Red Views

Stu · 2001-09-09 06:52:22

Whilst I admire the enthusiasm, intellect and expertise of people who wish to see, and participate in, the terraformation of Mars, I have to nail my colours to the mast here and declare that I am absolutely *against* terraforming, on various grounds. I also firmly believe that the for/against argument itself is actually as pointless as it is interesting, because we are never going to terraform Mars anyway... ("ooh, controversial!" I heard someone gasp... ;-) )

Okay, well here goes... I guess someone had to be the first to open this can of worms... ;-)

Why am I against? Well, for one thing I believe we - that's Mankind - have a duty to preserve the natural, primal "redness" of Mars, the same "magnificent desolation" of the place that drew ALL of us Mars enthusiasts to the planet in the first place. Let's face it, none of us are here because we saw pics from Viking or Pathfinder and thought "What a cool place to turn into a second Earth!" No, we saw them and were amazed and entranced by the landforms, the planet's canyons, craters, valleys and volcanoes... we imagined ourselves standing under that pink/caramel sky, watching two bone-white moons arc overhead, and wondered what it would be like to look up at the far summit of O Mons, or down into the foggy depths of Marineris. We fell in love with the martian landscape as it IS, as it has BEEN for aeons... not as we imagine it would be after we had drowned it and eroded it and covered it with lichen, moss and yellow grass.

We love Mars and are hypnotised by it BECAUSE it's so rugged, barren and different to Earth, surely? And if terraforming would change the very nature of the planet, its physical appearance, its environment and landscapes, then we shouldn't do it, just as we shouldn't - and no-one would ever suggest! - building a bridge over Yosemite Valley or the Grand Canyon, or spraying the white wastes of Antarctica green. Mars should be left as it is, if only for aesthetic reasons.

But that's not enough of a reason on its own, I know, and as deep-stained a Red as I am I acknowledge that we need other reasons to stop terraforming... so how about Life?

Many scientists are now convinced that it's only a matter of time until we find life on Mars, either underground or on the surface itself, sheltering in oases. If and when we find life on Mars then all talk of terraforming sill have to stop, because we will have discovered something scientifically priceless - alien life, on our own celestial doorstep! We will have to dedicate years, probably generations of study to it to learn abaolutely everything about it that we can, and that will mean protecting and preserving not just its local environment but the whole planetary environment too. Following the discovery of martian life Mars will become a scientific preserve, a "White Mars" if you like. And any exploration which follows will have to take into account the Rights of the martian life, and its well-being and preservation.

With all due respect to Mr Zubrin, no, we can't just go to Mars and bulldoze over any microbes we found there, we'll have to pause, think about the implications of the discovery, and then make sure that the lifeforms, however primitive, however basic, are protected and preserved. After all, we might well be related to them if the panspermia advocates are right.

But all that's academic, because the timescale of terraformation is just so long that a) no Govt, not even a *World* Govt, would be willing to initiate such a program when there would be no hope of anyone signing the initial cheques seeing its completion. Politicians want pay-back eventually, glory or financial. b) It will require the commitment of such an enormous amount of resources that ensuring their continuous supply will be impossible. c) The Law of Averages says that long before terraformation of Mars is complete, Earth will be threatened by a potentially life-extinguishing asteroid, and all available resources will have to be diverted to dealing with it (of course, many will argue that terraforming and then colonising Mars would be a way of ensuring Mankind's survival if such a situation was to present itself, and if we could come up with a way of greening Mars - and migrating a million or so people to it without inventing a whole new method of spacecraft propulsion - overnight then yes, I'd agree, but it will take Too Long... for the next couple of centuries any martian colony will rely on Earth for at least *some* essential supplies, if only people, and chances are high we'll have to deflect or destroy an impactor during that time, so terraforming isn't going to solve our immediate problems).

