New Mars Forums

Well, I think you could definately call terraforming a planet a case of drastic interference to native life that has evolved to live in that planet's unterraformed state.  If an alien intelligence that thrives in pure argon atmospheres came to Earth and terraformed it to suit their form of life, would you really need to debate that such actions drastically interefered with the function of native Earth life?  The same would probably hold true for Mars. That life would likely not be accustomed to atmospheres with high proportions of oxygen and nitrogen.

Species diversity is good to the thriving of a biosphere so long as the lifeforms are compatible to each other in that they can survive and process a similiar environment.  On Mars, it could be that you would have to sacrifice the native life for the good of the transplanted life because the two types of life cannot live in the same environment.  The two types of lifeforms will likely be incompatible with each other.  So in other words, if you want to preserve the biological diversity and equilibrium of Mars life, you shouldn't transplant earth life there. 

It could be that beneath Mar's surface there is a massive, mostly bacterial biosphere.  Because we don' see lifeforms on the surface doesn't mean there couldn't be a massive amount of life there.  I don't see exactly what your getting at with your questions about the natural history of the Martian life. Are you suggesting that the value of Martian life should be judged on whether such life is merely a surviving relic of a more prosperous Martian past with no future so to speak, or whether the life actually has an evolutionary future?  Are we really qualified to make such judgements?

I was just leaving the door open to the possibility that future generations who have the power to terraform Mars might not find it apprehensive to do so if native Martian life would benefit from the process.  But I do believe that it would basically be immoral to interefere with e.t. life in a way that would be dentrimental to it.  Of course one could reason that it's immoral to meddle in the development of e.t. life under any circumstance whether it be beneficial or negative.  I haven't however rushed into a decision whether it's moral to interfere with e.t. life if such interference would prove "beneficial."  But I tend to lean against it taking into consideration the law of unintended consequences.

Haha, I think I'll recommend my favorite novel of all time, The Sailor Who Fell From Grace with the Sea by Yukio Mishima, that should scare them away from Earth.  But in the non-fiction department I'd try to send them something about human history that shows both the noble and savage characteristic of humanity.  Can't think of a single book off the top of my head though.

I believe if we find native Martian microbes we have a moral obligation to let the life develop on its own without drastic interference from us Earthlings.  But I don't see any reason why we couldn't have cities there maybe in locally terraformed areas like canyons, craters, or what not.  I see your point that it seems somewhat ridiculous to give full blown rights to microbes, but after all what if an alien species had arrived on Earth when only microbial life existed here and terraformed the planet to unlivable conditions for early Earth life?  But then again, if it appears Martian life would benefit from us terraforming Mars, that might be a different case.

Ack, I'd just have a nice assortment of birth control options on board if some people can't control their urges, I don't think we need to start screwing with people's bodies in such a drastic way.   Anyways, isolation no doubt will play a big role.  It's pretty well documented how people often go out of their minds from the isolation of Antartic bases during the winter.  They don't often go totally insane, but they do often start doing strange things.

This whole thing between Pakistan and India is almost surreal.  I never thought I'd live to see a day in which nuclear weapons could actually be used to slaughter millions of people and totally destroy a huge portion of Earth's environment.  And I think this could easily escalate into WWIII considering that Israel and India are "loose knit" allies that virtually the entire Middle East would love to destroy.   If they do launch nukes at each other no telling how many other countries in addition might take that as a sign that launching nuclear weapons is suddenly an acceptable thing to do in war.

Dissent from the "general will" should never be allowed to happen?  So if the majority of the people in Mars Colony suddenly agree to kill off the Jews that's ok?  Or if they believe an individual should be sacrificed against his/her will to die in some war they don't believe in, that's also ok?  Personally, I fear mob rule, the mob is to easily persuaded into unreasoned action through the mass use of propaganda.  It's better to protect the minority's rights to express dissent without fear of persecution from the mob, even if only one individual constitutes that minority.

Hey Bill, your making me feel guilty now.   I generally agree with you that forcing people to give up money so some other group can spend it at their whim is basically the height of evil,
but I want to see a Mars mission so bad I've turned into the ultimate hypocrite.  Really though I would be ecstatic if a way could be done to do go to Mars with private funds.  I believe the only really big hurdle to the private development of space is getting off the planet in the first place.  Once Mother Earth gives up her over protective grip on us Earthlings, private development won't be far behind.

I never thought of the possibility of asteroids tearing themselves apart because their shells were to weak.  I'm definately gonna think twice now before living on an asteroid.   Really though, I can think of one good use for colonizing an asteroid maybe.  If you wanted to set up a manned station around the inner planets of Jupiter the asteroid might provide good cover from radiation, but then again maybe it'd just fly apart and get everybody killed anyway.

Yeah it would be definately better if the winner just won a three day stay on the ISS than a two year trip to Mars.  I was going to mention that it might be a better alternative but it appears you were already thinking about it.  What do you think would be the best price for such a ticket?  $1? $5? $2000?   You know, considering how much it would cost to send someone into space with current technology it might be better just to have an ordinary lotto where the winner wins a lump of cash instead.  That way you also avoid the problems of winners who aren't fit for a joyride into space.  But then again you could run into severe gambling laws if you went the cash route.

Yeah, I'm not so sure I'm gonna go see the current Star Wars considering how bad the last one was.  That Jar Jar Binks character just killed it and the movie in general didn't have the character development that the first three did.  Please tell me Jar Jar isn't in the second movie.  Putting that character in Star Wars is about the same as having Mickey Mouse as a side kick for Indiana Jones, just doesn't fit.

How would you slow something like a plasma sail down so you could put it in orbit or whatever?  With a solar sail you can just bounced the light around to slow it down, but you couldn't really control the light well with a horde of dust.  I guess you could alter the magnetic field to do it but I wonder if you'd be able to hold onto all that dust despite the dust's inertia.