Better Red but not Dead - my experience

MacDog · 2005-02-26 01:06:19

I went to the conference in Colorado, at great personal expense, in 2000(?), and had one of the worst weeks of conflict in my entire life.

I argued strenously that Mars should NEVER be terraformed, as it represents a 4 billion year old planetary surface, and said right to Zubrin that Terraforming would be akin to "the burning of the library at Alexandria". To which Zubrin completely freaked out, lost his cool, and told me that I was out of line.

I was one of three people who raised their hands when asked if their primary interest was biology at that conference.

At the time I proposed that before we even considered terraforming we should use a multiply deployed robotic exploration system to gather as much data as possible, for which I was accused of being intellectually lazy in my presentation.

For all the heat I took, when Joel Achenbach wrote his book Aliens Among Us, though he mentioned a controversy existed at the conference he made no mention of me and did not seek me out.

Well...

now we have a recent multiply deployed robotic exploration system having made headlines

and for all the Greens talk of their affinity for life, the recent discovery of formaldehyde on Mars (a major indicator of extant life), all the terraforming plans come off to me as no less selfish than the idea of setting up condos for the ultra-rich in Yellowstone Park.

So to all those people who got on my case in Colorado, who said I was offbase, anti-exploration and intellectually lazy....

well...

hahahahahahahahahahaha
(in case you're wondering, that was the last laugh)

looks like my degree in environmental science will be far more applicable to Mars than your astronautic engineering wet dreams!

By the way, if you still plan to terraform, expect a fight.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
(ok so that was really the last laugh)

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-26 02:47:45

Hi MacDog and welcome to New Mars!
New Mars is open to all sorts of opinions about Mars. There are many here with serious reservations about terraforming and your opinion is as valid as anyone else's.
But your opinion isn't more valid than anyone else's, despite your degree in environmental science.

I'm very much pro-terraforming, by the way.

chat · 2005-02-26 05:38:38

MacDog,

I'm on the fence about teraforming mars.

I think Mars probably cant be teraformed with any current technology yet(other than huge impactors), and by the time colonies exist on mars they will decide the fate of mars.

I do believe Mars as a warmer wetter place would be a better place without destroying mars, but i also believe mars itself will resist teraforming attempts.

Does mars even need to be teraformed for humans to setup home on mars?
Guess the Martians will answer that question.

Mars will be well studded long before any real thought of teraforming happens.

I can also guarantee you that we have already polluted mars with earthly bacteria inside quite a few landing craft and rovers just waiting for warmer wetter weather.
Or maybe already mutating trying to adapt to mars.

Every world we send landers to can be considered a suspect polluted world, the bacteria we mistaking send have a way of adapting and altering worlds far beyond anything mankind could hope to do.

Humans going to Mars to stay will push mankind to another level of existence, and probably humble those that try to change it, because mars wants to be mars.

Palomar · 2005-02-26 06:49:12

*Just a general, not directed at any particular person, comment: I can't fathom why this is such a hot-button issue with some folks. :-\ The first manned landing on Mars likely will not occur for another 25 years (based on all the "talk" coming from Russia, ESA and NASA).

Sure, some pre-planning is necessary and it's an interesting topic to debate (once in a while -- IMO).

If there ever is an attempt to colonize Mars, I expect for a long time it'll be folks growing their food and performing experiments with flora in greenhouses. The planet will otherwise remain in its natural state while further experiments and studies are done of it.

Attempts at terraforming will occur much later (frankly because humans are getting bored to tears looking at rocks, wispy clouds and an occasional dust devil outside their windows).

Considering we're still going nowhere fast for decades now, often these debates seem pointless (though interesting).

I'm beginning to doubt I'll ever see the first bootprint on Mars,
much less live to see actual debates on Mars soil about whether or not to start terraforming, when and how, etc.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-02-26 07:34:51

I just don't see how anyone would prefer a dead, lifeless, radiation covered mass to oceans teaming with life, unique forests full of birds, savannah's and grassy plains. Don't we have enough dead rocks in our solar system?