We can't preserve the future and destiny of Mankind by terraforming Mars, or even by *going* to Mars. We can only do that, for now at least, by protecting Earth's fragile environment, repairing what damage we can, making sure we do no *more* damage, and initiating a serious SkyWatch program, to make sure that we've enough advance warning of the arrival of any incoming "planet killer" asteroids that we can at least try to do something about it.

... and then the killer...

d) the timescale involved is just so long, maybe tens of thousands of years (to do it Right I mean, not just make Mars "survivable" with face masks and suits etc) that by the time we're able to actually live, rather than survive on Mars, we'll have developed starflight and may be discovering already-Earthlike worlds which need no terraformation, so greening Mars will be pointless anyway. You don't start building a house from scratch when there's an empty one down the street just waiting to be moved into, do you? ;-)

But there's another reason why I don't think terraforming will happen - the martians themselves won't want it. And by "martians" I mean the people born ON Mars in the future.

Put yourself in their insulated boots. Would you want a panel of Terran scientists, politicians and engineers giving the go-ahead for the systematic vandalisation of *your* Homeworld? If you'd grown up with - and come to adore - the planet's thin air, pink sky, orange plains and wide open red spaces would you sit back and just let people on the other side of the Solar System destroy it? Even if they claimed it was for "the good of Mankind"? Wouldn't you fight tooth, nail and claw to preserve the epic landscapes you'd explored and photographed and sketched since you were a child?

No. By the time terraformation becomes a practical possibility, Mars will, I am sure, have a very active environmental movement ("Redpeace"? "MarsFirst?" RedMars"?) dedicated, passionately, to preserving and protecting the unique nature of the planet. They will already have established "Planetary Parks" on Mars, securing legal protection for areas of soutstanding scientific or historical importance, such as the landing sites of 20th century spaceprobes, the landing site of the first manned mission etc, and there will be individuals on Mars just as fiercely protective of its landscapes and character as any which exist on Earth today.

A century after the first manned landing on Mars, the Red Planet will have its own native-born John Muir. And if you think he, or she, is just going to just sit by and let Terran bureaucrats drown Mars just to relieve population pressures on Earth... or, more likely, just because it *can* be done, as a scientific and engineering adventure... then you're wrong. ;-)

So, without any offence to pro-terraforming members - as I said, I have nothing but admiration for your skill, knowledge and expertise, and I believe your intentions are good too - I'm with Ann Clayborne on this one. Keep Mars Red. Even when we eventually have the toold to turn it green and blue, that doesn't mean we automatically have the Right to.

After all, if we go to Mars and change it, then it won't *be* Mars anymore, will it?

Stu

Amateur Philosopher · 2001-09-12 21:16:47

Well, as long as the can of worms is open, I might as well help pry the opening a little wider!

I'm one of those in favor of terraforming, although more in a "soft" manner; by this, I mean that terraformation of Mars is not something that I think Has To Happen, no matter what's in the way; rather, I think, in general, that it would be a good thing to happen, but I understand that there are cases where it shouldn't be done, at least not in the sense we think of it.

In particular, the point you make about native Martian life is one I'm sympathetic to; if any is discovered, then there is a moral obligation to ensure that it doesn't come to harm because of human activity. Terraforming, of course, would probably upset whatever relationship Martian life would have with its current environment, and at advanced stages, would involve such a number of Earth organisms that native forms may very well be outcompeted. (If they're closely related enough to Earth life, I suppose that they might actually assimilate into the new biosphere; after all, Mars is home ground for them, and they might survive. But I don't think it's too likely.)

So, I agree, if life is there, terraformation shouldn't be undertaken. Human settlement, perhaps, if doing so doesn't damage or disturb the natives.

On the other hand, if there's no life there... if it can be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty that Mars is lifeless, or has life (say, deep in the crust) that is not likely to be vastly affected, I fully support terraformation, if it can be done.

Now, mind, this doesn't mean that there isn't a certain beauty to Mars as it is. Indeed, the first thing that got me interested in the planet were Viking's pictures from the surface... the pinkish sky, the red, rocky lands surrounding. I thought it was one of the most wonderful sights I'd ever seen. And yes, its ruggedness, its desolation, are the things that draw us there.

