From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-06 01:42:28

Cindy, as BGD says, I don't think your question is crazy at all.
Carl Sagan published stuff which included references to hypothetical Martian life forms that might lie dormant for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. He was extrapolating from the known strategies of Earth organisms for surviving through harsh winters. But he theorised Mars was in the throes of a winter far longer than any ever experienced on Earth!

We know perfectly well that bacteria are capable of reviving after incredible lengths of time in a dormant state - possibly up to 250 million years, according to at least one researcher! And that's just Terran bacteria which have never been subjected to the kind of harsh environment Mars imposes. How much greater would be the hibernating prowess of organisms which, over eons, have gradually become adapted to longer and more ferocious winters as Mars' atmosphere thinned?!

As you probably know by now, I'm a strong proponent of the idea that Mars still harbours life in at least bacterial form. And I mean currently living organisms, probably exclusively in the regolith, and very probably based on the same chemistry as us. So, in that sense, the answer to your question is no - you can't stimulate a bacterium back to life if it's already alive!
But as for grasses, that's something I hadn't dared contemplate. Could the seeds of more complex life still be nestling somewhere safe, away from the harsh UV light, and freeze-dried?
I suppose it's not impossible. Though I think more complex life tends to be a bit more fragile than the simpler forms. And, in specifying grasses, you may be getting too optimistic because grasses are a relatively recent development on Earth, having first appeared only 25 million years ago. (Interesting to think that the last dinosaur missed the first blade of grass by 40 million years! )
You might stand a slightly better chance with insects though, because they developed much earlier. But I don't know that I'd want to put any money on it!
I guess maybe the best we can hope for will be bacteria and molds. BUT I COULD BE WRONG !!

P.S. Carl Sagan, as recently as 1977, was actually still hopeful
that Martian animals might exist. He wanted lights fitted
to the Viking landers so that photographs could be taken
of any nocturnal creatures foraging at night to avoid the
dangerous UV light of daytime.
Now Dr. Sagan was as aware of the adverse conditions on
Mars as anyone, yet he still thought it conceivable that
complex life might be found there. What a visionary, he
was! And what a tragedy he was taken from us when he
had so much more to give.

Palomar · 2002-10-06 09:55:44

Shaun: And, in specifying grasses, you may be getting too optimistic because grasses are a relatively recent development on Earth, having first appeared only 25 million years ago. (Interesting to think that the last dinosaur missed the first blade of grass by 40 million years! )

*I didn't know that. I figured grass was probably one of the earliest forms of plant life around...

Shaun:
P.S. Carl Sagan, as recently as 1977, was actually still hopeful
that Martian animals might exist. He wanted lights fitted
to the Viking landers so that photographs could be taken
of any nocturnal creatures foraging at night to avoid the
dangerous UV light of daytime.
Now Dr. Sagan was as aware of the adverse conditions on
Mars as anyone, yet he still thought it conceivable that
complex life might be found there. What a visionary, he
was! And what a tragedy he was taken from us when he
had so much more to give.

*Wow, I didn't know this either. He must have considered there was a somewhat complex chain of life already there.

Yeah, I miss him too...especially that big toothy grin. I've noticed that pro-human thinkers and visionaries all have a similar smile and facial expression -- very warm, open, inviting, etc.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-06 23:30:06

Carl Sagan was, and is my hero. It's a damn shame he died so young.

But anyway, I'm not sure being in a space suit is any less fragile than being in the open air. If anything, I think it's the opposite. You can't rightly fall down and have some crucial technology break, making you pass out from lack of oxygen or whatever, in the open air. That said, I also don't think we should terraform ?just because technology is fragile.? I think it should only come about after some ecological point hits, like a population limit is being reached, or whatever.

Also, I didn't know about grass either. That's actually an amazing revalation.

HeloTeacher · 2002-10-07 09:19:27

I'll throw in a couple points:

Microbial life has absolutely no requirement for oxygen on Earth. Individual species may require it but a very large and varied group of life now classified as a seperate Kingdom (not sure precisely the correct level of branching), the Archaea, use quite a variety of chemistries in their lives.

