Blue about Green vs Red?

jadeheart · 2003-12-09 14:10:25

Refreshing dose of optimism there Rxke. I will have to check out Kurzweil's book. I'm familiar with the hyperbolic curve you mentioned...

...but while I agree that technology's steady march is generally a good thing and is accelerating, and I want to be hopeful and optimistic like anybody else... well, I wouldn't be true to my posting alias here if I didn't point out that our problems also seem to have a way of escalating, somewhat keeping pace with our technological advances. I feel like history has been a race between our good and bad sides, and the good can never quite leave the bad totally behind. They seem to be linked.

To me, the big issue in the near future will be how much of our brainpower will have to be spent solving all of the looming problems-- basically, global spin control. This will, to an extent, detract from outward-looking efforts like having fun on Mars. I wonder that, if we don't go soon, we'll be overwhelmed by issues here at home that will prevent us from doing anything proactive. (BTW, the liberal side of the Internet has already picked up on Bush's lunar leanings and they're already starting to howl. Wasted money! Too many problems here on Earth!)

And there is of course the maturity question. A recently-learned example comes to mind: Edward Teller and some other Manhattan Project types wanting to use H-bombs to blast out a deepwater harbor here in my neck of the woods near Cape Lisborne in the '60s. The environmental and social consequences would've been monstrous. The plan was stopped (almost miraculously) by a bare handful of activists. Sounds kind of like a terraforming project right here on Earth, eh?

I think your positive predictions will only come true if we are able to outpace our own idiotic tendencies. I have hope but also skepticism. Either way I think we'll deserve what we get.

Again, Mars may well be our final litmus test. Let's go for it. At the very least we'll put off stagnation for a few years.

I tried to bring this back to the original thread but couldn't manage it. I'll leave off with that. :;):

clark · 2003-12-09 16:12:51

To terraform or not to terraform, that is the question...

Who among us would stop a flower from blooming?

Let Mars bloom. The rocks will still be a martian shade of red. The shadows of canyons the size of a world will still swallow up the sky we may one day breathe. Mountains will still tower as we stand in awe and wonder.

Mars will never be Earth. Yet none of that means Mars cannot be something more than what it is.

As we go to Mars, we become more than what we once were. Let Mars represent that.

Palomar · 2003-12-19 11:18:52

*I'm going to take this thread (started by me) a bit off topic...

I think we've all pretty much made our sentiments known regarding terraforming, etc.; folks here for a while know my views, I'm acquainted with theirs, etc.

I read in a different thread someone's opinion that space (which I presume includes Mars...ahem) should be exploited to the hilt for purposes of selfish greed.

I don't like the word "exploitation." IMO it smacks of reckless and destructive (non-thinking/stupid) grabbing; also of simply taking without returning anything let alone trying to restore or maintain a balance. To be blunt, I don't want that attitude driving humans into outerspace.

I prefer development. In music, this can be defined (ala Webster's) as: "Elaboration of a theme with rhythmic and harmonic (harmony) variations." Development is, IMO, much more indicative of thoughtful planning, considering and weighing consequences before taking action; a level of foresight and wisdom employed.

"The fool rushes blindly forward and suffers the consequences; the wise man looks ahead and sees where he goes." -- Solomon.

Development versus exploitation is better.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-12-19 11:28:23

What is there to develop on Mars?

a dead lifeless super oxidized vacum frozen ball of a world. What is there to keep in balance?

We either use it, or stare at it.

Palomar · 2003-12-19 11:35:14

*I also want to comment on a few other sentiments expressed in the forum (elsewhere) that we can't wait until mankind reaches perfection. Well, I doubt mankind will ever be perfect (who defines what perfect is anyway?), so it seems a pointless thing to say.

As for humans going into space as one big happy altruistic family ala Star Trek: No one here strikes me as being so idealistic and naive/dumb as to expect that will happen.

I cringe, however, at the folks who seem to think the "loud, burping, smelly, crazed Klingon-slob types" is the ideal to shoot for. Give me a break.

Surely a balance can be found?! Is it humanly possible to find a balance??

