Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

anansi · 2002-06-14 17:05:00

When I think of where I want to see the human future in space, I don't imagine humans being content with Mars. I see us in the Oort cloud, on asteroids, in the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter. To my view, Mars is just step one into a much larger, deeper journey.

So why are so many people intrigued by the idea of turning mars into the same kind of place that we've just left? The rest of space is harsher than mars to a similar degree that mars is harsher than earth. To me, mars represents a training ground, a place to learn the basics of a spacefaring lifestyle. Turning it into a smaller, faded version of earth would be a huge diversion of resources that could otherwise be used to take us much farther, to many more interesting places. Terraforming seems like a big distraction from the things that space has to teach us.

There's another thing about terraforming that makes me nervous. Someday, eventually, humanity is going to meet extraterrestrial intelligence, and we might have an interest in the kind of impression we make on our new neighbors. Do we really want or need a terraformed mars on our resume? It might be seen as evidence of our tenacity, our technological prowess, and our mastery of the inanimate. It could also be seen as a tendancy to make ourselves incompatible with any other exotic life that comes along.

Granted, there's no evidence that terraforming mars would kill any existing martian life. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. By the time humans will have conclusively determined that no life exists anywhere on or in the planet, other humans will be competing with would-be terraformers for resources. Since I expect to be stuck on earth for the duration, I know where I'd want my money to go...

Phobos · 2002-06-14 18:14:51

When I think of where I want to see the human future in space, I don't imagine humans being content with Mars. I see us in the Oort cloud, on asteroids, in the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter. To my view, Mars is just step one into a much larger, deeper journey.

I view Mars pretty much the same way you do. It's just the next logical step on our further expansion into space. I sometimes wonder if anarchism will necessarily become the "political" reality of a space-faring species. There's so much room to roam around out there that it would be easy to run from the cops so to speak and keep setting up small colonies here and there. Not that I'm necessarily an anarchist though.

So why are so many people intrigued by the idea of turning mars into the same kind of place that we've just left? The rest of space is harsher than mars to a similar degree that mars is harsher than earth. To me, mars represents a training ground, a place to learn the basics of a spacefaring lifestyle. Turning it into a smaller, faded version of earth would be a huge diversion of resources that could otherwise be used to take us much farther, to many more interesting places. Terraforming seems like a big distraction from the things that space has to teach us.

If we intend to make a meaningful expansion into space it seems only logical to me that we would try to make our environment as comfortable and safe as we possibly can. Mastering terraforming would truly allow us to expand into space on a mass scale. Plus we are in no danger of using up resources in terraforming Mars considering the very vast material wealth of the Solar System that's at our disposal, particularly in the asteroid belt. Anyway, I don't think we are in sudden danger of becoming soft and forgetting how to colonize space if we terraform Mars.

There's another thing about terraforming that makes me nervous. Someday, eventually, humanity is going to meet extraterrestrial intelligence, and we might have an interest in the kind of impression we make on our new neighbors. Do we really want or need a terraformed mars on our resume? It might be seen as evidence of our tenacity, our technological prowess, and our mastery of the inanimate. It could also be seen as a tendancy to make ourselves incompatible with any other exotic life that comes along.

I think it's best that we look out for ourselves and forget what impressions we might make on an alien intelligence we have yet to meet. If the extraterrestrials are truly intelligent and reasonable we could probably explain to them that we only terraform planets that we feel certain are devoid of life. After all, it's quite possible the aliens themselves will be terraformers. And personally I think it's definately in our best interest to become "masters of the inanimate" as you put it. What right does any alien society have to impose their morals on us so long as we leave them alone? Wouldn't it be hypocrisy for them, who'd obviously have a high level of technology if they can understand the use and ramifications of our technology, from telling us we aren't allowed to develop technologies they don't like? If we come into ideological differences with any e.t. out there we'll just have to weigh the options.

Tri · 2002-06-15 12:51:24

So why are so many people intrigued by the idea of turning mars into the same kind of place that we've just left?

I don't think they are. Myself, I'm interested in humans gaining the power to engineer atmospheres, hydrospheres and biospheres to support and enhance our noospheres on other worlds. A worthy goal. And the Martians who may ultimately decide to undertake terraformation will not strive to create the 'same kind of place (they've) just left.' The place they will just have left could be a dusty domed crater or tin can in the dirt.

