Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

odyssey · 2004-07-13 02:33:20

I've heard the rantings of deep ecologists who say that we shouldn't go around terraforming mars and interfering with the rights of Martian bacteria. I disagree with them, but I try to look at things from their point of view, and to address their concerns.

One of the ideas that deep ecologists put forward is the "Gaia Hypothesis" which says that the whole earth is an organism. I decided to use this as the basis for my argument which is: don't all living things have to sooner or later reproduce? How does the earth reproduce? How does all the DNA of its lifeforms get spread to other planets? The reproductive system of the earth is us! The evolution of the human species was not a gigantic horrible accident as some deep ecologists seem to imply but the natural inevitable course of development of life on earth. So when planets get a nice stable atmosphere and start to grow life they will eventually develop intelligent life that will reproduce the planet. Our rockets going out to other planets are like seeds leaving a dandelion to land somewhere else and grow there.

We like our planet, the life and the things on it and we have an unstoppable desire to explore that has been with us since the first humans showed up. Intelligent life leaving a planet to go space exploring and terraforming is just the natural cycle that planets, like other organisms go through.

Mars is like the dirt that a seed lands in. The dirt may have the same chemicals as the dandelion and a few bacteria but it is mostly dead. The dandelion seed lands there and starts growing, taking chemicals from the environment, etc. Anyway, I hope this theory can be developed and become a great argument to get deep ecologists and others on board the terraforming project.

atitarev · 2004-07-13 05:40:37

Here's what R. Zubrin said to the question about the ethics of terraforming Mars. I agree 100% with the answer.

AM: If there's life on Mars, how do we balance the Martian right to life with the human impulse to explore and extend our borders?
RZ: The basis of ethics needs to be of benefit to humanity. If there is life on Mars, it is microbial, and its interests can in no way be considered as commensurate with human interests. Those who argue otherwise strike a fashionable pose, but deny their arguments every day through their actions. If bacterial interests trump human interests, then mouthwash should be banned, chlorination of water supplies should be banned, and antibiotics should be banned. If bacterial interests trump human interests, then Albert Schweitzer and Louis Pasteur should be denounced for crimes against bacteria.
Now, in saying that ethics must be based in human benefit, we need not deny that preserving valuable environments in important. It is important to save the amazon rain forest, for example, because a world without an amazon rain forest would be a poorer inheritance for our descendants than one with one, and the degree of the impoverishment exceeds whatever value might be obtained in the short term from slash and burn agriculture. However, in the case of Mars, the calculation votes the other way, as a terraformed Mars, filled with life, cities, universities, used book stores, and yes, rain forests, would be a vastly richer gift to posterity than the current barren Red Planet. Clearly, just as anyone who proposed transforming the current Earth into a place like Mars would be considered mad, so those who, given the choice, would keep Mars dead rather than make it a place as wonderful as the Earth must have their sanity doubted.
There remains only the question of science. Surely we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to study native Martian life before we terraform the place. We surely will. Terraforming Mars will be a long term project, and should native Martian microbes exist, there will be ample opportunity to study it before terraforming takes place. There will also be opportunity to study how it adapts to warmer, wetter conditions and the presence of terrestrial microbes after terraforming takes place. Furthermore, if Mars actually is terraformed, there will be much more people on Mars to study every aspect of Mars, including both its native and immigrant life. So in fact, our knowledge of Martian biota will be increased by terraforming, not decreased.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-13 06:33:36

A great first post, Odyssey. Welcome to New Mars!

And, Anatoli, I agree with you and with Dr. Z. Bringing a thriving biosphere to Mars is a noble goal.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-13 06:57:22

Interesting idea, though I think one important point has been overlooked, at least from a 'swaying the enviro-types' angle.

Many of the so-called "deep ecologists" are afflicted not so much with a love of nature and the Earth/Gaia, but rather a deep loathing of humanity.

So if we are Earth's method of reproduction... :hm: Then the rabid anti-terraforming crowd are trying to neuter Earth. :laugh:

There's a whole new mental disorder with serious drug marketing potential in here somewhere.

Palomar · 2004-07-13 06:58:00

So when planets get a nice stable atmosphere and start to grow life they will eventually develop intelligent life that will reproduce the planet.

