Mars Terraforming Debate 529
blackhelicopter writes "This Guardian article describes the implications of terraforming Mars - the subject of NASA's forthcoming debate. Quote from Dr Lisa Pratt, a Nasa astrobiologist, concerning life probably already on Mars: 'We simply cannot risk starting a global experiment that would wipe out the precious sensitive evidence we are seeking'."
Can We Even Do It? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can We Even Do It? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a futile effort... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a futile effort... (Score:5, Informative)
Despite this being /. I decided to perform a bit of research, so here are a few links to pages that I think support my point, that terraforming as far as a more hospitable atmosphere on Mars is possible:
They may be wrong, I may be wrong, but simply claiming the fact that the current Martian atmosphere is very thin as proof that no sustainable atmosphere is possible on Mars, that does not cut it. I will grant you that a 99% earth-like biosphere is unlikely, but a lot less is needed for it to be of use to a colony. Even a slight increase in temperature and pressure would make it easier to live on Mars, some plants might be able to grow (genetically modified mountain plants), the domes (or whatever it might be) needed for habitation might have to handle a smaller difference in pressure, or the time an astronaut might survive in an accident might increase.
And besides, even if it only lasts a few thousand years, an atmosphere might still prove useful. Not that I think we should do something like this without considering the consequenses, but once we have the technology, the trade-offs and risks might prove to be small enough for us to attempt terraforming Mars.
pave it over (Score:2, Funny)
Is this political flamebait story day?
Re:pave it over (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is decades-premature-story about a decision that can't be taken without information that will be learned these coming decades.
Seriously, no one will start changing Mars without decades of research first. That is just too stupid -- it's a straw man.
And, if they do terraform Mars sometime in the future, the decision will be based on information we will have learned between now and then.
It would be better to discuss how to lower the price of getting hardware into orbit. Before that happens, anything else are just pipe dreams and a very few tons of exploratory robots.
Cognitive dissonance (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly like those planning sessions, what you said here sounds eminently reasonable but it isn't.
The earlier you start thinking about something, the less data you have to work with, the more likely you are to paint yourself into a bizarre political corner long before real information surfaces. Once trapped there, it can be surprisingly difficult to reaim things in the light of reality as it arrives.
I vote for writing more scifi stories about it. That way the people that matter can read them and think, "Wow, what an imagination this dude has... hmm..." and start thinking about it without making any formal political commitment to a particular approach, and without establishing the foundations for a sea of red tape like that hobbling NASA and the US public space effort as you read this.
Think about Arthur Clarke or better yet Robert Forward [virginia.edu]. I can't see us running into a RocheWorld or Dragon's Egg anytime soon, but Forward's laid out some "harmless" thought experiments well in advance, realistic in that they don't posit any serendipitous breakthroughs in physics (barrinjg catastrophe, we could probably build his whacking great frequency multiplier a decade or to from now), and we seem to be surprisingly close to having his "Christmas Tree" avatars in real life.
When real data rolls up, untenable positions can be quickly and quietly dropped, and public positions can be established and worked from which bear at least a passing resemblance to Real Life(tm).
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:4, Interesting)
Similarly, human cloning needed a lot of discussion a long time before it was a practical proposition to get a feel for where the moral concensus lies. If it had been left till the technology was ready, some scientist would have just gone ahead and done it before anyone could object. Which reminds me, that was the topic of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
So, yes, let sci-fi writers ask the interesting questions, and let's have as much discussion as possible long before terraforming is possible.
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:3, Interesting)
Since we're talking about fiction vs. real life, Robinson's Red Mars [amazon.com] has pretty much covered all aspects of the Mars colonization, I think. Blue Mars and Green Mars (the next two books in the trilogy) speculate even further into the future and build on the speculations already in Red Mars, therefore they are not so vivid.
But Red Mars has succeeded to touch on a lot of the problems Mars could offer mankind, from "who owns Mars" to "should we terraform it or preserve it for research". It's chilling to see t
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:3, Interesting)
The debate in question is not forming policy. It's just throwing ideas on the table. They aren't saying 'let's form a Preserve Life On Mars Society -now-!' They're saying 'so, if there is l
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:3, Interesting)
The point was that any decisions to be made regarding terraforming will be made decades after research on Mars.
Today's discussion will probably be as relevant for Mars as Jules Verne's books will be for Moon colonies... [ 1/2 :-) ]
OK, OK. There are scenarios where the possibility of terraforming will come quite soon after the research on Mars because of a breakthrough in some area (say, space travel gets dirt cheap, Drexler-like nanotechno
Have not yet found life on Mars...so ... (Score:2, Offtopic)
That will also solve the problem of who "god" is (at least for the newly created martians). And it would make earth a sort of heaven from their perspective.
