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

BWhite · 2004-07-14 10:00:55

To be fair, clark, Zubrin also said this:

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.

Palomar · 2004-07-14 11:31:30

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!

*Clark, I've seen you criticize and grill pro-terraformers, doubtful terraformers *and* folks like myself who are still carefully considering the matter -- all while you've portrayed yourself as taking the opposing point of view for each. Of course, I'm sure most of those posts of yours have "disappeared"...they do have a tendency to "disappear" don't they?

You can't have it every which way. You're playing games. And did you take exception to my calling you a troll? How ironic if so -- especially since you yourself have insinuated being a troll more than once, here at New Mars.

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.

*Either/or, huh? I find your statement simplistic (but yes, I realize you're simply trying to "stir the kettle"). Anyway, a viewpoint can be reached while still maintaining an open mind and a willingness to rethink/reconsider.

I doubt it really even matters to you one way or the other -- including the actual matter or other peoples' opinions and viewpoints on the matter.

As for Zubrin's statement: He's over-reaching, IMO. I must admit, though, there is a certain humor in seeing you now attempting to portray yourself as siding -with- him. :laugh:

Also regarding the quote in your post, I don't recall *anyone* here at New Mars calling for Mars to be "kept dead" (if it's even truly dead), and I've been keeping up with these threads for over 2 years now. There are varying degrees of idealism pertaining to terraforming here. Nice try, though.

For others here:

Of course I'm all for setting up a colony or colonies on Mars, intense and also continued science studies including more orbiters and probes, etc. During initial colonization see if -- within the colony proper -- plants and etc. can or cannot be grown in Marsian soil, to what success, etc.

The fact that CME's have had a tendency in the past to strip away Mars' atmosphere (and may continue to do so in the future), the cold, the magnetic field issue, etc., etc. may eventually render all "squabbling" about terraforming pointless...because it may not be possible after all.

Terraforming at some point in Mars' future -- if it's even possible, and if Marsians want it.

As for the remainder of the Solar System, I've given my views already: Only 3 decades into exploration and discovery via robots and probes, it's too soon to consider terraforming many other celestial bodies.

When and if terraforming does commence (on Mars or elsewhere), I hope it will be handled responsibly and with care. We're still just learning how to take care of *this* planet...let's be better stewards in the future.

--Cindy

Earthfirst · 2004-07-14 12:18:01

Dr. Z is a great nick name for Zubern, I agree with his disregrad for mars life. How does make the surface more livable hurt live. They live deep in a salty water table, if any thing they may thrive and spread all over the surface thanks to us. Humans needs out weigh all other needs of some cold dead planet that some wako environmentist want to turn into a park. Man is apart of the earth created by god in his image, I am sure it is fine with god if some of his kids want to move out of the house "earth" for and their own apartment "mars" humans just cant stay home for ever, they have to grow up and become men in their own right. Maybe even get a fril friend "venus". Maybe even move to another state "other stars near our sun" and make their own home.
Their are no dreams worth dreaming about unless you have to work to make them true.
As for science it does not matter in the long run, only the dreams of man that he makes true with the labour of his own two hands. The will to accept the that he is but a wisper on the wind, and if he blows loud enough he will be known.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-14 14:07:00

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

Javolh, her Cobra!

All heil the Dr. Robert Zubrin, Furher of the First Reich of the solar system! :laugh:

Now that I'm probably set to win the award for the least PC comment ever said here, I'll get back over to the topic. The line about natural selection is interesting, the truth is a little bit of column A and a little of column B as humans blur the line between natural and artificial selection. Pretty much all rational people agree that life on Earth (including us) arose by a natural occurance that can be easily explained in a lab, we just haven't figured out the whole story and way to do that yet. Were we to terraform it, however, Mars would recieve a little bit of "divine intervention" from humans. Over there, ID might fit evolution better, at least in the begining, to get it going.

