Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

Bill White · 2003-12-28 00:31:47

Which means that every year the US government wastes enough money to make a planet!

But there is always the "free rider" problem or the squatter problem. The USA terraforms Mars and then the Chinese send settlers.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-28 01:20:09

Whoever operates them owns them, obviously.

In space you have potentially unlimited resources, this was the point of Carters Moon Robot Colony study; it was shown that self replecating robots on the moon could grow exponentially, and the value of such a base would grow exponentially. A 10k investment in such a colony would be worth trillions in a year.

You'd definitely need a consensus if there existed others with similar robots. And if there didn't, it'd be kind of crappy to do it anyway without democracy, etc. heh

I'm just being general, though. To build a dome you have to do a lot of processes that require lots of energy and chemicals, and are just pretty complex. But to me, to build the Martian atmosphere, all you gotta do is build a bunch of small space ships and send the guys off to appropriate comets/asteroids. Which would you say is easier? I say the latter, because you get far more bang for the buck. One whole planet opposed to localized areas on a planet.

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-30 09:42:22

Which means that every year the US government wastes enough money to make a planet!
But there is always the "free rider" problem or the squatter problem. The USA terraforms Mars and then the Chinese send settlers.

Yes, but then we'd already have significant infrastructure and numbers of people on the planet. When those Chinese squatters arrive they'll be greeted something like this:

"Welcome to US Mars. Please state your citizenship and are you bringing any alcohol, firearms or fruits or vegetables onto the planet?"

Bill White · 2003-12-30 11:06:36

Which means that every year the US government wastes enough money to make a planet!
But there is always the "free rider" problem or the squatter problem. The USA terraforms Mars and then the Chinese send settlers.
Yes, but then we'd already have significant infrastructure and numbers of people on the planet. When those Chinese squatters arrive they'll be greeted something like this:
"Welcome to US Mars. Please state your citizenship and are you bringing any alcohol, firearms or fruits or vegetables onto the planet?"

Exactly!

That is why spending another $50 billion for Phase Two isn't such a bad idea once we have already spent $50 billion on the first series of MarsDirect missions. But, since we US-ians lack heavy lift (such as Energia) we may need to partner up with someone.

clark · 2003-12-30 11:08:30

Maybe Burt Rutan can work on a heavy lift rocket after the X prize.

RobertDyck · 2003-12-30 12:17:19

The following is a summary of the main events as Dr. Kargel sees them unfolding in the coming eons:-
50 million yrs - Africa has rammed into Europe.
200 million yrs - The Americas have crashed into Euro-Africa.
250 million yrs - Pangaea Ultima forms.
500 million yrs - 95% of plants start dying.
900 million yrs - All plants die.
1.2 billion yrs - Oceans start boiling off.
1.5 to 2 billion yrs - Earth's spin axis starts to swing chaotically because the Moon drifts too far away to stabilise it.
3.5 to 6 billion yrs - Magma oceans form.
7 billion yrs - Sun has become a red giant star.
7.5 billion yrs - Magma oceans start to boil off.
7.6 billion yrs - Sun runs out of fuel and shrinks into a white dwarf.

I agree with your conclusions, Shaun, but that schedule sounds strange. The Americas have been drifting away from Euro-Africa since the break-up of Pangaea, and the mid-Atlantic ridge is creation of new crust. Why would the Americas reverse direction and drift back? I believe they are still moving away from Euro-Africa, and the mid-Atlantic ridge is still growing. In fact, the volcanoes on Iceland are caused by that process. The Pacific tectonic plate continues to move north-west, carrying the Hawaiian Islands with them. In fact, the next Hawaiian island was created, although it eroded back into the ocean in a few months. It will be formed again with the next eruption, and might stay this time. The edge of the Pacific plate continues to rub against the North American plate; that rubbing is the San Andreas fault. As the plate moves it is carrying Los Angeles toward San Francisco. The Gaia theory states that as the planet gets warmer, plants thrive, especially tropical rain forests, and they convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. That reduces greenhouse warming on Earth, reducing the temperature. As the planet gets colder, tropical plants die, the growing season gets shorter, and carbon dioxide levels increase. That heats the planet. This stabilizes the temperature on Earth, with a soft oscillation between planet-wide tropics and ice ages. Why would all plants die off? Eventually the Earth?s axis will swing chaotically, and the sun will expand into a red giant star, but why would the oceans boil off before then?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-31 10:52:15

Don't ask me how Dr. Kargel came to that conclusion about the Americas crashing into Euro-Africa; I've taken the details from the article as written. Perhaps he means the Pacific plate will continue to subduct under South America as the Americas head westward. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Pacific Ocean will eventually shrink and vanish as the Atlantic expands, and 200 million years should be enough to accomplish this.