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-12-19 15:02:06

the "loud, burping, smelly, crazed Klingon-slob types" is the ideal to shoot for. Give me a break.

You mean you only want women in space?

Actually, that burping and smelling is because of the constant space-sickness, really!

Palomar · 2003-12-19 15:25:49

the "loud, burping, smelly, crazed Klingon-slob types" is the ideal to shoot for. Give me a break.
You mean you only want women in space?

*No way!

--Cindy :laugh:

Rxke · 2003-12-19 15:34:49

Good. Anyway it would be technologically impossible, there's not enough bandwidth to carry all that chatting about the neighbour's new ugly dress etc. :;):

(I'm kidding, REALLY!)

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-19 16:08:37

the "loud, burping, smelly, crazed Klingon-slob types" is the ideal to shoot for. Give me a break.
You mean you only want women in space?
*No way!

Ummm, sure? ???

Humans will go when we're ready, it's just how it works. It just so happened that when we moved to North America it was the "loud, burping, smelly" type of all-male people who did the first exploration. When we first went to the Moon it was in style to have our explorers be married young grad students, who again were all-male. When the time comes to live perminently on Mars or go to another star system it will occur because we're at the right juncture technologically, not idealogically.

Cindy, I don't exactly know what you meant when you said you were going off topic earlier, but since it un/intentionally became some childish sexism thing I'll say something on the matter. We're living in an interesting time right now. Before it was entirely one half of the population that got to do all the fun stuff like explore, fight wars, and be obnoxious in public, specifically the male half. If people complain about us being not perfect what they don't realize is that we're actually closer to perfection (If that exists) than ever before. Only 30 years ago NASA didn't take women seriously enough to allow one to leave Earth, let alone walk on the Moon. Now we're almost assured that the first people to Mars will be a neat cross-section of humans, something that hasn't happened before in exploration.

Come to think of it, why am I the one saying that when I'm the youngest one talking right now (Assuming y'all filled out your profiles honestly)? I wasn't even around to witness, well, anything I just said, or maybe there's some humor to it I'm too young to get. So any thoughts now that you all feel old?

(Don't worry, I'm kidding, too.)

Palomar · 2003-12-19 16:55:57

Cindy, I don't exactly know what you meant when you said you were going off topic earlier, but since it un/intentionally became some childish sexism thing I'll say something on the matter. We're living in an interesting time right now. Before it was entirely one half of the population that got to do all the fun stuff like explore, fight wars, and be obnoxious in public, specifically the male half. If people complain about us being not perfect what they don't realize is that we're actually closer to perfection (If that exists) than ever before. Only 30 years ago NASA didn't take women seriously enough to allow one to leave Earth, let alone walk on the Moon. Now we're almost assured that the first people to Mars will be a neat cross-section of humans, something that hasn't happened before in exploration.

*Um...I think there are a few potentially serious misunderstandings in the works:

What I initially meant regarding "getting slightly off-topic" had -only- to do with humans moving out into space either in a manner of *exploitation versus development*. And that I prefer the development route (as outlined previously).

The reference to Klingons had -nothing- to with the male gender. Of course Klingons are fictional characters, but their females are depicted as no better (loud, burpy, obnoxious). I referred to the Klingons in a collective manner...with NO gender differentiation.

I'm stymied that more is being read into this somehow. ::scratching head in bewilderment::

Sorry, I'm totally lost on your comment: "If people complain about us being not perfect what they don't realize is that we're actually closer to perfection (If that exists) than ever before. Only 30 years ago NASA didn't take women seriously enough to allow one to leave Earth, let alone walk on the Moon..."

I'm not complaining about men at all; I didn't complain about men. It wasn't even in my mind. Again, the reference was simply to Klingons in general -- BOTH genders -- and that I wouldn't care for humans moving into space behaving like that or having that as some sort of ideal.

Rxke asked if I'd like just women in space (I guess he made an association about Klingons and the male gender [?] which I did not imply nor intend to imply)...I said no, simply answering the "women only" aspect. I like men!

That's all there is to this.

As for this having, in your opinion, become a "childish sexism thing"...wow, I'm sorry you took Rik's joking and my joking that way. Can we please lighten up?

