When should we terraform

rustyplanet · 2003-07-13 19:16:18

I'm about to read the Venus series by Pamela Sargent, I've heard a lot about how great they are and the author won the Nebula and Locus awards for Child of Venus so it has to be good. The second book is out of print but you could probably pick it up at the library. There is also quite a bit of material online about terraforming the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Europa, Titan, Ganymede, and Callisto all look promising, or at least posssible.

I think that we should try to just live on Mars as it already is for the mean time. Maybe in the twenty second century we can start terraforming. If we do encounter life on Mars, it would be very rewarding to "raise" it. That is, restore the planet's atmosphere to some thing that the life could thrive on. It would be like humanity's kid! Haha actually it would be like the Uplift Saga, did anyone read that? The author envisions the universe as a place where one sentient race brings another race to sentience in a process called uplift.

I'm getting off track, but I advocate "areoforming" which was mentioned (very briefly) in KSR's books. Which is where we study how Mars was at the end of the Noachian Era when it had liquid water on its surface, and then base our entire areoforming on restoring Mars to how it was then.

Rxke · 2003-11-15 14:37:45

Mind if I kick up some dust, (or fines, since we're talking about Mars...)

When there will be a permanent settlement on Mars (when...) i think it's inevitable 'someone' will start terraforming w/o others vote... because it'll be ridiculously easy to do it, by that time.

Let's say this permanent base is established by 2040, roughly speaking. One of the terraforming techniques is synthesizing regolith and atmosphere into greenhouse gases. With today's tech, that'd be slow and expensive, so you'd need cooperation, thus general agreement to do that.

But... by that time we'll *definitely* have nanofactories, capable of growing an unlimited amount of these things, for very little or no cost. Set one up, program it, and let it do its multiplying job. Be sure someone WILL.

No, this is NOT science fiction... As this white paper shows the technology to build these processors is a measly 10-15 years away... To read the full paper, go to the 'ideas and publications' section, then 'published papers' the full title is: "Design study of a primitive nanofactory". Warning: 84 pages of tech-talk...

Wim · 2003-11-16 02:45:56

When I read your post, I doubted it at first, but I didn't take a look at the white paper + CRN website.
I also read somewhere else on the net that as of speaking millions of dollars/euros are pumped into nanotechnology (military ?) Does anyone know if there are any applications that use nanotech today ?
Isn't this off topic ??

Rxke · 2003-11-16 02:57:14

the nano discussion is off-topic insofar that there's a dedicated thread going on somewhere else in this forum, but i just wanted to point out the future reality, and its consequences on theorizing... especially for big-scale engineering projects (Terraforming, in this case) nanomanufacturing will be very important and can not be overlooked...

(browse,browse... it's under 'Science and Technology', thread named 'question, nanotechnology' )

Wim · 2003-11-16 05:29:56

Terraforming can not be avoided, but I stick with the idea that humans should first settle and then terraform. For me for now it sounds like too far away and I'm 99,9 percent convinced that it won't happen in my lifetime but it will happen.

dickbill · 2003-11-16 10:50:27

Terraforming can not be avoided, but I stick with the idea that humans should first settle and then terraform. For me for now it sounds like too far away and I'm 99,9 percent convinced that it won't happen in my lifetime but it will happen.

This is a relevant issue, now that we can play the genetic and reconstitute the Martian conditions and chemistry in laboratories, it would be possible to create in Earth small archae/bacterial/fungal/algal ecosystems able to sustain the rigor of the martian climate and send a sample on Mars.
That is possible now even before any human missions.

Wim · 2003-11-16 10:57:49

I didn't mean it can't be done now, what I meant was that I think it will not be done for a very long time (in my lifetime that is)

Rxke · 2003-11-16 11:31:27

Cheer up, Wim, You're 4 years younger than me, and i firmly believe i'll see the first steps to terraforming in my lifetime, (and i'm a smoker! )

BTW you got some auto-update-avatar-script running or something? Everytime i see a post of you, it's different...