Also what is anythings natural state? The earth has changed greatly over it's history, maybe it's still supposed to be a lifeless cauldron constantly attacked by asteroids?

All of this is ours, the sun, this group of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and the earth. If we could terraform mars it would be a great achievement. You would rather we do nothing with them? Not use them and develop them at all? That would be like saying "You rocks are worth as much as I am".

Maybe we shouldn't wear clothes? Or live in houses? We should use sticks and stones. It's more natural. We don't want to insult the god of the dead things.

MarsDog · 2005-03-02 19:53:11

By the way, if you still plan to terraform, expect a fight.

There is a lot to be said for managing Mars as a planetary ecological and geological park. We will not have the capability to do more than occupy a few caves and greenhouses this century.

By the time comet crashing technology becomes an option, Mars will have been well explored. Even on Earth, dams have submerged historical artifacts.

dk_ · 2005-03-07 21:20:38

Copy%20of%20Big%20meteor%20hitting%20earth.jpg

Imagine if from this instant onward that every decision was made so that Humans realize a terraformed, colonized, independent civilization on Mars in the least time possible, with no regard for ethics. Let's call this the earliest possible time of Human-Earth independence (2005+x).

Now imagine our far from ideal world where politics, class, society, religion, ethics, etc. all slow down progress towards Human-Earth independence and put us on a course to possibly reach Human-Earth independence at (2005+x+r), where r is a time between zero and infinity which stands for retardation.

Like it or not, one of these situations will occur:
a) Humans cause their own extinction (by means other than ignoring the threat of meteors).
b) A meteor causes extinction of Humans on Earth before 2005+x.
c) A meteor causes extinction of Humans on Earth after 2005+x, but before 2005+x+r.
d) A meteor causes extinction of Humans on Earth after 2005+x+r.
e) A meteor never causes extinction of Humans on Earth.

I'm affraid that since we've come so close to a nuclear-war and that nuclear proliferation is on the rise that situations (a),(b) or © may be the case. However I remain an optimist and hope that anyone concerned with the ethics of terraforming consider that although they may see themselves as "taking the high road" by trying to hold everyone to some imagined ethical measure, I see them as being in denial of the cruel game in which we play. It's called survival-of-the-fittest. In some ways we as Humans compete. As a species, we are on the same team, let's not sabotage ourselves but learn from the dinosaurs and act as if we are smarter.

This is my first post. Thanks for having me.

--
dk

"God will not stop the meteor."

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-08 06:16:13

Welcome Macdog and dk_.

I went to the conference in Colorado, at great personal expense, in 2000(?), and had one of the worst weeks of conflict in my entire life.

Are you sure it wasn't 1999? 2000 was in Toronto and 2001 in Palo Alto.

Anyway, I know of what you speak, they can be a bit contentious if you stray too far from the accepted "vision". I feel your pain, fellow heretic.

Which isn't to say I agree with you on this issue, quite the opposite actually. As far as I'm concerned any celestial body we can reach that isn't inhabited by beings capable of comprehending the peril they face is ours to do with as we see fit. Mars, whether a lifeless rock or a frozen nest of microbes is more valuable to us terraformed than not. We do it on Earth all the time, altering our enviroment to suit our needs is just something we do, our natural behavior.

Humanity is part of nature, we aren't the only creature that builds tools and exploits its surroundings, we simply do it far better and on a grander scale. And we expand. Depending on one's perception, humanity remaking Mars is natural.

On a more basic level, if humanity can never live on other worlds and never make any use of them, what's the point? An abstract longing for scientific knowledge will only go so far and rarely is science pursued for its own sake. It's all in application.

Palomar · 2005-03-08 06:39:27

Humanity is part of nature, we aren't the only creature that builds tools and exploits its surroundings, we simply do it far better and on a grander scale.

*Yes, and often in a positive fashion.

But can't forget that humans can also be incredibly destructive and self-destructive, outmatching anything Mother Nature and her other children can do.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-08 06:52:50

But can't forget that humans can also be incredibly destructive and self-destructive, outmatching anything Mother Nature and her other children can do.

