" if we want to protect the human species from planetary disasters. Love what Elon Musk is doing though and hope he keeps bring new technology to the masses.

  • Brad Arnold

    First, I think it is impractical to transport that many people to Mars with current technology, but not with this (by the way, it has been verified by NASA as legitimate):

    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/80-ton-lifter-possible-in-6-years-interview-with-emdrive-inventor

    Second, I think that it is possible to quickly transform Mars to accommodate people using exponential production techniques (i.e. 3D printing, using the Martian soil as toner).

    Without either of the above technologies, it is virtually impossible on the time scale Musk is envisioning (in my humble opinion). Also, let me add that given the current transition of our economy from scarcity to abundance (i.e. AI, 3D printing, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, material science, robotics, fusion/transmutation, etc), it isn't far-fetched to believe it will actually be a money making venture to immigrate to Mars.

  • weylguy

    Sorry, but the last time I looked we don't have antimatter propulsion technology, so those 100,000 trips to Mars to supply it will have to rely on chemical propellants to get us there -- dirty, inefficient technology that's more than 1,000 years old. I shudder to think what all those trips will do to the Earth's atmosphere (does Musk's $10/pound estimate include any provision for the environmental costs? Of course not) . And for what? To put a bunch of people on a dead planet who'll have little to do but go "ooh" and "ahh" while trying to survive on a distant orb whose geological makeup is very similar to the one we already have. What are they gonna dig for -- iron ore?

    It would be really nice if mankind could first work out more immediate problems like war, pollution, ecosystem destruction and overpopulation, all of which represent truly existential threats to our near-term survival. But since that's less sexy than going to Mars, then by all means let's continue to fantasize about antimatter propulsion and dilithium-crystal drive while we burn up what remaining resources we can scrounge from Planet Earth.

    Don't get me wrong -- I think the Tesla is fantastic, at least for those with the money to buy one, and I also believe we've got roughly a billion years before the Sun goes red giant, meaning we do have to figure a way to get out of here. But in the meantime I suspect Mr. Musk's real motivation is simply to make even more money. In the coming decades, I believe that he and his other fellow multi-billionaires will have only perfected low Earth-orbit "space" trips for the super-duper wealthy -- hardly what I'd call a success for the human race.

    Well-written article, though.

  • http://padre.uw.hu/index.html Zoltán Sándor

    The humanity will die out much soon. The growing entropy in human genome (our devolution) will destroy us, within 250 years. The some decades old SETI is unsuccessful yet. If ET resembles us, he has similar problems, or he had similar problems. (Hopeless war against the entropy, devolution, overpopulation, food and energy deficiency, environmental pollution, crises, conflicts etc.) Possible, we can't find traces and signs of extraterrestrial civilisations because the entropy destroyed them before they were able to fly to distant solar systems. If this is the truth, we must worry, because our fate will be the same. And after us, only a few lonely Voyager remains in our galaxy. We must use existing knowledges and Occam's razor too, because statistical analyses cannot overwrite scientific laws and facts! (Collecting statistical data dont make science.) The race is on. We will be champions, or the entropy destroys us? I don't know the answer, but we have little chance to win, if we nourish the entropy longer in our own body. The salted humanity - suffering from Sodium-Induced Disorder Syndrome - degenerates and will be idiotic. Together with the IQ and health, the average moral level decreases, and all this will accelerate. And this disintegrates the society. The salted road drives the humanity into anarchy, chaos and death. In the scientific journals is an astonishing amount of junk (results of "scientific environmental pollution" in recent five decades). If we do not eliminate the garbage now, the big cleaning will be our children's task or our grandchildren's task. I doubt that they will be able onto this work, because we (present scientists) appear inappropriate, already now. In the scientific literature and in media the salt has political, and astonishing amount pseudo-science but the pure scientific science of salt we can find only in traces. It’s time to understand (and to teach and to use) some very important but forgotten, ignored and censored knowledges (some fundamental scientific laws and facts) and the consequences:
    1. “Anything that can go wrong not only will go wrong, it must go wrong, as decreed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. … The profound nature of the Second Law manifests itself in every aspect of human existence. … Entropy permeates all aspects of human existence. … Every biochemical function requires a decrease in entropy, which can only be achieved by the infusion of energy into a life-sustaining system. … Wherever we look, whatever we do, we must be acutely aware of the immutable laws of thermodynamics, especially the easily overlooked Second Law: Entropy.”
    http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm
    2. The spontaneous diffusion of sodium ions into the cells and the diffusion of potassium ions out of the cells, continuously enhances the entropy (the disorder).
    3. The task of the continuously working sodium-potassium pump to keep constant the intracellular concentration of Na and K ions. These cellular pumps continuously use energy of ATP molecules.
    4. Excess sodium intake = excess diffusion = excess increase of entropy = excess work for pumps = excess energy expenditure against excess entropy => excess food consumption.
    5. But, all the rest of our vital processes (functional processes of the cells) receive less energy - because our capacity (to make energy from foods) is limited (see Kleiber’s Law).
    6. Everything work worse in our body, and this increases the incidence of all illnesses without any exception, our aging and devolution accelerate, etc.
    7. That is why salt (including other Na-compounds) is perfect food of entropy, and as I wrote on science20, this all is the Sodium-Induced Disorder Syndrome.
    http://www.science20.com/entropy_and_sodium_intakes_wicked_problems_health_sciences-120016
    The entropy is our number one public enemy on every level (physical and mental health, and social level) globally. The evolution of life on Earth, our history and our entire individual life is a continuous war against entropy. But we, humans started our devolution = the entropy is growing in human genome. Even we nourish the entropy in our every cells, but the health scientists do not talk and do not write about this. And this is a fatal error. It’s time to change that, need action! Wake up! If nobody knows the enemy (because it is kept secret) nobody can fight against it. And this is fatal error! I remember a DDR sci-fi book from the 70's: Die Ohnmacht der Allmächtigen.