Reading the book "The 5th Miracle" there is a large effort put into tying Mars into the search for the origin of life. The author puts forth a good argument based on the current state of general scientific knowledge that Mars has never been biologically isolated from Earth. This means that life should exist there if it iable to and the odds of it being a distinct type of life are very slim.

Its worth the read.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-07 20:50:14

Thanks HeloTeacher!
"The 5th Miracle" sounds like MY kind of book!! This is very interesting to hear.
I'm going out today to find and buy that book!
Thanks again!

Palomar · 2002-10-08 16:01:32

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=....Species

*What are the chances the extinction of all these species on Earth will seriously compromise attempts to terraform Mars?

???

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-08 16:31:35

*What are the chances the extinction of all these species on Earth will seriously compromise attempts to terraform Mars?

Probably zero. It's not like every single species is completely required for an ecysystem to survive. Extinction is just a part of eco-equilibrium. If one of two interdependent species dies off, the one that survives will adapt (sometimes unsuccessfully). ?New? species are created every time a species goes extinct.

Palomar · 2002-10-08 16:46:24

Extinction is just a part of eco-equilibrium.

*Well...extinction by natural means is part of eco-equilibrium; but what about these plants and animal species going extinct because man has hunted and/or destroyed them into extinction [unnatural]?

???

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-10-08 21:56:25

*Well...extinction by natural means is part of eco-equilibrium; but what about these plants and animal species going extinct because man has hunted and/or destroyed them into extinction [unnatural]?

--Cindy

So if an asteroid hits Earth and wipes out all life, that is natural correct? If an intelligent species directs an asteroid to Earth and wipes all life, that's unnatural right? What makes us unnatural? Our ability to reason and to will the extinction of something whereas a "natural" extinction is caused by some random event that had no intelligence behind it? I'm not defending our bad stewardship of the planet, I'm just curious why you think extinction caused by homo sapiens is unnatural while extinctions caused by other factors are natural.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-09 05:21:19

?Natural? and ?unnatural? are words that exist to alienate humans from the rest of the ecosystem, in my opinion. But that's cool.

Consider this. What if we could archive all the DNA of every living thing, and clone it at any time? Would not the concept of ?extinction? be totally foreign? I would certainly say so.

I do regret that our overpopulation and countless other processes (primarily pollution / wastefulness / inefficieny) are destroying the ecosystem, actually preventing it from reaching eco-equilibrium, and I certainly think we should do something about it. The ultimate goal of humanity ought to be to stop growing (on Earth), and to reach equilibrium.

If we had the ablity to go backwards and forwards on the DNA chain, we could resurrect animals long since extinct. In fact, we could even have a JurassicPark of sorts. I think it would be a novel idea to go back in time and have parks of that sort. Every generation or so, we could resurrect any animal that ever existed! For a brief period of time, at the very least.

Even more amazing, is the prospect that we'd find life on Mars; extinct or not, if we had some DNA on Mars, would could theoretically resurrect it, and put it in a theoretical ?future? where Mars' magnetic field still existed, and nothing changed. It's hard to really imagine what sort of stuff we could come up with!

Nida · 2002-10-09 09:32:16

So Phobos we shouldn't care if all these things die?

Palomar · 2002-10-09 11:09:07

*Well...extinction by natural means is part of eco-equilibrium; but what about these plants and animal species going extinct because man has hunted and/or destroyed them into extinction [unnatural]?

--Cindy
So if an asteroid hits Earth and wipes out all life, that is natural correct? If an intelligent species directs an asteroid to Earth and wipes all life, that's unnatural right? What makes us unnatural? Our ability to reason and to will the extinction of something whereas a "natural" extinction is caused by some random event that had no intelligence behind it? I'm not defending our bad stewardship of the planet, I'm just curious why you think extinction caused by homo sapiens is unnatural while extinctions caused by other factors are natural.