But humans, I think, once they ARE drawn there, once they get there, will slowly come to lose that sense of wonder. Mars, as you said, is different, and that moves us to go see it... but if colonists arrive on Mars, and stay for x number of generations, it's going to stop being different. They'll become used to it, and they'll marvel less and less about how beautiful it all is, and more and more about how their lives might be made easier, how they might be brought that much farther from mere subsistence on a cold, harsh world. And terraforming will be one of those ways, even if it has to be done little bit by little bit, if that's what it takes to make it affordable. It's a sad idea, perhaps, but people being people... oh, undoubtedly, there will indeed be those who wish to preserve it all, but it seems to me that such individuals arise a bit late. After all, human beings have been messing with

Unfortunately, I can't provide much of a rebuttal for the more 'practical' issues; it ain't my cup of tea, so to speak. Whether or not the period of terraformation can be made more reasonable, I can't say; although I submit my (admittedly comical-sounding) opinion that colonizing worlds in the meantime that don't need terraforming is cheating. We should make our own worlds, not hijack others if they have such a high level of complexity, but that's just my view...

Oh, drat. Er... well, my Internet time for the night's almost up anyway. I guess I'll end my bit here. Just to let it be said, though, I'm glad someone decided to bring up the topic... thanks much, Stu!

John Creighton · 2001-09-13 13:52:07

Why do people like old things? Does preserving an antique coach give people a tie to the past? If we preserve what is old and what existed before, will in make us feel as we are contacted to something eternal. Could doing something for the future also have the same psychological effects? If we are the guardians of a way of life, does it mean our way of life will live beyond our short lives. Is the essence of our life, the possessions we have, the city we lived in and the customs we follow. Is the essence of our lives, our corpse, is it the work we contribute the knowledge held by man kind?

With our without people we cannot save the Martian landscape. The Martian landscape represents an infentessimal unit of space, in the vast Mosaic making up the history of our Universe. The rights of the landscape will be violated as they have always been through the history of our solar system. Still, there is the academic question, "If something occurs in nature does it make it right?". Or to rephrase it, "If nature constantly destroys the pristine in favor of the new is it right for man to do the same?

John Creighton · 2001-09-13 14:04:52

In my opnion too much time is spent thinking about why we shouldn't make our lives better. If terreforming is in our interests, one would think it would make sense to presue it. To choose a state of being that will make us less happy seems illogical without good reason.

Stu · 2001-09-20 15:26:20

Being against terraforming isn't about being against changing Mars and its landscape just because it's old. It's about wanting to protect it, yes, but because of its nature, its identity, because it's special and unique. I'm not Red because I'm against Change full stop. I'm Red because I'm against changing Mars. Huge difference.

Now, it might make me a hypocrite admitting this, but I don't want to protect and preserve every piece of ye olde real estate in the solar system. If this was the year 2101 I wouldn't be desperate to go start hugging asteroids and trying to bond with their ancient carbonaceous spirits; I wouldn't be laying down on the floor of the Moon's Tycho crater, or at the foot of the Straight Wall, singing "We shall overcome" in defiance of approaching LunaCorps bulldozers. Why? Because this isn't just about age, about protecting something because it's old. I admit it, it's purely personal . The asteroids, the Moon, they don't move me in the same way Mars does.

I'm no environmental crusader, I don?t put stone above people, or people's needs, as a matter of principle. No, this is about the way I felt when I was ten, and saw those Viking 1 pictures on the TV news, about the bond I felt with the planet then, and about how that bond has strengthened since then. This is about me seeing, in Mars, a place that deserves - if not demands - to be preserved and protected, in all its stark, barren, sharp-edged, deep-shadowed, pink-skied, twin-mooned glory, for future generations, so they too can feel the same excitement I did when I sat in front of that TV and thought "What an amazing place?"