*From a non-theistic, evolutionary point of view we are a product of natural evolution. We are a "byproduct" (along with everything else...I'm not seeking to disparage my own species!), we were not the catalyst for/of evolution on this planet.

So far as we know, life didn't naturally develop on Mars as it did on Earth. Attempts to terraform Mars in the future won't be "natural" (non-volitional random chance, etc.) -- it'll be the result of direct and deliberate volitional "interference" (which is the same thing which happened *here* -- if you believe in God or some similar sentient, Almighty Creator).

It's too soon to begin terraforming Mars, IMO; we're only 3 decades into studying it via rovers/landed probes, and with those missions years apart.

There's lots more science to be done.

My 2 cent's worth.

--Cindy

P.S.: Seems to me there's quite a difference with regards to space exploration ideals between astronomers/amateur astronomers and folks who aren't. Just an observation and not directed toward anyone.

::EDIT::

How does all the DNA of its lifeforms get spread to other planets?

*Do we have -proof- that DNA of lifeforms gets spread to other planets? Or maybe it truly was a lightning bolt in the primordial soup which started life on Earth (an isolated event exclusive to this planet, i.e. no panspermia)?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-13 07:15:10

P.S.: Seems to me there's quite a difference with regards to space exploration ideals between astronomers/amateur astronomers and folks who aren't. Just an observation and not directed toward anyone.

I'll take this one on.

I would guess that it's the result of differences in what draws people to space in the first place. Astronomers, amateur or otherwise, are drawn to the stars and other worlds for what they are today. They see the beauty of the natural state of them and wonder at it, try to understand it, and appreciate it for what it is.

The other side, those for terraforming, mining, colonization, development... They are drawn to the stars and other worlds for what they can become.

Oc course there is some overlap, but the difference in viewpoint isn't the result of whether or not one is into astronomy, but rather an interest in amateur astronomy is a symptom of one of the underlying views on the universe.

IMOSHO, of course.

Palomar · 2004-07-13 07:51:01

I'll take this one on.

*I've always enjoyed your aggressiveness.

Of course there is some overlap

...and your sense of fairness as well. Yes, there is an overlap. Thank you for pointing that out. I can only speak for myself of course: While I'm a proponent of colonization and limited mining (depends on locale, extent, other variables), I do know that my viewpoints as an amateur astronomer serves to check what I often perceive as rashness and impulsivity in other viewpoints/ideals.

I'm protective of the Solar System, I admit. Much, if not most, of that stems from being an amateur astronomer since age 8 or 9.

--Cindy

odyssey · 2004-07-13 10:52:52

Sorry if this sounds a little strange ??? at first to you hard scientists but I am trying to make a spiritual arugment for terraforming that deep ecologists can view as compatible with their values.

One great thing about my argument in my previous post is it doesn't deny the deep ecologist's values. It says that life on this earth is valuable and should be preserved for its own sake and that goal is programmed into us by nature so that we can bring that life to other worlds.

It also resolves the irony of the current state of environmental degredation. Many organisms undergo stress while they are gearing up to reproduce. You could say that beginning 150 years ago through the next 300 years during which we are terraforming Mars is analgous to the earth being pregnant and going through labor. The environmentalists can then look at themselves as trying hard to keep the mother from dying as she gives birth to a new earth. When we have another earth the strain on mother earth will be much less and we will probably turn a lot of it into parks, etc. because we have another place to live.

P.S: The deep ecologists position may be weird but there are a lot of people who are quite influential that hold it, so it's important that we win these people over to the cause.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-13 13:25:05

I would guess that it's the result of differences in what draws people to space in the first place. Astronomers, amateur or otherwise, are drawn to the stars and other worlds for what they are today. They see the beauty of the natural state of them and wonder at it, try to understand it, and appreciate it for what it is.
The other side, those for terraforming, mining, colonization, development... They are drawn to the stars and other worlds for what they can become.