To me, mars represents a training ground, a place to learn the basics of a spacefaring lifestyle.

I agree with that. Humans will learn much in the first century of Martian history. Those Martian colonists and others like them could use their new knowledge to move outward to the belt, Jupiter, and beyond. But Mars will not be that kind of frontier 'training ground' forever. Would you send your colonists to Plymouth Rock, MA or Jamestown, VA for training today?

There is the possibility that native Martians will eventually find the idea of creating a living world out of their desolate one irresistable. Then it will become a training ground of a new and potentially more revolutionary kind.

Someday, eventually, humanity is going to meet extraterrestrial intelligence, and we might have an interest in the kind of impression we make on our new neighbors. Do we really want or need a terraformed mars on our resume?

You'll forgive me I'm not persuaded by this one. If we're to worry about damnation from future Big Brothers of the Galaxy, especially for terraforming a lifeless world in our own solar system, then we're probably already way beyond redemption, aren't we?

Since I expect to be stuck on earth for the duration, I know where I'd want my money to go...

Thankfully, you're money will not be needed. If Mars is ever terraformed, it will not likely be done with any help from U.S. taxpayers, or Terran money of any kind. The Martian and solar economy will have to be invented first.

Tri

sollucky · 2002-06-24 18:50:55

Let me first say Mars is not going to be another Earth. It is farther away with less gravity and I recall from my reading that terraforming efforts will leave the atmosphere still less dense then our own. These differences will provide a unique enviroment for life to develop, new Mars life.
Now lets consider there is life on Mars, it mostlikely would be barried in the regolith deep into the crust so as to protect itself from the Martian environment. So why don't we transform Mars to something more sutible for its natural inhabitants. That way a truly martian ecosystem would eventually develop. Sorry to go off on a tangent. My point is that it will not be another Earth.
Also I agree that we will not stop at Mars but continue to move out in the solar system to the moons of the gas giants and the asteroids and beyond.
One more thing, about the aliens. Life on Earth has been changing the environment from the start, altering the atmosphere and soil makeup. These aliens would of had the same thing on their planet so they would have no room to talk.

martin · 2002-07-01 07:22:42

i really dont think the american pioneers would like to listen to that!
are we ashamed of them now?
cmmon, terraforming is a fantastic idea.how can anybody who is here ever detest something so wonderfull like that?
gimme a break!

Palomar · 2002-07-01 16:23:41

So why are so many people intrigued by the idea of turning mars into the same kind of place that we've just left?

*Hmmmm. It doesn't seem to me that so many people are interested in terraforming Mars...if we're speaking of people ::outside:: of the Mars Society and related organizations.

As regards Mars, I say "go for broke."

Mars is our best "proving ground" to the next stepping stone in crossing the cosmic creek -- let's go all-out, try and terraform as best we can, do as much as we can in every respect, etc. This will, IMO, create a more confident humanity, which can then better able reach out further.

We don't run before we learn to walk.

--Cindy

HeloTeacher · 2002-07-02 05:19:22

Speaking for my viewpoint...not all potential martians are looking for some grandiose expansion of the human race. I would be looking for the same thing as the settlers who first went to North America, space to grow and not be limited by those who are already there.

That is why terraforming is needed, for the children and granschildren of the settlers who are making a life there.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-02 07:21:33

Well said, HeloTeacher! I'm with you!!

