New Mars Forums

I've just finished reading Steven Jay Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus. One of the points he makes repeatedly is that evolution does not make any statement regarding how life began. It simply describes a process (natural selection) which there is plenty of evidence for in the fossil record. Creationists love to make the argument that evolutionists are claiming that evolution describes the origin of life and that there is insufficient evidence for such a claim. This mistake was made explicitly by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion to the landmark decision in 1987 which ended the Creationis-favored equal time clause for teaching of "creation science" in public schools in many states. It's also interesting how even those who favor evolution forget it's not about origins- just about the way organisms change through time.

New AP report- check it out!

They're proposing a six-man mission in 2015 as an international effort- they would pay for 30% of the mission. Price tag $20 billion. Has to be Mars Direct.

In the same paragraph that I used the term "Earth defender" I qualified my view by saying that I'd like to find common ground with the "mainstream" environmental movement. The quote above seems to indicate you'd be more comfortable with pigeon-holing all of those who care about the Earth with a convenient label so can oppose them more readily.

I think this kind of us vs. them mentality is counterproductive. You also suggest that the leadership of the Sierra Club doesn't think like I do about Mars. It would surprise me very much if they did. If so they'd probably be in the Mars Society instead. What I spoke of was finding common ground. There are countless people on this planet who love the thrill of hiking up into a spectacular alpine valley or experiencing the solitude of the desert. Many of them haven't yet given much thought to what wonders await on other worlds. I'm just thinking it wouldn't hurt to expand their horizons a little bit.

There are forces that oppose us in our objectives to get a wave going in support of manned missions to Mars. Generally, however, I feel that our biggest enemy is apathy and lack of vision. We can do more by helping to ignite the passions of those who are natural explorers than we can by trying to isolate and attack the naysayers.

This sounds like fear speaking. Worrying about our ideals being diluted by contact with strangers who think differently than we do sounds very much like the attitude that destroyed the Ming Dynasty. If we're sure enough in our vision it's we who will be opening minds rather than the closed minded working to shutter ours. If we insist that the Mars Society only be composed of those who agree to a very stringently defined platform of goals and objectives we'll dwindle rapidly into total irrelevance. I believe this movement has to grow to succeed. That means finding new blood not among our natural constituency and offering our vision of a new view of humanity. A multi-planet species that respects the web of life wherever it resides. We are a product of our biosphere. It just makes sense to consider the health of this biosphere that feeds and nourishes us as we move forward and expand into space.

OK then, back to the main question: is there a real urgency to get to Mars? The concensus so far seems to be yes, which shouldn't be too surprising since this is New Mars. I think where the Gaia/environmentalist part enters is in identifying who the enemy is- who or what is most likely to cause us to miss our chance. Several have pointed to the radical environmentalist crowd as likely to be influential in swaying humanity against an interest in space. Phobos, OTOH,  mentioned the dangers of space militarization and the likely barring of emigration to other planets by free individuals.

If you look at Benford's analogies, the Ming Dynasty as well as the Moslems, both share a wave of conservatism as a strong factor in causing their societies to retreat from the exciting new worlds that their strength and exploratory zeal had exposed them to. We could see exposure to space as causing this same type of reaction. After all, it's only been half a century since we were totally grounded within the gravity well. As global warming heats up and other human-induced climatic factors become evident the environmentalists will be able to make a compelling argument- no doubt through liberal use of exaggeration and hyperbole- that we've overstepped our bounds and the planet is paying the price.

I wonder if it's possible to begin a wave of cautious enthusiasm for space rooted in a responsible and far-sighted approach to the future that can counteract the doomsayers and conservatives. I don't think we foster this wave by bashing the Earth defenders or by beating the drums of terraformation and rapid exploitation of Mars. We need to find a middle path, aligned with the mainstream environmental movement which draws on the natural tendency of many people to care about and love nature, and outline sensible steps forward to an exciting future that includes a balanced and stable Earth ecosystem. We need to emphasize that the choice is not to solve Earth's problems or to explore space. We can have our cake and eat it too.

I'm tempted to make this a poll but that feature seems to be having some trouble so I'll just try to spark some discussion. There are two contrasting viewpoints regarding the urgency of launching a human mission to Mars. The first view, as expressed in Zubrin's writings and in the Benford article and interview here, uses the Ming Dynasty analogy to illustrate how we can't assume that our civilization will always be capable or have the will to launch a major initiative like settling another planet. If we don't do it soon we may never do it, in other words.