    • http://padre.uw.hu/index.html Zoltán Sándor

      The evidences: Our health needs actions and progress, before it's not too late. The world's IQ and the global health decline because we started and we speed our devolution. The real and ignored (but not political and not pseudo) science of salt: 10th edition of RDA (1989) 500 mg sodium per day (~ 1,23 g salt). This was the best recommendation ever! And now is: Die Ohnmacht der Allmächtigen. The humanity will die out within 250 years. The fats and the sugars are foods, and are sources of our energy. But entropy & sodium intakes = five decades global censorship, corruption, pseudoscience and lack of science. Excess salt (sodium) intake enhances the Entropy, this is the main risk factor of diabetes 1 & 2, overweight, NCDs, etc., and our devolution is a considerable risk factor (or more exactly a considerable fact) too. The law of entropy is the fiercest enemy of life and is our fiercest enemy too. The sodium-chloride isn't food for humans, but is the perfect food of entropy. The spontaneous diffusion of sodium ions into the cells & the diffusion of potassium ions out of the cells, enhances the entropy. And every mmol excess sodium & the wrong Na/K ratio (& other wrong ratios) increases more the entropy in our every cells. The task of the continuously working Na-K pump to keep constant the intracellular concentration of Na & K ions. These cellular pumps continuously use energy of ATP molecules. Some consequences of high sodium intake, the specialists talk about these rarely or NEVER: Higher energy requirements (energy expenditure) for Na-K pump & kidney. All the rest of our vital processes (functional processes of the cells) receive less energy, because the metabolic rate (speed & capacity of enzyme reactions, oxygen supply, etc.) is limited (note: Kleiber's Law). And the excess sodium intake do not increase the oxidative pathway. But, a critical surplus switches the anaerobic glycolysis on, in our every cells. This can be named: Sodium-Induced Cellular Anaerobic Glycolysis (SICAG). We produce cytotoxic lactic acid in our cells. Consequently, all of our vital processes & organs work worse (our heart, brain, regulating systems, immune system, etc.) and our cells are dying. We haven't enough energy, and we haven't enough time for the regeneration, because we enhances the entropy (by high salt intakes) in our every cells, day by day, again and again. We burn the candle on both of his ends (aerobic & anaerobic). The average lifetime of our cells shortens. Soon (faster) the telomeres run out. Our aging accelerates. We get sick often and we will die soon. Logical consequence: the unnecessary sodium increases the incidence of all illnesses without any exception, including even the genetic disorders, cancer, NCDs & infectious diseases. This is the ignored & censored (& no named) Sodium-Induced Disorder Syndrome (SIDS). Some people will be obese others not, some become diabetes others not, some have high BP others not (or later), etc. We are not (totally) uniform, but the entropy law finds our weak point (or points), and ravages mainly there, but increases the disorder in every cells in our body, and other risk factors and circumstances affect the individual consequences. The optimal ratios (Na/K ratio, the ratio between sum of alkaline metals and sum of polyvalent metals, etc.) are in the human milk. From every viewpoint, the human milk is an evolutionary perfect food, including the minimal energy expenditure of the Na-K pump & kidney of the babies = possible minimum „entropy-transfer” into the babies = healthy growing with maximal economy. Thus, the human milk is the perfect guide to calculate the optimal adult intakes. But the scientists do not deal with these facts. The entropy is nourished in us with the salt, but they do not talk and they do not write about this. They are treating only the symptoms of the Sodium-Induced Disorder Syndrome. The evidence based and science based medicine and really preventive medicine does not exists. The sodium recommendation is wrong, the education is wrong, the strategy against obesity & NCDs, etc. is wrong. Unfortunate, that these exist only in traces, in the scientific literature. And in some articles, even the traces are concealed and censored. I collected the most important evidences (the traces & lack of the traces) of the above ones. Some of the references:
      Saulo Klahr & Neal S. Bricker: Energetics of Anaerobic Sodium Transport by the Fresh Water Turtle Bladder. J Gen Physiol. 1965 March 1; 48(4): 571-580
      http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2195440/pdf/571.pdf
      From the article: "The rate of anaerobic glycolysis, as determined by lactate formation, correlates well with the rate as determined by glycogen utilization. Using lactate formation as the index of anaerobic glycolysis, a linear relationship was observed between glycolysis and net anaerobic sodium transport."
      Oops, sodium transport, anaerobic glycolysis and lactic acid, in 1965!
      Henningsen N.C.: The sodium pump and energy regulation: some new aspects for essential hypertension, diabetes II and severe overweight. Klinische Wochenschrift 63 Suppl 3:4-8. 1985.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2582182
      Abstract: "There is a growing evidence for that in modern societies the function of the cellular sodium-potassium pump (membrane-bound Na+ K+ ATPase) in several tissues in man cannot respond adequately to demands. This is not seen in any other free-living vertebrates on this earth. The clearly unphysiological very high intake of sodium-chloride (salt) and also alcohol is definitely playing an important role in the development of the common degenerating metabolic aberrations, e.g. essential hypertension, diabetes II and severe overweight, in man. The special and overall important role of the sodium-potassium pump for optimal cellular function and regeneration with special reference to the vascular tissues is presented and discussed."
      Oops, the capacity of floor gas sodium-potassium pump (anaerobic turbo pump) is not enough, our cells are dying and we get sick. And this was clear in 1985!
      Markus Kleinewietfeld et al.: Sodium chloride drives autoimmune disease by the induction of pathogenic TH17 cells. Nature 2013 doi:10.1038/nature11868
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11868.html
      From the article: "Although we have recently elucidated many of the genetic variants underlying the risk of developing autoimmune diseases 1, the significant increase in disease incidence, particularly of multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes, indicates that there have been fundamental changes in the environment that cannot be related to genetic factors. Diet has long been postulated as a potential environmental risk factor for this increasing incidence of autoimmune diseases in developed countries over recent decades 3. One such dietary factor, which rapidly changed along with the Western diet and increased consumption of processed foods or fast foods, is salt (NaCl) 4, 5. The salt content in processed foods can be more than 100 times higher in comparison to similar home-made meals 5, 6."
      There are no really healthy populations in modern societies. The health conditions are deteriorating continuously. The world's IQ decline. We started our devolution really. The entropy (the disharmony) is growing in the human genome. And all this - will accelerate. And we are the only "animal" who nourishes the entropy in his own body (by unnecessary sodium intakes and by wrong ratios between metals). Really the salt is the greatest blunder of the Homo Sapiens. And the science of salt is the number one perfect example onto the blunders, mistakes and irresponsibilities of the modern health sciences.
      More evidences & references are here & in comments below:
      http://www.science20.com/entropy_and_sodium_intakes_wicked_problems_health_sciences-120016
      & here: http://padre.uw.hu/ekvis/graudal.htm
      & here: http://padre.uw.hu/ekvis/entropyobesity.htm

      • http://padre.uw.hu/index.html Zoltán Sándor

        The salt isn't only a health problem. Toshimasa Osaka, Akiko Kobayashi, and Shuji Inoue: Thermogenesis induced by osmotic stimulation of the intestines in the rat. J Physiol. 2001 April 1; 532(Pt 1): 261–269.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2278526/
        Some details from the article: "The energy expenditure induced by 20 % glucose was 2.79 +/- 0.45 kJ kg-0.75 for 3 h (Fig. 4). The RER (respiratory exchange ratio) increased from 0.82 +/- 0.01 to 0.92 +/- 0.01 at 115 min (Fig. 1B), suggesting the oxidation of carbohydrate ... The metabolic rate rose during the 10 min infusion period of 3.6 % NaCl, stayed at a plateau level of ~ 205 J kg-0.75 min-1 between 35 and 120 min and then slowly declined but was still significantly higher than the baseline level at 3 h. The energy expenditure induced by 3.6 % NaCl was 3.49 +/- 0.33 kJ kg-0.75, ... The RER did not change after infusion of any of the NaCl solutions (Fig. 2B). ... The metabolic rate (M; in kJ) was calculated from measurements of O2 consumption and CO2 production according to the following equation: M = 15.8[O2]+ 5.2[CO2] (Kurpad et al. 1994), where [O2] and [CO2] are in litres at standard temperature and pressure. Values were corrected for metabolic body size (kg 0.75). The amount of energy expenditure induced by infusion of a solution was calculated as the total area of increase in metabolic rate over resting values."
        These results proves clearly, the excess salt intake (the higher energy expenditure of the Na-K pump and kidney, against entropy) do not increase the oxidative pathway, in rats. I notice it: the decrease would be logical? Yes, it is a logical consequence of the Sodium-Induced Disorder. And I think, the decrease is fact! But a critical surplus switches the anaerobic glycolysis on, and produces lactic acid in every cells. We can calculate that this anaerobic energy (ATP) production consumed more glucose (from the glycogen reserve) than the total resting metabolism of the rats, on the oxidative pathway. Despite, that this anaerobic excess isn't more than (about) 10-15 % of the total resting metabolism of the rats. And after the infusion of the highest dose of salt, 3 hours was not enough to return to the baseline level (to the level of resting metabolism). This is a real Sodium-Induced Cellular Anaerobic Thermogenesis (SICAT) or SICAG. From the effects of 0,9 % and 1,8 % NaCl infusion, I can suppose, anaerobic glycolysis begin in an average 70 kg adult from ~ 6-7 g (or less than 6 g?) dose of salt. I would dare to bet, that this was examined in similar (but oral) human experiments already, but where are the results? The oxygen consumptions (which are better than the RER) were not published in the article. Why? And what is the situation with the anaerobic energy production? How did they calculate it? Interesting questions, but Mr. Osaka did not answer my e-mail. The censorship's fingerprints are clearly recognisable in the article. However this is a very valuable and very important work. Despite that nothing about entropy, energy expenditure of (floor gas - anaerobic turbo) sodium-potassium pump, anaerobic glycolysis and lactic acid in the article. Possible consequence of the wrong education - maybe - only a few people able to understand this. But nobody uses this knowledge! (Except the big food and big pharma industry - for extra-profit.) Furthermore, from the above results roughly calculable: the salted humanity squanders the energy of at least 100 million tons of food annually, to get rid of the sodium swallowed unnecessarily. (And this = a lot of excess carbon dioxide emission.) We overeat (devour), we get fat, we get sick often, and we die sooner, while millions are starving on Earth. The blind watchmaker worked (in a continuous war against entropy) over than 3 billion years across, while – finally, he has made the man (so cruelly strong enemy is this physical law). This was our evolution, but our devolution will be much faster. And now already in one or two decades our devolution is detectable. And it will accelerate. But the correction (all) of the genetic errors yet only a distant aim.
        "New developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities, making these abilities genetically surprisingly fragile."
        Source: http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(12)00158-8
        And our physical health also genetically fragile. But these are not surprising.

