Red Views

Bill White · 2002-06-01 09:33:27

I believe if we find native Martian microbes we have a moral obligation to let the life develop on its own without drastic interference from us Earthlings. But I don't see any reason why we couldn't have cities there maybe in locally terraformed areas like canyons, craters, or what not.

What constitutes "interference" let alone "drastic interference" and what constitues "detriment" or "benefit" for microbes?

If a Mars biosphere exists, clearly it MUST be preserved. Any wanton destruction of life is plainly WRONG.

So where do we draw the line between peaceful co-existence and meddling human interference?

I see your point that it seems somewhat ridiculous to give full blown rights to microbes, but after all what if an alien species had arrived on Earth when only microbial life existed here and terraformed the planet to unlivable conditions for early Earth life? But then again, if it appears Martian life would benefit from us terraforming Mars, that might be a different case.

I believe species diversity and an interlocking "web of life" is a key attribute of a thriving biosphere. Earth has millions of species and our planet is literally engulfed in life.

Pick a random 100 square kilometer region on the Earth's surface. If that random sample did NOT contain some evidence of abundant life it would be newsworthy and subjected to study. Now pick a random location on Mars. We would all be surprised and please to learn that location does contain life. See the difference?

By the way, IMHO, reversing the current rate of species extinction - saving rainforests, for example - is vital to humanity's future. Humans simply are part of a larger, interlocking web of life/biosphere. I am not a bulldozer loving, technology hugging, developmentalist.

I see planet engulfing biospheres as the natural steady state for any viable system of life. The absence of a planet engulfing biosphere reduces the chances of all life on such a planet. Thus, humanity is now engaged in a risky experiment of "reverse" terraforming. I am not convinced we are doomed but I am not sanguine about our future prospects, either.

So back to Mars, if we find isolated microbes, then we face a key question - are these the ancestors of a future Gaia-like planet engulfing biosphere or are they the surviving descendants of a past Mars biosphere? Are these microbes all of the same species? How many species are there on Mars? If left alone, will those species evolve into a biosphere with great complexity or are they a final rear guard?

IMHO - the answer to those question contributes greatly to the ethics and morality of any human interference with Mars life, however we come to define interference.

Phobos · 2002-06-01 14:05:48

What constitutes "interference" let alone "drastic interference" and what constitues "detriment" or "benefit" for microbes?

Well, I think you could definately call terraforming a planet a case of drastic interference to native life that has evolved to live in that planet's unterraformed state. If an alien intelligence that thrives in pure argon atmospheres came to Earth and terraformed it to suit their form of life, would you really need to debate that such actions drastically interefered with the function of native Earth life? The same would probably hold true for Mars. That life would likely not be accustomed to atmospheres with high proportions of oxygen and nitrogen.

I believe species diversity and an interlocking "web of life" is a key attribute of a thriving biosphere. Earth has millions of species and our planet is literally engulfed in life.

Species diversity is good to the thriving of a biosphere so long as the lifeforms are compatible to each other in that they can survive and process a similiar environment. On Mars, it could be that you would have to sacrifice the native life for the good of the transplanted life because the two types of life cannot live in the same environment. The two types of lifeforms will likely be incompatible with each other. So in other words, if you want to preserve the biological diversity and equilibrium of Mars life, you shouldn't transplant earth life there.

So back to Mars, if we find isolated microbes, then we face a key question - are these the ancestors of a future Gaia-like planet engulfing biosphere or are they the surviving descendants of a past Mars biosphere? Are these microbes all of the same species? How many species are there on Mars? If left alone, will those species evolve into a biosphere with great complexity or are they a final rear guard?

It could be that beneath Mar's surface there is a massive, mostly bacterial biosphere. Because we don' see lifeforms on the surface doesn't mean there couldn't be a massive amount of life there. I don't see exactly what your getting at with your questions about the natural history of the Martian life. Are you suggesting that the value of Martian life should be judged on whether such life is merely a surviving relic of a more prosperous Martian past with no future so to speak, or whether the life actually has an evolutionary future? Are we really qualified to make such judgements?