*Let me give an example, Phobos, to your questions:

A bear lopes along through the forest on a warm day, hurrying to the nearby creek in order to cool off and catch some fish (he's also hungry). In the process of hurrying to the creek the bear, oblivious to the anthills beneath his paws, obliterates a few of them in the process...they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am walking through the forest and see the anthills. I can go around them, pass by and keep going --or-- I can deliberately walk over to them and stomp them, thereby destroying -- with deliberate will and intent -- what the ants had worked so hard to build up. I don't live in this forest; these anthills aren't close to my home, and so there is no chance they may infest my home. I simply decide to stomp on their hills and destroy their efforts.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-10 02:34:16

Ahh, so when an ?unintelligent? species destroys something, it's ?natural,? but when an ?intelligent? species destroys something, it's ?unnatural.?

Does that mean that if I'm trying to escape from a bear and I destroy an anthill in the process, it's unnatural? What if I'm sight-seeing and I trip and fall down a hill, landing on top of and oblibrating an ant colony? Would that be unnatural too? Say I find these ants a delicacy, and eat them? Natural or unnatural?

When you said, ?extinction by natural means is part of eco-equilibrium,? you were totally correct. But you must consider that we could reach eco-equilibrium if every animal but humans went extinct! If a large asteriod did hit the planet (aliens notwithstanding), and only a few thousand humans were able to survive, because they were on a Luna base or whatever, would not their return and existance on Earth be natural?

Now, all of this is not to say that we shouldn't consider other species on the planet, as I would certainly say to avoid that ant hill. I'm just saying that extinction is a natural process, and often times cannot be avoided.

The only reason I brought it up what is ?natural? or not, is because I'm sure during the terraforming process, some living things will die and go extinct (on Mars- they may still be alive on Earth). Just like in the Game of Life, species live on and die off, until the system reaches equilibrium.

Palomar · 2002-10-10 11:08:49

Ahh, so when an ?unintelligent? species destroys something, it's ?natural,? but when an ?intelligent? species destroys something, it's ?unnatural.?

*No, actually what I was referring to was ::volition and willful intent:: versus lack of same.

A human could also, of course, destroy an anthill without purposefully intending to; suppose Ranger Bob is sauntering along in the forest and a bear begins to chase him; I doubt that worrying about what anthills he might crush underfoot is going to concern Ranger Bob, as he tries to get away from the bear...and I sure don't blame him!

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-10 16:51:04

Ahh, so ?lower? animals don't have volition or willful intent? This is can only be seen as a critique of intelligence.

The point I'm trying to make, is that volition or will doesn't exist in many situations. Your choices are reduced because the ammount of available information becomes irrelevant.

What if I don't like ants, due to some childhood thing, and I simply step on their anthills? What if I do like ants, and I step on their anthill because I want to observe them repair it?

I don't see how this behavior is unnatural.

Palomar · 2002-10-10 17:16:53

Ahh, so ?lower? animals don't have volition or willful intent? This is can only be seen as a critique of intelligence.
The point I'm trying to make, is that volition or will doesn't exist in many situations. Your choices are reduced because the ammount of available information becomes irrelevant.
What if I don't like ants, due to some childhood thing, and I simply step on their anthills? What if I do like ants, and I step on their anthill because I want to observe them repair it?
I don't see how this behavior is unnatural.

*Josh: I see your points. However, I do believe that instances of volition and willful intent can and do come into play as regards various acts of destruction. There have been instances of big corporations dumping toxins into water sources, etc., and only cleaning them up when told by Federal regulatory commissioners and the like to "clean up or else"...even when it's already well known the toxins are nothing but harmful to the water.

Also, it's true there are sometimes good intentions leading to destructiveness...or, conversely, some plans which may appear negative in the beginning may prove beneficial. Unfortunately, I can't think of any examples of those off the top of my head.