( But anyway, what's wrong with wanting to protect and preserve something just because it's old? Why would that be a bad thing? There's nothing wrong with getting sentimental over a gnarled tree, or a hideous painting, just because they're old. Beauty? eye of the beholder, etc?)

Let me try and explain this a bit better, by recounting something of a Fast Forward time step experience I had last week, when I was up in the Scottish Highlands, treating myself to a week-long vacation in Fort William and then on the Isle of Mull. Truly one of the planet's most magical, hypnotising places. On the Tuesday - that ghastly Tuesday we will all remember the rest of our lives - I took a bus out of Fort William to a place called "Nevis Range", a kind of visitor centre at the foot of a mountain called Aonoch Mor, one of Ben Nevis' neighbours. A cable car ride ferries people to and from a lodge near the top, from where stunning views of the Highlands are available. So, accompanied by my ever faithful digital camera, I climbed into my worryingly-small gondola car and began the ascent. It was a wonderful ride to the top? not that much swaying really? and the view from the deck of the lodge was just spectacular: lochs on all sides, glittering and glistening in the low sun's light? mountains blurred and softened to purple by the mist? grey clouds tumbling overhead, splitting open every now and again to allow shafts of sunlight to lance down onto me and my fellow sightseers, bathing the forests and glens and hills beneath us in almost amber-hued light? just spectacular. I'll email you pics if you ask nicely. :-)

But while I was up there, bathing in the utter glory of it all, I couldn't help wondering if Mars would ever be like that. "Maybe", I wondered, as I sat on a huge boulder, some distance away from the bustling lodge, "one day Olympus Mons would be just like this?" Maybe in 100 years time there'd be makeshift cable cars snaking up and down its slopes..? Not necessartily for tourists, it might be too early for that, but certainly for colonists, scientists and settlers taking a well-deserved break from the daily struggles of life on the Red Frontier. It seemed more than feasible to me: quietly- and lovingly-built small lodges at the bottom of the steep wall and at regularly-spaced intervals from there up to the caldera summit, at specially-selected viewpoints. A pretty amateur operation, with probably no more than two people per cable car (the size of EVA gear would dictate that), and at each stop there'd be a chance for people to get out, stretch their legs and admire the view, taking holos for the folks back home. At the very top, a larger lodge with a pressurised area for people to take off their helmets and suits and enjoy a walk around in air-conditioned, 1 atmosphere comfort, enjoying at the same time unparallelled views of "Mars Below". Telescopes in observation blisters would allow visitors to zoom-in on features below, and on objects in the night sky above. A whole set of traditions would follow people from terrestrial mountain summits, like Aonoch Mor, to Mons Caldera - you'd have to send an email from the top, specially "marked" with a "Sent from the highest point on Mars" e-postmark, and of course you'd have to have your picture taken, leaning over the railing, gazing down at the world far, far below? :-)

And 100 years after that? Then we can imagine tourism, with more, and bigger lodges, souvenir shops, fast food stops, and hordes of people scurrying between them, going up and down the mountain like the Grand Old Duke Of York's men, leaving behind them damaged footpaths, litter, garbage and mess. No doubt the martian equivalent of our "mountain bikes" would be rattling along all the paths, kicking up dust and eroding the surface with their wide, wire wheels, swerving in and out of the path of scared walkers? Not hard to imagine how "old timers", first generation martians, would stand on the balconies, surveying all this, and the changing landscape, with sad eyes, sighing wistfully "I remember when all this was bare rock, as far as the eye could see?"

? and 500 years later? Maybe terraforming will have started then, and Olymous Mons' slopes will be covered in hardy Alpine grasses and tall, needle-like fir trees? Almost certainly by then many of the original cable cars and their towers will have been discarded and dumped, toppled to make way for faster,. Sleeker transportation systems, left on the slopes to rust away, looking like bizarre metal sculptures? The Summit Lodge would sell holo-postcards, souvenir mugs and VR programs and "I'm The King Of The World!" sweatshirts. (And over there, on the counter look - Olympus Mons mint cake?)