        • http://padre.uw.hu/index.html Zoltán Sándor

          And 9 years later (after Osaka et al.): Ram K. Mathur: Role of diabetes, hypertension, and cigarette smoking on atherosclerosis. J Cardiovasc Dis Res. 2010 Apr-Jun; 1(2): 64–68. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945206/
          From the article: "To determine the mechanism of thermogenesis, Osaka et al.[7-9] infused hypertonic solution of glucose, NaCl, ... The mechanism of thermogenesis is not clear. However, it may involve intestinal osmoreceptors. ... It is this thermogenesis that is responsible for the generation of atherosclerotic plaque."
          From the end of the article: "Patients are advised to stay away from fatty foods, which obviously does not help because fatty meal is not the cause for atherosclerosis. Therefore, the researchers should first examine the cause of the disease before trying to cure it; otherwise, we will be treating symptoms rather than curing the disease itself. ... Finally, this field requires some broad theories and hypotheses explaining the involvement of foods, diabetes, hypertension, cigarette smoking, and others in the formation of atherosclerotic plaque. We have a mission but are lacking the vision. That is why we have not made any progress even though we have worked on it for more than 50 years."
          In these two articles (Osaka et al. and Mathur) absolutely nothing about entropy, Na-K pump, anaerobic glycolysis and lactic acid. Bad education, oblivion, or something else? 9 years and 45 years after Klahr & Bricker, and the mechanism of thermogenesis was not clear really, for the authors and editors? Or? The floor gas (anaerobic) sodium-potassium pump devours the energy (and we produce lactic acid), but it's not enough, and our cells are dying. We haven't enough energy, and we haven't enough time for the regeneration, because we enhances the entropy (by high salt intakes) in our every cells, day by day, again and again, the entropy devours our energy. All the rest of our vital processes (functional processes of the cells) receive less energy, and all of our organs and vital processes work worse (including our heart, brain, regulating systems, immune system, etc). This is responsible for the generation of atherosclerotic plaque. And this is responsible for the low physical activity. And this generates strong hunger (and thirst). We overeat and get fat. And indisputable consequence, that the unnecessarily swallowed excess sodium increases the incidence of all illnesses, without any exception, including even the genetic disorders, cancer, NCD's and infectious diseases. Some people will be obese others not, some become diabetes others not, some have high BP others not (or later), etc. We are not totally alike, but the entropy law finds our weak point, and ravages mainly there, but increases the disorder in every cells in our body (and other risk factors affect the individual consequences).
          And now in 2014: “Exactly how atherosclerosis begins or what causes it isn’t known, but some theories have been proposed." http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/WhyCholesterolMatters/Atherosclerosis_UCM_305564_Article.jsp
          Awesome, how may the knowledge (which was found already once or more) disappear?
          From the DRI (Dietary Reference Intakes):
          http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=265
          "The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for carbohydrate is set at 130 g/d for adults and children based on the average minimum amount of glucose utilized by the brain. This level of intake, however, is typically exceeded to meet energy needs while consuming acceptable intake levels of fat and protein (see Chapter 11). The median intake of carbohydrates is approximately 220 to 330 g/d for men and 180 to 230 g/d for women."
          3-4 liters of human milk contains: 227-303 g carbohydrates, 1990-2650 kilocalories energy, 405-540 mg sodium and 1410-1880 mg potassium, etc. Source: Yamawaki et al. 2005. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16325533
          The much sugar (and fats) or the much sodium (the sodium-induced disorder) is the reason of the diseases?

  • Bob Fussy

    Why wasn't Mars One brought up? Seems like an obvious hole in the conversation. How can you talk about this Mars project without mentioning that someone is already in the process of attempting it, with much more concrete plans than Mr. Musk? ? I'd have liked to hear Mr. Musk's thoughts about that project.

  • Jeff C

    Mars is not the answer. Humans could exist there, but the low gravity is not favorable for Human life. People who lived on Mars long term would not do so well if they left Mars for Earth. Also, there's no magnetic field to help shield us from deadly radiation.

    Mars should be left alone. It's not ideal for us and, despite that, we should leave it so that one day, perhaps, it will support life of its own. That day could be one billion years from now, but it is possible. Plus, we really have no idea that life doesn't already exist there now. There could very well be life on Mars right now and we just haven't found it yet.

    I agree with Musk that we should spread outward, but we should steer clear of exporting our destructive construction practices to neighboring planets. We should not allow ourselves to f*** up a pristine alien world, no matter how much we might want to. We are quite capable of building giant space ecosystems that could orbit Mars or elsewhere. Mobile, orbiting space-based settlements make the most sense and with the construction of each new settlement we will be increasing the odds of our survival.

  • Peter-John Fernandes

    A great read! Inspirational for all South African's.

  • Patrick Swan

    Lunar colony first Elon, then Mars.

  • Joe Joejoe

    the best thing for an off world colony to do is return once the environment recovers.

  • Some Dewd

    Wow what a magnificent piece of text!

  • Alex Cox

    What an unbelievably silly puff-piece for this billionaire maker of taxpayer-subsidized spaceships and millionaire electric cars! Humanity is looking at extinction long before the sun consumes us, thanks to technology-will-save-us endless growth advocates such as this man. We don't have the resources, the money, or the time to move thousands of humans off this planet onto another one (entirely lacking life support systems for humans). Population growth, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will do for us all within a few hundred years at most, Heinlein fantasies notwithstanding.

  • David Malek

    It's a Deja vu all over again. When European settlers left Europe to get to the new land (America), they got prosperous and successful, only to nuke the old folks in WW2. I hope the Martian settlers will not nuke us when they get settled over there.

    • GonzoI

      You have an interesting history book. Who in Europe did we nuke?

      • David Malek

        Thanks Mr. know it all for catching me. I thought it was quiet obvious that it meant "NEW WORLD" nuking the "OLD WORLD", but I guess I was wrong. What is obvious to some people might be a total unknown to some others.

        • GonzoI

          It's quite obvious that you were caught making an idiotic comment and now you're making up nonsensical excuses to defend your point. Japan was an isolationist country that was unconnected with any of the history that lead up to the US existing. It was brought out of isolation BY a representative of the US whose arrival was a bit of a dark page in their history. For your analogy, those doing the nuking were the "old folks", not the other way around. A populace is not a shakily defined geographic area.

  • Guest

    Great article, but he's not the inspiration for Tony Stark, whose character was created roughly before Musk was even born. If anything, Musk is more akin to Tony Stark come to life.

    • GonzoI

      It says "He is the inspiration for Robert Downey Jrs Iron Man". Not Iron Man or Tony Stark, but Robert Downy Jr's portrayal of him. In several interviews, it's been mentioned that the way the current movie version is portrayed was inspired strongly by Musk.

  • judf

    I don't know. I'm a big fan of Elon and robotic exploration. Our rovers have done exceptional work. From what I understand the trip alone is a near certain suicide. Yes, humans on mars..when? 50 years just get a human on Mars and then die...

    • GonzoI

      Our robots don't have to solve the challenges of getting a human to Mars. Unless you set the goal as putting a human on Mars, then no progress will be made towards solving issues such as the radiation. Setting that goal doesn't end robotic exploration, but it focuses it on preparation for human occupancy. The reason that technologies are "always 25 years away" as the author puts it, is because no one with the resources to make it happen is making them a primary goal. An underfunded lab in France and another in Switzerland are working on cold fusion. A few crackpot inventors are working on jetpacks. And one billionaire is taking on Mars. NASA only gives it lip service, knowing full well that the decision makers we elect feel their paperclip budget is higher priority than the space program, and allocate accordingly.