The contrasting viewpoint is expressed by Chris McKay in his answer to the third of the questions: how did life begin?, are we alone?, and where are we going? He expresses a faith in the progress of science and technology resulting in a continual cheapening of the costs of such a venture. This is the "If Columbus had waited long enough he could have flown to the New World" view.

I tend to lean in the direction of the more pessimistic view, but find Chris's arguments offering glimpses of hope. Perhaps a bigger question would be what is our role in this? Do we have the luxury of waiting out the answer or is it incumbent upon us to work toward influencing the outcome. If we are at such a critical juncture as a species where do we focus our efforts? Is the Mars effort only symptomatic of some larger flaw in society we need to help correct?

Joel

America also stands for a little thing called justice which includes the important distinction "innocent until proven guilty." If we're going to be the leaders in the human drive towards space we can't be sacrificing our greatest human ideals in the process. Unfortunately, I worry that the current administration's only concern for space is in its eventual militarization. I think this is the exact opposite direction we need to go to in. I think our only hope of launching an effective, sustained Mars program on a government level is to be collaborative with foreign efforts rather than trying to enforce supremacy. Otherwise it will always be flags and footprints at best.

Antarctica works as a stable ongoing project because it's an international effort devoted to real science- not just political grandstanding.

Joel

Depends on how you define "survival of the fittest." According to the late Stephen Jay Gould, this doesn't always mean dog-eat-dog but sometimes implies that creatures can best cooperate to find an advantage against nature. Many symbiotic relationships between species are in this category, particularly in regions where nature has the upper hand and there are few species inhabiting large tracts of land (i.e., the Siberian tundra).

Suppose there is microscopic Martian life found and it's not doing particularly well- maybe barely holding on in a few desperate niches. Perhaps our efforts to terraform could give it a hand and allow it to thrive. Then suppose we can commune with it in such a way that it can also aid us in our efforts to survive in a land that is even more extreme to us as it is to them.

Rather than a choice between microbes and man it might be best for microbes and men to help each other survive. Could be the start of a beautiful relationship!

Joel

I agree entirely. I can't see how this does anything positive for the Mars Society, and probably makes us look more like opportunistic nuts. Mars settlement advocates have been throwing around a lot of great ideas in regards to new forms of government, new attitudes about communal living, etc. In my opinion it shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of the MS membership to presume we'll go batty over our handful of Mars dirt and automatically accept the premise that private land ownership should be taken for granted.

Joel

The post on "The Skeptical Environmentalist" led me to do some investigating. I came across this highly critical review on AlterNet, a 'progressive' news site.

Clearly I haven't had a chance to read all of the good and bad that's been said about this book. This was the first thing that came up on a google search. Still, it seems there is plenty of grounds for skepticism. I don't doubt that there are doomsayers that use bad science and blow things out of proportion. On the balance, however, it's hard to believe that thousands of active scientists, including a few Nobel laureates, have been totally snookered and this one guy has it right. The US's Environmental Protection Agency- headed by a George Bush appointee with known conservative leanings- just released an official report to the UN so accepting of the imminent threat of global warming that Bush himself had to discredit it.

I think that one reason that the doomsayers often overstate their case is that they know most people won't take the long view. If they say that in fifty or a hundred years we'll be in deep shit most people will yawn and turn back to the sports pages. A lot of my thinking on this comes from listening to Kim Stanley Robinson talking about "the overshoot." The population issue, when combined with the disparity of wealth and  the reality that most of the have-nots have a serious intention to eventually have, is a ticking time bomb.

One of my pet peeves about those who deride "the doomsayers" is the implication that they want it to be worse than it really is. Most environmentalists care deeply about the planet and just want it to be healthy. They should be listened to- not dismissed as loonies. I love nature deeply and want it to be around for future generations to enjoy. That's what drives my interest in finding solutions to problems that are quite real- even if occasionally exaggerated. I imagine most environmentalists have similar motives.

Peace and good will,
JGM

I've been hoping to find a way to foster a link between environmentalism and space science for a long time. It seems natural to me that these are allied interests with a lot in common. Benford's lecture really helped me to see that it's just a matter of taking the long view. We really have no choice whatsoever whether we reach out into space or not. This planet will simply become unlivable much sooner than most of its inhabitants suspect if we continue to try to find and produce all of the necessary resources to sustain an advanced civilization here at home.

Now the question is- how do we reach the environmentalists with this message? They have to stop thinking the solution lies in an anti-technological stance. This is a losing battle. Modern humanity will insist on being technological. It's just a matter of what resources we exploit and how we reach them most effectively.

