What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

Auqakah · 2002-07-13 11:42:04

What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? Why are we even considering such an act? Is there any need? Even if there is, should we do it? Can it even work? How long will it take? Will it be worth the wait?

So many questions are associated with the question, "What reason do we have for terraforming Mars?". But are there any good answers?

We could go to Mars, land, set up settlements. But anybody going to Mars would be severely limited in how much time they could spend outside, due to the inconveniance of being rendered sterile over time by the radiation, or developing any one of a number of cancers, including leukaemia. So that would seem a good reason to terraform Mars, wouldnt it? "For our children, and their children's children", as it were?

Thats not a good enough reason, though. After all, we would only be limited - in all likelihood, people would ignore the limitations, anyway - for a brief period of time, while we adapted our technology and tools to the new environment, assuming we hadnt already done so before the voyage out there by the colonists. So in the end, the radiation (and especially the cold) might not prove to be a real problem - and destroying any possible life on Mars with our fumblings in the dark because we might not be able to overcome such problems as radiation and cold, and lack of readily available oxygen (even though I should imagine it wouldnt be too difficult to produce oxygen from the regolith, after all, when you compress rocks which have oxygen-bearing air underneath/between them, over time, the rock oxidizes - hence the wonderful redness of the Red Planet) and water(even this is doubtful in the face of recent discoveries).

So, again, why?

Could it simply be a desire to change things, to take our hands and remold an entire planet to the shape we want?

Probably.

This is the worst possible reason for terraforming Mars. Not because of what will happen immediatley, but because it will rob a plethora of future generations of a whole world they can see and feel and touch that is different from our wonderful home, Earth. A world which has developed differently, and does not bear the wide-spread and obvious life that our own one does, and as such is a shining example of why our world, our home, is so important. Not only because Earth is our homeworld is it important, but looking forward, to a time when humanity may begin to spread out through our solar system, to the other worlds, our homeworld will be a symbol of why life is to be cherished. Because of its rarity, even if it exists on a hundred million worlds, there will be a billion worlds without life. And if we change all those worlds, which we obviously never could, but if we were to - then what glory is there in something so uniform, so... everywhere? If we spread life to Mars, and change it from dead to alive (assuming it is dead to begin with), then doesnt life lose some of its value? If we can simply wish it to be so, and then it is... What value does that have?

But a pure Mars, a Mars without our Earth organisms - except people of course, people to witness Mars in all its Mars-ness and glory, and people who would surely come to love it for its barren nature as we purport to love Earth for its biosphere - is a symbol of the value of life, that of all the places we can see, only one has world-girdling life - Earth. And without that, life is devalued even further than it already is - and in a world where human rights mean so little already, do we need to devalue life any more than it already is? Can we risk the little we have gained for so much less than we already have?

Just a thought.

One other quick point. What if, by changing Mars, we change Earth? For everything under the sun is tied together, and pull one string and all the others quiver - what if our shining jewel is tarnished by our yearning to create? I understand that so far there is no evidence to this end - but still. What if? Can we take that risk? I see no reason to.

And Mars is, after all, a long way away. What need is there to talk about changing Mars before human feet have even made their imprint there? When not a single soul can sigh and say, "The sunsets, oh what beauty... When we were there, the first day, and the sun set, we just gasped in awe and sat - and nobody spoke until the sun had sunk below the closer than ever horizon".....

We might just go to Mars - and love it just the way it is.

For if we change Mars, and come to regret it after - it doesnt matter, for

We Can Never Go Back

Auqakah · 2002-08-18 15:03:44

The number of opinions contained herein are staggering.

Palomar · 2002-08-18 17:52:01

Could it simply be a desire to change things, to take our hands and remold an entire planet to the shape we want?
Probably.

*Why NOT play God?

Actually, I'm conflicted about terraforming versus leaving Mars as naturally original as possible. However, as someone else here has pointed out previously [I think it was Clark, but am not certain], if we don't plan to terraform Mars, why aim for *colonization* at all? Can we honestly expect humans to be healthy and thriving and happy always cooped up indoors and forever having to don a bulky suit and helmet to step outdoors? Maybe humans are so adaptable that this wouldn't be a bother to 3rd and upwards generation Marsians; I don't know.