? and what the heck has all this got to do with terraforming?!

Well, that mountain, Aonoch Mor, had, in effect, been terraformed. It had been changed, altered, tames, purely to make its top more accessible to visitors who didn't have the patience, time or personal commitment to walk up to it.

And that's what terraforming is about - not about "bringing a planet to life", or "preserving the species", nothing nearly as noble, it's just about making Mars more accessible. Terraforming Mars wouldn't give us Earth v2, or even Earth v1.5. Yes, we can make Mars' plains green, cover them with grass and forests; we can make water flow across its parched surface again; we can paint its samon-pink sky blue and airbrush clouds above our heads? but we can't make Mars FEEL like Earth. We can't boost the gravity! We can't make the grass or trees grow or behave like they do here on Earth. We can't make water flow and gurgle like it does here on Earth. All those things will be different, you see!

So yes, maybe terraforming Mars would give us a planet where we could live out in the open air, without masks etc, but let's not kid ourselves that it would still be Mars. It wouldn't. It would be "Disney Mars", a theme park where people weren't quite on Earth, and weren't quite on Mars either, but on an inbetween world where nothing was real or what it should be. People from Earth would feel, instinctively, in their guts, that the trees "were wrong", the sky "was wrong", the rivers and streams and lakes and oceans "were wrong". And the natives would look at the changes taking place around them and feel a growing anger that their planet, their Home, was being changed, and just because it was possible. Terraforming isn't - and is never going to be - essential for the survival of the humen race. It would take too long, cost too much, be too risky, to ever be viewed as that. Terraforming would not be a Great Adventure, nor a survival strategy. It would just be the biggest Science Fair project in history.

We can live on Mars without changing it too much - I'm not so na?ve to think we can avoid changing it at all - and without robbing it of its unique identity. We can live underground, if we have to. We can live in domed-over craters, green and gold biospheres scattered over the surface like splashes of liquid jade and amber, leaving the surrounding countryside untouched, available to be enjoyed by everyone. If we have to terraform - and the only, ONLY justifiable reason for doing so would be to ensure the human race's survival, not just to satisfy the whim of restless scientists or engineers - we could restrict its effects/damage to low altitudes, leaving the high places clean. After all, if we terraform Mars, we lose so much it would be planetary vandalism. We would lose the fascinating, shadowed depths of Marineris. We would lose the fascinating outflow channels. We would lose the layer-cake slopes of the polar ice caps. We would lose everything about Mars that makes it Mars.

Imagine the outcry, the sheer outrage which would follow if people went to Antarctica and started to paint its glaciers and icebergs red, blue or green? Try and imagine the shouts of dismay if someone suggested sculpting a huge macDonalds "golden arch" into the sheer rock face of Yosemite's El Capitan. Would we stand for it? Of course not. Will the future people of Mars - the Natives - stand by and watch as white-coated Dr Zarkhovs from Earth begin to drown their beloved deserts and valleys, cover their towering volcanoes in blankets of alien plants, ####, even change the colour of their sky? Of course they won't. So we can argue the pros and cons here all we want, but in the end this isn't going to be up to us, it's going to be up to the Children of Mars.

Which gives me hope. Hmm, maybe cable cars up and down Olympus Mons are inevitable, but I'm thinking maybe any Summit Lodge wouldn't actually be at the summit, because the top quarter of the ancient volcano would have been declared a Martian Wilderness Park some time earlier by "Mars Heritage", the organisation set-up to protect the martian environment and landscape. The caldera would have been placed under a Protection & Preservation Order, kept raw and bare by MH staff and volunteers, even to the point of clearing-away any lichen or life that had taken root there after being blown up the mountain by the strong updraughts from the greening world below. Up on the Summit people would be able to still see at least some of Mars as it was - red, rocky, raw - by stepping into the shadow of one of the huge boulders scattered around the caldera rim, blotting out the rest of the world?