One day we will all move to mars, and use Earth as a big garbage dump...
I'll start a company that sends the remains of the dead back to Earth for burial
Re:Have not yet found life on Mars...so ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, strike that 'all' and replace with 'some select few'.
The logistics of evacuating a planet are simply near impossible. At our current population level you'd have to transport more than 1.7 million people per day, every day, for a decade. As we're rather unlikely to reach that orbital boost capacity in a very long time, if ever, the vast majority is stuck, no matter how many planets we have.
So, while your plan is nice, I suspec
Terraforming - why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it necessarily an easy decision? Perhaps we need to debate the meta-question: Is life the only criterion relevant to whether we should muck around with a planetary system?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The price of something should NOT be the number one consideration when making any important decision. Profit is not the noblest goal that humanity can strive for. While we all have to eat, I hope that enough people see the intrinsic worth of having humanity living in TWO baskets instead of one that Mars is terraformed one day - damn the cost!
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:3, Insightful)
So it can be preserved in it's natural state for people eons from nnow to admire, if the sun still happens to not have blown up?
The remote chance that life may develop there in the far future?
Maybe we should tear down all man-made structures into their components and kill off the human race in the chance something "better" develops later on?
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:3, Interesting)
But since we still can live here on earth today
... for now. Basically, we have three choices: restrict the growth of our species enough to preserve earth, start spreading out and spoiling other planets, or a combination of the two, protect the earth and start over again on other planets and treat them the right way. If a planet doesn't have a biosphere, but is capable of supporting one, I propose that "treating it the right way" is terraforming it and then preserving the terraformed version the way we sh
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviosly this isn't going to be feasable any time soon, but it's never too early to dream.
The desire to go to mars isn't going to be based on comfort of earth vs. barren wasteland of mars. It's going to be about exploration and adventure. The first settlers of america had a horrible fucking time, granted alot of them had been kidnapped and forced to go, but alot more went purely because they could.
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:5, Informative)
These are absolutely huge numbers. Even if we take all oxygen from all our water from the Earth this won't be enough to fill out the Mars atmosphere...
BTW, some facts about Martian Atmosphere (from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ma
Surface pressure: 6.36 mb at mean radius (variable from 4.0 to 8.7 mb depending on season)
[6.9 mb to 9 mb (Viking 1 Lander site)]
Surface density: ~0.020 kg/m3
Scale height: 11.1 km
Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg
Average temperature: ~210 K (-63 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 184 K to 242 K (-89 to -31 C) (Viking 1 Lander site)
Wind speeds: 2-7 m/s (summer), 5-10 m/s (fall), 17-30 m/s (dust storm) (Viking Lander sites)
Mean molecular weight: 43.34 g/mole
Atmospheric composition (by volume):
Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) - 2.7%
Argon (Ar) - 1.6%; Oxygen (O2) - 0.13%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 0.08%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) - 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) - 100; Neon (Ne) - 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) - 0.85; Krypton (Kr) - 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) - 0.08
Practice by Terraforming Earth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Practice by Terraforming Earth (Score:5, Insightful)
Better to risk an already dead planet (Score:3, Interesting)
"this planet is becoming significantly less Earth-like"
Earth changes. According to evolution it used to be a big giant block of ice. Earth has alledgedly been through a lot worse than anything man has managed to throw at it.
On the other hand, if Mars is dead, there's no harm in trying to
Re:Practice by Terraforming Earth (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow... I know there's a "disposal mentality" in our society, but throwing away this planet once we make it to others is spectacularly careless. We're going to want this planet long after it's no longer necessary for the survival of the species.
Re:Practice by Terraforming Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I see your point; but just saying "we're going to want this planet.." doesn't really address the parent's orginal point -- once we've got somewhere else to live, why would we need this planet? Apart from sentimental value, of course, there is no reason. And I wouldn't say that careless is the right word, it wouldn't be done without thought. Mercenary, uncaring, arrogant are all reasonable descriptions for that attitude. But none of them is absolutely "wrong" per se. I think you need a bett
The dangers of the Kyoto protocol (Score:5, Insightful)
Terraforming Mars has none of the risk of the Kyoto protocol. Whether or not we terraform Mars is basically irrelevant to the ecology of Earth. Likewise, as there isn't a strong industrial base on Mars it is pretty financially irrelevant in the short term. Essentially, the two groups debating this will be hardcore scifi geeks (like me) who want to colonize the universe and hardcore environment geeks who feel that everything is better untouched by human hands.