Actually, terraforming Mars is a great long-term goal and plan. It does give humanity the ability to play God in this regard, which itself is a stimulating idea.

But I too would miss the "old Mars."

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-19 11:54:17

What reason do we have for terraforming Mars?

Two words: Ecological contingency.

All life forms require an ecosystem of some kind. And arguably, the best ecosystem is one that sustains itself on a huge scale. One that isn't reliant on all sorts of susceptible technologies.

Why are we even considering such an act?

Because science considers all the possiblities! Why wouldn't we consider such an act? To terraform is to know an ecosystem intimately. It would give us huge insight towards the future of civilization.

Is there any need?

Without open air and water, we have a problem. The need would come when the population of the planet reaches a critical level. One where technology can no longer support them and a larger, more self sustainable ecosystem needs to be put in place.

Even if there is, should we do it?

Shouldn't we?

It's New Years, 2100, and the population of Mars is two million. Eleven domes burst yesterday because of a comet which broke up near Jupiter and scattered towards Mars, barraging the planet with meteorites. We saw it coming. There was just nothing we could do. There were thousands of fragments, millions unseen. 6000 people died. We had evacuation procedures planned, but a duststorm complicated things.

Can it even work?

Yes. Nature has a way of existing if the right quantities exist. Mars was wet before. Mars had an ocean before. Mars may even have had life before.

How long will it take? Will it be worth the wait?

Who knows? That's the best part, though. Seeing. Doubling even tripling, the population of humans, in my opinion, would be worth it. We have a whole universe here, we need to get out there!

[...] destroying any possible life on Mars with our fumblings in the dark because we might not be able to overcome such problems as radiation and cold [...]

My personal feelings about this might surprise you. I don't want to see terraformation until extensive scientific probing has been done. Unfortunately, the study of Mars may be compromised by early colonists, since they may not follow predefined decontamination procedures.

But I figure a critical population limit will occur around the same time we've analyzed hundreds of square kilometers of the planet.

lack of readily available oxygen and water

Ahh, ?a lack of readily available [resources]? isn't really the reason we'd terraform. We'd do it so that we'd be unrestricted... so that risk is lowered...

[... terraformation] will rob a plethora of future generations of a whole world they can see and feel and touch that is different from our wonderful home, Earth. A world which has developed differently, and does not bear the wide-spread and obvious life that our own one does, and as such is a shining example of why our world, our home, is so important.

The Mars you see now is hardly older than the demise of the dinosaurs. The Mars you see now is not indicitive of the Mars that was around for several hundred million years. Mars is very similar to earth in many many ways. Mars had an ocean, and still has vast quantities of water. The difference between Earth and Mars is very negligable.

If we spread life to Mars, and change it from dead to alive (assuming it is dead to begin with), then doesnt life lose some of its value?

I don't see why... spreading life is not an act of devaluation... I just don't see it.

I like to think that returning Mars to its former self would be reviving it. I think to not revive Mars would be a sort of ?planetary necrophilia...?

We might just go to Mars - and love it just the way it is.

We might just go to Mars and inadvertantly cause it to terraform itself. Global warming is already happening on Mars. The south polar residual cap is shrinking three meters a year. Our mere presence, our machines, our structures, could change the atmosphere enough. Just consider how much dust would be thrown in the atmosphere by our machinery! Granted, a small population probably wouldn't have much of an impact. But a larger one would.

Cindy,

Actually, I'm conflicted about terraforming versus leaving Mars as naturally original as possible.

I just want to get there!

But I too would miss the "old Mars."

Personally, I don't want to see us planting trees. I just want to see the Mars of only a few hundred million years ago. Mars hasn't been ?dead? that long on the scale of the age of the solar system.

My proposal is simple. Terraform by adding a few comets to the atmosphere, and focus on oxygenating the atmosphere with a small, well controlled, aquatic -> atmosphere ecosystem.