  • Jonathan Reichel

    So this is one of the best articles ever about what Musk wants to do. I love it. A bit long winded though. Or well wonder what he thinks of this: http://www.allawesomenews.com/news-feed/batmans-butler-alfred-endorses-a-kickstarter

  • Jonathan Reichel

    well Tesla's cars are not hybrids. But I get what you are saying. You like conspiracies what do you think about this: http://www.allawesomenews.com/news-feed/batmans-butler-alfred-endorses-a-kickstarter

    • Don DeHart Bronkema

      there are few conspiracies

      • http://www.fija.org Jake Witmer

        No, there are many conspiracies, but they are not the conspiracies that are typically believed by the conspiracy-minded. Those who jump to conspiracies for explanation of every phenomena that is hidden to them are typically of unsound mind: cynics who believe progress is impossible.

        The real conspiracies are the far more mundane malevolent emergence of networked sociopaths (those who have sought and obtained power). Such sociopaths have prevented Musk from setting up factory-owned stores in something like 45 States, by creating a self-protecting bureaucracy.

        I think Musk is a visionary and a genius, and I think he's entirely right in what he's doing. However, he will not be able to accomplish without (to at least some extent) restoring the technology of freedom. I'd love to have a conversation with him some time to fill in some of the possible blanks. Very few libertarians are also cyberneticists, and therefore, such libertarians lack the intellectual machinery necessary to restore liberal democracy (as per Hayek).

        BTW: The part about Musk's visions being more daring than Kurzweil's visions is silliness. Kurzweil and Musk would likely have little to argue about, except perhaps that Kurzweil is being more conservative in terms of "order of operations." ...But there's no reason the two visions aren't compatible.

        The cost to fully understanding life (and unbounding the human lifespan), is very likely a small fraction of what it will take to colonize the moon, and Mars. There are a host of lower-priced projects/subdomains that Musk could involve himself with as sub-goals to colonizing Mars.

        I see no reason why Musk couldn't involve himself with developing superhuman AGI before colonizing mars, in the decades prior to the 2030s launches. Setting up the goal in advance is a brilliant thing: it allows him to not become trapped in local maxima, to continually reassess the situation toward the primary goal.

        I would love to work for Musk in my domain: pure free market libertarian politics, to remove the thorn of political suppression from his paw. In any event there are probably a few things he could learn from me, and an ocean of things I could learn from him. Our knowledge sets intersect.

        Even if I never meet the man, I wish him the best of luck in his beautiful dream.

  • mf

    it is difficult to understand, this obsession with Mars. If preserving humanity is an objective, in case of a comet strike or something like it, why not start with the Moon?

  • iwanzbiz

    Excellent writing. And fascinating individual.

    • David Mowers

      Nice tie.

  • Cristian Prundeanu

    Capitalization issues again... sigh. C'mon, this is a primary school topic.
    Improper spelling meant to tout your disrespect/disbelief is childish and only leads to confusion. The term "bible", as in "industry bible on a particular topic" is different from "the" Bible. Similarly, e.g. Thor is a "god" among many, but you can talk about "the" God as viewed by monotheistic cultures.

    The last clarification alone ought to answer your second question. I mean, I get the facetious aspect - and perhaps mentioning Baal or even Satan would have been even more theatrical - but my initial remark wasn't meant to open a discussion on which god is to be considered more than the others; rather, that there is unwarranted silence around the entire possibility of intelligent design. Hence, my initial use of the term "divine hand" instead of a specific name.

    Since you asked though, I'm happy to oblige. My conviction relies on God as presented in the Christian Bible. Of course, you already knew that, judging by the first half of your post.

    Which brings us to your first statement: that's a theory and not an established fact. Yes, I'm aware that some of the stories contain similarities, but saying that the Bible stories were written by Sumerians is, at best, merely a marginal contention point among contemporary scholars, and IMHO a misguided interpretation of circumstantial evidence.

  • Pooua

    I am a space exploration enthusiast, and I appreciate Elon Musk's efforts and successes in this endeavor. However, I believe that his motives are misguided in all of his business objectives. In this particular case, he is wrong, because the worst places to live on Earth always will be more habitable than the best places to live anywhere else. We will always have to expend more money, effort and resources to live anywhere off Earth. Any technology that makes Mars more habitable for us would also make Earth more habitable for us. Any catastrophe that happens on Earth will eventually happen on Mars, and many of the worst catastrophes probably will happen on Mars before they happen on Earth. So, going to Mars to save humanity from extinction is the wrong motive.

    I believe in space exploration because I believe that man was made to know his world and to domesticate that world to his benefit. We must explore Mars for science! We must explore Mars, because it is man's nature to expand our frontiers! The more we know of our universe, the better we can make life on Earth.

    • GonzoI

      You're misunderstanding the strategy.

      First off, building a stable colony on Mars does improve our odds of survival. Even if Mars is more likely to take an extinction level hit than Earth, it's less likely that BOTH will at the same time prior to the sun expanding in 5 billion years or so. You're also grossly underestimating the threat of other humans. We're far more likely to be taken out by our own actions or a pandemic than by a random space rock. Putting a stable colony on a second planet cuts that particular set of threats in half.

      Second, Mars is a stepping stone. Once we figure out how to live on it successfully, we will have the basics we need to migrate elsewhere where generational ships are required. We'll still need to figure out how to repeat it without help from Earth, but we've got several other otherwise uninhabitable rocks in our solar system to try to live on before that.

      Third, it shifts the focus. Instead of blaming about the 0.000% of the US budget that NASA spends, politicians will have to acknowledge the relevance of space as more than just an opportunity to lie in a speech without being called out over it. We need space travel to be common and moderately affordable. Mundane, even. Once space travel is as affordable as air travel is now, humanity will transcend being a one-rock species. Just as our ancestors moved into every corner of the world during the last ice age to give themselves the best chance for survival, so will our descendants go out into the universe.

      • Pooua

        The number of potential extinction-level events that could befall humanity is truly very large, but humanity's threat to itself surely ranks fairly high. That being so, one cannot escape humanity by transporting humans to another planet. The inherent problem, that humans are dangerous, remains, but now you've added what probably is the overwhelming factor that now the entire planet is trying to kill you, too.

        The difficulty in staying alive anywhere off Earth for more than a few weeks without assistance from Earth is so great that no one has ever managed it. It makes more sense to make the attempt with some margin for error, that is, less than a few weeks' distant from Earth. We've tried that in Low Earth Orbit several times over the last thirty years, with varying degrees of success, but we've never reached the point where our outpost could survive without Earth supplies for more than a few weeks. If we wanted to push ourselves in managing sustainability, Moon makes a far better choice, though still challenging.

        Space will become compelling when it has a reason to be compelling. Simply putting a bunch of people on a rock somewhere and telling politicians that now we have a duty to support those people is a good way to get your space program canceled, probably by relatives of the people who went out there. If you want people to immigrate some place--any place--you need to give them a compelling, immediate reason they should do so. Claiming that it is to protect humanity from extinction some time in the next several million years doesn't do it.

        • GonzoI

          The first step is to get it working in isolation on Earth, something that we haven't heard much about since the scandal a couple decades ago. You bring up several steps along the way, all of which highlight the need to start making the investment now. We're not going to Mars tomorrow. Even this optimistic plan puts it decades in the future.

          Unlike the moonshot or the interstate system, or numerous other government-funded projects, this isn't something that can be kicked off on a political campaign and show usable progress in a decade. Colonization is something that's going to take focused, generational work. Survival isn't a hobby to throw an occasional $3.57 (median income tax portion) probe at. If we're not willing to sacrifice more than the cost of one lunch at McDonalds towards the future of humanity now, do you think we're going to be able to afford to do it when there's a clear, eminent threat?

          The moon is, at most, a poor stepping stone. The cost to making it sustainable long-term makes it more costly than the trip to Mars. The only benefit to the moon over Mars is the ability to give up. More importantly, there is also no benefit to the moon over low earth orbit. You can test landing and setting up a base in earth gravity better than you can on the moon, and you can test the seals and sustainability in open space as well as you can (and much cheaper) than landing it on a rock with no atmosphere. I would personally love to see a lunar base, but the benefit of the moon as a stepping stone is largely science fiction. An orbiting station at Lagrange point 1 would actually make a better stepping stone, with almost identical material cost to a lunar base, without the added fuel costs of getting off the moon again each time you wanted to send something back to Earth. Best of all it would make a perfect launching point for anything going to the moon, Mars or elsewhere.