Wim · 2003-11-16 11:34:38

I do have to admit that the terraforming is not on my priority list, maybe that's why I think it will not be done in my lifetime.
I'm absolutely positive that I will watch and read about humans presence on the red planet.

No, I'm just playing around with the avatar thingy ...

Free Spirit · 2003-11-16 14:03:50

Why terraform Mars? What possible benefit is there in sending people to settle Mars? If the idea is to escape Earth's ills, maybe it would be better to put our sleeves up and repair Earth rather than run away from the problems.

Wim · 2003-11-16 14:21:45

Wow hold it there please. Even in the year 2358 there will still be problems on earth (if it's still there). You don't mean that we shouldn't go before all those problems are solved, do you ?

Rxke · 2003-11-16 14:40:01

For me personally, it's not to flee Earth's ills, that'd be stupid escapism, to begin with, and not very democratic (only the 'rich' will get there.)

I see Mars settlement as an inescapable fact for the future; of course, there's a difference between an outpost and real settlement (that'll take really long, i think... )
But once there are people walking around there, Terraforming WILL start soon after, wether we like it or not... be it unintentional (contamination) or intentional (with or without major consensus) Mars is fit for life, even if just barely, and life is hardy, so contamination or terraformation is inevitable in the long run (again, that's my opinion)

You could consider me a Red when i use the term Terraformation when i 'only' mean the introduction of some puny, barely reproducing bacteria, but Mars won't be pristine for long, thus i call it terraforming... (struggling w English here)

About curing the ills on Earth: both are not mutually exclusive, for instance research into cheap, simple to construct greenhouses could be used here, same with recycling, materials, engineering, making exhausted land life-bearing again out of 'dead' soil (Sahel) etc.

I think it would actually help a lot of problems getting solved here on our battered, wounded beautiful blue Globe.

As the punkband Dead Kennedys once stated: 'It's the only world we've got- let's protect it while we can- it's all there is- and there ain't no more.'

and no fancy Terraforming plans will change that fact, ever.

Killing our Earth is not an option.

Free Spirit · 2003-11-17 18:48:05

Wim:

Wow hold it there please. Even in the year 2358 there will still be problems on earth (if it's still there). You don't mean that we shouldn't go before all those problems are solved, do you ?

I mean exactly that. Our civilization is a mess and shouldn't be allowed to spread off of Earth. I don't understand why people want to live on Mars anyway and not Earth. Mars is worse than a prison compared to Earth. Anyhow, the more people we have in the Solar System, the more competition there will be for resources. Two fully populated planets could create a lot of unseen problems. Why go there?

rxke:

About curing the ills on Earth: both are not mutually exclusive, for instance research into cheap, simple to construct greenhouses could be used here, same with recycling, materials, engineering, making exhausted land life-bearing again out of 'dead' soil (Sahel) etc.
I think it would actually help a lot of problems getting solved here on our battered, wounded beautiful blue Globe.

We don't actually need to go to Mars to develop that technology though. Instead of some big expensive 'Marshal Plan' for Mars, we should have one for renewable energy and eco-friendly technologies instead. We're on borrowed time with fossil fuels running out, and nuclear power IS NOT an option.

Byron · 2003-11-17 19:06:20

We don't actually need to go to Mars to develop that technology though. Instead of some big expensive 'Marshal Plan' for Mars, we should have one for renewable energy and eco-friendly technologies instead. We're on borrowed time with fossil fuels running out, and nuclear power IS NOT an option.

Okay, here's how to do what you're suggesting:

Step number one: Vote Mr. Bush out of office.

Step number two: Vote a Green Party candidate into office.

Step number three: Rally the U.S. into ditching the SUV, materialistic lifestyle that we've been practicing for the past 20 + years, while switching over to clean energy and mass transportation (especially in the cities).

Step number four: Wait out the inevitable depression that will accompany the change-over to the new economic paradigm (but it'll be worth it in the end...)

B

Free Spirit · 2003-11-17 19:24:20

Byron I agree with everything you said. I'm a Green Party member myself and its ranks seem to be swelling. In a few years we might actually be a rival to contend with on the political stage.