No, or very few, land animals (that survive off of oceanic life). No trees. No birds. Just mamels (whales, perhaps), plankton, and other aquatic animals.

This would be the Mars of a few hundred million years ago.

Palomar · 2002-08-19 16:34:02

My proposal is simple. Terraform by adding a few comets to the atmosphere

*Come again? What do you mean by "adding a few comets to the atmosphere" - ? Is this a typo? ::confused::

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-19 17:31:30

Come again? What do you mean by "adding a few comets to the atmosphere" - ? Is this a typo? ::confused::

Heheh, to be a native English speaker, I sure do have a damn hard time with it!

Anyway, Cindy! You don't remember Red Mars? Well, Blue Mars? I can't believe you! In it, Sax had a comet skim the atmosphere. I can't remember what kind of comet, but a nitrogen or carbon rich comet would work fine. All we want to do is thicken the atmosphere enough to get water to melt (in my opinion, we don't have enough CO2 there to get water to stay melted...).

Phobos · 2002-08-19 17:48:48

I don't see why... spreading life is not an act of devaluation... I just don't see it.
I like to think that returning Mars to its former self would be reviving it. I think to not revive Mars would be a sort of ?planetary necrophilia...?

That argument that we should never introduce life on dead worlds has always seemed strange to me. A dead planet is just a big rock floating around in space, there's no possibility of disrupting it's "ecosystem" because it has none! Not unless someone considers mountains or rocks to be equal to living things that should be left completely untouched. I don't buy that argument though, eventually those dead worlds will just either be eaten by the sun or be cast off into eternally cold space. I say we utilize them and increase the chance of intelligence surviving in the universe.

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-19 23:39:42

Mars will always be Mars.
Apparently there may have been oceans, at least large lakes that were around long enough to deposit sediment strata.
Apparently it rained there, at least the erosion patterns on the small "tributary" canyons along the southern wall of Ius Chasma, chiefly, and other sites around Mars seem to suggest it. (by the way, those apparently rain eroded tributaries of Ius are no joke, two of em would easily top the Grand Canyon in depth and width...)
And these factors seem to suggest that there was, apparently {; ), a strong potential for life.
My theory is that something large smacked Mars, not the Hellas impactor either, something much larger.
Looking at the MGS MOLA topography maps, I can see a very nearly perfectly round basin. It lays north by northeast of Hellas, between Syrtis and Elysium, in the south of Utopia. (fantastic names eh?, I've always like Mars's nomeclature)
Well at any rate, Mars was once, apparently, very warm, and at least wet enough to cut canyons with rain for a long time.
(by the way, those large and seemingly rain cut canyons running into Ius Chasma are probably relatively new, at least younger than the Valles Marineris complex of canyons, which probably means that they post date the uplifting of the Tharsis bulge, hmm, the more I think about it the more the implications pile up)
Anyway, losing site of my point, heh. Areoforming could return this planet, somewhat, to its conditions prior to whatever cataclysm happend to destroy them. Using only excess heat, wherever possible, and exstensive dispersal of life onto the surface. (apparently they can get methanogens to grow relatively freely in Mars Jars now)
This life would only be to get the ecology ball rolling, so to speak, and to get a shirt sleeve environ in a short amount of time. And eventually, with or without us, say in 10 million years, Mars would have its own line of evolution with totally unique lifeforms that would never and have never been seen on Earth. Its bound to be extreme, look at the effects the isolation of the Galapogos bestowed upon their inhabitants.

I dont think that life is cheapend by seeding it wherever we go, I think its quite poetic. I mean hey, if instead of our current look of bringing smog death and pollution wherever we go, like we pretty much do here on Earth, we can change that into an image of brining life, greenery and intelligence to any place we encounter.

Okie dokie, stream of consiousness, its late, heh, please bear with me...