Personally, I feel that terraforming Mars will give Earth agencies experience in the vital area of fixing ecological nightmares. As for "screwing up" Mars, people generally point to Earth turning into Mars if we mess up this planet sufficiently. Mars is just about the worst-case scenario. Personally I'd rather have the fallback position that if global thermonuclear war were to wipe out our planet, at least life from Earth would continue somewhere. That, and the ample room such a planet would provide plus the enduring environmental investment sounds quite worthy of the loss of pristine, untouched land berift of much beyond sterilized soil and historical rocks. Much of the research into that could take place LONG before we are in a position to actually terraform the planet. After all, two out of three landers agree that the planet is a pain to get to, with one abstention.
Now, where the heavy debate is going to lie years down the road is whether or not terraforming a planet gives ownership rights to that planet, and if, for example, the people living on that planet have the right to cede from an offworld government that made life on that planet possible. That's going to be a huge, sticky debate mixing fundamental beliefs about freedom and democracy with entrenched and represented commercial interests and unspoken debts to powerful entities.
Re:The dangers of the Kyoto protocol (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow. That's surprisingly open minded of you, and bodes well for the movement. Anything that doesn't agree with your philosophy is instantly turned off without bothering to read the explanation, eigh? Where I come from, that's called fundamentalism, and is a sign of a closed mind and an indefensible intellectual predisposition.
If you had bothered to read further, you would have found that my main arguments for terraforming Mars is the potential for a greater knowledge and appreciation for environmental issues, and as a protection against potential future environmental catastrophes.
Kyoto was a compromise because it will force the closing of, for example certain broken down Russian factories where income is at a sustinence level and potential investments are nonexistent. Certain people in India eek out survival by the completely hazardous and toxic recycling and burning of computer parts. Environmental controls will put these people out of jobs in areas where there aren't any other jobs. That's a reality. That's also fair, as the environmental pollution these activities create is likely to kill more people than the activities themselves support. But to say that that is not a reality of existence in other countries is extremely close-minded.
I fashion myself an environmentalist, having bicycled more miles than many people drive and protested environmentally destructive activities. To this day I'm peeved about the importation of Snails to the North American ecology, and feel that wolves should be re-introduced into the wild. Come to think of it, I'm also a member of the Green Party. If the belief that environmentally sound activities involve compromise with people's other needs is so alien to you that you stick your fingers in your ears and go "La-la-la-la-la," then get out of my movement. That form of fundamentalism is out of touch with the experiences of most people in this world, even most environmentalists, and only serves to feed the stereotype of the lunatic fringe "greenie." A stereotype which has proven an effective weapon against us many times in the court of public opinion.
And don't post annonymously if you believe in something. Have a spine.
- Chris Canfield
Re:The dangers of the Kyoto protocol (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dig around for details on the two rovers there at the moment for instance, I'm sure you'll find there was a very meticulous process to make sure everything was completely sterlised before arriving on mars.
Of course that doesn't mean life didn't hitch a ride somehow, but it does seriously up the "unlikely" stakes a notch or two.
Jedidiah.
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:3, Informative)
The US has tried to be careful about sterilizing its Mars landers. The Viking landers were very thoroughly sterilized, since their main purpose was to look for signs of life; it was important to eliminate false positive results from terrestrial "hitchhikers". The Pathfinder and MER landers were mainly geology missions and that, combined with the negative Viking results, led to a somewhat lower standard of sterility. (IIRC they went over the exterior of the rover with disinfectants, but did not have to he
Imperialism (Score:4, Insightful)
Muck It Up (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. Unless humans learn to take care of what they have, we should not even begin to consider "jumping planets" just 'cause we don't want to fix up Earth. It sort of puts us in the position that the aliens from Independence Day held -- we just move from planet to planet raping it for any
Re:Muck It Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Terraforming mars will always be a secondary hobby project for earthlings. And it seems silly to say "we should get our own house in order first" because 1) we'll never be perfect; that's no reason not to start other projects, and 2) there are billions of humans, so we can work on projects in parallel.
I think terraforming mars and cleaning up earth's environment are synergistic goals anyway; both will benefit from lessons learned in the other. Mars is a great testbed since it *can't* be mucked up any worse than it already is.
Kim Stanley Robinson's books about terraforming Mars got me more interested in ecology than any non-fiction book I've ever read. I think because ecological writers tend to have a hopeless anti-human perspective: we're a sinful blight upon the environment; we mess it up accidentally, and anything we try to do to fix it will probably go horribly wrong; best thing we can do is curl up and die. Robinson on the other hand paints an image of humans creatively taking responsibility for ecological problems and fixing them.
Whoa whoa (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, if we really are in one, I get first dibs on the free jetpacks.