I don't think I'd even go that far. Earthquakes, storms or volcanoes alone can equal or surpass anything humanity can dole out. Perhaps we're reaching the point of being as destructive as nature in certain capacities but not moreso.

But we can schedule the mayhem if we do it ourselves, and timing is often everything.

Palomar · 2005-03-08 07:31:54

I don't think I'd even go that far. Earthquakes, storms or volcanoes alone can equal or surpass anything humanity can dole out. Perhaps we're reaching the point of being as destructive as nature in certain capacities but not moreso.

*At the height of the Cold War, when the USSR and US were armed to the teeth, this planet could have been completely and utterly destroyed by man-made nuclear weapons in less than 15 minutes.

Nothing which *Earth's* natural processes have done nor can do, could outmatch that (again, I'm referring to Earth's natural processes [as opposed to asteroid or comet impact]).

--Cindy

karov · 2005-03-08 07:45:04

Which isn't to say I agree with you on this issue, quite the opposite actually. As far as I'm concerned any celestial body we can reach that isn't inhabited by beings capable of comprehending the peril they face is ours to do with as we see fit. Mars, whether a lifeless rock or a frozen nest of microbes is more valuable to us terraformed than not. We do it on Earth all the time, altering our enviroment to suit our needs is just something we do, our natural behavior.
Humanity is part of nature, we aren't the only creature that builds tools and exploits its surroundings, we simply do it far better and on a grander scale. And we expand. Depending on one's perception, humanity remaking Mars is natural.
On a more basic level, if humanity can never live on other worlds and never make any use of them, what's the point? An abstract longing for scientific knowledge will only go so far and rarely is science pursued for its own sake. It's all in application.

Yes, I agree completely.
Not only there are "other creatures" making tools and changing their environment, but indeed the life is nothing else but transformation of the environment. See "Generalized life" by Gerome Rothstein: http://www.bigear.org/vol1no2/life.htm] … 2/life.htm

The life in general IS instability in the total thermodynamical flow. In general life means also intelligence - just because every life or life-like process in any substrate is information processing. Intelligence possesses every 'creature' or sistem that "can acquire and apply information".

Terraforming a planet is nothing more innatural than: ants making colony, beavers making waterdam, dutch making polder, a snail 'destroing the natural balance of the chemical elements', and collecting calcium to produce a shell or living cell which moves forcibly protons in and out through the membrane... Physically speaking there isn`t principle and essential difference between the organs and biological systems and subsystems, and the manmade tools and technologies. Clothing also is pointed toward 'altering the environent to siut our needs"... A man/woman dressed in pressurized space-suit is the same thing as providing a planet with brethable atmosphere and artificial ecosystem as standart-humans` life-support - the difference is just in the scale ( litters and kilos and wats in the first case -- teratonnes/terrawats in the second...)

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-08 07:47:16

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/19 … html]Super volcanoes

"Climatologists now know that Toba blasted so much ash and sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere that it blocked out the sun, causing the Earth's temperature to plummet. Some geneticists now believe that this had a catastrophic effect on human life, possibly reducing the population on Earth to just a few thousand people. Mankind was pushed to the edge of extinction... and it could happen again."

The outcome of an eruption of this sort or a full nuclear exchange would be similar. Neither would be likely to wipe out all life, human or otherwise, but either would come pretty damn close.

Palomar · 2005-03-08 08:05:32

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/19 … html]Super volcanoes
"Climatologists now know that Toba blasted so much ash and sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere that it blocked out the sun, causing the Earth's temperature to plummet. Some geneticists now believe that this had a catastrophic effect on human life, possibly reducing the population on Earth to just a few thousand people. Mankind was pushed to the edge of extinction... and it could happen again."
The outcome of an eruption of this sort or a full nuclear exchange would be similar. Neither would be likely to wipe out all life, human or otherwise, but either would come pretty damn close.

*The Earth "bounced back," though. Just as it did with the snowball glaciation thing.

Fact is, mankind could have -- 20 years ago -- easily reduced the entire planet to a pile of rubble. A small "asteroid belt" between Mars and Venus.

No "bouncing back" then.