I agree with Cindy's statement that it's a little bit early to be thinking about terraforming just now. Heck, we haven't even been to Mars yet, and you guys are talking about terraforming it!? I suppose ideas have to start somewhere, but sometimes my attention span's just a little unsatisfied with events that will happen centuries or millennia after I die.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-15 07:59:00

Hmmm.
CC's remarks have got me thinking. (I heard that!! ... And it's not true; sometimes I think for several minutes at a time! )

I think I may have been a little rash in saying that even I would back away from terraforming if truly indigenous life-forms were found on Mars. I've been thinking that a major influx of terrestrial organisms would damage the martian biosphere and should therefore be avoided. Obviously, the more humans on Mars, the more we'll contaminate the place with our own brand of microbes. Hence the idea of restricting exploration to carefully planned biology research missions.
But, of course, the chances of any life on Mars not being the same type as our own are very small and, even if it exists, it must have been living in some semblance of symbiosis with terrestrial organisms for billions of years anyway. Either the two different types of life have effectively ignored each other and lived nonchalantly side-by-side without interaction, or they have somehow interacted and co-evolved into just one type of life, or one type has already out-competed the other and driven it to extinction in any case.
Whichever way you look at it, I don't think it'll be a problem. So ignore what I said about backing away from terraforming and stand by for new orders from the Fuhrerbunker:-
If this month's quota at any perfluorocarbon factory is not met, the entire workforce at that factory will be taken out and shot!
If at least 1 sq. km of reflective material is not produced each week at the soletta factory, the entire factory workforce will be taken out and shot!
If a new aquifer is not found each month, and its waters explosively released onto the martian surface, the whole aquifer reconnaissance team ...
... well ... I think the point has been made!

Heil Zubrin!! :rant: [ ]

clark · 2004-07-15 08:48:04

Cindy:

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.

And

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.

And

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.

When coupled with this:

*Clark, I've seen you criticize and grill pro-terraformers, doubtful terraformers *and* folks like myself who are still carefully considering the matter

How are you carefully considering the matter? I've seen your stance on this subject, you want to leave Mars as is. No mining. No terraforming. Don't mess with the *precious* heavens lest we bungling humans screw it all up.

My stance on this, from the get go, has been to terraform and make her blue. I've prefaced my points when disagreeing with others on going to Mars because it's a discussion that needs to take place among a wider audience before it actually happens.

Some people love the Mars bugs, I understand that. I respect that. However, I don't. I don't care about any imaginary mars bugs. I don't care about protecting the rocks on Mars from exploitation. I don't care about biological contamination protocols either. But I understand some do. i understand that if a few screwballs do manage to get to Mars, they get to make the decision for everyone else- and I think that's wrong (even if I would agree with their actions).

Your cries for "we need more time for science" is laughable. "we've only been doing this for 30 years, blah, blah, blah." This kind of attitude, this position runs counter to the stated goals of the Mars Society. It runs counter to the whole point of colonization because as soon as you put some feet on that ground, you will have irreversibly changed and contaminated the planet. What's the "Plan"? To go, and go permanently, and live there. But somehow you're on the fence to not terraform it- well guess what, putting any number of people on that planet will change it, will make it less than it once was (or more, if you take the other view).

Then it begs the next question- Why go in the first place? Well, as a spring board to further our reach. Guess where that leads? To all your little nightmare whining about precisely what you don't want to happen to your precious picture book night sky.

You're satisfied to just look at it, yet you surround yourself with people, here, who want much more than that.

Of course, I'm sure most of those posts of yours have "disappeared"...they do have a tendency to "disappear" don't they?

And every single one of your posts has maintained it's integrity, hasn't it Cindy. Your insinuation is lame. How many more lies will I have to suffer? But whatever gets you there. :laugh:

You can't have it every which way. You're playing games. And did you take exception to my calling you a troll? How ironic if so -- especially since you yourself have insinuated being a troll more than once, here at New Mars.

What game am I playing? And, just so you know, I wasn't taking exception to being called a troll by you (you've accused me of far far worse), but by the fact that Zubrin says some rather caustic things, yet I'm the bad guy here.

*Either/or, huh? I find your statement simplistic (but yes, I realize you're simply trying to "stir the kettle"). Anyway, a viewpoint can be reached while still maintaining an open mind and a willingness to rethink/reconsider.

I find you simplistic. Retyping quotes doesn't make you smart.

I doubt it really even matters to you one way or the other -- including the actual matter or other peoples' opinions and viewpoints on the matter.

Why should your opinion or viewpoint matter to me? What do you bring to the table? A slanted one-sided viewpoint begging for validation.

Also regarding the quote in your post, I don't recall *anyone* here at New Mars calling for Mars to be "kept dead" (if it's even truly dead), and I've been keeping up with these threads for over 2 years now.