          But all of that is logistics. The steps that go between sitting on our hands and getting a colony set up elsewhere. No one is saying we just need to build a big rocket and shoot people at Mars and hope they stick. The issue is that we need to get started with a concerted effort. If we get a self-sufficient station at a Lagrange point, then decide to go to Titan instead, or even ignore our solar system entirely and go to some Edenic planet in a nearby solar system that we learn how to detect between now and then, at least we'll have made the necessary progress rather than setting on our collective hands, waiting for it to happen by magic from the ever-diminishing funding we're throwing at even the few probes we send out.

    • David Mowers

      "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World!" becomes, "Save the Planet, Save Humanity!"

      Seed Mars an see what happens, if anything.

  • GonzoI

    While there is certainly a parallel with the European explorers predating the more mundane modern trans-oceanic flights, the parallel more for the ice age ancestors who spread to new continents. The article even alludes to that with mention of the land bridge. This isn't a competition of a few powers to expand territory, this is the diaspora that spreads us far and wide so that only the most remote disasters threaten our species.

    Very few surviving species lump together into one mass. There is a reason humans aren't gestalt entities. We are meant to spread out where others aren't and make sure that when things change, some of us survive. That isn't some outdated notion of western colonialism or imperialism, that is basic survival. We need to stop using "manifest destiny" because of it's historical baggage. This is humanity's long term survival, just as it always has been. Pure and simple.

  • CaptainNemo

    I love Elon Musk! St Musk, patron saint of Mars.

  • http://www.realizemagazine.com Haig Hovaness

    The difference between the time scale of the existential threat (hundreds of thousands of years) and the rate of human technological progress (dramatic advances in hundreds of years) calls into question the urgency of desperate, immediate Mars colonization efforts. If Elon Musk's ego could become a rocket propulsion source, we would have better odds of success in this program.

    The radiation exposure problem alone is currently an insurmountable obstacle to Mars travel, and even with a fleet of cheap and cheerful Space-X ships, colonists would encounter seriously increased risks of cancer, with poor options for treatment on the Red Planet. The dream of sitting in an underground bunker watching video from a remotely controlled rover during a solar radiation flareup is far from compelling.

    I suggest that the author do some homework before his next spellbound encounter with the great Elon.

  • Norman Costa

    This is a well written and compelling article. Great job!

  • http://www.nukingpolitics.com Keln

    Excellent article. It's hard to focus humanity on the goal of becoming multi-planetary, but when you consider it objectively, it is a question of when and not if a catastrophe, possibly planet-killing in nature, will occur on the Earth. It is then necessary to our very survival as a species to establish colonies elsewhere. If you follow that reasoning, it becomes quite clear that the risks and expenses of such an undertaking pale in comparison with the reality that we could be wiped out at any moment by a cosmic event.

    Unfortunately, as driven and successful as Elon Musk is, and as much as I believe in
    private initiatives over public ones, at our current level of technology I just don't see such an undertaking being purely private in nature. I think individuals and businesses can do just about anything better than government can, but neither individuals nor businesses have access to the kind of money and resources that it would take to fulfill the idea of establishing an actual colony on Mars or elsewhere.

    This will change as technology changes, but at the present it is quite impossible outside of a Manhattan Project type of program. Also, I think it is wiser and more realistic to establish a base or colony on the Moon first, which is easier in the short term and will yield valuable technologies and knowledge we can use for the bigger jump to Mars in the future.

  • rogerpenna

    Awesome article.

    Btw, the part of the article where it´s told that without a spacesuit, on Mars, your blood would boil and you would die in 30 seconds is nonsense. Only exposed blood would boil. The human skin and flesh serve as a good pressurized container for blood.

    Explosive decompression only happens with much larger pressure differentials... like when divers are slowly pressurized to DOZENS of atmospheres of pressure and then depressurized suddenly. (it already happened btw)

    The pressure differential from one atmosphere to hard vacuum (and Mars is not hard vacuum btw) isn´t enough to rupture human flesh and skin.

    You would be dead from oxygen deprivation long before you died from the low pressure itself.

    Yes, near vacuum can damage some tissues, as well as lungs if you dont expel the air before being exposed to it. But nothing that cannot be healed with rest (as already happened in the early days of space exploration).

    2001 got it right when the astronaut is locked by HAL outside the ship, and must get inside the airlock, in vacuum, without his helmet to open it manually.

    Dave doesn´t suffer any major trauma. As it should be.

    ps: I am brazilian, but in the long term I don´t think that matters much... I mean, after one or two generations, martian humans will not identify themselves with Earth nations anymore...

    • David Mowers

      Once upon a time in long, long ago, the being Daeren knew no way to breathe in the life of creation until the plants thrived and formed the atmosphere's regeneration cycle...and ancient Druids used to kill people for cutting down trees.

      Back when balance was an order.

  • freewheelinfranklin543

    I thought the article was about colonizing Mars.Silly me! It's about Elon Musk.

  • catmeower

    Indeed this was a well written article, and it pleases me that people like Musk exist. I sure wish he was more focused on the power, civil and/or transport problems on earth. The idea of Mars as an insurance policy to me seems dubious - think about it: the colony needs lots of support from earth to survive. In the scenario where Earth is destroyed, then the colony will fail soon after that, so then what was it all for?

    What's on Mars that is so priceless? The human cost for Mars settlers would be unforgivable. It's like saying: 'Hey you, go spend the rest of your one and only life in a bunker in Antarctica.' only it's a place much much worse than Antarctica. Reusable rockets are great, maybe they can make it affordable to clean up the space junk before we are fenced in and/or lose our wonderful satellites.

    I think once we can really make Mars almost exactly like Earth, and we do so...then we can move there for a good reason. Or if you want crazy science fiction, genetically engineer ourselves and a supporting food chain to survive martian climate without suits. That might really be cheaper, lol!

    • David Mowers

      Right. Why not ship seed in bulk or even small loads, just launched at the planet and let nature, if it will, take its course?

  • PerryM

    It took 4.5 billion years for mother nature to create man
    man will die without earth
    our gravity
    our moon
    our rotation of day and night
    forces we have all around us will be gone on a trip to Mars or even the Moon

    Sadly man is locked into staying on earth until we can invent AI and then explore the universe - and many will die on trips to Mars and long term Moon visits until we realize our imprisonment.........

    • David Mowers

      Ever feel a, "gut-instinct?"

      Ever have a common-sense notion about a matter?

      Ever second-guess something just because it didn't feel right?

      Ever listen to your intuition?

      'Artificially-Intelligent-Machines,' seems cool and progressive but humanity's intuition is screaming, "No!"

  • Ashley Webb

    Why, after Elon proposes a logical conclusion to the origin of human existence, does the author call Elon's a theory and then present his own theory as fact? Elon's theory is logical, the authors is illogical. Eloquent article, I read every word. Thank you.

  • http://shortramblingreviews.wordpress.com/ Gareth Lewry

    Great inspirational article!!

  • George Williams

    Great article but I wish Musk would substitute "Moon" for every mention of "Mars". Mars is only marginally less lethal than the Moon; is far riskier to reach, and we know we can get to the Moon (and back). A lunar colony could easily launch material to Mars from the Moon's shallow gravity well, perhaps by solar-powered rail guns.

    None of this will happen unless Musk or others discover a sustainable profit motive for space ventures (mining metal-rich asteroids?). There has to be an economic reason to go and keep going, just as the Spaniards found in colonizing the New World. Lofty pronouncements of keeping our eggs in more than one basket are not enough to keep any extraterrestrial enterprise going.

    • David Mowers

      They would have to bring back the word, "Lunatic," to the dictionary and that might be too tough in today's political environment?

  • Mister35mm

    Perhaps we should empty the world's prisons onto Mars, like when the British transported prisoners to Australia. Other than Mel Gibson it didn't work out too bad.