My sincere apologies if something in what I said or how I replied was easy to misunderstand/misread, or if I inadvertently offended someone. [??]

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-19 19:01:49

Wow, this topic is getting completely out of control! I was going to quote part of what you said but instead I'll address one point at a time because there's too much in what you said that I'd like to adress. First, I didn't accuse you of complaining about men. I was just making a point that right now we've happened to reach a point where we're closer to equality than ever before. That doesn't mean I assume you or anyone else opposes that view, I'm just presenting a fact.

Second, well, how do I apologize for being too stern? I wasn't trying to, so sorry if it came across that way. I was actually just poking fun at the exchange of comments at the top of the page between Cindy and Rxle so it's not like I was taking everything too seriously. Maybe I should use more of these emoticons to convey the point next time. :laugh:

Whatev.

Aetius · 2003-12-19 19:19:36

Cindy was probably referring to comments I'd made in another thread.

We have somewhat different ways of seeing the world.

For what it's worth, Cindy, I just finished Voltaire's "Collected Works". It was a good read, even if I disagreed with some of what he had to say.

Aetius · 2003-12-19 19:51:34

For the record, the sentiment choosing to postpone Martian colonization until humans advance to some 'next' stage in development (whatever that means) HAS been voiced here and elsewhere. I was simply voicing my opposition to that mindset.

You can bureaucratize Mars all you want, to favor 'development' over 'exploitation'. Business interests will simply be less likely to seek opportunities on Mars, because a few intellectuals favor a chimerical "balance" of interests.

Who will suffer? Human beings. Rocks can't feel the consequences of a reduced standard of living. People can.

Palomar · 2003-12-19 20:20:43

MG Student: "Wow, this topic is getting completely out of control!"

*It's funny how things like this happen, huh? :;): How many times have we all tried to make a topic "hot" or of sudden interest, and it doesn't...then others ::whoosh:: out of nowhere. MG Student, no problem. Your response -worried- me more than anything. You're a bright young man (very bright...sure you're only 14?!); I was very concerned I'd "come off the wrong way." I sometimes become very enthused about topics (not relating to this one)...which can be chalked up to not having had much contact with like-minded people pre-internet. It was hard, "back then," to get people to attend astronomy related-meetings, etc., because of course it required physical presence. And there was no alternative to that, beyond chain letters (slow, slow, slow) and the like. Years and years of this situation. So sometimes I may seem a bit over-enthusiastic or a bit "very youthful"...ah well; it's an irresistable opportunity [the interaction here], what can I say? And I don't mean to digress; just trying to put it in perspective.

MG Student: "First, I didn't accuse you of complaining about men. I was just making a point that right now we've happened to reach a point where we're closer to equality than ever before. That doesn't mean I assume you or anyone else opposes that view, I'm just presenting a fact."

*Whew. Okay, I'm with you on this. I was concerned you'd misunderstood and felt I was complaining about men indirectly (especially concerning, since -usually- I'm the only female here...so far as I know). You're right; we are closer to equality than ever before.

MS Student: Second, well, how do I apologize for being too stern? I wasn't trying to, so sorry if it came across that way... Maybe I should use more of these emoticons to convey the point next time.

*No need to apologize. The internet can be a tricky forum. Can't see facial expressions, there are no voice tones or body language...all's well that ends well with this.

Aetius: "Cindy was probably referring to comments I'd made in another thread. We have somewhat different ways of seeing the world."

*Yep.

Aetius: "For what it's worth, Cindy, I just finished Voltaire's 'Collected Works'. It was a good read, even if I disagreed with some of what he had to say."

*I disagree with some of what he says, too. Glad to hear you read him; he was a real gem.

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-19 21:55:50

Ecrasez: "You're a bright young man (very bright... sure you're only 14?!)

Hmm, I think so. :;): I guess you just kind of have to go by faith considering that this is the internet and all. Actually, I could do some intersting stuff provided no one ever checked for changes in my profile, such as claim a PhD or become whatever minoraty/majority I want to be.

