Future pandemics, hands down.

I’ll take B for a four hundred Alex.

Since I have absolutely NO desire to go to Mars, I’ll vote for the pandemic!!!

Mars. We can’t stop dreaming of the future, and exploring, just because a few people (comparatively) die.

But is it really an either / or decision? I doubt it.

Given that the money will not prevent all future pandemics but will instead be spent on prevention and that the money will be spent on mars irrespective of how we vote, it’s a moot point. I’ll take anthropological chauvinism for 2,000 please Alex.

It’s an unrealistic false choice. There are plenty of other ways to fund both pursuits. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, the funding would be spent on prevention. You need to have the outbreak first before you can fund the research to know what pathogen you’re fighting.

Mars is more important to the human race in the long term, and it will always remain a dream until we actively begin to pursue it.

Mars? Forget about it!

The amount of money needed to prepare for future pandemics is minuscule compared to the colossal amount of money needed to colonize Mars 52 million miles away (a small, dead, poisonous, frozen, hell hole without a breathable atmosphere).

Our limited resources should be spent on healthcare of humans and our precious garden planet.

Mars, we always need a Plan B.

In case of future pandemics or global catastrophe, we could at least save our species.

Instead of finding another planet to live on and also destroy, it would be better to fix the problems on the one planet that we live on.
Why travel to another planet only to do the same thing?

@Inspired_2write “Why travel to another planet only to do the same thing?”

It’s a fair point, but if an asteroid hits and we only have life on one planet, then it doesn’t matter if we fixed our problems or not—the human race will be done. As @KNOWITALL points out having a “Plan B” is a wiser strategy.

I would choose the colony on Mars. Prevention of future pandemics is theoretical at best, and any pandemic would/could/might help to alleviate Earth’s overburdening human population, which needs to be addressed.

@kritiper Ah, someone recognizes the crux of the matter-overpopulation. We should make a thread on that sometime. We’re expected to exceed the earth’s resources by 2040.

@gorillapaws

”..........” IF” an asteroid hits…....?”

But what IF it doesn’t?

Money and resources spent on searching another livable planet could

be best used to build up a better environment that can handle overpopulation.

Overpopulation:

Means that number of people in an environment that can’t sustain more due

to unpreparedness in meeting that eventuality.

In that case better to use our resources in a more efficient way .

Example: I believe that single housing WILL disappear and more apartments will skyrocket

some at 50 floors to accommodate the population increase.

That way the lots that now hold single homes will be utilized more efficiently either as

Agriculture Farms ( etc) where our food resources would multiply and therefore

accommodate the population increases.

More birth control and a strategic way of controlling number of births etc.

If on another planet there would be dome structures for living and working in then why not

have that here on Earth ?

Who is to say what the future will hold whether here or on another planet?

It is more likely that an asteroid could hit that planet more so than Earth.

One does not negate the possibilities of that happening out in space either.

One is not better than the other, its a false hope of security, whereas there is no security.

I’m sensing an assumption that there would be no pandemics on Mars. And that IF an asteroid struck earth, we would all be destroyed.