Animals do have a level of willful intent and volition [hunting prey would be an example]; however, it seems humans have a greater degree of this. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my perception.

As for your statement, "The point I'm trying to make, is that volition or will doesn't exist in many situations": I disagree with it, based upon my own experience. Yes, I'm admitting subjectiveness in my response. Maybe my parents inadvertently pounded self-consciousness a little too hard into my head. When one is raised to believe God can -and does- read EVERY thought you think and monitors your EVERY action for subsequent punishment or reward, one can become very sensitized to one's will and intent, and how one expresses/acts upon it. I realize many people may not be this way...and I'm not saying it's better to be this way or not.

::shrugs::

It's a sticky topic, I know!

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-10-10 20:16:57

So Phobos we shouldn't care if all these things die?

You misunderstoond me Nida. I was merely asking Cindy why human actions are unnatural as opposed to being natural. I wasn't defending raping the planet. Intelligence and its products (whether good or bad) are natural in my opinion, unless we were truly created by some supernatural being, a concept I don't believe in. So as I said, I'm just trying to find where the dividing line exists between natural and unnatural. I think we just have differing definitions of natural.

HeloTeacher · 2002-10-11 06:34:58

I got my copy of that book out. It is "The Fifth Miracle: the search for the origin of life" by Paul Davies.

The premise of the chapter I was talking about is that, by virtue of the research that followed the ALH86001 announcements (hope I got that right), it has been established that there is no inherent obtacle to planetary cross-polination. The mechanism of planetary bombardment moving rocks between Mars and Earth is well enough understood that it can be reasoned that bacteria and other microbial life would be capable of surviving the trip. Whether they have or not is really moot as far as his argument is concerned. The fact that it is possible is enough.

With regards to the above arguments: knocking over anthills and extinction of species appear to be different scales to me. Generally people react very emotionally to the subject of extinction, but only insofar as it relates to macroscopic organisms and those that do us no harm. Unseen and harmful/repulsive life we are quite happy to eliminate.

Man's domination of the environment is just the latest in a long line of examples of new species being so well adapted they dominate the environment. With luck we will reach a state of equilibrium before we eliminate the same species we require to survive.

Nida · 2002-10-11 11:54:54

Hi Heloteacher. Everyone wants to save the panda bear but they don't care if a species of bug or ugly reptile goes kaput.
Sorry Phobos, if I misunderstood.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-12 19:22:51

Cindy, I agree that volition and willful intent can play a roal in the act of destruction. But when you look at the choices available to an organism, it becomes increasingly clear that there aren't many.

A company which has to dump toxic waste somewhere, is doing it for profit incentive. It has a choice to not do it, but since it thinks it can get away with it, and since profit is more important to it, it doesn't. The federal goverment goes after that company because taxpayers don't like what it's doing. If the federal government overlooked the dumping, those in it would lose their jobs, lawsuits would ensue, and so on.

In both cases, both the government and the companies choices are reduced. Almost to a point where volition doesn't exist: Predators have no other option but hunt prey. They cannot survive on a vegetarian diet.

Humans just have to change their priorities, from ?grow or die? to ?ecological plateau,? but it's extremely difficult.

Phobos · 2002-10-12 21:00:36

Humans just have to change their priorities, from ?grow or die? to ?ecological plateau,? but it's extremely difficult.

Any ideas for achieving the "ecological plateau?" I hope authoritarianism isn't the only solution. Putting a heavily authoritarian power structure in place could backfire horribly. The ecocide that has been committed in China and the former Soviet Union are testaments to that. I think some of the best methods for reducing the population and keeping human dignity and democracy intact is to encourage people to have small families (demonstrating this point on TV and in movies could have a powerful affect over time) and to also update medical technology and access to it in countries with high infant mortality rates (which is one reason some countries tend to have very large families) and to give women equal rights and educational and professional opportunities. That last one I believe is the most important as countries that have both high medical technology and recognition of women's rights tend to have the least population growth. Of course we should also switch to more environmentally friendly sources of energy, etc. The last thing I want to see is some policy where we kidnap pregnant women who don't have "birthing certificates" and force them to have abortions or do mandatory sterilizations or some other use of direct force. That's akin to legalizing rape in my opinion.