Ecrasez: "I'm the only female here... so far as I know."

Sorry, but I really can't help you with that. Again, theoretically I could've filled the form out a little differently and say I could sympathize with you, but that would be kind of dishonest. That must be like me in my Trig class, I'm one of only four freshmen (The rest are sophmores or juniors) in there!

I agree that it can be very easy to misinterpret people on the internet without any tone of voice or body language to go with it, but to tell you the truth I'm not very good at interpreting people off-line either. I guess I'm probably mildly autistic or something, my strengths are elswhere.

As for my stand on terraformation, I maintain that if there's life we should leave it alone, for the scientific gain of studying it, but if we somehow find a way to prove that there's nothing there go ahead. I'm not going to be the one to terraform it anyway, what's the minimum cost $3-6 trillion. I'm not paying for that! :laugh:

Rxke · 2003-12-20 02:44:04

I'll just jump in and out to say that, indeed i related klingons with male... Believe it or not, but i never saw a single episode with klingons in it (except that 'civilised' guy)

I do not have tv...

ok, back to terraforming...

Palomar · 2004-01-30 09:17:06

*As I'm the person who started this thread, I'm going to take the liberty of going just a wee bit off course.

Are there any Greens here who are into conservationist programs, recycling, etc.? As many here already know, I'm a Red when it comes to the terraforming issue. I see news articles frequently which state orangutans in some remote region of Asia may be extinct by 2020, etc. There's been debate here (at the boards, not in this thread) previously as to how accurate or alarmist some of these news articles are (particularly as the environment goes).

This planet is blessed with abundant life of myriad forms; that goes without saying. If you're interested in terraforming Mars, doesn't it behoove you to be interested in conservation and environmentalism here on Earth at least to a point? Can't transplant Earth life (I'm thinking of flora initially of course) to Mars in 100 years which might be extinct in 50 years obviously.

I'm getting back into recycling...cans, plastics, etc. I'm also going to join the World Wildlife Federation and Audubon. This, despite the fact that I don't want to terraform Mars! Seems odd, huh? But not really, when you think about it: As much as I love Mars, I'm always reminded how starkly barren it is...as opposed to our little garden planet with its lush and abundant life. It's worth preserving and assisting in the maintenance of its health; to me, it just logically goes hand in hand with care and love for the remainder of the Solar System.

How can we learn to be "good stewards" of other planetary entities if we aren't mindful to some degree of care for our home planet?

Okay, Greens...what say you?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-01-30 10:29:54

What better way to become good stewards of our own planet than by remaking another planet into something similar?

Wouldn't the process of transforming Mars into a lush garden paradise teach us about ecology, genetics, environmental engineering, bio-diversity, the interplay of various environments upon one another, self-regulating systems, etc.?

Couldn't we try out some different ideas on a dead planet, which allows us the room to make errors that are not fatal to all of humanity?

Byron · 2004-01-30 11:39:38

This planet is blessed with abundant life of myriad forms; that goes without saying. If you're interested in terraforming Mars, doesn't it behoove you to be interested in conservation and environmentalism here on Earth at least to a point? Can't transplant Earth life (I'm thinking of flora initially of course) to Mars in 100 years which might be extinct in 50 years obviously.

Since I'm a "Green", here's my two cents... Yes, I'm a strong believer in conservation and protection of Earth's precious resources. I think it's extremely important to live in harmony with our environment (glad to see you getting into recycling, Cindy ) as well as sustainability. If we cut down our forests and fish out the oceans, the terraformation of Mars will be a moot issue, since we'll never get there in the first place!

Seriously, though, I don't think we have any business terraforming another planet until we've learned to properly manage our own. Granted, we've come a long ways in controlling pollution, species protection, getting more use out of farmland, etc, but we still have yet to get into equilibrium with our environment, which is something that'll be even more important if people are to ever live on Mars.

But the thing about terraforming Mars, it could very well teach us how to re-terraform Earth should it ever become hostile to human civilization (like the new ice age that's supposed to start in a couple thousand years, lol.) And my Number One reason for supporting terraforming (the concept of it, at least, it's an extremely messy proposition no matter how you look at it) is that a terraformed Mars would serve as humanity's ultimate life insurance policy (get it? "life"..hehe...) Plus, there will never be more than a handful of people living on Mars if conditions aren't at least a *little* more conducive to life (human or otherwise.)