Palomar · 2003-11-17 19:43:12

Wim:
Wow hold it there please. Even in the year 2358 there will still be problems on earth (if it's still there). You don't mean that we shouldn't go before all those problems are solved, do you ?
I mean exactly that. Our civilization is a mess and shouldn't be allowed to spread off of Earth. I don't understand why people want to live on Mars anyway and not Earth. Mars is worse than a prison compared to Earth. Anyhow, the more people we have in the Solar System, the more competition there will be for resources. Two fully populated planets could create a lot of unseen problems. Why go there?

*I'm sincerely hoping that Marsians can create a responsible, mutually-rewarding society which can provide an excellent role model for our battered, weary Earth.

Free Spirit, your argument could have been used many, many times by a multitude of human groups in diverse places. The first homo sapiens could have questioned themselves -- and "checked" themselves -- before departing from Africa to spread into Asia, the Middle East, etc. The Middle Easterners could have questioned and "checked" themselves before branching upward into southern Europe, etc.

Making it on Mars will require intelligent, tough, resilient people. The first dozen generations will at least have to be focused, serious minded, and committed. They will have to learn to work every day with recycling, stretching resources, conserving, etc.

The danger will come when life becomes too easy for Marsians, i.e. when they can sit back a little more comfortably and begin taking things for granted. Another potential (serious) danger I foresee are indulgent parents who, at some stage of comfort and abundance, will state wistfully (as an echo of sorts of parents in the 1940s and 1950s) "I want my child to have everything I couldn't have." In its most benign form I guess that's just the way good intentions ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...an old saying) go in some respects, but in the U.S. we've seen it run amok into a decay in discipline and ethics and likewise a sharp upswing in destructive selfishness, rudeness, greed, etc.

Call in the social engineers! Only half-joking there.

It would be pointless to populate and terraform Mars, only for the 15th generation and beyond to begin making the same stupid mistakes, becoming destructive and irresponsible, etc. Why create a planet only to trash it? That would be reprehensible (understatement).

Though I don't want to get too far off topic, it would indeed be interesting to watch how Marsians maintain (or try to maintain) a balance between individuality and the individual also being encouraged, rewarded, and groomed toward working for the greater benefit of overall society.

The current Western social model certainly isn't the only model. I hope the future Marsians will look very intently at history, compare all those models, take the best elements (time-proven) of each and build from there.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-11-17 20:00:44

Step number one: Vote Mr. Bush out of office.
Step number three: Rally the U.S. into ditching the SUV, materialistic lifestyle that we've been practicing for the past 20 + years, while switching over to clean energy and mass transportation (especially in the cities).

*Hey Byron, I'm totally with you there on Step #1!

SUVs and other gas-guzzling/polluting pieces of junk are prime examples of individualistic-based selfishness at the expense of overall societal good.

President Bush has opposed plans in national parks (such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc.) for mass transit into the parks, such as everyone having to park their vehicle miles away from the wildlife and flora, and being bused in groups into the parks, in order to cut down on vehicle emissions/pollution. The buses (some have already been introduced in Yosemite, IIRC) are new, and designed to be as environmentally friendly as possible. President Bush knocks these plans, saying he doesn't believe the American people should have to change the way we want to live. What about the quality of life of the flora and fauna in the parks? Screw that, I guess! This is absurd, and actually outrageous IMO. So much for his repeatedly saying, "When you help your neighbor, you help yourself." We're not to consider forests and the wildlife which lives within them our neighbors?

Since when does anyone have "the right" to live at the proven detriment and harm of another? And what about posterity, i.e. the future generations of humans? Aren't we obligated to perserve and take care of natural wonders for them?

Societal good is more important than the selfish, childish tantrums of radical individualists.

I'm starting to feel that "getting up on a soap-box" feeling, so I'll end this little rant here. :laugh:

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-11-18 05:39:03

President Bush has opposed plans in national parks (such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc.) for mass transit into the parks, such as everyone having to park their vehicle miles away from the wildlife and flora, and being bused in groups into the parks, in order to cut down on vehicle emissions/pollution. The buses (some have already been introduced in Yosemite, IIRC) are new, and designed to be as environmentally friendly as possible. President Bush knocks these plans, saying he doesn't believe the American people should have to change the way we want to live. What about the quality of life of the flora and fauna in the parks? Screw that, I guess! This is absurd, and actually outrageous IMO. So much for his repeatedly saying, "When you help your neighbor, you help yourself." We're not to consider forests and the wildlife which lives within them our neighbors?