Sure, whatever you say. Because not trying to terraform the planet will somehow allow it to live.

Here Cindy, another flower, for you: @--->--- :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-15 10:41:59

And clark's comments give us reasons to believe that humans may indeed be Earth's... reproductive organ. <ahem>

clark · 2004-07-15 10:49:19

I suppose all things being equal, I would rather that association than being represenative of the excretory organ... <ahem>

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-15 10:55:56

It's only a matter of a few inches.

But seriously, personal attacks on Cindy don't really help to further your point. Let's be civil before one of those caped super-administrators swoops in.

clark · 2004-07-15 11:00:38

It's only a matter of a few inches.

That's what she said. :laugh:

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-17 16:42:33

Hmm, perhaps I should bug out here before this mud slinging battle starts causing too much colateral damage. Cue Crow T. Robot quote:

"I'm gonna be honest with you Mike, I calculated the odds of this succeding versus that I'm doing something completely stupid, and went ahead anyway." (From MST3K: The Movie, don't sue me for this, blah, blah, flame war)

... And we're back. Clark, I don't think making fun of Cindy will help your cause very much. As Cobra said:

Let's be civil before one of those caped super-administrators swoops in.

Cindy might as well be one of those. Now you incur the wrath of the Moon goddess, foolish mortal! Just kidding of course, on a side tangent though, Artemis (Greek moon goddess) did once turn a guy into a deer out of vengance. You might want to be more careful next time. (Note to self, make offering at Moon altar before logging on to New Mars next time.)

:laugh:

Now that in addition to the least PC comment award I'm now sure to recieve the most ridiculous ramble award, I'll say something worthwile. The comment that we need more time for science is somewhat valid, after all, speculation on terraforming is a bit pointless for a few reasons. No one is going to seriously consider doing it until a loooooong time from now, after we've colonized the place, and any technologies from today will have long since been replaced by more modern means. There's very little chance that terraforming will ever be carried out the way we imagine, but hey, you gotta have some material with which to fill the backs of envelopes with calculations and daydreams with images.

No matter what, you do have to admit that the whole idea of terraforming and colonization bears huge connotations with seed dispersal and natural selection. Survival of the fittest planets, let's let Earth win! Personally, I enjoy my seat on the fence with this issue, the same seat I've taken with abortion and religion. Are there any more supporters for Cindy/Atkinson in '32?

karov · 2004-07-18 05:07:49

We, the humans are the closest thing that ever appeard on this planet to 'bio-stat'.

The natural conditions during almost all the lenght of the earth`s natural history were non-habitable by humans. The Earth itself killes every biological species which emerged here.

Except us, who else had the means to change, i.e. to destroy or preserve the present state?

We already have the concept of technology to control the environmemt - deflect asteroids, concentrate or reflect sunlight to or from earth. We have idea and knowhow to transform other environments in earth-like...

The neurological way of processing information in the time is billions of times faster than the DNA darwin way. The emerging out-of the body computation gives us another billions of times in speed and safety...

Only we could preserve or multiplicate the earth. In that sence -- we a the means of reproducing Gaia.

karov · 2004-07-18 05:09:21

We, the humans are the closest thing that ever appeard on this planet to 'bio-stat'.

The natural conditions during almost all the lenght of the earth`s natural history were non-habitable by humans. The Earth itself killes every biological species which emerged here.

Except us, who else had the means to change, i.e. to destroy or preserve the present state?

We already have the concept of technology to control the environmemt - deflect asteroids, concentrate or reflect sunlight to or from earth. We have idea and knowhow to transform other environments in earth-like...

The neurological way of processing information in the time is billions of times faster than the DNA darwin way. The emerging out-of the body computation gives us another billions of times in speed and safety...

Only we could preserve or multiplicate the earth. In that sence -- we a the means of reproducing Gaia.

Rxke · 2004-07-18 06:04:35

First off: Odyssey: I like your style, you put up some really good ideas.
Second: lately 99% of discussions seem to get out of hand/off-topic within 5-6 posts, sigh.

'bout Zubrin: if you read the article he says: if we find living stuff, let's see how it behaves under higher atm. pressure, more H2O. I guess he's refering to the idea these thingies are descendants from the wet/warm past, and could do very well in a Terraformed Mars, so he's not the Exterminator, but possibly the errr.. Rescuscitator(sp?) of Mars indigneous life?