Seriously, these guys seem to be using this as a ploy to get more funding. I.e., if the planet earth gets screwed up, we have a backup planet we can egress to..
Let's Go (Score:5, Insightful)
I say terraform it as soon as we can.
Human survival, wellbeing, and expansion should trump all other concerns. We are the measure of all things.
Second, a species with only one planet is necessarily at greater risk than a species with two planets. We need the insurance policy.
I love science. But the value of another planet to our species is greater than the cost of losing the odd microbe or two that might be found on Mars.
I say, "Let's Go!"
Re:Let's Go (Score:5, Insightful)
Until we meet a species with bigger guns, we own the place. No need to wipe out anything we find, but there's no need to devote a whole planet to a single species of microbe, if it exists.
You start with microbes. (Score:5, Interesting)
sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, if you have exceeded the credit limit on one credit card, it's not that your spending habits are out of line with your income, it's that you need another one, right?
Folks, if we can't live well and sustainably on a planet as nice as Earth, adding Mars into the mix won't help.
Sure it starts with a debate (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll never happen. Why? Terraforming is a multigenerational undertaking. So far the only human creation to span many generations has been religions and the wars they involve.
Mammoth tasks like terraforming a planet simply cannot be done given the current state of human psychological development. Who here would work on a project that would only be fulfilled hundreds of years after your death?
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the Egyptian pyramids, the Great wall of China, and Mont. St Michel (which took 500 years to complete).
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah but then democracy happened and since then no democratic state can plan more than about 4 years ahead.
Re:Interesting. (Score:4, Insightful)
True, democracies tend not to build cathedrals with government funds. Have you ever considered that there's a reason for that? In particular, that democracies don't build cathedrals because they're not worth the cost?
Of the achievements listed in the post you quote, only one had any real value to the people that built it. The Great Wall did indeed make people safer. But the pyramids? What good did they do to the people who provided the labor that built them? They are monuments to the folly of man, to the oppression of people who don't choose their rulers, to the power of religious government in draining the fruits of a society. Imagine the investment of people, materials, and expertise that went into building those useless tombs. Think of the opportunity costs of building the pyramids.
In a democracy, people don't like building pyramids or cathedrals that serve to glorify the ruling classes. So if they don't build such things, good for them.
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
But democracies plan years into the future all the time. We're debating Medicare changes because of a supposed issue 15 years down the road. Now, we might change our plans, but hey, what good is democracy if you can't change your mind?
You might mean that we aren't planning hundreds of years into the future. That's true. But we don't need to plan hundreds of years into the future. If we wanted to build a cathedral, we could do it in a year.
In fact, there really isn't anything we can plan hundreds of year
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)
Very true. I did a Google search for various time lengths (five/ten/twenty year plan). Anything less than ten years was commercial/industrial, ten to thirty years was regional government, and anything over thirty years was religious/fanatical.
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe this generation doesn't, but past generations have been able to build things. The pyramids, the Great Wall of China. Back in my days we spent days moving one-ton blocks from one side of the road to the other. With our tongues. It's just these young pups, and their MTV generation short attention span, and their lazy work ethic. Young whipper-snappers.
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a human endeavor that has been "under construction" for many centuries; it involves dedicated workers from nearly all nations of the world working in collaboration and competition to advance the endeavor incrementally, year after year, lifetime after lifetime.
It's called Science.
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Devise a reliable method of getting vehicles to the planet.
Step 2: Terraform the planet.
I think we should work on step 1 before worrying about step 2.
Already debated in Sci-Fi (Score:5, Informative)
Ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where does one draw the line?
On earth humans have caused extinctions many times over. It is only in recent years that we try to preserve waning species. If we go to another planet we should take these philosophies with us wherever we call our home; if we do decide to colonize or terraform another planet it should be done in away that doesnt destroy any life that already exists there.
I do have another opinion though; Mankind is life, a very successful form of life. It seems to me that our aging planet is not going to last forever; Man has always looked up into the stars in awe and wonder, I beleive that it is our destiny to be up their in the heavens, that is the ultimate challenge life has to face. Just because we call Earth "Home" , why should it not be the case that the universe is our "Home" ?
Is it right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you draw the line? You draw the line with the greatest force. If they have the greater force you die and they live.
Mars (Score:3, Insightful)
Note to all those calling us "viruses". (Score:5, Insightful)
Long-term, humans will have to leave this planet at one time or another. While I agree we could be using this one more efficiently, and that terraforming is a bit too far off to worry about just now, debating the morality of terraforming is just silly. Survival of the fittest!
Premature (Score:5, Interesting)
From Mike Combs' Space Settlement FAQ (Score:4, Informative)
Aren't we going to terraform Mars or Venus?