Now, that's just plain dumb...

There's nothing worse about going to a popular national park in the summer and having to deal with the fume-spewing RV's clogging up the roads...and the view. Parking is a complete joke, and if you're the one driving, all you get to see is the the bumper of the vehicle in front of you. I'm all for shuttle parking and buses...to me, that is the best way to see a national park. Get rid of the damn cars and put nature back in its proper place.

I really think it's time that Bush starts looking for another job....surely the American people realize this by now... ???

B

Free Spirit · 2003-11-22 19:47:42

It would be pointless to populate and terraform Mars, only for the 15th generation and beyond to begin making the same stupid mistakes, becoming destructive and irresponsible, etc. Why create a planet only to trash it? That would be reprehensible (understatement).

Knowing human nature though, I'd be surprised if they even make it to a 15th generation. It's an absolute miracle we haven't already blown ourselves off the globe. With the new advent of artificial virii and terminator crops, I'm sure our days will soon be up. All you need is some freak to create an airborn version of the AIDS virus and we're all but done for. Humans don't have the morality to handle high technology.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-11-22 20:41:12

Hi Free Spirit!
Things are rarely as bad as they seem or as they're made out to be. I fear you tend toward too much negativity and pessimism and that's very bad for the soul.
As Cindy has tried to point out to you, damning humanity's future because of certain damnable features of its past is counter-productive and illogical.
Opening up a second planetary home will be a watershed in the psychological and emotional development of our species. We are capable of learning new ways of thinking and I can't conceive of anything more conducive to a broader, less claustrophobic outlook on existence than expansion into limitless space.
Staying here, squabbling over nothing and turning our backs on the future, will put an end to humanity.
But then, judging by your apparently deep-seated loathing of the human race, perhaps that's what you want (?).
???

Palomar · 2003-11-22 20:50:09

All you need is some freak to create an airborn version of the AIDS virus and we're all but done for. Humans don't have the morality to handle high technology.

*Well, I admit your first sentence is possible. An analogy which comes to mind which might spare us, however (and might have served to spare us to this time), is that it seems few people want to die, when it really comes down to it. Suicides notwithstanding. The analogy is serial killers, cold-blooded killers (not necessarily of the "serial" variety), etc. They have zero empathy or compassion for their victims (obviously)...but if up for the death sentence they are crying and asking for compassion and their lives to be spared.

There are obviously people and even groups of people who would like to obliterate others off the face of the Earth...but we're all stuck here, and at an extreme level it's "Well, if you do it to me, you'll be doing it to yourself too." I never underestimate the power of the self-preservation instinct. I think sometimes that instinct appears to be compassion and/or mercy, when it is not.

As for your last sentence, I disagree to the point that you make it a blanket statement. There are definitely humans and groups of humans who don't have the morality to handle high technology. But some do.

Just some thoughts.

--Cindy

Wim · 2003-11-23 10:46:23

Hey Free Spirit,

It's just a question, please don't go looking for more behind it:
How did you find this forum if you totaly disagree with humans going away from the earth ?
What I mean is, I do not believe in ghosts so I do not attend any forum-discussions about how a ghost 'would' look like.

Don't take this personal please, I mean it as a serious question and I certainly don't want to upset you.