    • David Mowers

      We should empty the idea of prisons onto the battlefield of war-conflict and give people a true redemption as Christ would.

      • Mister35mm

        Would you be wanting your redemption before, or after being beheaded? Assuming a middle eastern battlefield. Or, maybe you are thinking that your imaginary friend will protect you. What does this have to with teraforming (not sure of the spelling here) and colonisation of other worlds.

        • David Mowers

          2 million prisoners.
          Wars America is engaged in.
          2 million servicemen get a pardon for agreeing to serve 20 years in combat.
          Redemption.

  • someguy47

    I love this article, but the parts about the future of the Sun are way
    off the mark. I have not seen any mainstream research that indicates the
    Sun will deliver enough more energy to the Earth in a billion years to
    boil the oceans, nor will the temperature on the earth change radically
    in the next 500 million years. I think he may have confused conditions
    expected 5 billion years from now with when the sun is 5 billion years
    old. In other words, the earth has another 4-5 billion years before the
    sun changes radically, not 0.5 to 1 billion.

    • David Mowers

      Neil deGrasse Tyson said it on COSMOS.

  • martykayzee

    Distances are farther, ideas go further.

    • David Mowers

      "Further afield and far afoot, til crashed and burned and found kaput!" -Children's Nursery Rhyme, circa unknown

      • martykayzee

        "It is a far, far better thing that [you] do..."
        C. Dickens

        • David Mowers

          Touche'

  • Reagan Cooper

    I was truly inspired by this piece of writing. Almost as much as Elon himself. Fantastic article about an enigmatic man.

  • Lexi Mize

    Elon is a god. He's an idol and a hero. The world needs ten of him.

    I do wish though that he would use something besides rockets. Startram, maglev, railgun style payload shots to LEO are the way to get stuff into orbit. Sure, send humans up in rockets (and down again), but stuff that can endure 100 Gs? Shoot it up there.

    • David Mowers

      Why not go underground as well?

      Imagine a continental-wide network of tunnels large enough for people to live their entire lives in.

      (A)
      Morlockian
      response to
      the Eloian; Elon.

      'o'
      {}
      ! !

      • Lexi Mize

        No doubt to evade the radiation humans will have to live as troglodytes. Maybe there are diamonds to be dug. Maychance they find the Arkenstone. Even if they don't wouldn't that be a keen way to prompt the exodus. "There's diamonds under them thar canals."

        • David Mowers

          I often wonder about the all-pervading Hollywood logic of evading a cataclysm by technological or resolute means.

          The movie, "The Road," I think embodies it all; who wants to live in post-apocalyptic earth? What difference would it make to die of slow cancer or be burned-up all at once; either way it is death. We need to think about saving what is left of the planet. To place millions of tons of earthen supplies in space is a fool's errand.

          • Lexi Mize

            Mars colonization may be like the original spacerace. Tech that comes out of humans trying to get to and establish existence on Mars would probably benefit Earthlings even more. Novel energy generation, water purification, botany breakthroughs, radiation protection, cryogenics, you know, wowzy SF style tech.

            As far post apocalyptic earth? At least there would finally be wealth equality -- we'd all be destitute, rich and poor alike.

            "The Road" -- the book was much better, though I do like Viggo. You might want to read "On the Beach" and "Alas, Babylon". But there are dozen's of post apocalyptic novels apparently.

          • David Mowers

            If Mars has bacteria living on it then going there and colonizing will end up bringing it back here and it will kill everything because it has evolved in a harsher environment and everything on earth will be food.

      • David Mowers
  • Don DeHart Bronkema

    Go to the ER before you contaminate somebody w/your hateful contempt…ad hominem rmx & wild charges propell your comments strate into the shredder…if you have evidence, reveal it!

  • Victor Hugo Franco

    Now you have pay with Paypal for can drive your Tesla Model S on Mars surface in peace.

  • michael

    Elon talks about the MCT being 100x the size of an SUV, by my calculations this puts it roughly the size of the USS Blue Ridge, which I have seen in person, and at approximately 200m long is an enormous ship, but not as big as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, yet bigger than say, an Arleigh burke Class Destroyer, which for 100 people, would be roomy enough to enjoy the trip. In my opinion, this would be better suited to being built in orbit, and using the red dragon capsules to supply the MCT before it's maiden voyages to and from Mars. Once at Mars red dragon capsules would be used to ferry to and from the surface. This gives an inherent advantage of survivability in the event of complete loss on re entry or other accident. At least only 7 will die in a red dragon as opposed to 100 if trying to use the MCT as re entry vehicle. Having 2 red dragon capsules per MCT also enables a backup transport to and from the MCT and also a life boat option. MCT could be refueled relatively cheaply by custom designed fuel tankers launched from atop a Falcon Heavy or Raptor. MCT could have more than enough fuel to complete a round hop to Mars as well as provide substantial fuel for red dragon transports. The amount of water that could be added to an MCT would allow more than enough redundancy for the early colony. The question is what is the right design for such a ship given that 1/3rd artificial gravity is a must during transport, I am thinking something the shape of the TET from Oblivion, though something with the least exposure to micrometeorites is advantageous. A TET shaped ship is only workable if nuclear is the power source, otherwise something with panels will be needed. Theoretically, you could build the MCT any shape you wanted, though perhaps a sphere would be the best option to rotate from a gravity stand point, yet modular construction may support this idea as well. I hope he goes down the path of building an MCT in orbit rather than trying to launch everything from Earth each time.

    • David Mowers

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Townsend_Brown

      Nuclear power was tried with the Orion Project. Lockheed Martin is reportedly testing nuclear-powered military craft.

      • michael

        Interesting, I always find that subject fascinating. Though that's not what I was referring to when I suggest powering a TET shaped ship with Nuclear Power, I just meant running one to meet the needs of the power grid on the ship. Though of course there are many engines in development that suggest using Nuclear as part of an electric propulsion system in conjunction with various gas (i.e. argon) to acheive plasma thrust. Though your link is dealing with a far more interesting subject but sadly much more obscure in shrouded in myth vs fact, it's hard to know how much is based on reality vs fantasy! Still a good read and terribly exciting.

  • Murray Reiss

    Why stop with Mars? Four More Planets! That's what we need --

    http://youtu.be/BiswXRIK80k

  • Hanfeizi

    TROLLOLOLOL

  • kinkajoo

    Why do we assume that we can't engineer the sun and stop it swallowing the earth, seeing as we have millions of years to work on it ?

    • David Mowers

      We are presently in a 50,000 year cycle of solar slow down and when that ends, which we are not yet sure when it began, the planet will become too hot for mammals again and we will die.

      That was on COSMOS with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

      • kinkajoo

        So 50,000 years to engineer a thermostat for the sun ?

        • David Mowers

          Unless we are at 49,867...

      • kinkajoo

        The solar system is a musical instrument with very, very deep bass notes.

        • David Mowers

          How poetic!

          You know the ancient Lyre of the Sumerians and Babylonians draws it's shape from the constellation of Orion?

          Google golden lyre from Baghdad and bring up a picture of the constellation and turn the constellation on its side and you'll see.

  • kinkajoo

    The author mentions consciousness, calling the ubuiquity of light as a metaphor for consciousness but then goes on to dismiss this as mistaken metaphor. But whether matter has it's own consciousness has not been settled yet has it, though the general scientific assumption seems to be that it doesn't ?

    He then quotes Sagan, consciousness is the "universe knowing itself", and Sagan wasn't the first to claim this.
    If we are looking for intelligent life in the universe, why can we not say that we are standing on it right now ?

    • David Mowers

      Right on! Saving earth, our planet, our father, is our mission; our true mission.

      "Adamah," means, "Earth."

      He is father to us all.

  • Brad

    Who the hell wants to live in a spacesuit or sealed dome on an airless, gravity-reduced Mars? There are some things worse than death.
    Furthermore, is mankind worthy of saving from extinction? Shouldn't we first develop a new species of human that can be relied upon to live at peace with one another rather than send to Mars some of the species we already have who will naturally continue their same cruelties in any environment?

    • David Mowers

      Humans are destined to go extinct.