JGM

Clark-

Your analysis is lacking in one significant factor that, for me,  tips the scales strongly toward the red planet... romance.

When I imagine the two worlds from the perspective of an astronaut roving the surface I picture the moon as we've seen it in all the movies shot in the Apollo program- grey rock, heavily cratered, black sky, cold and forbidding. When I imagine Mars I see something entirely different. A colorful world with a great diversity of surface features, gigantic mountains and canyons, glistening polar caps, dynamic weather, a salmon sky, and two moons of its own racing overhead. Above all I picture its immensity. I imagine a world with endless mystery and potential. Where the moon looks to me like at best an outpost- I see Mars as something that people could someday call home.

I also disagree with the contention that Mars is equally dependent on resupply of all life's essentials as a Moon base. Early missions would certainly be that way, but I trust humans to find ways of using Mars' resources to their advantage in unimagined ways. Have you read KSR's Mars trilogy? If so, you know that there are myriad ways that humans could adapt and alter existing landforms and terrain to give their world a sense of soul and relative comfort. Could you burrow into a polar cap on the Moon and raise happy and healthy children scampering amongst the arboreal bamboo housing and splashing in a genuine liquid water lake? Could you seal off lava tubes and plant gardens beside streams coursing through a "valley" lit by natural light piped in from above? Could you use the raw materials around you to build vaulted chambers with plenty of elbow room for growing industrious populations? Some of these things could be done on the Moon and will be eventually, but on Mars there are considerable advantages due to the reality that Mars is a world sharing a lot more in common with Earth than does the Moon.

You might say that these fantasies are only possible many centuries in the future and to a degree you may be right. Even so, it is the dream of what could be done that will motivate a movement to open up a new world for settlement and exploration. My contention is that neither the Moon nor Mars will be visited again until a sufficient groundswell of interest is generated in the masses. This kind of a movement is pushed by the dreamers and the romantics, not by the scientists and engineers. These crazy fools for the future will find Mars a far greater muse for their visions than our cold and lonely friend the Moon.

Besides all this mystical "nonsense" I'm still convinced that from a purely pragmatic viewpoint Mars is a better objective. This is because Robert Zubrin (not exactly a mystic) has build a very strong case for it and until I hear an equally strong rebuttle I'll be cheerleading for Mars first.

Joel

Sax talks about how terraformation will take such a very long time that there will be plenty of time to study Mars in something very close to its natural state. I believe this is largely true, but I'm still bothered about something.

When I read the Mars trilogy, I found myself mostly attracted to the Sax Russell viewpoint and found the dream of bringing Mars to life very appealing. The Anne Claiborne view struck me as contrived and obstructionist and I had a hard time relating to this perspective- despite the fact that my training is as a geologist. At some point, though, I saw it. When they were making that trek to the pole to mine the water ice I thought about that new road they were making across the virgin plains and I suddenly felt the red view. I realized that Mars is currently a perfect untouched wilderness. It's amazing to think that there is a land area out there equal to Earth's with absolutely no roads across it. The moment we build the first road on Mars we've defiled this purity. Sure, it will happen, but there is something to lament about the loss of that pure Martian essence.

That's my aesthetic objection- which is usually well-overruled by my desire to see a new world opened up in all it's glory. The scientific argument is a little different. If global terraformation is begun very early the impact on science will be significant, despite the long time scale before terraformation begins to have a noticeable effect. This is because the areas that are most interesting to life scientists are the lowest areas- the depths of Valles Marineris and low-lying craters that may have once held standing water. If life does exist in these areas it's quite possible that subtle changes to the atmospheric pressure and temperature will have a powerful effect- either by destroying this life or causing it to change dramatically to adapt to the new conditions. Life may go on- but it won't be the same life that made it through the millennia when Mars was undisturbed. I don't think the question of where that life came from should make or break the issue. If there's life that's been surviving there on its own- regardless of its origin- it is something that scientists will be screaming to study in an undisturbed state.

What happens if we find no extant life? That's when the really tough issues arise. Proving the lack of such life would be extremely difficult. It could take centuries to study all of the potential sites of extant life to clearly rule out its existence. Starting the global terraformation effort too early could easily result in a great loss to science. My gut feeling is it's best to limit terraforming to enclosed structures such as roofed over craters and lava tubes. These kinds of areas could be made Earthlike in a short time scale- decades at most. I would gladly give up the pleasure of seeing Earth algae growing unprotected on the surface of Mars for the privilege of strolling through an Earthlike settlement in shorts and a t-shirt.

Joel McKinnon