Your friendly, and sleepy, neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

Palomar · 2002-08-20 08:28:30

Come again? What do you mean by "adding a few comets to the atmosphere" - ? Is this a typo? ::confused::
Heheh, to be a native English speaker, I sure do have a damn hard time with it!
Anyway, Cindy! You don't remember Red Mars? Well, Blue Mars? I can't believe you! In it, Sax had a comet skim the atmosphere. I can't remember what kind of comet, but a nitrogen or carbon rich comet would work fine. All we want to do is thicken the atmosphere enough to get water to melt (in my opinion, we don't have enough CO2 there to get water to stay melted...).

*Hi Josh: I haven't read Red, Green, or Blue Mars...yet. Thus, my confusion.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-20 09:22:27

To terraform, or not to terraform, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The comets and man-made apocalypse of outrageous fortune,
Or to take action against a future of uncertainty,
And by opposing, end them.

Imagine a family. Imagine this family in winter. The world is cold and desolate, so the family burns wood to stay warm and stave off the threat of winter. Now, imagine that winter goes on and on, never ending. The family burns the dead trees- but soon they are gone. Next they burn the living trees, since their lives are paramount to that of the living tree. Soon, there are no trees period. All that is left is a picture- a Picasso- or a Rembrandt if you prefer.

Is it wrong for the family to burn the painting in order to live?

The Universe is a truly vast exspanse, it will forever be largely an unknown. Could there be a million planets of harboring life? Sure. But how many do we know about? Zero- at least lat time I checked.

How many planets (other than earth) in this solar system are theoritcaly capable of sustaining human life with an actual environment to Earth, with available technology or technology on the horizon? One- maybe two.

When all is said and done, Mars is a planet just like earth. It is smaller, has less gravity. What the planet MEANS to you or I or the other umpteen billion talking apes is irrelevant. Some say it is pretty just the way it is. Some say it would be prettier if it was changed. It's ALL crap as far as I am concerned. The beauty and worth is dependant upon those who are looking at it, and when.

Imagine if the history of our world was different and we were contemplating exploring or colonizing Mars when it was wet- do you think people would care as much if we wanted to make it rain some more on Mars? How much thought do most people put when they start a garden or plant a lawn in their front or back yard? It is effectivly the same thing.

The only argument is the practical one: Terraforming Mars means that the environment no longer shapes us. It allows the talking ape to control his own evolution, his own destiny.

Why do some animals fail and other thrive? Adapatation to environment. Why are Human the undisputed masters of this planet? We adapt the environment to suit us.

We turn deserts into gardens, and desolate areas hospitable. We even contemplate living inside surrounded by vacum.

Unless we control the environment of the entire planet, the environment of mars will shape us- and humans as we know them, will fail- some homo-martianus will succeed us.

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-20 09:33:04

Is that so bad?, I'm sure something like that will happen anyway. No matter how Earthlike you make Mars, you can't change its gravity, and likewise you can't change its distance from earth. Not in a terraforming sense, but in a cultural sense. Without constant observation of what culture is on Earth, for instance watching TV and popular shows and buying from popular stores, Martian culutre will develop on its own. (factoring in the original cultures of those who go to live there, of course)
And watching and doing those things will probably be very impractical as sitting and watching TV would cut deep into time that needs to be used for station upkeep. And ordering the latest Old Navy clothing from earth would be vastly expensive and ridiculous...

Anywho, I'm all for the development of a new culture, hasn't happend on Earth for awhile. (no place left to settle in isolation)

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

clark · 2002-08-20 10:45:32

Is that so bad?,

In the terms I am talking about, yes, it is very bad. I would rather not be part of the species that died out, thank you very much. Look what happened to Mr. Cromag.

No matter how Earthlike you make Mars, you can't change its gravity, and
likewise you can't change its distance from earth.

Gravity cannot be changed, but technology can undue that environmental effect. As for the distance- that is irrelevant since distance in the terms you are discussing is a function of time. As our tech increases, our propulsion sciences should proceed at pace- as propulsion increases, the time to locations is reduced, thereby negating the effects of distance.

First we had couriers. Then we had letters. Next we had smoke signals. Then came the telegraph- the phone- the car, the plane, the Concorde- intercontinental travel, tv, etc.