      Animal cells contain five basic functions that overrule their primary function or job; Consume, Propagate, Transmutate, Kill, Apoptosis.

      What we call, "consciousness," or "free-will," is nothing more than the primary function being overrueld by the basic five. Our primary function is survival but we always return to our five primary commands so we will, one day, through overpopulation destroy ourselves in a mass Apoptosis.

      We evolved in contrast to our planet but our planet is our god and we cannot forget that the planet itself will correct the wrong of our overpopulation sooner or later. Between that threat and the threat of human insanity we are doomed as a species. We should begin launching DNA from dead bodies in craft in every direction from our plant as soon as possible to ensure that perhaps, on another larger earth-like planet, we will get a second chance.

  • methinks88

    Excellent article but it's a bit of an overreach to transmogrify a Silicon Valley billionaire into Icarus, Noah and finally Moses.

    • David Mowers

      Icarus failed and died.
      Noah prevailed and triumphed.
      Moses' lead, lead into temptation so he ultimately failed.

      This guy is more like Tobit.

  • David Mowers

    Two things;

    1. Wall Street investment banks and zero percent interest loans did not rebuild the American space program. Someone with balls did. Someone who didn't beg for handouts to do it.

    2. If bacteria exist on Mars humans will need multiple generations of infection before they can live there and that must first be done on EARTH. The bacterium must be brought here and released in lab-controlled environments for hundreds of years BEFORE exposure to humans and animals here so that the EVOLVED form does not kill us and allows us to live on Mars without dying from exposure to it.

    Now while I love everything about this guy and what he has done when it comes to direct exploration of other planets the private market CANNOT DO IT; it must be controlled by a military-style government mission for safety reasons.

    • Carney3

      Nonsense. Humans don't get Dutch elm disease and Dutch elms can't catch colds. Pathogens are highly evolved to be specialists at evading the defenses of a specific target. Something even more alien than Dutch elm disease, something that's free living without even being evolved to be a pathogen of any kind, would have no chance against immune systems that even attack pollen.

      • David Mowers

        So you are saying that an alien bacterium from Mars would not threaten humans or earth in anyway?

        Then why does N.A.S.A clean spaceships upon arrival?

        Why does N.A.S.A SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE THEN?

        • Carney3

          Because NASA isn't infallible, and wastes a fortune on unnecessary nonsense, for reasons including politics, the rice bowls of internal bureaucracies, the influence of outside vendors, public ignorance, and inertia.

          Case in point - squandering decades and billions on researching the effects of zero-g and radiation on astronauts in the International Space Station. The effects of radiation on human health are well understood, and zero-g is not necessary in interplanetary or other long-duration trips - just spin the spacecraft.

          • David Mowers

            So you'd prefer to save a little money and risk introducing a bacterium to the planet.

          • Carney3

            It's not a risk! Our immune systems attack dust, pollen, anything, even our own bodies at times. The ONLY thing that can get through the hyper paranoid systems are organisms that have evolved to evade our elaborate defenses. Think of Catherine Zeta Jones in "Entrapment" performing precise carefully rehearsed movements to evade the alarm lasers. We don't worry about catching Dutch elm disease, and any organism on Mars would be far more alien.

          • David Mowers

            Our immune systems cannot protect against unknown newly-evolved organisms such as those created by GMO's and on Mars.

          • Carney3

            Yes of course they can, because such organisms would clumsily blunder into our defenses, like Roseanne Barr stumbling about and tripping all those alarm lasers instead of Catherine Zeta Jones slinking her way around them because she had carefully rehearsed exactly how to do so. Our defenses are set to attack anything else, and does so including dust and pollen which are not pathogens, and even attack things meant to help such as organ transplants, blood transfusions, etc. or our own bodies. I just explained all this.

            GMO panic is scientifically illiterate.

          • David Mowers

            ROFL

      • David Mowers
  • sons

    Musk cites probability of many previously civilized but now dead planets.

    Yes. SETI looked and looked for radio signals, but found nothing.

    Other livable planets probably developed carbon based life that evolved into "intelligent" life. That life discovered the power of burning buried carbon, and pushed the pedal to the metal - all the way to extinction, driven by ignorance, greed and a big propaganda media to make sure it happened for enrichment of the few. A story probably repeated millions of times or more.

    An intelligent man once told me, "Global Warming is probably part of Evolution."

    Support nuclear power, our only possible hope. Big Fossil Fuel is pumping millions into anti nuclear organizations like "Friends of the Earth" and "Mothers for Peace" to keep attacking nuclear plants until there are now more. They are the ONLY true competition to Big Fossil Fuel.

    • David Mowers

      Thorium sounds interesting though I personally love the, "Z" machine.

  • CLOWNICANS

    Vision and compromise taste for our lasting welfare to the stars and Colonization.

  • Reed Thompson

    This article is incredible

  • TimSingleton

    I suspect we are quarantined until we grow up a bit. I do not believe the universe to be empty; I believe the universe is waiting for us to say something intelligent.

  • Maria Elisabeth

    I want to repeat the 2 sentences of cuibono1969 - Congrates to Ross!.

    But I never promote the idea's of the "necro-capitalists".... they only cares for own progress (sometimes another "cap-seeker" may take some crumbs when his action promotes "the boss".......)

  • Don DeHart Bronkema

    The bitterness of your indubitable losses [2007-2012] is blinding you to the promise of post-Koch liberation by the Occupy Movement, quiescent for the nonce, but burgeoning again in the Warren-Deblasio Administration…why curse the darkness of Reagan-Arbusto monetarism, when you can light a candle for freedom?…let's also abjure the transparent racist-jingoism of Obama-hatred…he's not going to bleach-out: get used to it!

    • Carney3

      Plenty of far-left absolutists opposed to any industrial tech of any kind, for whom nothing is ever green enough, and who basically want to cause human extinction or at best de-industrialization. Also plenty of conservatives who support breaking free from oil for national security and macro-economic reasons, as well as the environment - me for instance.

      • Don DeHart Bronkema

        Respondent is a radical centrist--only fools seek a new Paleolithic [think dentistry w/o zylocaine]…but nothing CAN be green enough--alles dingen konsidiert--if we're to generate enough capital to block thermageddon & limit cascading trophic collapse to Toba-like desuetude…corollary: even tek-savvy Millennials will be disployed or penurious, unless we forgive student loans & abrogate the tax advantages of Banker-broker elites…Anglos are diverse, but oft disabled by racial fear [40% of planet in floruit of 1900, 20% now & maybe 7% by 2100]; ideally, of course, each ethnos should approximate 33% globally to max heterotic vigor…oddly enough, studies show whites are repelled, not so much by pigmentation or street-culture, as by asymmetrical maxillary prognathism…should Colonia Martialis be mixed-race by design? this way to the digresse!

        • Carney3

          I'm a fan of William F. Buckley, but the loud "clunk" of dropping ten-dollar words when a dime would do detracts from the effectiveness of your posts, rather than enhancing it.

          In any case, I agree that the more economic growth we have the better we can afford green solutions (if that was your point). Along the way we should try to minimize the negative effect of such growth rather than casting all caution aside as has China. I have a lot more pro-growth items on my wish list than student loan reform or tax breaks for certain elites.

      • http://be.net/danharris Dan Harris

        That brings me hope. I just fear you are a extreme outlier in the group you claim to.

  • JackChanse

    News flash: some guy gets stinking rich and, unlike traditional global corporations, does something innovative. halleluia!

  • J_Frank_Parnell
  • Carney3

    I highly recommend the books of nuclear and aerospace engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society, in particular:

    - "The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must";

    -" Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization".

    Zubrin presented Musk with an award at a recent Mars Society conference.

  • omgamuslim

    Wherever you put them, humanity has the same future - trouble and strife. But can we start with all the zionists first please? That will ensure a future on Mars as well as a future on earth.

  • Dr. A. Cannara

    Are folks serious? For us Tesla stockholders, maybe Elon can consider two thoughts...

    a) Devote more time to Tesla.

    b) Why assure the survival of a specie that has about ruined a nice planet?
    --
    Dr. A. Cannara
    650 400 3071 (call any time, Elon)

  • kinkajoo

    Is this rash of fresh posts due to Hancock ?