I never saw Clark as a troll, but a 'difficult questions' guy: you have an idea, he plays Devil's Advocate. I always found that quite a productive way of reasoning. YMMV, of course... It tended to confuse the unprintable out of me when certain post disappeared, to be sure...

Anyhoo... IMO Terraforming isn't much more unnatural than those pesky newfangled plants that started to change the amosphere on Earth, some millennia ago, life has a way to adapt to, or change it's environment to better its survival chances. Until now, there was no pre-planning, humans, with the advantage of abstract thinking, change all that: instead of wildly 'experimenting,' they still experiment, but can discard in advance 90% of inefficient adaptions. You could say that's unnatural or that it as just another survival-trait, making us just a little bit better at the game of living, surviving as a species.
And even helping other species survive, wich you could argue we're not that great at today, but we're getting better. No other lifeforms could care about the survival of other species until we came on stage, and look: we're clumsily trying our best to keep the Earth in shape, while surviving ourselves... Some of us, at least. We're even thinking actively about extending the 'playfield' to other pastures, though they're not (yet) green.

karov · 2004-07-18 15:04:08

In order to survive as species, I mean in the present Human Condition would take lots of effort to preserve the earth environment around the nowaday parameters. Our activity, or rather natural processes will unavoidably make it again sooner or later in uninhabitable one.

The whole human strategy consists of making the environment more human-friendly by producing: clothes, huts, houses, boats, submarines, spaceships, colonies, terraformation... To produce new human compatible environment is just a logical development of the oldest human urge of taming the natural conditions.

In that sence people colonising new worlds or prioducing space colonies, coming allong with all the plant and animal life necessary for food or just aesthetical reasons indeed will serve as a reproductor of the gaian biosphere. Thats why some regard the effects of the present environmental destruction and polution not as 'cancer' of Earth, but rather as 'morning sickness' of pregnant female, metaphorically speaking of course.

We, the humans are the first and the only means of the earth`s biosphere making it able to spread out of its gravity well. Along this 'Big Bang' of earth life dispersion, we are the moemory of the planet -- preserving all the nowaday living species, and even restoring the dead ones -- is possible.

clark · 2004-07-19 10:11:43

Perhaps it's the beach. The ocean, the smell of sea and salt and soft burning sand on the bare toes, quenched by the always constant water. The ocean, home and beginning of everything we see and breathe. I never understood those who would trek for miles, journey to the waters edge, yet never dive into a single wave. I never understood the tracks left in the sand, wiped away by the endless rhythm of the tides, that never once led into the waters. To just stand upon the edge of a watery precipice, and never fling yourself into it, seems to me a flagrant disregard of life and all the possible experiences that wait for those lucky enough to exist, and realize it.

I see the ocean, it is an environment harboring untold and countless variations of life. It is not my home, merely a place to visit, to swim and experience. Some make their home upon the waters though, some live their entire lives at sea, floating upon some flimsy wood, building upon that small platform a life and home alien to what the ocean is. They make it home.

Everyplace on earth, be it desert, arctic, forest, or mountain top- we make it home. We change the world around, bending it to our will, our desire. It is no better, no worse, merely different. Some things thrive with our arrival, others wither. The value of loss and gain is wholly based on each individual, and what they personally think. Is this loss good, is this gain bad? Two sides of the same coin- that piece of metal that we all pretend and agree has a certain artificial value.

Rock or tree, green or red, to swim in the water, or not? To make it home.

I am not content to see us go to the waters edge, and not dive in. I am not content to see us swim so far, and not make it our home. When the tides come, as they always do, and wash away our footprints, what will we have? Pictures? Books? The stale taste of life recounted and never lived?

To go to Mars, to reach that far, and not reach further, is to be safe. To be timid when all of life has taught us to be brave. To be foolhardy and seize the moment. To rush past the sands, headlong into the horizon of endless sea.

To not terraform Mars is to not stay. To be nomads that pass along the way, and never make it home. There are those who want a different destination, a different red star guides them to a place they would call home. But here, it is Mars. Here, Mars is our ocean. Our waiting empty shore, calling us to fill it. Mars, the place where we would make it home.

And I want to paint our home blue.