Bill White · 2002-06-06 13:39:09

It could be that beneath Mar's surface there is a massive, mostly bacterial biosphere. Because we don' see lifeforms on the surface doesn't mean there couldn't be a massive amount of life there. I don't see exactly what your getting at with your questions about the natural history of the Martian life. Are you suggesting that the value of Martian life should be judged on whether such life is merely a surviving relic of a more prosperous Martian past with no future so to speak, or whether the life actually has an evolutionary future? Are we really qualified to make such judgements?

Phobos - I failed to explain myself well.

The question - as I see it - is whether we should "interfere" with Marsian microbes and/or does the presence of such microbes render Mars "off limits" - wasn't it "2010" where Arthur C. Clarke had the monolith makers command that humanity attempt no landings on Europa?

IMHO, non-diverse life, scarce life, if found on Mars, is life that is in trouble, it would be life that is in the process of dying off.

Why? The algorithms of evolution.

Processes to vary the genetic code + processes of natural selection + the enormous power of exponential reproduction means, IMHO, that IF you have any life, such life *WILL*- over time - diversify and engulf its environment, unless it is dying.

If Mars was once engulfed with life - back when Mars was warm and wet - and if remnants of that life are now clinging to existence underground, then I see those microbes being rather like the Tom Hanks character in the movie Cast Away, desperately clinging to a frail raft tossed about in a very large ocean.

Precisely because Martian life is unmeasurably precious, if Martian microbes are survivors from a prior warm, wet Mars, we have a DUTY to intervene, to interfere, to assure that such life continues to survive.

Phobos asks whether we are qualified to make such judgments. My answer - "NO, we are not qualified" but if not us, then WHO?

Phobos · 2002-06-06 19:06:14

IMHO, non-diverse life, scarce life, if found on Mars, is life that is in trouble, it would be life that is in the process of dying off.
Why? The algorithms of evolution.
Processes to vary the genetic code + processes of natural selection + the enormous power of exponential reproduction means, IMHO, that IF you have any life, such life *WILL*- over time - diversify and engulf its environment, unless it is dying.

I never quite viewed Martian microbes from such a perspective before. I think your point is logical. Microbes typically don't live long lives, they need to multiply out of control to keep their numbers and adaptive abilities up. If we only find sparse colonies of microbes here and there then your probably right, they are clinging onto the edge of extinction since life isn't likely to limit its own population. Environmental conditions usually put the clamps on life.

Precisely because Martian life is unmeasurably precious, if Martian microbes are survivors from a prior warm, wet Mars, we have a DUTY to intervene, to interfere, to assure that such life continues to survive.
Phobos asks whether we are qualified to make such judgments. My answer - "NO, we are not qualified" but if not us, then WHO?

I'm still debating personally though whether its ethical to interfere with life in any way whether it is doomed or not. But to be honest, I'm not necessarily against helping e.t. life if we can.

Bill White · 2002-06-17 12:31:09

I'm still debating personally though whether its ethical to interfere with life in any way whether it is doomed or not. But to be honest, I'm not necessarily against helping e.t. life if we can.

Phobos, I now have a few new questions:

On Earth, there are way more roses and tulips - and much less crabgrass and ragweed - than would have been the case without human "interference" - The same is true for populations of chickens, hogs, and cows versus coyotes and rattlesnakes as well as rice, soybeans and wheat versus less "productive" strains.

If human guided agriculture is OK on Earth - and agriculture quite plainly intereferes with the "natural" process of life on Earth - why can't we interfere with Martian microbes?

Please understand, I am sympathetic to the idea that eradicating Martian microbes is NOT a good idea - I am merely trying to get a better handle on "Why?"

Also, are there any ethical considerations concerning the eradication of microbes which cause bubonic plague or the smallpox virus?

Phobos · 2002-06-17 16:11:58

If human guided agriculture is OK on Earth - and agriculture quite plainly intereferes with the "natural" process of life on Earth - why can't we interfere with Martian microbes?
Please understand, I am sympathetic to the idea that eradicating Martian microbes is NOT a good idea - I am merely trying to get a better handle on "Why?"
Also, are there any ethical considerations concerning the eradication of microbes which cause bubonic plague or the smallpox virus?