The answers to your other questions lie in the fact that the Sun is gradually increasing its output of energy. Eventually, the natural thermostat (negative feedback loop) which keeps temperatures within a certain range will be overwhelmed. When all the CO2 is eliminated from the atmosphere and the temperature continues to rise, then the plants will die.
As the temperature continues to climb, the oceans will boil off and then the very rocks of the crust itself will soften and liquify, forming a magma ocean.
This will all happen before the Sun expands in its death throes to become a red giant.

What's so sobering about this sequence of events is the fact that the demise of terrestrial life is so close at hand, in terms of geological time spans. It appears Earth is approaching old age as far as being a life-supporting planet is concerned; it's supported life for some 3.5 billion years but has only(! ) about a billion years left.

clark · 2003-12-31 11:04:05

. It appears Earth is approaching old age as far as being a life-supporting planet is concerned; it's supported life for some 3.5 billion years but has only(! ) about a billion years left.

What does that leave us with, 10 - 20,000,000 generations?

That's not so bad, is it?

Palomar · 2003-12-31 14:12:06

It appears Earth is approaching old age as far as being a life-supporting planet is concerned; it's supported life for some 3.5 billion years but has only(! ) about a billion years left.

*Oh well, who the *(#@ cares? Let's just let the telescopes and robots go into space ONLY.

"Homo Sapiens Keep Out"

"Homo Sapiens Need Not Apply"

Don't know how the telescopes and robots ONLY idea will save our skins in the long-term, but WHO CARES? Que sara, sara! Whistle past the graveyard...

--Cindy :;):

RobertDyck · 2003-12-31 19:48:58

I did read somewhere a proposal to redirect a series of large asteroids into orbits that pass close to the Earth. Gravity assist will slow the asteroids, but it will also speed-up the Earth. The degree of speed change is directly proportional to the mass of the two objects, so the Earth will not change much with each pass. However, over thousands of years with several asteroids that are over 100km diameter each, the Earth will move a little. The idea is to slowly move Earth away from the Sun as the Sun slowing increases in temperature. This would keep the surface of Earth habitable as the Sun enters old age. Conceivably, the same technique would be more effective at moving the Moon since it's small. The Moon could be slowed to keep it in Earth's orbit, retaining its stabilization effect on Earth's spin. The Moon's gravity also causes tides, visibly on the oceans but more subtly on the crust. I believe that also stabilizes the Earth's core, maintaining our strong magnetic field. (Strong for a planet this size.) The magnetic field powers the magnetosphere, which protects the atmosphere from solar wind so Earth can retain its water.

We won't be able to move around large asteroids soon, and there only are about 10 asteroids in our solar system that large. If an asteroid that big hit Earth it would wipe out all life, so it would take fine control. That sort of reliable control takes practice with smaller objects at a location where mistakes are not catastrophic. That means we will have to go into space sooner or later to preserve our planet. Good practice would include deliberately impacting an ice asteroid from the Kuiper belt into Venus to deliver water.

Robert Zubrin's reason for colonizing Mars is protecting Earth from loss of all life by impact from an asteroid. That's more short-term. These are good reasons to go, but investors need a positive reason. In the last decade, business wants return on investment within 3 years.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2003-12-28 00:31:47

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#102 2003-12-28 01:20:09

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#103 2003-12-30 09:42:22

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#104 2003-12-30 11:06:36

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#105 2003-12-30 11:08:30

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#106 2003-12-30 12:17:19

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#107 2003-12-31 10:52:15

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#108 2003-12-31 11:04:05

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#109 2003-12-31 14:12:06

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#110 2003-12-31 19:48:58

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

Board footer