Auqakah · 2002-07-15 13:36:23

Try to imagine a child growing up all alone, learning new things and understanding the world around them in very simple terms. Assuming the child survives to adulthood, the effect of (s)he being alone for all that time would result in a large measure of confidence - after all, they have survived. But imagine that that child had never left a small area - say five miles around - and that their understanding of the area outside was very limited. Now they're an adult, they want to explore more, and use what they've learned on the environment outside, to better understand the world around them. Now they set out in good intentions, and use all the knowledge that they've gained - but five miles around is a very small area, and their knowledge, although it seems vast to them, is in fact very limited, and very small. That means that they are outside, in an environment they believe they understand, but don't... In short, they would be extremely overconfident.
That child is exactly like the human race. We have survived for a relativley long period of time, and recently began to mature enough, shall we say, to begin to create very complex tools to manipulate the environment around us to better suit our needs (although, most often not the needs of any other species that has the poor luck to be located anywhere nearby). Going to Mars and using it as a proving ground for our newfound technical expertise is exactly like that young adult going outside its own area for the first time - Earth is our small area, and we havent often moved outside of it. Now we can see out, and we look and hypothesise about things out there from what we know from here - but the truth is the things here and the things there may in fact be very different - and so everything we think we know, is in fact moot. If we go to Mars and use it as a proving ground, a confidence builder, would only serve to shatter humanities confidence if it failed - and worse, would strengthen our confidence and boulster it to arrogance if we succeeded. For a terraformed Mars would only strengthen the misconception that we are exceptional; no time and no person is ever exceptional, it is only emotions that make it seem so at the time. Look back through history, and you shall see that for every single year there is a so-called exceptional event - which means that there truly were none. The truth is, we know only slightly more than our ancestors did, and if we terraform Mars, which would be an "exceptional" achievment (although by no means original, just look at Phoenix, Arizona - to a certain degree, that city and the surrounding area has been terraformed ((maybe euroformed would be a better word? ??? ))) then humanity will become arrogant. And arrogance is always a bad thing, it leads only to misery.
Oh one thing. I hope that made sense....... it did in my head.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-15 23:43:10

Auqakah, you write well and I love your thought-provoking analogies. I've always thought analogies are a very entertaining and evocative way of making a point. Your analogies serve you well because the reader gets a good feel for your mindset on a particular problem ... in this case terraforming.
The pillars of your attitude appear to be caution and circumspection, sensible ways to approach most problems, to be sure. However, humanity is a young species. We're full of energy and curiosity ... maybe more than any other species this universe has yet seen. Who knows. While there is always a danger of us making mistakes, that danger will always be there no matter how mature a species we become. There are always more ways to mess things up than to get them right!
But will our restless need to explore always be there? Will our technology keep improving or will a new dark-age set us back a thousand years? We live in a risky cosmos in which mindless forces of unimaginable destructive power could wipe us out tomorrow ... and our whole existence would go unrecorded and unlamented ... forever.
Nobody can see the future. What we do to Mars may be the biggest mistake we ever make .... or easily the smartest thing we could ever do. Centuries of careful deliberation and soul-searching won't tell us which. We have to do it!! Seize the day! (There may not be a tomorrow.)
We're an impetuous species. Maybe some all-powerful God arranged our existence for just this sort of thing .... to amuse Him with our audacity!!
Let's not disappoint Him!

Auqakah · 2002-07-16 14:05:00

Many thanks for the compliments

I doubt that if we aren't alone in this universe that our curiosity is anything new, nor do I believe that we have any qualities that any other species couldnt have - I think that until there is evidence either way, its probably best not to comment. If there is an ancient race out there, and they are watching us, I'm sure they raise a chuckle when we make comments such as "there's nothing like good old human ingenuity" and the like .

That aside, I have to point out that we have only really reached this point where we are today through centuries of - no, millennia of - deliberation, soul searching, and thinking. Oftenwise, the shortest and most blunt course of action is the best. But not where there is great risk involved. And playing with a planet in your metaphorical backyard, treating it as if it is some sort of sandbox in which to make pretty gardens and forests, is hardly a good use of the produce of those millenia of deliberation, soul searching, and thinking by all of our previous great thinkers. Put simply... it just seems an awful waste of time, to me. I mean, the longest reaching guesstimates of timescale are somewhere around five hundred thousand years. Now I dont know about you, but I would like to think that maybe, just maybe, in five hundred thousand years time, we will be on millions of already-habitable planets in millions of star systems. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be possible. So compare: terraform Mars and get one planet, ready made, in 10,000 to 500,000 years. In the meanwhile, chuckling to itself, the rest of the human race would be spreading around the galaxy (universe?), and when the terraformers could finally say, "Hey everybody, we're done", the rest of the universe would simply laugh and say, "But what was the point?"