There will be a 30 minute cultural lag time between earth and mars. mars TV programming will by and large be made on Earth (it will always be cheaper to produce on Earth vs. Mars)- people ACT, so they will act like they are on mars (with the visucal effects too) and simply beam the programming back to mars.

New cultures are constantly growing, dying, stagnating, remerging, subsiding, etc on a daily basis here on earth. You don't need isolation for culture to grow- you merely need IDENTITY.

The culture of those who grow up in the 90's is VASTLY different than the culture of those who gre up in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or 70's. Hell even the 80's.

But, back to the point, terraformation should proceed simply becuase it makes living on Mars safer for everyone and invalidates most of what I have previously described as neccessary for colonization of Mars.

Bill White · 2002-08-20 11:03:51

To terraform, or not to terraform, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The comets and man-made apocalypse of outrageous fortune,
Or to take action against a future of uncertainty,
And by opposing, end them.

Well done!

Both Shakespeare's original and your adaptation are really different aspects of the same essential question, aren't they?

By God! I love the Internet and all the marvelous posts hiding in between the mountains of garbage, flames and trolls.

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-20 11:14:10

<Quote
Is that so bad?,

In the terms I am talking about, yes, it is very bad. I would rather not be part of the species that died out, thank you very much. Look what happened to Mr. Cromag>

Sorry for getting off-topic, but I would like to pursue this.
Why, Clark, would this be such a bad thing? Its not like the "new humans" aren't going to be our children in the long run anyway.

No matter how much we shift the balance of power between us and nature, there will always be some sort of change in us due to environmental surroundings.
I don't think we should get so rigid in regards to preserving our "heritage" I'm not saying we should forget our past and what we are, I'm just saying we shouldn't have to live with it in eventual stagnation...

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

clark · 2002-08-20 11:34:39

Thanks Bill! I thought you might like it. I was contemplating paraphrasing the entire solilquy, but alas, some mountains are to high to climb, even for me...

Sorry for getting off-topic, but I would like to pursue this.

no problem, however, i am just trying to mindful of the person who started this thread.

Why, Clark, would this be such a bad thing? Its not like the "new humans" aren't going to be our children in the long run anyway.

Very progressive view, and it isn't neccessarily a "bad" thing. However, allegiance should at the very least be to ones species. For all of homo-erctus faults, I think it is pretty good. I don't want to see that changed.

No matter how much we shift the balance of power between us and nature, there will always be some sort of change in us due to environmental surroundings.

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. The fundamental precept of evolutionary development is based on reproduction, i.e- those species that thrive in certain enviroment succeed becuase they can out breed and out compete their competition. When the environmen t is controlled in such a manner that it no longer serves to affect which of our members in our species reproduce, the environment no longer plays a factor in shaping us.

Think of it like this: Mars- higher radiation: therfore, those people with genes resistant to radiation will have more healthy children than those without. After generations, the population has only people with radiation resistant genes- the other non-rad gene carrying people were out bred. Now- we decide to put up Rad shields around all our homes- now radiation no longer affects us- that means the rad resistance genes confer no reproductive (or general) advantage- so the environment (in this respect) no longer influences us.

3rd world countries: How many people there do you see with the same rates of disabilities you see in 1st world countries? 1st world countries can help a greater proportion of children with disabilities reach a point where they can reproduce- 3rd world countries do not have the resouces, so these children never reach the point where they can perpetuate the genes- that's evolution- that's how is works. The more control or influence we have over our environment, the less it affects our own evolution.

I don't think we should get so rigid in regards to preserving our "heritage" I'm not saying we should forget our past and what we are, I'm just saying we shouldn't have to live with it in eventual stagnation...

That presupposes that the human species is stagnating if it doesn't evolve into something else. What's so wrong with staying human?

