I definitely prefer spending the money on fusion over rushing a Mars mission. Fusion is probably cheaper than Mars and will actually benefit humanity. Which is not something I can say about going to Mars (or even the moon).
A Mars mission would benefit humanity, but less directly. The past lunar missions and space program benefited humanity in many ways.
For pure return on investment, I agree with your take.
Provided of course that any future threats to humanity as a single planet civilization don’t materialize. There’s a low and uncertain tail risk ignored in our calculation.
Are you saying that the benefit to humanity of a Mars mission is that if the Earth explodes, we have an uninhabitable planet (under any realistic expectations) to stay on?
No, he clearly said that a "second home for humanity" is of dubious (but potentially nonzero) value.
Rather, the main benefit would lie in the technological advances made in order to enable such a Mars mission in the first place (similar to advances during Apollo).
>Rather, the main benefit would lie in the technological advances made in order to enable such a Mars mission in the first place
I agree with this view, but the comment I was replying to only mentioned as a benefit that Mars could be a second home (which I find rather ridiculous).
"that comment literally say" even thought it doesn't say that one of the benefit would be "technological advances" so in reality "that comment literally doesn't say it" and that's why I was asking.
Economic advances don't trickle down to "us mortals"?
Dude, the relentless decrease in cost of manufactured items, this decrease that makes your current way of life possible, is driven by exactly that. Manufacturers are in life-or-death competition and we consumers reap the benefit as prices are driven ever downward.