Phobos · 2002-10-12 21:01:20

place holder page

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-12 22:39:08

Well, authoritarianism is never the solution, but everyone can see authoritarianism in anything. For instance, Reds find terraforming authoritarian. And by the same token, Blues would see not being allowed to terraform authoritarian. I think we should just leave each to do as they will, as long as they don't do harm to others. Any negative impacts should be understood and accepted by a very large majority. And then, no ones life should be at stake.

I don't really know the solution to population problems. I think a good one, is just making birth control and abortions widely availabe, along with lots of education. Nothing is better than an educated society, no matter how big it is. One must realize that population problems are more a result of inefficiency than anything else.

Once fossil fuels run out, we will have no other choice but to invest in more renewable energy resources. Some speculate that there will be a huge social catastrophe, since the world would basically stop functioning over a period of a few months. All international travel would just cease to exist. Boom. No more imports or exports. But I don't see that happening; we have a hundred years or more until oil runs out. And by that time we're going to have renewable energy, someone will definitely jump on that bandwagon, due to its guaranteed profitability.

Phobos · 2002-10-13 12:20:05

Once fossil fuels run out, we will have no other choice but to invest in more renewable energy resources. Some speculate that there will be a huge social catastrophe, since the world would basically stop functioning over a period of a few months. All international travel would just cease to exist. Boom. No more imports or exports. But I don't see that happening; we have a hundred years or more until oil runs out. And by that time we're going to have renewable energy, someone will definitely jump on that bandwagon, due to its guaranteed profitability.

I don't really buy into those types of doomsday scenarios either. Hydrogen supplemented by nuclear could easily take the place of fossil fuels for our energy needs and they'd be far more environmentally friendly. And in addition many countries could be totally self-sufficient in their power production using hydrogen. You wouldn't have to import it like we do oil. So that should solve a lot of political problems in itself.

Palomar · 2002-10-23 12:51:56

*Okay, here I go again.

What if the soil on Mars won't grow plants? How thick is the sand and dust which covers Mars? The entire planet becomes encased in sandstorms, as we've seen by one photo at least. ???

Mars has not fossil fuels, as someone else pointed out. Nor has it had cows and goats pooping on it for centuries, or dead carcasses rotting in it...at least so far as we know.

Can we expect the soil of Mars, then, to be fertile or conducive to fertility? If not, how long might it take to "tweak" it to become so?

Can you tell I'm originally from Iowa!? Iowa: Land of the moist, rich black soil which grows corn 10 feet high...

If Mars cannot sustain plant life, we're pretty much screwed.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-06 01:42:28

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#27 2002-10-06 09:55:44

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#28 2002-10-06 23:30:06

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#29 2002-10-07 09:19:27

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#30 2002-10-07 20:50:14

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#31 2002-10-08 16:01:32

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#32 2002-10-08 16:31:35

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#33 2002-10-08 16:46:24

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#34 2002-10-08 21:56:25

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#35 2002-10-09 05:21:19

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#36 2002-10-09 09:32:16

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#37 2002-10-09 11:09:07

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#38 2002-10-10 02:34:16

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#39 2002-10-10 11:08:49

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#40 2002-10-10 16:51:04

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#41 2002-10-10 17:16:53

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#42 2002-10-10 20:16:57

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#43 2002-10-11 06:34:58

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#44 2002-10-11 11:54:54

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#45 2002-10-12 19:22:51

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#46 2002-10-12 21:00:36

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#47 2002-10-12 21:01:20

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#48 2002-10-12 22:39:08

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#49 2002-10-13 12:20:05

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

#50 2002-10-23 12:51:56

Re: From the Ground Up - Is terraforming Mars REALLY possible?

Board footer