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-20 12:04:45

Well, humanity isn't really stagnating right now, but I think it unlikely that 10,000 years from now that my great, great, etc... grand childred born in various places in the solar system and maybe, by then, worlds around other solar systems, will look like me, a person whose ancestors come from northern Europe, Ireland in particular.
I find it highly unlikley that people will at some point all live in constant 100% shelter from the environment.
It is my opinion that in regards to Mars, no matter what we do, we will get a survivable environment there, however it will still be very different from Earth.
Still my argument boils down to this,
I don't understand an alliegience to species, I think that our overall history and mind set will survive any physical change imposed by our environment.

your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

clark · 2002-08-20 12:34:21

Well, humanity isn't really stagnating right now, but I think it unlikely that 10,000 years from now that my great, great, etc... grand childred born in various places in the solar system and maybe, by then, worlds around other solar systems, will look like me, a person whose ancestors come from northern Europe, Ireland in particular.

We are not much different now than we were 10,000 years ago...100,000 years ago, and probably 1,000,000 million years ago too. The time scale you are talking about makes any and all disscussion irrelevant. But if you ask me, should we encourage this transformation, I will tell you no- but that dosen't mean we should actively inhibit it either, unless warranted for very tangible reasons (like not letting all the people who carry one particular gene sequence die off)

What you talk about, this "stagantion" and the eventual rise of a new race is a natural component of our own progression as a species. The problem though lies in when we, as men, choose to actively participate and "accelerate" this transformation.

Hitler, with his Uber-men operated from the same principle that you innocently speak of. The enslavement of entire races was formulated based on the precepts of a superior race, and the resulting inferior ones that would ahve to exsist to prove the superiority. I am by no means implying that you are advocating any of the darker sides- but I am showing you how that simple idea has been historically twisted.

I find it highly unlikley that people will at some point all live in constant 100% shelter from the environment.

But that is the requirement to live on mars. It is not a matter of living in shelters from the environment, it is a matter of controlling the environment so it no longer affects how we develop.

Our ability to reproduce used to be limited by our ability to travel to different areas-when all we had was legs, the environment prevented us from crossing waters. When all we had were boats, the environment prevented us from treking across large distances. Once we had land transportion the environment became irrelvant in its effects to limit the mingling of genes from one area to another.

It is my opinion that in regards to Mars, no matter what we do, we will get a survivable environment there, however it will still be very different from Earth.

It will always be different, true. However, it will be fundamentaly the same as earth becuase the human requirement for life are exactly the same.

I don't understand an alliegience to species, I think that our overall history and mind set will survive any physical change imposed by our environment.

Becuase, allegiance to species is allegiance to similar genetic material. This goes into some of the biological drives related to altruism- but sufficed to say, it is NOT normal to have alligence to Ants over human beings or Fish over human beings. It is detremental and counter-productive to our gene set.

Mind set is the product of our environment.

Bill White · 2002-08-20 13:48:06

Carl Sagan's son - Dorion - has written a book, with a co-author, titled "Up from Dragons" - Good book, I recommend it to all. Dorion has big shoes to fill.

In it he suggests a unique way humans differ from other species we know about. Non-humans pass information from generation to generation via DNA and as DNA changes, they evolve.

Humans, however, pass staggering amounts of information down to their descendant's "extra-somatically" - outside the body - a term Dorion claims was coined by his father Carl Sagan. Books, oral traditions, customs, culture are all vehicles for conveying and transmitting information from parents to children.

Other animals may do this to a limited extent yet thr difference in degree is so vast as to be very nearly a difference in kind. Evolution of culture continues at a breathtaking pace and the darwinian advantage to a superior culture may outweigh darwinian advantages of genetic variation.

Jared Diamond made a similiar point in his delightfully titled book, "Why is Sex Fun?"

Why, he asks, are humans the only species of mammal in which females lose the ability to reproduce - i.e. menopause. Why? His proposed answer is charming. Grandmothers.

I am slanting his point a little, yet I believe he says grandmothers are the guardians of human culture and being unable to have further children themselves they occupy themselves making sure their grandchildren are properly taught the cultural heritage that has been handed down, thereby giving their offspring a competitive advantage.

All rather like Larry Niven's novel "Protector" for those of you who may have read it.