Challenging questions. The most apt reason for not interfering with with e.t. life is that we are not a part of that eco-system in any way. On Earth we are native lifeforms and have as much right as any other lifeform here to struggle for survival, but to actually fly to another planet and then terraform it so completely that native life can't exist there seems to defeat the notion that we should give life a chance to evolve to its own conditions on other planets. Of course my argument is easy to shoot down, and I only half-believe it myself.

Auqakah · 2002-07-16 13:06:28

Perhaps you will find this a rather stupid sentiment, I have no idea. But, consider the terraform or not-terraform argument from an entirely different perspective. We are biological entities, and as such view the universe with a bias towards other such biological entities. Therefore, a planet with no life is "barren", or "empty" or "desolate", or any number of other terms. But, consider the fact that no matter how many planets/planetary bodies we discover that do have life on them, there will always be far more that dont. Life, as we know it, exists in very specific conditions - and the odds are probably mostly against those conditions even arising on the majority of planets. The truth of the matter is, us living beings are, have been and always will be in the vast minority. The question is, should be strive to change that - or trust that things have developed this way, and after all, it bloody well works?

Consider things from a rocks perspective (I warned you ).
If rocks suddenly gained consciousness (not to mention hands and opposable thumbs, and some method of movement lol) and eventually developed technology, they would undoubtably spread out and terraform worlds like our beautiful Earth, without a thought for the "life" which covered its surface. The point I'm making is - its all a matter of perspective. What right do we, as a species, have to go to another planet, and irrevocably change its whole environment, and replace it with one better to our liking? How can we be sure that we could even identify life on another world? What if Mars was home to an intelligent but primitive species (long shot, I know, but consider) that existed in some way fundamentally different to the way that we do, and as a result we were unable to be aware even of their existance, and as a result genocide was commited? Basically, what right do we have to change another planet, anyway? Who gave us Mars to change? Did someone lay it on a metaphorical table, hand us metaphorical pens and pencils and say, here, make of it what you wish? No, they didnt. The only reason people want to terraform Mars is because its the easy option, in that it requires plenty of money and resources, but very little thought. No offense intended, but its true. For example - detonate a few hundred high-grade nuclear warheads at say, 10 km beneath the surface, as a starter. Then maybe drop some black dust on the northern pole to encourage the water ice stored there to sublime faster. If the money is available, slap a mass driver onto one or two (or three) of the Amor asteroids (one with a suitable composition, of course), areobrake it in the Martian atmosphere - that should add some heat and maybe a couple hundred millibars of air pressure. Of course you could also have regolith processing plants, to process the oxygen from the iron oxide in the regolith, then releasing it. Depending on what sort of model you're following, either long term two-phase or long term one phase, you could detonate hundreds of nuclear warheads in boreholes under the southern pole, adding hundreds of millibars more to the atmosphere, and contributing to the greenhouse effect, as well as presumably releasing a decent quantity of water ice. Although, this is rather a ridiculous approach - it would be rather tough to scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere, and having a thicker atmosphere doesnt mean a breathable one. So for the one phase model, you could (once having done all of the above, barring the last) begin releasing genetically engineered fungus and bacteria, to lay down the beginnings of your biosphere - and so on. However, I wonder if anyone can solve the problem of how to live on Mars without terraforming it? It seems to me that the problem that is the most challenging is the one always worth the most time - and terraforming seems a rather simple process, really. I mean, consider the experience we have with changing our own planet's climate .

One other thing - consider what sort of precedent we will be setting our descendants. Right now, at this point in history, we are beginning to fly out of the nest we call home. But in who-knows-how-long, humanity may/can/will (I think will) gain the capability to spread out among the stars in our galaxy, and eventually further. But do we want our descendants to have the prescendant that a fully-terraformed Mars would give them? Think of how we explore, at the moment. Mostly with robot explorers, because generally it is far cheaper. So they will argue in the future, of course, with terraforming - after all, after a few tries it would become as routine as any other operation. So, they would argue, why bother going out to these worlds? Why travel all that way, risking life and limb, when we can send a behemoth terraforming machine to do our work for us? And so, from afar, we would identify all the targets for terraforming that we wanted, and unleash the machines upon our galaxy.
Great, no?