Nothing of Earth's own processes could accomplish that. Nature is neither benevolent nor malevolent, it simply IS...unlike mankind, who can be quite malevolent.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-08 08:11:24

Fact is, mankind could have -- 20 years ago -- easily reduced the entire planet to a pile of rubble. A small "asteroid belt" between Mars and Venus.

No we couldn't have. If the entire Soviet and American nuclear were deployed they would have killed the vast majority of life on the planet, shrouded the globe in radioactive filth and most likely ended human civilization (and quite possibly the species for that matter) but the planet would still be intact. In time it would have recovered. We don't have the means to actually blow up the world.

Arguing about what destroys everything better, what a way to start the day.

Palomar · 2005-03-08 08:28:46

Fact is, mankind could have -- 20 years ago -- easily reduced the entire planet to a pile of rubble. A small "asteroid belt" between Mars and Venus.
No we couldn't have. If the entire Soviet and American nuclear were deployed they would have killed the vast majority of life on the planet, shrouded the globe in radioactive filth and most likely ended human civilization (and quite possibly the species for that matter) but the planet would still be intact. In time it would have recovered. We don't have the means to actually blow up the world.

*That's not what I've heard and read.

Arguing about what destroys everything better

Um...actually I'm not talking about "what destroys everything better." (Nature can't debase and degrade itself the way we humans can, IMO)

Another difference between Nature and mankind is that Nature can destroy, but there is a cycle to the destruction: Creation follows.

Mankind can -- and often does -- simply destroy. Sometimes destruction is an unintended consequence via unintentional miscalculations or honest mistakes, etc...but also is sometimes done deliberately or out of sheer spite and/or for "the pleasure" of seeing something destroyed.

Why is this? I don't know. But I've observed it myself.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-08 08:38:40

Um...actually I'm not talking about "what destroys everything better." (Nature can't debase and degrade itself the way we humans can, IMO)

I know, just trying to introduce a bit of levity into what is becoming an oddly contentious topic. Didn't fly, I see.

As for a cycle in nature's destruction vs. humanity's, it's all just an issue of perception. A forest burns and it's nature, a city burns and it's man. Yet in both cases other life very quickly takes root and the cycle continues. Nuclear weapons take it up a level with other mass-extinction events. The cycle takes longer to bear out but it stills goes on.

Not that I advocate a free-nuke attitude or anything, just saying that we have yet to surpass what nature can already do.

But humanity is obviously more willful about the destruction part of the cycle at times.

Palomar · 2005-03-08 08:57:22

As for a cycle in nature's destruction vs. humanity's, it's all just an issue of perception.

*I disagree. I don't think it is a matter of perception but rather a matter of fact.

A forest burns and it's nature, a city burns and it's man.

Could be that the forest burns because someone forgot to/didn't adequately snuff out their cigarette and the city burns because of a lightning strike on an untreated wooden surface.

Human actions can be random (maybe the cigarette-smoking forest traipser honestly thought he/she had put out the cigarette) OR can be volitional/deliberate: "I want to start a fire and see the firetrucks come screaming in, reporters flocking to the scene, people in despair and maybe get on TV."

Nature simply is -- and acts within a cycle.

I don't mean to be contentious, I simply disagree with you. Mankind likes to think of itself as -greater- than Nature. Just another grandoise delusion, IMO.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-03-08 09:05:34

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if no one is there to hear it?

Perception imbues reality. Nature is, nothing more. Cycles are the perception of reality in a linear sequence of events.

Nature dosen't understand what it is doing, it just does it. Mankind has the ability to understand actions, and the consquences, which allow us to measure and compare various states of exsistence and then apply a value judgement. There is no value judgement in nature.

What's a painting? A blank canvas covered in pigments that reflect various spectrums of light into a coherent, or incoherent whole, whose interpretation results in an observation of something other than the individual parts.

Bleh. Paint Mars.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-08 09:13:15

I don't mean to be contentious, I simply disagree with you. Mankind likes to think of itself as -greater- than Nature. Just another grandoise delusion, IMO.