B

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-31 06:44:54

I agree with Byron to a large extent but I don't see why we shouldn't start terraforming Mars while we're still learning how to manage our home planet. I think we can do both simultaneously.
The industrial revolution began in the late 18th century and world levels of pollution arguably reached their maximum in the 1970s and 80s. Since then, despite an increase in the human population of about 2 billion, the burgeoning conservation movement and a greater awareness of the fragility of our planetary environment have brought about improvements. (If you don't believe me, read some of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg, a book whose author has been lambasted by doomsayers but whose guardedly optimistic message remains unrefuted by objective observers.)
While Cindy is certainly quite right, of course, to watch with dismay the numbers of certain familiar species such as orangutans dwindling towards extinction, we have moved forward in as much as we're now knowledgeable in such things. 30 or 40 years ago, nobody would have been aware of such a scenario but at least today our collective consciousness has risen to a critical level at which we can bring pressure to bear and hopefully avoid such disasters.
I don't say all is well with the world, far from it, but the wheels are turning and the human race has never been more aware of its effect on the world around it. I'm hopeful that it's not too late to improve things and I think technological progress will help enormously over the next fifty years. (Yes, Cindy, I realise such a timeline may be no use to species like the orangutan and that would be tragic. )

As far as recycling goes, yes we do sort our rubbish into two separate wheely-bins; one for the recyclables. And our Cairns City Council has been very forward looking in building a state-of the-art waste disposal facility, where the non-recyclable garbage is sorted, compacted, and otherwise processed in order to minimise the final volume and toxicity of the waste.
But I believe some European countries are probably among the most advanced recyclers and the most environmentally sensitive of peoples. I seem to remember one European country (was it Sweden?), where even flashlight batteries had their own special collection system to avoid dumping them as landfill and having their heavy metals leak into the ecosystem.

Terraforming Mars is going to take a long time, maybe centuries. The initial phase involves a 'simple' warming process to bring the average surface temperatures and pressure up to a level at which liquid water is stable. Doing that much is a bare minimum and will take anything from 50 to 150 years, depending on which books you read. By then, we'll either have solved our environmental problems here on Earth or we'll be in urgent need of Mars as a lifeboat!!
In any event, I think we should begin the terraforming process on Mars as soon as we can.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-02 14:21:19

Green all the way, red over rated. one way to create green house gases on mars. Once there are people living no mars the will produce garbge and like on earth they will put in a land fill. Land fills produce lots methane gas, on earth it is burn off to make power. But on mars it could used as a green house gas, also cows create tons of methane and humans too. Also some bacteria release amonnia which is good greenhouse gas.

clark · 2004-02-03 08:41:04

Maybe a 'Red' can explain this to me:

If you feel that Mars should not be terraformed, then shouldn't we refrain from sending humans to Mars?

Any number of people more than zero will contaminate the planet Mars with terrestrial microbes. Any amount of terrestrial contamination, directed by humans, is terraforming.

Sending robotic probes, we can avoid this issue completely- we can sterilize the machinery to avoid any unwanted contaimination of Mars. We don't really have this option for human exploration.

Human explorers will more than likely introduce nuclear power to Mars. They will vent gases into the Martian atmosphere. They will vent heat. They will leave garbage of one sort or the other to rust away, or slowly tumble in the martian wind.

Settlement will only increase these effects. And all of this is one form of terraforming or another, albeit, on a very small scale.

Isn't this one of those situations of "in for a penny, in for a pound"?

We want to put people on Mars, why tie our hands?

Byron · 2004-02-06 07:12:19

Just some thoughts rolling around in my head...