But do we want that? What if those machines destroy, unwittingly, hundreds of biospheres, in adapting those alien environments to something more suited to human beings? How would they tell the difference? Highly unlikely, from this end of history, I'm sure - but you never know.

What we do now, affects the future. Terraforming Mars, seems to me to be a waste of resources and ability - what happens when we develop interstellar travel, and (perhaps) find planets that are perfectly capable of sustaining us? Do we then say, "Oops, that was all pretty pointless"?

Auqakah · 2002-07-16 13:10:11

Oh darn. I forgot one thing - I would like to just say that to be utterly honest, I'm neither "Red" nor "Green". I would dearly love to see a preserved Mars - but on the other hand, I would also dearly love to have (or at least for my children to have), maybe, the chance one day of walking amongst vast immensely tall forests set into beautiful red valleys. But... somehow I lean towards preservation of Mars. Earth we are always being told to preserve, and the same seems to go for Mars, as far as I'm concerned. But I have to admit - terraforming, from an aesthetic and technical point of view - does intrigue me - even if it does seem (to me!) to be an incredibly simple science.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-05-26 17:25:05

http://www.marshome.com/teraform.htm

http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/H … /12/20.cfm

I think I know the idea you have mentioned

What about our contamination of Mars? People and unsterilized robots will contaminate Mars with terrestrial organisms. Even if we are willing to risk our own lives, what about the rights of the Martians? If we did contaminate Mars with terrestrial microbes, that could complicate studies of any life that was found later on Mars.
The author Mark Lupisella, in 1997, wrote in an issue of Space Policy, "Could we forgive ourselves if we caused the extinction of the first extraterrestrial species we came into contact with?".

Dook · 2004-05-28 15:35:09

I think we should begin terraforming mars now. During the time it takes to create an atmosphere we can look for microbes. I am absolutely confidant that at some point in time we will do just that. When is the question. I find the idea of terraforming another planet so that humans, animals, and plant life can live there incredibly attractive. It will be a monument of monuments. Aren't there enough barren rocks in the solar system and worlds full of choking gasses, radiation, acid atmospheres, and gray dust? I don't understand how believe people can argue for dirt against life. I'm sure some part of mars will be a desert so future 'reds' can always go there to visit. Even if there are microbes on mars that is not enough for me. I want to see martian trees that stretch upward for miles and majestic martian swans with wingspans the size of a 747's wingspan. You think the grand canyon is awesome, just wait until people can tour Valles Marineris.

Another way to think of it. We are in a race. There are likely trillions of inhabited planets in the universe and perhaps billions have intelligent life. Why limit the human race to just one planet and a maximum of maybe 25 billion people when we have the opportunity to grow and expand and become much more.

I view the green vs red argument as having another side to it. Green=optimists and Red=pessimists. Reds think we shouldn't because they aren't happy that in the evolution of the human species we have had some failures: war, pollution, murder, hate... They fear the future. Greens however see hope for a better future. You think the whole idea of terraforming mars is tainted because some tourist might carelessly toss a McMars burger wrapping on a nature trail. I think by then we will be a little more evolved, living with pollution free energy sources, walking or riding bicycles to work surrounded by lush green foliage, flowers, and trees.

Dook · 2004-05-28 15:36:23

Ooops! A two year old post brought back to life. hehe

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-06-01 09:33:27

Re: Red Views

#52 2002-06-01 14:05:48

Re: Red Views

#53 2002-06-06 13:39:09

Re: Red Views

#54 2002-06-06 19:06:14

Re: Red Views

#55 2002-06-17 12:31:09

Re: Red Views

#56 2002-06-17 16:11:58

Re: Red Views

#57 2002-07-16 13:06:28

Re: Red Views

#58 2002-07-16 13:10:11

Re: Red Views

#59 2004-05-26 17:25:05

Re: Red Views

#60 2004-05-28 15:35:09

Re: Red Views

#61 2004-05-28 15:36:23

Re: Red Views

Board footer