Here on Earth we preserve, rightly, temples, cathedrals, forests, statues, works of art, so that our descendants can enjoy them as we have done. Maybe just being on Mars will "violate the landscape". But we can limit the damage we do - and make sure that the Mars we fell in love with, the Mars which inspired us all to buy books, attend conferences, surf websites and the rest, is still there to inspire and excite and bewitch the generations yet to come.

Stu

Stu · 2001-09-22 12:33:38

Re Poll timescales

Firstly, thanks Adrian, for setting-up that poll, it'll be interesting and informative to find out just what level of interest in / demand or support for Terraforming there is out there in New Mars Forum land. ;-)

For the record - and in the hope of establishing my credentials as an open-minded Red! - I've just voted, and voted to "Terraform after colonisation and referendum". Not for "Never terraform"? Nope, not for Never terraform, because I believe, fiercely, in democracy, and I am just as much against imposing my beliefs on the future citizens of Mars - Earth- and Mars-born - as I am against other people imposing theirs, i.e. planning on initiating the terraformation of Mars asap, ignoring the as-yet-to-be-formed opinions and wishes of the people who will actually live on that planet at the crucial time. So, see? I'm not a raving Red! ;-)

But (come on, you knew there was a but coming!), as open-minded as I am, I feel I have to take issue with the timescales quoted on the Poll options. I can agree that "<10" years is an accurate definition of "Brief" (as in "? after a Brief survey"), but suggesting a survey of "<30 years" could be "Intensive"? I don't think so.

We've been exploring Earth seriously for a couple of centuries now, and, ironically, we still know less about the interiors of its rainforests, the floors of its oceans and the summits of its mountains than we do about the surface of Mars or some of Jupiter's moons. As the BBC says in its trailer for its new mega-nature series, "The Blue Planet", "So far, we've only touched the surface?" Every time a submarine dives to the ocean's blue-black depths its cameras return startling images of new, bizarre species. Every time an expedition emerges, dripping with sweat, from the heart of the Amazon they bring with them samples and specimens and photographs of new plants and species. We don't Know Earth, not properly, not yet, and we've been swarming over her surface for countless generations. To think we can expect to Know Mars in three decades is wildly optimistic at best, and delusion at worst.

Mars may well be only half Earth's size, but without oceans it has the same land area as Earth, meaning it will need many decades of detailed ground surveying - not orbital; I'm talking people on foot or in rovers, boots and wheels in the dust, making tracks, exploring, photographing, scratching and digging - before we will even be able to dare claim we "know" Mars. I believe we have a moral - and a scientific - duty to postpone the initiation of terraforming, perhaps even the serious debate about its initiation, until we can satisfy ourselves that we have seriously looked for life, poking our 21st century hi-tech sticks into every dusty nook and cranny, shining our torches into every crack and crevice to look for the hardy lichen or bacteria which so many people are so sure exist there.

If we find nothing, then fine, we start talking, start planning, but the ultimete Go/No Go decision still has to be taken by the population of a sufficiently colonised Mars, not by terrestrial bureaucrats, politicians or scientists who woudn't even be able to pick out Mars in the sky on a clear night.

But if we find it, if we find life, we halt, draw a line, and the focus of Mars research and exploration shifts to exobiology. We send scientists on the next missions, not engineers. We send a science module, not a construction shack. And we start to look at Mars shining like a red spark in the sky and instead of seeing a distant plot of real estate, ours for the taking, we see an oasis of life in an immense ocean of cold blackness, ours to protect and preserve.

In 1964, as he signed the Wilderness Act, President Lyndon B Johnson said: "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Wise words, and words which will be just as appropriate in 2164 as they were two centuries earlier, in the very year Mariner 4 took the first detailed close-up pictures of Mars, a wilderness more beautiful and more amazing than even the forward-thinking Johnson could have imagined.