Terraforming is a long-term project requiring technology significantly advanced over what we have today. Even terraforming advocates admit it would take a minimum of 200 years to modify Mars to the stage where even simple anaerobic microorganisms and algae can survive. [Ref: Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments, Martyn J. Fogg, SAE Press 1995.] Space habitats, on the other hand, can be built with today's technology, and would be homes in space which people initiating the program could move into within their lifetimes.
Interstellar travel may someday become possible, but we have no guarantee that Earth-like planets will be as plentiful in the Milky Way galaxy as they have been in Hollywood, CA.
What advantages would orbital settlements have over a colony built on another planet?
Sunlight also drives the life-support system of the habitat, so the day/night cycle can be set to whatever is convenient. Compare this to the moon, where there is 14 days of continuous daylight, and then a 14-day-long night. Here, some alternate energy source would probably have to be used half the time.
Zero G would be a liability if there were no alternative to it. Astronauts experience loss of bone mass and muscle tone after prolonged exposure to weightlessness. But most of a space habitat would be under Earth-normal gravity, although there would be easy access to regions of reduced gravity and zero G (perhaps for personal flight). With planets, on the other hand, you have to take the gravity that's there, and it's often the wrong kind of gravity to keep us healthy. Lunarians or Martians would probably not be able to visit the Earth (nor accelerate at 1 G).
Re:From Mike Combs' Space Settlement FAQ (Score:3, Funny)
That matches what I've always thought too. Planets are nice places to visit, but I wouldn't want to live on one.
Re:From Mike Combs' Space Settlement FAQ (Score:4, Interesting)
This planet nurtures us, protects us, and defines our very nature - and it has been doing this continuously, without much help at all, since we were drawing on cave walls. While I am all for the idea of self-sustaining artificial habitats if it can be done, it looks darned difficult to me to get the things the Earth provides, essentially free for the taking, into orbit such that they are sustainable.
Where the water went. (Score:4, Insightful)
Jupiter in the same manner sucked up more gasses and is larger than Neptune or Uranus.
It's possible that mars when it's core was warm enough had some shallow seas but then again it also had a thin aphmosphere from the beginning without enough gasses emitted from the time the crust cooled and volcanoes adding to the mix before plate tectonics on the planet shut down which it did so long ago there's no mention of any existance of faults on the surface of mars.
It's my belief that mars by the time it became tectonically stable and then dead not enough gasses were emitted into the aphmosphere to keep things thick enough for water vapor to exist on the surface in large amounts and much of it possibly has been blown into space. The rest is liquid deep below and frozen into the surface.
For any useful terraforming on the planet once we were able to pollute the aphmosphere to thaw things out a bit we'd still be faced with bringing water to the planet. One way would to have robots digest asteroids and free hydrogen to build giant ice blocks and hurl them to the planets surface or bring ice from europa and send it down to the surface of mars.
But first even the thought of terraforming another planet to live on would involve a huge change in the econmic forces driving the world economy. So I doubt it'll even begin during my lifetime.
Not So Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, it's not as if we're about to start terraforming tomorrow. Even the most zealous of the Mars exploration types (i.e. Robert Zubrin [wikipedia.org] of The Mars Society [marssociety.org]) don't think it should be done until the planet has been explored in depth.
Secondly, keep in mind that we'd really be *fixing* a planet that nature has let die here. All of our new data shows that Mars was once a very life-friendly planet, with oceans, etc.; now it's a cold, nasty place that's only getting more inhospitable as time goes on. Doesn't it make sense to reverse that process and expand the realm where life is viable?
Third, it's not like doing this would necessarily kill any life forms on Mars anyway. The process would be extremely gradual -- we're talking hundreds of years or more here -- giving microbes, etc. plenty of time to adapt. Heck, we might be giving a boost to what life there might be on Mars.
Fourth, it's not as if we've even ruined Earth anyway. People tend to forget that one solid volcanic eruption puts out more CFCs than all of human industry ever has. Environmentalists greatly overstate humanity's impact on the planet in their effort to take down industrialized society. We're not doing that poorly here, and what we've learned on Earth would certainly be applied to terraforming of Mars. Heck, the Red Planet might end up being less polluted/more natural than Earth!
So just calm down a bit and take a moment to consider some of the positives that might come with terraforming Mars. It could be a Really Good Thing.
Re:Not So Bad (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that's quite accurate. Volcanos can emit quite a bit of HCl and sulfate aerosols. The latter tend to amplify the effects of human-generated CFCs. Check out this link [epa.gov]
Re:Not So Bad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not So Bad [OT] (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever thought of why those evil environmentalists might want to do that? Seeing as how they benefit from industrialized society too?