There was an article in Popular Science a couple of months that took the same outlook on the space community. It divided space advocates into three groups, Von Braunians, who wish because of national pride to be the first to reach new destinations, O'Neillians, who wish to colonize space and bring it to everyone, and Saganites, who want to explore the universe but keep it in its pristine, untouched condition at the same time. I wondered while reading the argument why everyone had to be divided up. Maybe this is just me, but I have traits from all three groups. I believe that we should explore and learn as much as we can about the universe, and I want to get up there as well. Maybe I'm some sort of Sganistic O'Neillian? IMOSHO aussi.

If we are Earth's reporductive system, which seems to make sense to me, Earth appears to have some sort of ovarian cancer. True, we hold the power to carry her life beyond our sky blue borders, but we also hold the power to decimate life on this planet. We really, really need to shape up our act right now or else you can say good-bye to any sort of interesting biodiversity on Earth. Some scientists think that 50% of life on Earth could be wiped out by 2100, I think that estimate is a tad too conservative. I'm not talking about the kind of life we destroy with poachers and whalers and pesticides, but the kind that we slowly strangle by introducing the superanimals from Europe and Asia. The fact is, evolutionary pressure are much harder over there than they are anywhere else in the world, and weasels, feral cats, rabbits, and a menagerie of crustaciens and fish can easily out-compete whatever indigenous life they happen to run into. We are the spores of these preditors, spreading them around the world to where they could never get to ordinarily.

So, what's the lesson here? Should we focus our attention on cleaning up Earth before becoming spacefaring. Absolutely, positively the answer is no. The fact is, we'll never be perfect, and waiting untill we are to venture into space is quite pointless. Perhaps we can at least partially make up for our shortcomings on Earth by reviving life to Mars.

However, I disagree with Zubrin's utter disregard for Martian life. The issue is a little different than that of saving E. Coli on Earth. The bacteria I coldly and remorslessly kill by the billions on my hands by washing them are, for all intents and purposes, us. Take their DNA, tweak a little bit of the structure, and you have the difference between an ameoba and a human. Martian life is a completely different subject, there is an increadible wealth of knowledge that we can learn from them because they are fundamentally different organisms. I only hope that there is some way that Terran and Martian life can get along, because perhpas the only greater crime than killing off Mars is giving up the opportunity to make it blue.

clark · 2004-07-13 13:42:06

I never liked museum's. Cold, sterile. Look and move on.

Yet some would make the universe nothing but that.

I always liked the garden. Warm, fertile. The feeling of your hands lingering on a spot of earth, becoming a part of the explosion of life and smells that grow from that little spot, made your own.

That's the universe I would make. A garden. Nothing but that.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-13 13:46:04

There's plenty of room for gardens and 'museums.' Not to mention cities. Plenty of room.

Palomar · 2004-07-13 14:07:38

There's plenty of room for gardens and 'museums.'

*Agreed; well said.

Gardens elsewhere -- yes; in time, though. Science comes first and we've only just started truly studying our Solar System via probes and robots; less than 3-1/2 decades of active study. There's still much knowledge to be gleaned and garnered regarding the Solar System's evolution, mechanics, interrelatedness, properties unique to each member, etc., before we begin making alterations. If we start making alterations, that is.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-07-13 14:11:42

a dream deffered is a dream denied.

Palomar · 2004-07-13 14:20:34

I never liked museum's. Cold, sterile. Look and move on.
Yet some would make the universe nothing but that.
I always liked the garden. Warm, fertile. The feeling of your hands lingering on a spot of earth, becoming a part of the explosion of life and smells that grow from that little spot, made your own.
That's the universe I would make. A garden. Nothing but that.

*I think I'll carry this over as a quote to refer to the next time (which won't be long, I'm sure -- given the rate at which trolls play games) I see "clark" grilling a pro-terraformer from an anti-terraformer stance.

I'm grateful not everyone is afraid to give their honest points of view without resorting to games.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-07-13 14:44:07

Quoting me? It's like I'm Voltaire or something. :laugh:

One person's Rose is another's Weed. Pity you can't seem to differentiate that idea.

See, case in point: For you Cindy, @----->--- ,is it a rose or a weed? :;):

If you prefer honesty, taking a stance on any issue is a good way to just shut down and not think about it any further. Unless of course you have the arrogance to truly believe that your stance is always correct. But hey, what do I know.