  • Samir Kabir

    If humanity is to have a future, we need to take care of and solve problems on this planet. And ask God for help. Humankind is not the end all nor be all.

  • Don DeHart Bronkema

    does it matter, ontologically?

  • Jiří Petruželka

    I really really hope we'll manage to make a serious breakthrough in Alcubierre/White-type drives or other non-conventional solution, both in implementability and economic feasibility. That would wash away many of the concerns stated here. Space travel is something I want to stay tremendously optimistic in, so... let's hope.

  • http://www.fija.org Jake Witmer

    I believe that Musk will succeed and colonize Mars. I believe this will be made possible by the technology being developed by Vicarious, Numenta, Google, and the Stanford AI lab (Kwabena Boahen, etc),IBM's Neuromorphic computing and SnNAPSE chip projects. This will, in turn, ultimately result in the building of robots that are like humans, but far smarter in every way. If they are taught to reject omnipresent control by sociopaths, given mirror neurons, and shown the value of mirror neurons (toward creating cooperative, empathic, capitalist societies), then there is no limit to what can be achieved in ten years.

    Of course, this means that a great many sociopaths will need to be removed from power (not necessarily killed, but removed from positions of power over others).

    Incremental improvements to what currently exists, combined with "outside the box" thinking (that is nonetheless tied to reality at *relevant* measurement points) is clearly the way to go. Musk has proven that he is capable of this level of thought, so I see no reason why he shouldn't succeed. The physics don't disallow what he wishes to do, nor does the cybernetics disallow the establishments of networks capable of making such a system fault tolerant.

    Stay strong, Mr. Musk.

  • http://www.fija.org Jake Witmer

    I love the article's comparison to the American colonists. Musk has no
    doubt read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. Freedom
    exists at the Frontiers because man's Augustinian devils are exploited
    by his Manichean devils. So, it makes sense to go to the frontiers, if
    one wishes to innovate as Musk is doing. It makes more sense to walk
    away from sociopaths if one cannot defeat them outright, without
    engaging in contests where mistakes of yours can be exploited. (In
    "Cybernetics" Norbert Weiner noted his mistakes in chess were often
    exploited, even though he could prevail in scientific discovery and
    engineering).

  • OwerrC

    The moment when you realize... Everything you have ever wanted or worked towards here on Earth is so minuscule; that sports car you saved for, the fancy clothes you bought, the job promotion you've been working so hard for, the startup idea thats suppose to "change the world", and even asking out the love your life, pales in comparison to "the duty to maintain the light of consciousness in the universe". Talking about a life humbling article. Fucking mind is blown.

  • brock2118

    Let's see-colonize Mars with its:
    extreme cold weather
    lack of atmosphere
    lack of radiation protection
    lack of plant life
    lack of oxygen
    lack of significant water
    really sounds great.
    It would be like living on the South Pole with lethal solar radiation storms but knowing that if all the oxygen leaked out of your station you were doomed to eternal hypoxia
    I couldn't wait to see Mr Musk headed up there after he sucks up all the tax subsiidies from Nevada.

  • lokanadam

    mr.anderson, i was once a book worm. after a few years online (reading blogs, tweets, fb msgs, ...), I lost patience to read stories more than 500 words long, let alone the library books I bring for my son. This article had just the right mixture of tech stuff, contextual explanations, building up of characters and subjects for me to actually read the article as well as all the comments and finally post a comment myself. kudos / cheers / congrats to elon, aeon, anders, MARSicano

  • Moose

    I couldnt agree more with this guy. I totally buy into cosmic manifest destiny. To skeptics i say, why shouldnt we be striving, yearning to accomplish this? This is one of the main things that makes us human, the need to explore, our natural inquisitiveness. This is our future, and i just hope i live long enough to witness some of it.

  • Stevemon

    Hmmm... ok, if it's such a great idea, why don't we start with a base on the moon. Aside from the lower gravity, it's just as hospitable as Mars AND it's closer to earth (in the event something goes wrong). Better yet, send a SpaceX Pioneer around the earth for a few months then land them on Antarctica and ask them to live for a year with only what they could bring with them. They'd have the benefit of atmosphere and water, if they can melt it, and instant communications. If Elon is serious about this, let him start here or on a Moonbase (who knows, Newt Gingrich may sign up!).

  • Stevemon

    PS. What make Elon think the human race is worth preserving? We've killed millions of each other in the last century and we've made even more animals extinct during our tenure on Earth, why should we look forward to doing the same to alien life on other planets? If we were bringing peace, health and prosperity (by any measure) to other planets, I'd be all for it, but our track record says otherwise. Just look at what the Columbian exchange wrought on the New World. Oh....that's right, WE'RE different.

  • blaiwesk

    Where did Freeman Dyson say that space travel is a folly? Would love to see a citation and read the counter argument.

  • martykayzee
  • Feodalherren

    Is that what you're gonna tell the engineers who are supposed to put you up there?

  • Kurt Loader

    A less dramatic option, would Instead of shipping 1 million physical bodies, we may ship 1 million DNA sets from healthy individuals, who may sequentially be developed in artificial uterus's. I also suggest Mr Musk contact and hire Franklin Chang Díaz, creator of the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR), more efficient than chemical rockets, and consider looking into Reaction Engines Skylon paradigm.
    http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket

  • Peter Connor

    Living the dream. Musk has the same dream that many of is grew up with,only to be betrayed.

  • Chintu

    Such an enjoyable read. Well researched, brilliantly articulated & a far cry from the slipshod internet journalism these days.

  • Nuno Hipólito

    Amazing article, very well written. Will come back for more.

  • SunnySam

    Why does every writer under the sun have to go over the top and claim Iron Man was inspired or based on Musk? Tony Stark, billionaire Iron Man existed before Musk was even born. Some IMDB FAQ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/faq#.2.1.38

  • Jakeo102

    I am kind of surprised at the amount of comments saying how magnificent and well written this article is. I found it to be so artistic, flowery, and pseudointellectual that it was difficult to get through, despite the fascinating topic. I'm not saying that Ross is a bad writer, that is obviously not the case. He is well versed in the English language and did a fair amount of background research for the article. However there were a lot of assumptions, leaps, and anthropogenic biases he takes in it, which were very distracting for me. Not to mention that he fails to add qualifiers throughout and ends up saying things in misleadingly broad terms. He does point out the fact that we may still be in are intellectual, scientific, exploratory, evolutionary infancy, but then makes a lot of statements that imply we know much more than we do. Ultimately he took a pretty good interview with someone who will likely have a momentous impact on humanity and added a bunch of junk in an attempt to make it fittingly grandiose for a subject such as Elon.
    I am not saying this to be argumentative or troll. I was simply surprised to see that no one else had made similar comments.

  • Lord Oxford

    Mars is a side issue - it is Deimos that is the construction base for interplanetary craft. and there are NO planets other than Earth that don't require a pressure dome,with heating. cooling, agriculture. http://www.Haven1.com is a habitat that can go there, be scaled there, and Is a LOT more comfortable than any planet. but we need to buy rocket engines from China, Russia or Space-X in large numbers - see AscentCraft.com and plans under UnitedSpaceAgency.com - we'd love to have Elon Musk on side!

    Lord Oxford

    • Carney3

      Mars is the main goal, like North America. Deimos and the Moon are like Greenland.

  • MorlockSlayer

    I saw 'Interstellar' the other day. It seems to me that it would be smart to try and colonize planets in our own solar system, before going to look for planets in other star systems.

  • SunnySam

    Actually there's not one instance ever where Downey said that.

  • Hope4Dbest

    For Mr. Musk's idea to work we have to find a better way of leaving the Earth than chemically propelled rockets.. Assuming we could pay for 100,000 launches at about $100.000.000 a pop, imagine the horrendous pollution.

  • Carney3

    Overall your post is very wrong. Read "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. Or see the documentary "The Mars Underground" on YouTube. The way there is NOT your grab-bag of unnecessary precursors and delays and distractions. It's to GO there.

  • Fabian

    To paraphrase cuibono 1969, this is a great article. As to the subject matter, I won't comment...