Yeah, I can't think of a reason either. Which is why I as an environmentalist don't want to destroy industrialized society. I only want to sacrifice a little economic efficiency for the sake of long-term viability. And it's why I don't go making u
Re:Not So Bad (Score:3, Informative)
Wired: "NASA is getting ready to invade [Mars] " (Score:3, Informative)
"Maybe there are spores in the Atacama after all.
That doesn't mean that we'll find them on Mars. But it sure does suggest that we might want to look. "
terraforming (Score:5, Insightful)
This implies that, when reasonable efforts are done to detect it, and none are found, I think one should go through with human colonisation. Anything else would amount to a moratorium: you are NEVER completely sure that there is no niche somewhere on a planet where life (as we know it or not, jim!) exists. Infact, those planets that have the most potential to sustain (alien) life, will often be those that have the most potential to be fterraformed.
And, while some may dispute it, human life (or at least intelligent life) comes first, period. We can see that in the reality on earth as well. While I'm all for procedures and inventions that reduce the medical experimenting on animals, for example, I do not subscribe to the idea of the ultra-greens that evrything in this regard should be forbidden and abolished. It's doubtfull that animal experiments can be totally abolished, and I have no problem with the necessary experiments, to ensure medicines are as safe as possible for human use. I think most would agree. This established one thing clearly: ultimately, humans come first (at least over non-sentient other beings).
In practical terms, what does this imply? Well, science certainly must have it's shot, and the discovery of alien life would be wonderfull and potentially very important, even in our daily lives. But, if, say, in 20 years of searching, nothing is found, and one can be reasonably sure that there is no life (or it's in such remote niches that it will not rapidely be contaminated anyway), I think one should start terraforming the planet, so that humans (and the earth ecology to sustain them) may thrive on another planet, thereby augmenting our survival (and that of the earth ecology).
If life IS found, however, things become more difficult. Certainly the timeframe in which to colonise/terraform would be much longer (if ever), depending on the level of alien ecological presence on the planet (small niches or not). Certainly, one could not let that alien life die, so, even if one did decide to terraform, then only after an artificial, viable surroundings is developped (sort of closed zoo, thus), where the alien ecology may be sustained indefinately.
I'm not going into safety-concerns here, since that's another topic.
But let's face it: when/if there are other alternatives in keeping alien (non-sentient) life in existence, then one should do that and go on with what is of most use to the human race anyway.
Great economic potential (Score:5, Funny)
Then, of course, there will be all those mars patents to file.
I'm allready getting ready to a couple. The first relates to the use of circular device mounted on a central pivot to ease the problem of transport over the martian surface, whilst the second one is all about the application of temperature elevated hydrogen hydoxide in space colonization.
Not necessarily... (Score:3, Interesting)
If mars has life and that life has the same genetic makeup as what we have here on Earth, it does not necessarily mean that one has contaminated the other (that is a possible conclusion, even a probable one, but not the only option). Another conclusion that could be reached is that the genetic makeup we have here happens to be a particularly successful one (evolutionarily speaking), so most living organisms anywhere in the galaxy are likely to be similar to the ones we have here for that reason.
Re:Not necessarily... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily... (Score:4, Interesting)
Major Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Useless Navel-gazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd like to see us gain the ability to create human-friendly environments away from Earth. But discussing the issue seems to me to be a pointless exercise, best left to university classrooms and NASA cafeterias during lunch hour.
Why? Because we're not even remotely capable of actually doing any terraforming, for several reasons:
1: We don't have the technological ability. We have some marginal sense of what might work, and lots of good ideas, but we're decades away from having the technological means to terraform.
2: We don't have the economic ability to terraform. This is the real kicker. Assume that even a modest, trial attempt to terraform would cost $100 billion dollars; since we don't have even $1 billion to spend on it, we're at least a hundred orders of magnitude away from having the financial means to engage in even the most limited terraforming.
3: We lack the political & social drive to engage in terraforming. Assuming (1) and (2) from above were no longer problems, there would need to be a strong, global, urgent demand that we engage in terraforming. There are many ways we might conceive of this happening, but none of them are apparently in the works, as of yet. This may change, but if it did, then we could spend time then debating the ethics of terraforming Mars, which, by then, will have been investigated to a much greater degree than it currently is.
I figure we ought to be spending our money, time, and effort doing that investigation, rather than getting worked up over ethical debates that, ultimately, don't matter one whit.
100 billion = cool weapons (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to troll...but we can't spare that 100 billion because then we wouldn't have so many cool shinny things that go boom. ;-)
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
We are intelligent beings who (in my opinion) should be able to expand into space. I'm not saying we recklessly terraform planets and suck up all of the resources. We need to realize what we've done to Earth and not do it again.