I believe, personally, passionately, that we should not terraform Mars, at all. It doesn't need it. We don't need it to be, we won't need it to be in the future, we'll have other, quicker, less expensive options. The price of being able to walk in the open - still painfully thin - air without a pressure suit will be the very character of Mars itself. But I'm not saying we, the people of the troubled, infant years of the 21st century, should declare Mars off-limits. It's not our declaration to make. That decision belongs to the people of Mars, born of Mars, downstream.

I have no doubt there wil be Zubrins and McKay's a plenty on a colonised Mars. But I also have no doubt there'll be John Muirs to argue with them, and try to educate them about the glories they risk losing in the pursuit of science.

I just wish I was going to be around to listen to the debates.

Stu

natekelley · 2001-09-22 19:33:26

Stu, I couldn't agree with you less. I think that if people settle Mars, people will terraform Mars. Earth probably won't terraform Mars - Mars will. The Martians will use their resources to make their lives easier and better. If they can warm the planet, they will. The energy required to heat a Martian dwelling will make it well worth it it try to warm the whole planet.

Adrian · 2001-09-30 08:26:28

There hasn't been too much discussion of the impact of discovering (or not discovering) life on Mars would be for the decision to terraform. Joel McKinnon has a good look at these issues in his article about Martian life - I'd advise people to check it out and voice their thoughts here.

saxifrage · 2001-10-10 11:43:26

In reading Joel McKinnon's article I find that he seems to hold the viewpoint that Mars is primarily interesting because of its value to the scientific endeavor.

I say that science is such a pervasive and integral part of our modern humanity that as long as we are capable of space travel and reaching Mars, science will have no problem gleaning plenty of knowledge from the study of the red planet.

This will be true regardless of whether or not Mars is engineered on a planetary scale, or "terraformed."

I would also say that the surest way to ensure a permanent human capacity for space exploration and the study of Mars in particular is to establish a permanent independent human home on Mars. Humans can live on Mars in domed craters, tented canyons, lava tubes, and underground cities within 100 years if the technology and economy will open it up to small groups of investors and colonists. I imagine a world within 50 years where a family can invest the eqivalent of a year's income and emigrate to Mars.

Once there is an independent branch of humanity on Mars, I think it is likely they will choose to terraform the planet step by step. Firstly a magnetic field could be created by orbiting generators, making much more of the surface safe from radiation. This would have the added benefit of holding in more of the atmosphere. Additional steps might proceed from there.

The process of terraformation will take a VERY long time, however. Plenty of time to study Mars in its natural state before erosion, chemical changes, and life begin to write new chapters on the surface of Mars.

If you are red because you want science to benefit from natural Mars, then terraformation poses no threat to you. But hindering human life on Mars for fear of "changing" it too much may just prevent us from learning all we can.

sax

JGM · 2001-10-11 12:48:50

Sax talks about how terraformation will take such a very long time that there will be plenty of time to study Mars in something very close to its natural state. I believe this is largely true, but I'm still bothered about something.

When I read the Mars trilogy, I found myself mostly attracted to the Sax Russell viewpoint and found the dream of bringing Mars to life very appealing. The Anne Claiborne view struck me as contrived and obstructionist and I had a hard time relating to this perspective- despite the fact that my training is as a geologist. At some point, though, I saw it. When they were making that trek to the pole to mine the water ice I thought about that new road they were making across the virgin plains and I suddenly felt the red view. I realized that Mars is currently a perfect untouched wilderness. It's amazing to think that there is a land area out there equal to Earth's with absolutely no roads across it. The moment we build the first road on Mars we've defiled this purity. Sure, it will happen, but there is something to lament about the loss of that pure Martian essence.