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-20 13:53:32

<Hitler, with his Uber-men operated from the same principle that you innocently speak of. The enslavement of entire races was formulated based on the precepts of a superior race, and the resulting inferior ones that would ahve to exsist to prove the superiority. >

Whoa there, I wasn't saying anything about an eventual and subtle change in our physiology through natural means would make a race of superior beings.
I was just saying let the dice fall as they may instead of activley trying to stop natural selection (no matter how meager it has become thanks to our ability to control our environs thus far) If our technology makes it inevitable that natural selection stops, fine, no problem here. However I don't think we should apply ourselves to that goal. Seems rather pointless to me.
By the way, what if our more apelike ancestors had the means to stop natural selection for the sake of genetic alliegience. I think we wouldn't be here...

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

clark · 2002-08-20 14:06:25

By the way, what if our more apelike ancestors had the means to stop natural selection for the sake of genetic alliegience. I think we wouldn't be here...

They did, and that's why we are here. Intelligence allowed us to make that leap from having the environment shape us, to one where we shaped our environment. At that point, humanity took the reigns for natural selection, which means, our own evolution.

Evolution of culture continues at a breathtaking pace and the darwinian advantage to a superior culture may outweigh darwinian advantages of genetic variation.

I agree, however the cultural advantage is only realized once the environmental influences have been mitigated or stopped. Then the next step is the battle of cultures- or more precisly- behavior patterns.

Why is the "family unit" universal? Becuase it improves the odds of reproducing- the family unit is a behavior induced by certain genes which make us predisposed to do one thing over another thing (like swim in water as opposed to breathing water).

The same thing wil happen on mars, and is what I use as a guide in determining what life in space might be like.

I am slanting his point a little, yet I believe he says grandmothers are the guardians of human culture and being unable to have further children themselves they occupy themselves making sure their grandchildren are properly taught the cultural heritage that has been handed
down, thereby giving their offspring a competitive advantage.

The competitive advantage, which allows for continuation of the genes- think how many generations of species had to die before the genetic lottery hit on a gene sequence that predisposed "species" not to fight one another- there are some species that are still developing through this "phase".

An animal that is predisposed to attack all species is at a competitive disadvantage with a species that only attacks other species- the same principles applied to early hominid development.

Bill White · 2002-08-20 14:48:10

The competitive advantage, which allows for continuation of the genes- think how many generations of species had to die before the genetic lottery hit on a gene sequence that predisposed "species" not to fight one another- there are some species that are still developing through this "phase".
An animal that is predisposed to attack all species is at a competitive disadvantage with a species that only attacks other species- the same principles applied to early hominid development.

Are you referring to the research done by people like Axelrod who have demonstrated - quite rigorously - that cooperative strategies actually work much better when playing massively repeated games of Prisoners Dilemma?

clark · 2002-08-20 15:28:02

Are you referring to the research done by people like Axelrod who have demonstrated - quite rigorously - that cooperative strategies actually work much better when playing massively repeated games of Prisoners Dilemma?

I wasn't exactly, but the evidence from his research does support my statement.

Anotherconcept that influences my viewsrelating to Mars is the "tragedy of the commons". Are you familiar with it?

For those who have never heard of it, it basically describes how allowing people to make the best decisions for themselves individualy does not lead to the "greatest good for all".

The example they use is one of Shepards and their sheep- each shepard can make more money with each additional sheep he adds to the pasture. But each shepard that adds a sheep to the pasture reduces the overall profit for all shepards- so each individual makes an individual choice that would lead to more money- but evry other shepard makes the same choice- so then there are too many sheep.

So to all you who think I'm crazy about "population control" on mars. Look at this little problem.

Phobos · 2002-08-20 20:18:27

I don't understand an alliegience to species, I think that our overall history and mind set will survive any physical change imposed by our environment.
your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

I agree 100%. I think going out and forcing ourselves to adapt to radically different environments would be one of the best things for our species to do from an evolutionary standpoint since it will only increase our attributes of intelligence and survivability over the long term. I personally don't care either what species we turn into as long as we maintain our intelligence (hopefully we'll surpass it) and transmit knowledge to future generations. Even though people scoff at the idea, I think several hundred years in the future it's quite possible that humanity will have altered itself so much through the use of computerized technology that it will be able to increase its intelligence and creative powers exponentially above what the average person possesses now. It's all a matter of learning how to interface technology with the brain and developing the artificial intelligence that will be necessary to augment our own brains. Even though it's not biological, I think you could call the introductions of such technologies an evolutionary jump.