BWhite · 2004-07-19 10:32:36

Perhaps it's the beach. The ocean, the smell of sea and salt and soft burning sand on the bare toes, quenched by the always constant water. The ocean, home and beginning of everything we see and breathe. I never understood those who would trek for miles, journey to the waters edge, yet never dive into a single wave. I never understood the tracks left in the sand, wiped away by the endless rhythm of the tides, that never once led into the waters. To just stand upon the edge of a watery precipice, and never fling yourself into it, seems to me a flagrant disregard of life and all the possible experiences that wait for those lucky enough to exist, and realize it.

Wet shorts make for a lousy car ride home.

That said, I always knew you really were a space romantic, clark.

karov · 2004-07-19 11:32:28

Even on the most terraformed worlds there will be vast wild areas and thousands of kilometers linear of outback to ride or walk at will. Oceans are very usefull as 'natural' termostat and atmosphere gases quantity regulator, so on terraformed Mars we`ll have enough of ocean (especialy in the north) and lots of high altitude desert ( especially in the south ).

Terraformation in no case would turn a whole planet in urban area or arable land. Each square mile of cultivated land needs several sq.miles of 'wilderness', even only for aesthetical reasons or for psychological 'free room' sence.

Such vast 'wild' lands -- big as Sahara or Amazonia, or wider -- we should expect to find elaborated even in the huge rotating tube worlds, the ones with diameter bigger than several dozens of kms. up to the theoretical limit of ~5000 km for carbon fibers, having bigger living area than earth`s.

The romantic feeling connected with the space colonisation and generaly with the settlement in new lands, is so essential for the Human condition, that it inevitably shall be fulfilled in hardware manner...

clark · 2004-07-19 15:35:38

That said, I always knew you really were a space romantic, clark.

I love the place where the wild flowers have not grown.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-25 21:55:25

Ah, the ocean. The smell of salt, the feel of the chilly seabreeze, the liquid-nitrogen cold (Or at least it feels like that) water, the sand between your toes. It's a great place, I wish I could visit it more often.

To have an ocean on Mars (Incomplete sentence? Why not?). A second great blue marble tumbling around the Sun. Wouldn't that be magnificent to be able to go up to the edge of the water, breathe a breath of fresh air, and just dive into that newly created sea? The wondrous landscapes, lush valleys, green forests, vast oceans, unimaginable canyons, dazzling coral and human cities, on Mars, now wouldn't that be somethin'? Just imagine for a second, some distant time in the future, a person walks down an aisle in a grocery store and comes across imported wine, from Mars! And all from a place that only a short millennia ago was a desolate red desert.

Okay, so I'm a hopeless romantic too. Still, it's hard to seriously think about it and not start shouting "Let's do it! Let's do it! Let's do it!" It's important to keep all things considered, what if there's already a thriving ecosystem in place? This is why being undecided is so great, you don't have to make an allegance.

karov · 2004-07-27 09:19:38

May be as recent researches show asteroid impacts could export in the space microbial life which to survive the interplanetarty trip and to implant earth life on other planet.

But terraforming, biosphere implantations, astroengineering... commited by advanced mankind and its descendants is far better and effective means for the earth biosphere to multiplicate and proliferate in the Universe.

Being part and product of this biosphere, our purpose is metaphorically speaking exactly to be the system for reproduction of the biosphere. Who else?

Producing new and new earth-like and generally human compatible space elsewhere is way of us to survive, but with us survive the rest of the life. In this enormous trend there is lots of possibility for 'space romanthics'.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-07-14 10:00:55

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

#27 2004-07-14 11:31:30

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

#28 2004-07-14 12:18:01

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

#29 2004-07-14 14:07:00

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

#30 2004-07-15 07:59:00

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

#31 2004-07-15 08:48:04

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

#32 2004-07-15 10:41:59

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

#33 2004-07-15 10:49:19

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

#34 2004-07-15 10:55:56

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

#35 2004-07-15 11:00:38

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

#36 2004-07-17 16:42:33

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

#37 2004-07-18 05:07:49

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

#38 2004-07-18 05:09:21

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

#39 2004-07-18 06:04:35

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

#40 2004-07-18 15:04:08

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

#41 2004-07-19 10:11:43

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

#42 2004-07-19 10:32:36

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

#43 2004-07-19 11:32:28

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

#44 2004-07-19 15:35:38

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

#45 2004-07-25 21:55:25

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

#46 2004-07-27 09:19:38

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

Board footer