Go stare at your dead rocks, floating lifeless through space. I'ld rather dream them alive.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-13 14:50:55

If you prefer honesty, taking a stance on any issue is a good way to just shut down and not think about it any further.

Kerry supporters... :hm:

I'd argue that to bring life to dead worlds is good, but can understand those who wish to leave them as they are for scientific or even aesthetic reasons.

Science is a means, not an end. But we cannot properly remake a world until we understand it. The paradox is that we won't truly know until we try, terraforming will teach us more about a world than looking at it from afar can ever achieve.

clark · 2004-07-13 15:12:44

:laugh: Good one Cobra. Of course I've never stated I'm in support of Kerry. Just against Bush... that said, I did give a list of some of his accomplishments, which ought to show you something. :;):

I'd argue that to bring life to dead worlds is good, but can understand those who wish to leave them as they are for scientific or even aesthetic reasons.

I can understand it too, but really, it's a dead end proposition. Why should we be afraid to leave our mark upon the universe?

But we cannot properly remake a world until we understand it.

Sure we can. Otherwise we will wait an indefinite amount of time to do anything, until the sun envelops all, wiping all traces, all questions, all answers, from this solar system.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-13 17:47:45

Hi Mad Grad!
Your last post was very well put, I thought, but it seemed to get crowded out somewhat and didn't get the recognition it deserved.
I tend to be a little more optimistic about Earth's biosphere than some, but your thoughts on this are cogent and I respect your concerns. For one so young, I am impressed with the balance in your outlook between conservation of what we have here and the building of something new and good on Mars.
I tend to get a little gung-ho on the topic of terraforming, probably because I'm romantically in love with the whole concept and get very defensive of it if I see it under attack. I recognise this as immaturity on my part, at least to some extent, like the reaction of a child threatened with having a toy taken away from him/her! It's a visceral thing.
But then I read something like your last post and I'm struck by the contrasting maturity in it from someone half my age or less. Nice work, MG ... keep it up!

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-13 18:10:13

Me again, Mad Grad!
Just a brief comment on Dr. Zubrin's apparent disregard for martian microbes.
You expressed total disagreement with the idea of mindlessly destroying bacteria on Mars, on the basis that they are "fundamentally different organisms".
I think most of us here would agree with you, if any martian life were actually the result of a whole different genesis and completely alien in terms of its biochemistry. Even I, a mad keen terraformer, would back away from terraforming Mars, and would even severely restrict its exploration, if that were so.

Much as some people like to portray Dr. Zubrin as some kind of astrofascist, intent on expanding the 'Human Reich' at all costs, I believe there is something implicit in what he's saying about bacteria on Mars. I believe he is working from the premise that martian bacteria will be essentially indistinguishable from terrestrial bacteria because of impact transfer.
The inner planets of our system have never been isolated from one another for any appreciable period of time. The transfer of biologically viable material among them from the beginning is now an all-but-fully-accepted fact.
If Dr. Z. were asked his opinion of destroying life based on a different biochemistry entirely, life we hadn't bothered to investigate and study, I have no doubt his response would be quite different. He's a scientist/engineer after all; not a monster!

And hi again, Odyssey!
Your almost metaphysical ideas about the spreading of life to other planets, and the comparison with childbirth, are fascinating. I haven't come across it expressed quite like that before.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-13 23:09:48

Hi Mad Grad!
Your last post was very well put, I thought, but it seemed to get crowded out somewhat and didn't get the recognition it deserved.
I tend to be a little more optimistic about Earth's biosphere than some, but your thoughts on this are cogent and I respect your concerns. For one so young, I am impressed with the balance in your outlook between conservation of what we have here and the building of something new and good on Mars.
But then I read something like your last post and I'm struck by the contrasting maturity in it from someone half my age or less. Nice work, MG ... keep it up!

Oh, clark, you flatter me!

Thanx for all the kind words. I love forums like this one because I get a little bit of an escape from the normal world where all anyone wants to talk about are which football team is the most "kick-@$$" and which actresses are hot or not. It's great to have an intelligent conversation with you guys, even if the whole time-delayed, across-the-internet factors detract from the experience a little.