On top of our species very survival, Mars can also be used as a pad for further space exploration in our never ending quest to find extraterrestrial life, specifically intelligent beings like ourselves.
We can't even take care of Earth (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn, we're destroying Earth at a faster pace than it can repair itself and we won't accept responsiblity to care for it, how the hell are we going to take care of TWO planets?
Not to mention, what if there is some dormant life there? Do we destroy it to replace it with life as we see fit?
And what about the soil? Are there nutrients there to support growing plant life? I doubt it. How will we fertilize the soil? Who will pay for all this pie in the sky BS..
We better take care of what we have here first.
Fix Earth first. Once it's gone, it's gone.
Extinction is forever..
I think too many people read too much science fiction. Science fiction is escapism from reality.
Re:We can't even take care of Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
Science fiction is escapism from reality.
Insightful observation. I suspect its why Star Trek became so popular.
I think too many people read too much science fiction.
Science fiction is not the only way to escape reality. Therefore, cessation of sci-fi reading would only move those people to other forms of escapism. And that's not just limited to romance novels or *gasp* fantasy based crap.
Mars Has No Magnetic Shield and Cannot Support an (Score:3, Interesting)
I am merely a layman on this subject, but it seems to me that without somehow restarting the Martian dynamo to generate a global magnetic field, the idea of terraforming Mars will always remain science fiction.
With this information, it seems to me that the idea of terraforming Mars is a joke. Am I missing something?
References:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_mag
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0012/17marsmagnet
first things first (Score:3, Interesting)
If we could find massive cave systems around volcanic areas, it would be even easier to build a huge contained ecosystem, since:
a) there is very little tectonic activity on Mars, if at all; and
b) whatever geothermal activity left on that planet could be used as a power source, on top of solar panels installed on the surface.
Add some nuclear power plants to the mix and you've got yourself a permanent settlement.
Surprising that nobody's mentioned this... (Score:3, Funny)
Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Columbus, Pizzaro, Cortez, and others were interested in wealth, property and prestige.
And they weren't worried about who or what was destroyed while they were acquiring those things.
Back off man - I'm a scientist (Score:3, Funny)
Terraforming in 24 hours: Go watch Total Recall (Score:3, Funny)
Arnold, "Douglas Quaid" inside the movie, is actually a former martian who was also a spy on earth. However he got busted and certain parts of his memory was erased. Coming back to Mars Quaid starts to remember things.
The best part of that movie is the last 5 minutes, where Quaid suddenly remembers how to free the Martian people living in closed controlled environments, also with suers underground. He remembers there is a thousands of years old installation underground, which needs to be activated, Quaid also remembers suddenly how that is done, and what we see happen is actually Terraforming performed in a couple of minutes! A semi gas-explosion-release is activated and the atmosphere fills up, and a blue sky and clouds are formed.
Robert
Some Microbes are more equal than others, it seems (Score:3, Interesting)
'It is very depressing. Before we have even discovered if there is life on Mars - which I am increasingly confident we will find - we are talking about undertaking massive projects that would wipe out all these indigenous lifeforms, all the strange microbes that we hope to find buried in the Martian soil. It is simply ethically wrong.'
OK.... but pumping your kids full of antibiotics and blasting the kitchen counter with bleach is A-OK... RIGHT?
So, let's look at this: some subzero Martian Microbes are worth much more than some random sample of salmonella from the blue fuzzy biology experiment in the fridge that used to be a pizza a few months ago, correct?
OK. so some Martian people should get all the money and good education and fun toys. And the Earthlings? Send 'em off to extermination camps.
People:microbes - we have more in common with flatworm parasites than we do with viruses, so it's OK to kill viruses, but not flatworms?
My opinion: get over it.
1. by the time we're in ANY position to terraform Mars, we'll probably have been there several times with live human-type people and Bog knows how many R2D2 units scouring the planet for every bit of info we can get. We'll be well informed of what is actually (if anything) there.
2. Terraforming Mars is going to take centuries, and it will take trillions of dollars over that time. In the mean time here on the little green planet of clocks, we will likely be in the middle of our depopulation cycle (through war, disease, environmetal degradation, or some terrorist asshats develolping an airbourne version of HIV or who knows what...) and as the population shrinks, so will the tax base for space exploration. This will only serve to delay the terraforming further.
3. Assuming we gradually depopulate, and we don't have a glaciation in the process, (i.e. all things being roughly the same, but improving) Terraforming Mars will not be a central activity of the species, and we wll be able to monitor the progress of its development closely.
4. There is another possibility: that by terraforming mars we kick off an accelerated evolution of (whatever life there might be) on Mars. Perhaps Martian life will help in the terraforming process.
