[ExI] one way trip to mars

[Mike Dougherty]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> Volunteers, yes.
>
> Qualified volunteers?  Not as many.
>
> People who don't run a very high risk of messing things up and turning it into
> a disaster, which could be foreseen way in advance?  Per the article:
>
> "There will be tremendous public and political opposition from many members
> of the public to a mission which can only end in death."

Ironically I just responded that some of us might like to avoid death
while the rest of the population feels it is inevitable.  In this case
the argument is over the duration of a reasonable period of life.

Seriously, why is it acceptable to fight over the "right" to live X
amount of time longer than a proposed mission to Mars (or wherever)
but any amount of time <X is perfectly fine for people who stay home
and live day-to-day on earth?

Is an 80 year life a "good long time" or will we feel cheated during
year 79 that the end is approaching?  What if the mission to mars is
expected to last 80 years? (but guaranteed to last no longer)  What
about half that?

Taking a page from England's past, are there any criminals willing to
exchange their life sentence on earth for a pioneering colonial life
in The New Americas (or New Australias) ?

Aside from these considerations, there is always marketing and
outright capitalism:  get paid big bucks for the sake of your family
in exchange for completing useful work on Mars.  You definitely won't
come back, but your family is practically guaranteed to a better life
than if you continue your current 9-5 routine.  How many of spike's
"proles" would take this option?  How many does Keith say would follow
their biological imperative to do so?