Auqakah · 2002-08-29 16:28:46

I think it would be terribly unscientific to terraform Mars.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-20 14:55:15

What Reason you ask: well, an argument that often surfaces nowadays with regards to terraforming is the cosmic collision argument. From this point of view Mars, in itself, is a resource that must be exploited through terraformation, as it is valuable planetary real estate that might promise to save human civilization from destruction by an inevitable asteroidal or cometary encounter. BUT!!!!!It might be thought of as rather peculiar how, in the wake of the demise of the Cold War, all sorts of enemies are dreamt up by some space industrialists to encourage a space attitude within the general public. The cosmic collision is one such enemy and it has been suggested that if we colonize and terraform Mars we will have an insurance policy for humanity against such a collision. No doubt it could also be thought that the actual odds of a collision are enhanced to convey a sense of immenence and urgency and that cosmic collisionists can be exposed as peddling thinly-disguised self-interest since they themselves are the ones set to gain research dollars if their idea become accepted by political authorities. Governments, to be sure, are hardly going to fund asteroid searches if the asteroid-searchers, themselves, say that cosmic collisions are exceedingly improbable.

There are a couple of other points one could make to debunk the cosmic collision argument for terraforming. Firstly, we won't have time to evacuate any great number of people to a terraformed Mars . This is no problem if a terrafromed Mars is home to a representative appendix of the whole of humanity, but it will hardly be that. We might also state that if a worst case Earth-Asteroid collision eventuates, civilization as we know it will be destroyed and humanity will consist of isolated groups of humans huddling to protective conclaves in a desparate struggle for existence. If we settle on a terraformed Mars, the transplanted civilization will not be of type any that we know on Earth, and a Martian-based humanity will - at least for the first hundred thousand years - consist of isolated groups of humans huddling together in protective conclaves in a desparete struggle for existence. There is, then, no qualitative difference between the two. With regards to the cosmic collision argument, we may as well not terraform mars. Terraforming will not be a saviour for civilization but merely an exercise in the production of equivalent circumstances.

Anyways, it would seem terribly bad luck (or impossibly bad luck) that at the very moment in history that Earth creatures have managed to build instruments to detect impending collisionary objects we are also hit by such an object. It's like the universe is punishing us for looking out at it. The other impending global catastrophes that are cited above, being historically-contingent on late-twentieth century activities, are just as bound to effect a colonised Mars as they are a sorry, disease-ridden or eco-disasterous Earth (indeed, most historians would point out that they would affect both, since a colony is never able to immune itself against what goes on within the original coloniser).

What do you think? Am I an extremist? A radicial? Or is it you who is radical and extreme by trying to solve the Earth's problems by going to another planet?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-13 11:42:04

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#2 2002-08-18 15:03:44

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#3 2002-08-18 17:52:01

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#4 2002-08-19 11:54:17

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#5 2002-08-19 16:34:02

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#6 2002-08-19 17:31:30

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#7 2002-08-19 17:48:48

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#8 2002-08-19 23:39:42

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#9 2002-08-20 08:28:30

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#10 2002-08-20 09:22:27

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#11 2002-08-20 09:33:04

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#12 2002-08-20 10:45:32

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#13 2002-08-20 11:03:51

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#14 2002-08-20 11:14:10

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#15 2002-08-20 11:34:39

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#16 2002-08-20 12:04:45

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#17 2002-08-20 12:34:21

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#18 2002-08-20 13:48:06

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#19 2002-08-20 13:53:32

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#20 2002-08-20 14:06:25

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#21 2002-08-20 14:48:10

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#22 2002-08-20 15:28:02

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#23 2002-08-20 20:18:27

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#24 2002-08-29 16:28:46

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#25 2002-09-20 14:55:15

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

Board footer