Ulyks

Ulyks t1_j2w5k8x wrote

No not misleading at all.

My only gripe is them not labeling their data points with a mouse hover.

It would be interesting to see the names of the micro regions by hoovering the mouse over the dots, especially the ones near the bottom or top.

Also, they should have included the complete dataset table and where they got their data from. Unfortunately almost no articles do this, it seems they guard their data and sources like a hoard of gold.

1

Ulyks t1_izx6jrf wrote

Yeah singularity is one thing. Freeing up resources for the massive investments needed to terraform Mars is another.

I'm sure a superintelligent AI could come up with a detailed and feasible plan by 2040 to start terraforming Mars.

But it will probably involve everyone on earth paying 10% more taxes to fund the endeavor.

It's a no go until we solve many pressing problems on earth first.

1

Ulyks t1_izx5zno wrote

Didn't the first colonist almost starve, if not for the food they got from the natives, as celebrated during thanksgiving?

There are no natives on Mars, neither is there breathable air, soil, livable temperatures or potable water.

So you need to take all of that with you, which is impossible. Or instead take entire industrial supply chains to mars to create those essentials. Which is almost impossible but perhaps not entirely.

Anyway, it will cost endless resources to kickstart Martian colonies.

Trillions of dollars at least.

Can we spare that? Perhaps but we will need to tighten the belt somewhere.

1

Ulyks t1_iwft03z wrote

I don't think forbidding the sale of water internationally would be a good idea.

Many places like Hong Kong heavily depend on imports of water.

They could build desalination plants but those are often very polluting as they don't have space for more passive solar powered desalination systems.

But farmers in California for example pay only 70$ for an acre-foot of water. An acre-foot is 1233m³ and is enough for about 10 families for a year (that pay on average 70$ per month).

So farmers are paying less than 1% of the price of the water.

Maybe bringing that up to 100% would be too large of a shock and put all farmers out of business but it's clear they will have to pay a larger share in the future.

Perhaps they can make exceptions for locally consumed foods to incentivize that. But that is a bit hard to track and verify. And I think more expensive food would most likely be consumed locally anyway.

1

Ulyks t1_iu49kcg wrote

On paper there is no private land but in reality there are a huge amount of land deals.

The government is buying out the farmers and selling the land to developers all the time.

Taxes aren't counted in GDP, that would be GDI.

GDP = consumption + investment + government spending +/- (exports - imports)

1

Ulyks t1_itfj27j wrote

Tien Shan or Tian Shan is the Chinese name of this mountain range that forms the border between Kyrgyzstan and China and also Kazakhstan.

It means "heavenly mountains".

The Kyrgyz name may be "Tengri Tagh", but I'm not 100% sure about that.

1