Much as some people like to portray Dr. Zubrin as some kind of astrofascist, intent on expanding the 'Human Reich' at all costs, I believe there is something implicit in what he's saying about bacteria on Mars.

Really, people view him like this? IMHO, Zubrin is way way way ahead of anyone else in the field of visoinary space advocates (Which admitedly is a pretty narrow field). A lot of what guys like O'Neill, Clarke, and Sagan said was, sorry to say this in front of any fans, garbage. Free space colony wheels? Trees on Mars? A hundred thousand civilizations in the Milky Way? C'mon. I'm utterly fascinated by most of what Zubrin has to say, and greatly enjoyed The Case for Mars and am ejoying Entering Space right now. Maybe that's just me, but if I ever get interviewed by Popular Science some day I'll say that it was Dr. Z, not any of those guys, that inspired me the most.

think most of us here would agree with you, if any martian life were actually the result of a whole different genesis and completely alien in terms of its biochemistry. Even I, a mad keen terraformer, would back away from terraforming Mars, and would even severely restrict its exploration, if that were so.

Well, it's a really touchy issue, kinda like abortion. I'd hate to pass up the opportunity of another shirt sleeve enivornment planet, but the possibility of running over indiginous life is pretty troubling. What I hope is that if this ever becomes a real world issue some sort of balance can be struck, with both kinds of life co-existing.

There's plenty of room for gardens and 'museums.' Not to mention cities. Plenty of room.

I agree, there's a time to stand back in awe and a time to get your hands dirty. Both are pretty fun in thier own right. Watching the pics roll in from Cassini is kinda like visiting a museum, staring Mars down in a backyard telescope and spying the ice caps with your own eyes, that's a garden.

More later, I have to go now.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-14 06:04:45

Much as some people like to portray Dr. Zubrin as some kind of astrofascist, intent on expanding the 'Human Reich' at all costs, I believe there is something implicit in what he's saying about bacteria on Mars. I believe he is working from the premise that martian bacteria will be essentially indistinguishable from terrestrial bacteria because of impact transfer.

Astrofascist you say? Raise the banners and form a line, 'cause here we go...

I agree with Shaun's assessment that Zubrin is assuming any Martian life we may find is related to terrestrial life. Definately worth study, but hardly the sort of thing that shatters our preconceived views about the universe.

But what if it isn't? What if we find something that represents a whole new form of life, something utterly alien? Must we then relinquish any plans for Martian settlement or terraforming?

I would argue no. Such a find demands study, it must be scrutinized and understood. This will require a human presence to study such life in its own habitat. We can't study it without affecting it somehow, the only question is the impact our footprint will have. But this does not mean that we must leave the planet to them, intruding only in small groups to study them. We can, and should continue on to make Mars a home for our life, even at the expense of the native variety.

First, if Mars can spawn its own life, what does that say about life in general? It implies that it is common, that any remotely conducive enviroment can harbor it. This bodes ill for any future human colonization, anywhere. Where do we draw the line? It strikes me as profoundly unwise to set the precedent that any life, however primitive has more right to exist than our own. Terraforming need not even wipe it out, it can be preserved or perhaps might even thrive under the new conditions. But to say, so early on, that we are so lowly that any lifeform takes precedence over us... We may well be throwing away the future.

But veering back toward this topic, let's assume that we are the mechanism by which this planet will reproduce itself. Presumably Mars would then be another, competing organism. But much less successful. In such a case, wouldn't Terran life supplanting Martian life merely be a case of natural selection? One species dying to make way for another that is more fit?

Or maybe I'm just a hardline astrofascist off to bugger the cosmos.

REB · 2004-07-14 07:22:51

Humans should spread Earth-Life to dead worlds.

The dead mass of the universe probably outweighs the living mass by a huge factor.

As for Mars, if there is microbes, and they are not related to Earth-microbes, I say preserve some, and then terraform the place. If they have not evolved in the last 4 billion years, I doubt they will evolve before the Sun dies, especially since their environment has been getting harsher and harsher.