There is tangible evidence that Mars is currently experiencing global warming, much like the Earth is. In fact, the southern polar ice cap is subliming CO2 at such a rapid rate that it could vanish in a few thousand years. Of course, we still need to do a lot more research of Mars' climate to figure out what is going on, etc. But what I'm wondering is, what if we discover that Mars is heating up and the atmosphere is thickening as a part of a cyclical process that has been occuring for millions of years (which would tie in with the evidence of liquid water that may have existed quite recently, if not at this very moment), and we also discover that if we gave this "cylical terraforming" an extra push, which would put the current climate of Mars past a critical "tipping point", i.e. allowing Mars to do most of its own terraforming work. (Am I making sense here...?)

In other words, if we see that Mars is essentially trying to "terraform itself," so to speak, would that give us humans more of a "moral" incentive to give it that little extra push so that Mars would have a thicker and warmer atmosphere more suitable for human exploration and settlement?

On the other hand, what if Mother Nature had plans of her own, and sends a large, volitile-filled comet into Mars sometime in the next century, which would essentially thicken its atmophere practically overnight...would it behoove us to see this a beneficial gift from Mother Nature and therefore pave the way to take advantage of a more hospitable Mars?

B

clark · 2004-02-10 08:56:30

All good points Byron.

Is our interference part of this natural process we observe, or, since we realize the effects of our interference, is it no longer proper to take part in the natural process?

We see nature change, but we can observe no self-awareness in it's actions. There's no intent that can be discerned, so there is no questioning of motives, which is what happens with people. Why do you do these things? (a question posed to people) For nature, no such question can be asked.

"The mountain fell upon the village". A horrible tragedy, but no one really 'blames' the mountain, The mountain, and what happens to it at any point in time simply 'is'.

Now, Mars. Mars is. Whatever way it may look, the composition of it's atmosphere, the amount of water that is liquid or not, Mars is still Mars. Even with verdant valley's teeming with people in an open, breatheable world, Mars is still Mars. Not the Mars we now see, no, but something else- as the ground that once was flat, becomes a Grand Canyon. Or as small hills grow to become atmospheric mountains. Mars is the same.

How is Mars reduced any by changing it in any way? I just don't see how that happens.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-10 13:40:25

I reed about that too, mars is heating up slowly. But we dont know much about the mars wheather cycles to predict that.
If the current melting of the southern cap countines mars will gain 1% atmosphere every mars decade or 20 earth years. that does not add up to a big change. But we have to rember planets do thens on geogolical time scales. A thousands years is a long time for people but is just a second in geo time. It may be that mars is going though a rapid climate change just like the earth did at the end of the last ice age. But that to took thousands of years. Its a good thing climate change does not happen over night, because when it does you get mass exentson. On mars it climate is more senitive then earth, it would only take a small change from people to cause a climate change. But isnt that the point to terriforming. By the Reds and greens what about the blues, I am for cover most of mars under a ocean. So that people can surf on mars. By even living there you change the place, so all those reds should stop being self righteous. It would be a waste to travel to mars then to do nothing. Like on earth even big onceans and brethable air mars will still have deserts that look just like they did before. Also a few hunderd people cant start their own government thats just silly. Earth shall be mars master for ever, you little reds cant do anthing to stop it. Long live the earthlings!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-12-09 14:10:25

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#27 2003-12-09 16:12:51

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#28 2003-12-19 11:18:52

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#29 2003-12-19 11:28:23

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#30 2003-12-19 11:35:14

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#31 2003-12-19 15:02:06

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#32 2003-12-19 15:25:49

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#33 2003-12-19 15:34:49

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#34 2003-12-19 16:08:37

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#35 2003-12-19 16:55:57

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#36 2003-12-19 19:01:49

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#37 2003-12-19 19:19:36

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#38 2003-12-19 19:51:34

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#39 2003-12-19 20:20:43

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#40 2003-12-19 21:55:50

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#41 2003-12-20 02:44:04

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#42 2004-01-30 09:17:06

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#43 2004-01-30 10:29:54

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#44 2004-01-30 11:39:38

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#45 2004-01-31 06:44:54

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#46 2004-02-02 14:21:19

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#47 2004-02-03 08:41:04

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#48 2004-02-06 07:12:19

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#49 2004-02-10 08:56:30

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#50 2004-02-10 13:40:25

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

Board footer