In anycase, the person who spoke the quoted line needs to get their tinfoil hat loosened. And think a bit more about what they dump on their kitchen counter.
RS
Self assembly is the answer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why wait for nanotech to arrive? Here is the perfect opportunity to send robotic machinery, capable of building more robotic machinery. Machines whch can mine mars for raw materials. Then take those raw materials and build new robots, build human habitats, build greenhouses, build fuel manufacturing facilities, and build structure for concentrating precious commodities like water and methanol.
Because this can be done with only a couple moderately large payloads, it has tremendous feasibility advantages over trying to send spaceship after spaceship full of human operated equipment. We've already seen self assmebling robotic prototypes here on slashdot. Designing modular machines that can move/excavate/mine soil, smelt, produce glass and silicon products, and make bricks or concretes (using liquid CO2 for the liquid for the slurry), would make possible, the building of a fully operational base on Mars before we ever arrive.
This is exactly the kind of technology that could make living spaces on the moon and near earth asteroids possible. This is the best, and most economic means to begin harvesting the wealth available to us in the inner solar system.
Marie
Water found on mars! (Score:3, Funny)
Terraform Mars because they Terraformed us! (Score:3, Funny)
Whoops, my tinfoil hat fell off... let me get that before anything happens...
Re:wonderful.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wonderful.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we should make a backup before we start applying patches.
I'm not very concerned with messing the precious barren desert they have going there...not as much as I am about our lush diverse ecosystem anyways.
And if there is life there, well its sure to be better suited to its native environment than what we bring along. At worst we get our first scientific data about how our bacteria interact with xenobacteria.
Re:Not to mention (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention [a]ny life we haven't found *yet*.
I may be "jumping to conclusions" on this one, but do you possibly thing that's what she meant by 'We simply cannot risk starting a global experiment that would wipe out the precious sensitive evidence we are seeking'
Not only was that in the article, it was in the freakin' post. Anyone who modded you insightful should have the backs of their hands tapped hard with a spoon.
Re:Not to mention (Score:3, Insightful)
And if we can terraform an entire planet to save our species, I'd imagine we could save ourselves on our own planet without having to jump to another.
Re:Not to mention (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm very environmentalist. I'm also extremely pro-terraforming, pro-colonization of space, and in favor of pushing out the boundaries of humanity both spatially and structurally (I'm a lefty green post-humanist). It hasn't come to this yet, but I do see a day in which the people willing to leave the planet as well as pursue self-enhancement and eschew mo
So colonise away... (Score:3, Insightful)
No need to go inflicting our half-assed terraforming technologies on poor lil' Mars for a few millennia yet. As well as the immense amount of time it'd take (can't just go steering hunks of Saturnian rings into the Arean deserts and throw some seeds after them - or put a hand into a slot in a big alien machine and have instant atmosphere - yes, even if you are Arnie), the amount of useable surface area that resulted w
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
Most all of the money we dump into this crap is a waste. And I'm not trying to be a troll. But seriously, we want to make Mars inhabitable. Why not start a little smaller there pancho. Like Africa.
The problem with this.. besides it being probably completely impossible, is that before we ever started reaping any potential benefits of this experiment, we will immediately start taking this planet for granted. I don't know, that probably sounds like hippy stuff, but I think it's true.
Re:Isn't cheaper to encourage population control? (Score:3, Funny)
So, keep your balls and eat more pizza!
Re:Our own planet (Score:3, Insightful)
There is evidence to suggest that Ice Ages are a cyclic event in Earth's histroy (every 10,000 years or so, and we're due for one any time now), and that the planet warms up for a number of years, just b
Re:Our own planet (Score:4, Interesting)
How arrogant can we possibly get as to think that we have even and inkling of understanding into how the planet works on an astronomical scale?
My bio professor made a short convincing argument supporting some form of regulation of fossil fuel consumption back in '83. It boils down to this: Soon, the third world will be hopping onto the industrialization bandwagon (and that included the 1+ billion Chinese). At some point billions of tons of carbon will be added into the atmosphere. How can there NOT be climatic changes when that much chemical material is inserted into the atmosphere? (You can't be a scientist with any understanding of chemistry, physics, or ecology and not realize that.) If you live in the Gobi desert, sure, any change would be an improvement. Do you really think the US is going to improve or even retain its living conditions with global environmental change?
Re:It comes down to who owns Mars (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, I also believe that those same people would prefer a mass genocide of all of mankind (excepting themselves and a very small group of like-minded people). Some even plan for it and hope the rest of us kill each other.
I would have to agree that ownership of the territory is going to be a huge issue. There are folks that