Agreed, in fact it's my entire point. Whether it's bees building a hive or humans building a skycraper, both are equally natural. The more I consider it, the less distinction there is. We're just better at it and we have a tremendous collective ego, making it hard to see that we're following the same basic patterns as the lowly ant.

A forest fire may start because some human drops a cigarette. It's far worse than it needs to be because other humans (thinking themselves separate from nature) make laws preventing old dead wood from being removed, giving the fire fuel to burn hotter and stronger. We put out the flames and build houses, as the ants and termites and bees do alongside us.

Terraforming Mars would be essentially the same. A group of social animals using raw materials to build a home in which to produce more of themselves.

Palomar · 2005-03-08 09:24:31

We're just better at it

*Not necessarily.

and we have a tremendous collective ego

No disagreement there.

making it hard to see that we're following the same basic patterns as the lowly ant.

Ah, the lowly ant. One of the hardest-working, most highly organized and resourceful of Earth's critters. Would you believe a king once wrote in high praise of the ant?

There are a few more comments I could make, but this will do I suppose (we still don't see as eye-to-eye on this as you seem to indicate you think we do).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-08 09:27:31

There are a few more comments I could make, but this will do I suppose (we still don't see as eye-to-eye on this as you seem to indicate you think we do).

I don't know about eye-to-eye but I suspect almost half the disagreement is miscommunication.

But in either case, I stand down.

dk_ · 2005-03-08 11:08:23

But can't forget that humans can also be incredibly destructive and self-destructive, outmatching anything Mother Nature and her other children can do.
--Cindy

Using our self-destructive history (cold war) as an excuse to not become Earth-Independent is just as detrimental to our future as a species as our self-destructivism itself.

Every year we waste distracting ourselves, the more likely we won't make it in time.

Palomar · 2005-03-08 11:30:24

But can't forget that humans can also be incredibly destructive and self-destructive, outmatching anything Mother Nature and her other children can do.
--Cindy
Using our self-destructive history (cold war) as an excuse to not become Earth-Independent is just as detrimental to our future...

*Hi dk:

You're new here.

Please don't make assumptions about my overall points of view, because frankly you're not familiar with them.

I am PRO-space exploration/colonization. And I'm not making any "excuses" to stay Earth-bound, as most folks who have been here for years can attest to (I don't pay Mars Society dues annually for the heck of it).

We can go into space and still admit our destructive tendencies. That way we can AVOID destructive tendencies in the future, which was my original point.

Don't presume to know a stranger, okay? Especially not based on a mere 4 or 5 posts out of over 7000, over a nearly 3-year time period.

Thanks.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-08 11:36:12

But can't forget that humans can also be incredibly destructive and self-destructive, outmatching anything Mother Nature and her other children can do.
I don't think I'd even go that far. Earthquakes, storms or volcanoes alone can equal or surpass anything humanity can dole out. Perhaps we're reaching the point of being as destructive as nature in certain capacities but not moreso.
But we can schedule the mayhem if we do it ourselves, and timing is often everything.

Even Lord Vlork cannot summon the power of a supernova!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-26 01:06:19

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#2 2005-02-26 02:47:45

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#3 2005-02-26 05:38:38

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#4 2005-02-26 06:49:12

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#5 2005-02-26 07:34:51

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#6 2005-03-02 19:53:11

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#7 2005-03-07 21:20:38

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#8 2005-03-08 06:16:13

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#9 2005-03-08 06:39:27

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#10 2005-03-08 06:52:50

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#11 2005-03-08 07:31:54

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#12 2005-03-08 07:45:04

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#13 2005-03-08 07:47:16

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#14 2005-03-08 08:05:32

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#15 2005-03-08 08:11:24

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#16 2005-03-08 08:28:46

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#17 2005-03-08 08:38:40

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#18 2005-03-08 08:57:22

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#19 2005-03-08 09:05:34

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#20 2005-03-08 09:13:15

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#21 2005-03-08 09:24:31

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#22 2005-03-08 09:27:31

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#23 2005-03-08 11:08:23

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#24 2005-03-08 11:30:24

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

#25 2005-03-08 11:36:12

Re: Better Red but not Dead - my experience

Board footer