Partly comical anecdote aside, (anecdote seemed the right word, my apologies if it isnt - its kindof late ((well, early late)) and my brain is not fully functional at this time) it does seem to me to be a huge waste. Consider what a romantic idea it is. Terraforming Mars! Who wouldnt want to be involved in that?! So all (or a great deal of) our great thinkers would be devoting precious time to that (and to other terraforming work, on yet more celestial bodies?). That would be wasteful, dont you think? There are surely some things which, put simply, are too attractive. Everything beautiful, is likewise deadly. While we terraform Mars, muttering to ourselves about "protecting the future of humanity", any potential planet killing asteroid is not going to wait around - if its going to hit, it will hit. And barring two thousand or so years of human occupation of Mars, it won't matter whether or not we live on two planets. You simply cannot move enough people from Earth to Mars fast enough in order to keep the gene pool big enough in order to prevent genetic decline if Earth was to cease to be. Imagine that Earth gets hit, and there are only a few hundred thousand survivors. Mars has been terraformed, in a few hundred years. There are nine and a half million people on Mars, across five generations. Now, would that be enough to ensure the survival of the human species? I think not. Mars is not exactly going to ever be even close to Earthlike, even with dramatic intervention on our part. As such, the mutation rate on Mars is likely to be higher, which would probably mean that normal rules governing how many people you need to maintain a gene pool over a certain period of time.

I think (?) NASA commissioned a study a few years back, if I remember correctly, and the findings were (generalised) that you would need around 37,000 people in order to have a population that could survive for one hundred generations. So that would mean that would mean that humanity would have only 256,756 generations - significantly less, in real world terms. Assuming we've been on this planet for 1 million years, we have already seen around 50,000 generations - on Earth. On Mars, on the other hand, things would be different. Longer days and longer years would mean lower birth rates - naturally. The reasoning for this is that people tend to leave one to two years between having their first and second children - and assuming that we will keep the year unit, that trend will probably continue, at least for a number of generations. So if we assume that people would have say, one less child than normal - thats still about 1.8 children per person on average - then that means the population would certainly steadily decline steadily for a number of years after we first colonize Mars. Firstly, due to accidental deaths, people getting lost in dust storms (early in the terraforming effort - later on there will no longer be any dust storms, which for some reason I find troubling), radiation associated cancers, perhaps Martian bacteria will even some day adapt to Earth organisms (assuming it isnt already :angry: )... the list goes on and on. There are simply more ways to get killed on a planet like Mars - and the more active the biosphere, the more ways to get killed. So Mars is not really a "safe haven" for humanity should our homeworld be destroyed. Also, who's to say that a cluster of asteroids wouldnt swing through our solar system, slamming into Earth and swinging back around and hitting Mars too? (Perhaps thats even less likely than being hit by a meteor on your left foot while dancing on your hands in a bus station at around 2:30 pm, but still)

I just don't see Mars as a safe haven. On the contrary, seeing as we have to terraform the place (or so everyone seems to believe) in order to live there, it doesnt truly seem that safe a place to rest our hopes of not being wiped out by an asteroid. Rather, it seems a far better idea to simply use the resources to better see the damned things early enough in order that we can shift their course enough - or maybe wait til' they're close enough to go out and meet, slap mass drivers on them and use them to build space elevators, hell of a way to change your fortunes, I reckon - so that they are no longer a problem. And in the meantime, also use more resources to find ways to change their course. Far simpler than sending huge quantites of people to Mars and trusting the universe won't wipe out both planets.

Ah heck... sorry for the length... When I get typing, I don't notice how much I've said

HeloTeacher · 2002-07-20 06:07:18

Some interesting bits in this. I do remember reading about the minimum carrying capacity with regards to genetic diversity in a population. Interestingly enough, in that report the numbers had been drastically reduced in comparison to the then conventional wisdom.

In your above post you alluded to the fact that a Martian population will be facing survival pressures much different than here on Earth. This is NOT a bad thing. Any population stays healthy this way. As those people best suited tot he environment succeed they will be more able to have the children they want and so it goes.

With reference to the idea that the 1 to 2 year seperation between children is a concious decison, I disagree. That's just about how long it takes to get pregnant again, quite simple. And if you plan to have a limited number of children there are advantages both to seperating them and having them close together. Population growth in an envionment like Mars would be controlled by available living space, hence the push to "terraform". The need to create livable space will be powerful. This doesn't necessarily mean Earth-like space, it just needs to be sufficiently better to allow for growth.

And about the idea that thousands of years from now the human race will be laughing at the Martians, I disagree. I also think this misses the point.
Explorers go to places like this to see something no-one else has, to be the first, to be remembered, sometimes even to help their fellow man.
Settlers will go make a home for themselves. They may be escaping persecution, overcrowding, poverty, disease or they may simply be looking for a place to grow and become. I myself see the frontier on Mars as a place to go to be able to work and create and expand and give something to my children that seems to exist less and less where I am now, opportunity. Opportunity to be able to be happy working the land and raising a family and supporting my neighbours. Believe it or not, but this no longer exists anywhere I've been on Earth. Someone will tax the land, legislate your home, demand that you produce cash that they can take a piece of.