Forest on Mars would be wonderful.

clark · 2004-07-14 09:04:09

Ya know, maybe I've been too hard on Zubrin... :laugh:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-ter … rraforming Mars, The Noble Experiment? Interview with Robert Zubrin

Astrobiology Magazine (AM): First off, should Mars be terraformed?
Robert Zubrin (RZ): Yes.

No if's, and's, or but's about it. No exceptions. No ambiguity. Recast her to suit our needs.

AM: How long will terraforming take? When you envision a terraformed Mars, what do you see?
RZ: If one considers the problem of terraforming Mars from the point of view of current technology, the scenario looks like this:
1. A century to settle Mars and create a substantial local industrial capability and population.
2. A half century producing fluorocarbon gases (like CF4) to warm the planet by ~10 C.
3. A half century for CO2 to outgas from the soil under the impetus of the fluorocarbon gases, thickening the atmosphere to 0.2 to 0.3 bar, and raising the planetary temperature a further 40 C.
This will cause water to melt out of the permafrost, and rivers to flow and rain to fall. Radiation doses on the surface will also be greatly reduced.
Under these conditions, with active human help, first photosynthetic microbes and then ever more complex plants could be spread over the planet, as they would be able to grow in the open.
Humans on Mars in this stage would no longer need pressure suits, just oxygen masks, and very large domed cities could be built, as the domes would no longer need to contain pressure greater than the outside environment.
4. Over a period of about a thousand years, human-disseminated and harvested plants would be able to put ~150 mbar (millibars) of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere. Once this occurs, humans and other animals will be able to live on Mars in the open, and the world will become fully alive.
That's the scenario, using current technological approaches. However technology is advancing, and 23rd Century humans will not conduct their projects using 21st Century means. They will use 23rd Century means and accomplish the job much faster than anyone today can suppose.

Well, dosen't seem like he wants to take time out to study Mars. Just get there, and get to digging up the metals, and planting trees.

AM: If there's life on Mars, how do we balance the Martian right to life with the human impulse to explore and extend our borders?
RZ: The basis of ethics needs to be of benefit to humanity. If there is life on Mars, it is microbial, and its interests can in no way be considered as commensurate with human interests. Those who argue otherwise strike a fashionable pose, but deny their arguments every day through their actions.

LOL! Who might he be talking to in this thread?

RZ: However, in the case of Mars, the calculation votes the other way, as a terraformed Mars, filled with life, cities, universities, used book stores, and yes, rain forests, would be a vastly richer gift to posterity than the current barren Red Planet.

Dead rock musuem, or garden?

RZ:Clearly, just as anyone who proposed transforming the current Earth into a place like Mars would be considered mad, so those who, given the choice, would keep Mars dead rather than make it a place as wonderful as the Earth must have their sanity doubted.

And I'm the troll? LOL!

BWhite · 2004-07-14 09:42:15

Ya know, maybe I've been too hard on Zubrin... :laugh:

clark, you just need to be. . .

HEAP - - NOH - - TIZED!

Once you see the light you will understand.

clark · 2004-07-14 09:47:21

The spirit has taken me.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-13 02:33:20

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#2 2004-07-13 05:40:37

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#3 2004-07-13 06:33:36

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#4 2004-07-13 06:57:22

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#5 2004-07-13 06:58:00

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#6 2004-07-13 07:15:10

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#7 2004-07-13 07:51:01

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#8 2004-07-13 10:52:52

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#9 2004-07-13 13:25:05

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#10 2004-07-13 13:42:06

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#11 2004-07-13 13:46:04

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#12 2004-07-13 14:07:38

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#13 2004-07-13 14:11:42

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#14 2004-07-13 14:20:34

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#15 2004-07-13 14:44:07

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#16 2004-07-13 14:50:55

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#17 2004-07-13 15:12:44

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#18 2004-07-13 17:47:45

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#19 2004-07-13 18:10:13

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#20 2004-07-13 23:09:48

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#21 2004-07-14 06:04:45

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#22 2004-07-14 07:22:51

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#23 2004-07-14 09:04:09

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#24 2004-07-14 09:42:15

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

#25 2004-07-14 09:47:21

Re: Are we the reproductive system of the earth? - or Terraforming is a good thing...

Board footer