Free Spirit · 2003-11-23 13:17:20

I admire (though I disagree with) the optimism of the people here about our worthiness to inhabit other worlds, I do think that sometimes it is necessary for us to focus on having hope instead of dwelling on the overwhelming problems that face the world. I think one of the reasons I enjoyed coming to this forum is because it was a break from my usual cynical hangouts that focus on the horrid state of the world, and I've always followed space missions, particularly missions to the planets. Unfortunately though, I believe Shaun is correct, I'm afflicted with deeply misanthropic feelings, and unlike some psychos who seem to actually revel in these types of emotions, I find them depressing and scary. I fear that if those in the radical environmental and deep ecology movements don't fight for more solutions that respect the dignity of human life along with saving the natural world, they will face a major backlash (for instance, people probably won't like the fact that it was an "environmentalist" that proposed engineering an airborne version of the HIV virus.) Over the years I've seen these movements become more and more overrun by people who can't see beyond their hatred of the human race and don't realize or care that it's not the average person, but rather the huge powers that be, that are screwing everything up. I don't believe primitive societies really had these types of problems, but were more egalitarian and had more of a spiritual grounding based in nature that gave them a purpose in life. I believe the best solution for humanity is to slowly wean itself from technology (which is the ultimate cause of our social problems) and to go back to living a simple and eco-friendly lifestyle. Well, this is my last post here, I have nothing further to contribute.

Wim · 2003-11-24 10:11:45

Thank you very much for the response Free Spirit. I really appreciate it.
You are probably not interested in my view, but I'll give it anyway. Her goes ...

Technology will always evolve and that is inevitable. Wether it is for a good cause or for a bad cause is up to us. I personally think that getting involved for the good cause, will be beneficial for all humans and not by going back to living a simple and eco-friendly lifestyle. The human race has the instinct to evolve, to move on, to adapt, to change and to spread (like a virus if you want). I'm all for evolving, moving on, adapting, changing and spreading but for a good cause.
That's why I participate in this forum.

Palomar · 2004-01-13 08:54:10

*I was reading in an online article about Jupiter's gravitational pull on Mars, which is causing its orbit to elongate even further (as we know, planetary orbits are elliptical in shape; not round. Also, "gravitational tugging by the other planets constantly changes the shape of our orbits a little bit").

From the article:

"Mars' orbit is more elliptical than Earth's, so the difference between perihelion and aphelion is greater. Over the past centuries, Mars' orbit has been getting more and more elongated, carrying the planet even nearer to the sun at perihelion and even farther away at aphelion."

I'm wondering how especially *aphelion* (and moving towards the aphelion phase of orbit) will affect terraforming plans, as Mars' orbit continues to elongate? The article doesn't mention the degree to which it will continue to elongate, or the maximum possible.

The article:

[http://kosmoi.com/Science/Astronomy/Solar/Mars/]http://kosmoi.com/Science/Astronomy/Solar/Mars/

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-07-13 19:16:18

Re: When should we terraform

#77 2003-11-15 14:37:45

Re: When should we terraform

#78 2003-11-16 02:45:56

Re: When should we terraform

#79 2003-11-16 02:57:14

Re: When should we terraform

#80 2003-11-16 05:29:56

Re: When should we terraform

#81 2003-11-16 10:50:27

Re: When should we terraform

#82 2003-11-16 10:57:49

Re: When should we terraform

#83 2003-11-16 11:31:27

Re: When should we terraform

#84 2003-11-16 11:34:38

Re: When should we terraform

#85 2003-11-16 14:03:50

Re: When should we terraform

#86 2003-11-16 14:21:45

Re: When should we terraform

#87 2003-11-16 14:40:01

Re: When should we terraform

#88 2003-11-17 18:48:05

Re: When should we terraform

#89 2003-11-17 19:06:20

Re: When should we terraform

#90 2003-11-17 19:24:20

Re: When should we terraform

#91 2003-11-17 19:43:12

Re: When should we terraform

#92 2003-11-17 20:00:44

Re: When should we terraform

#93 2003-11-18 05:39:03

Re: When should we terraform

#94 2003-11-22 19:47:42

Re: When should we terraform

#95 2003-11-22 20:41:12

Re: When should we terraform

#96 2003-11-22 20:50:09

Re: When should we terraform

#97 2003-11-23 10:46:23

Re: When should we terraform

#98 2003-11-23 13:17:20

Re: When should we terraform

#99 2003-11-24 10:11:45

Re: When should we terraform

#100 2004-01-13 08:54:10

Re: When should we terraform

Board footer