This will never be a place where the masses of Earth can escape to, anymore than North and South America is populated purely by immigrants from Europe and indigenous races. This will just be another part of man's growth and maturing, as a people. With any luck it will have the effect of bringing us together and moving us forward, but it isn't the point.

Auqakah · 2002-08-01 14:28:07

Oops. Just to be clear, I didnt intend to convey the opinion that people chose to leave 1-2 years, but that they *tend* to leave 1-2 years - for whatever reason, conscious or otherwise

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 17:39:27

Exploration=Exploitation=Terraforming (more or less) if you are a Martian.

Exploration of Mars will result in the infection of Mars with terrestrial pollutants (of both a biological and chemical kind). So will exploitation and colonization. And so will terraforming. If we are to respect the intrinsic value of Mars (and any potential mars life), we must be cautious about all three.

If you think the Mars bugs will be safe in the event of terrafoming that's all very well and good. However, it is not you that will suffer if you are wrong, it will be the Martian bugs. Any terraforming plan must distribute its risks equitably.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 19:55:10

Wait a second. First you're saying that we shouldn't explore at all, and now you're saying that we must be cautious? Obviously we must be cautious. Had you been reading these boards, you'd see several comments about this.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 20:12:52

The caution I advocate is for the benefit of the Mars bugs, not for the benefit of scientific curipsity. And so it is a deeper much more caring and solid caution than the 'let's not terraform Mars in the first few minutes' caution that a lot of ppl here advocate.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 20:19:19

Caution is caution. Who knows, Mars could have a large interspecies ecosystem. If it did, the argument for terraformation, and indeed, colonization, will have to be questioned. It's still a commonly accepted opinion here.

The fact that you softened your view from ?don't go to Mars? to ?exhibit caution,? means that you really aren't as deeply caring as you pretend. If anything, you're trolling these forums to get a rise out of people.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 20:30:42

Errr read all my other posts before you question the severity of my caution. I wager I'm the most cautious person on thew planet when it comes to Mars' protection.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 20:35:34

Fancy that, a misanthrope who seemingly advocates deep ecology, coming to a board that advocates Mars Colonization, being the ?most caring? towards some arguably non-existant microbes. Who would have thought?

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 05:30:51

Wait a second. First you're saying that we shouldn't explore at all, and now you're saying that we must be cautious? Obviously we must be cautious. Had you been reading these boards, you'd see several comments about this.

This question has been answered elsewhere.

Adrian · 2002-09-22 08:41:43

This thread has gone completely off-course. If it doesn't get back on track then posts will be deleted (you know which ones).

HeloTeacher · 2002-09-22 09:40:58

As near as I can tell, the only intrinsic value in a martian ecology is that which we can learn from it. And if we fail to discover it and study it we learn nothing.

Every act in our lives impacts on other organisms and the same people who speak of the intrinsic value of the trees and rocks and beetles will still spray insecticides in their houses and build their houses and drive their cars.

My only responsibility is to my children and their children and so on to provide and maintain for them a place to live and grow.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-14 17:05:00

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#2 2002-06-14 18:14:51

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#3 2002-06-15 12:51:24

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#4 2002-06-24 18:50:55

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#5 2002-07-01 07:22:42

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#6 2002-07-01 16:23:41

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#7 2002-07-02 05:19:22

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#8 2002-07-02 07:21:33

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#9 2002-07-15 13:36:23

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#10 2002-07-15 23:43:10

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#11 2002-07-16 14:05:00

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#12 2002-07-20 06:07:18

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#13 2002-08-01 14:28:07

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#14 2002-09-21 17:39:27

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#15 2002-09-21 19:55:10

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#16 2002-09-21 20:12:52

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#17 2002-09-21 20:19:19

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#18 2002-09-21 20:30:42

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#19 2002-09-21 20:35:34

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#20 2002-09-22 05:30:51

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#21 2002-09-22 08:41:43

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

#22 2002-09-22 09:40:58

Re: Mars as a base camp - Why we shouldn't terraform

Board footer