That's my aesthetic objection- which is usually well-overruled by my desire to see a new world opened up in all it's glory. The scientific argument is a little different. If global terraformation is begun very early the impact on science will be significant, despite the long time scale before terraformation begins to have a noticeable effect. This is because the areas that are most interesting to life scientists are the lowest areas- the depths of Valles Marineris and low-lying craters that may have once held standing water. If life does exist in these areas it's quite possible that subtle changes to the atmospheric pressure and temperature will have a powerful effect- either by destroying this life or causing it to change dramatically to adapt to the new conditions. Life may go on- but it won't be the same life that made it through the millennia when Mars was undisturbed. I don't think the question of where that life came from should make or break the issue. If there's life that's been surviving there on its own- regardless of its origin- it is something that scientists will be screaming to study in an undisturbed state.

What happens if we find no extant life? That's when the really tough issues arise. Proving the lack of such life would be extremely difficult. It could take centuries to study all of the potential sites of extant life to clearly rule out its existence. Starting the global terraformation effort too early could easily result in a great loss to science. My gut feeling is it's best to limit terraforming to enclosed structures such as roofed over craters and lava tubes. These kinds of areas could be made Earthlike in a short time scale- decades at most. I would gladly give up the pleasure of seeing Earth algae growing unprotected on the surface of Mars for the privilege of strolling through an Earthlike settlement in shorts and a t-shirt.

Joel McKinnon

saxifrage · 2001-10-12 14:59:13

I feel the same conflict within myself when I consider the future of humans on Mars. I have grown to love Mars. But my affections for our red sister planet are driven by two seperate desires. Reconciling these views is what defines my philosophy.

The first desire is to see humanity embrace a grand vision for its future in the universe. We are a species made of the same stuff as all the other millions of species that have ever lived on our planet, yet we are the most unique and singularly significant species to have ever lived on Earth. This is, of course, because we are the species who will spread Earth life far and wide, seeding our particular family of DNA throughout the universe wherever we go. We are also the only species capable of applying brand new and complex values to phenomena that had previously been pure physics and chemistry. We take math and physics and make art and love. Based on this line of thinking, I see Mars as a test for us. Will we step outside our warm, comfortable built home and begin to explore and inhabit the cold dark universe? If so, Mars is the first big step. There we will begin to teach ourselves how to spread life throughout the universe.

The second desire is to learn all we can about Mars and its own history. What a world that has lived and evolved with complete independence from us and ours for billions of years! And only a hop, skip and a jump away! Lets go, humanity. What happened there? Were there oceans? Life? Is Mars a frozen corpse of a planet that only began to live as Earth has? What processes have dominated its history? Volcanism? Impacts? Hydrology? Mars is a beautiful natural expression of the universe just as Earth is . . . but different. And when we set foot there, when our rovers cut tracks into that soil, when we begin to pump and drink water from those aquifers, to bake and build with bricks made of the red soil . . . we will have marked an END to Mars' independent history. And I feel the pain of loss that comes from it.

I reconcile this conflict by stepping back and looking at humanity from the VERY LONG term. Will we die and cease to exist relatively soon, or will we grow, evolve and expand to spread Earth life to the whole galaxy and beyond? I choose the latter. And in this context we are just another beatiful expression of the natural universe--an arm of Earth life reaching out just as it always has.

If we could have witnessed the beautiful rocky continents of Earth billions of years ago, building and eroding over eons, we may also have mourned the loss of purity when life spread up from the ocean to smear the land. But what if it hadn't?

sax

Stu · 2001-10-14 04:12:32

A very thoughtful and eloquent posting, as usual, and there are areas where I agree with you totally (gasp!), but others where I don't.

For a start, while I agree that "conquering Mars" is certainly a test for us, and maybe - although you didn't say it in as many words - a test of our "worth" as a species, it isn't, and can't be, our *first* or most *important*, or for that matter THE reason why we go to Mars. Why? Because it's not going to work anyway, that's why. Because if we were to suddenly find a place where money did grow on trees, and used it to fund a Mars mission, and set-off in seven, eight years time, it would still be DECADES or maybe several GENERATIONS before any colony there was self-sufficient, and in that time an impactor could hit Earth and devastate or even destroy civilisation, leaving Mars Colony dead in the water - or the dust, rather. So, we can only truly protect and preserve Mankind and ensure its survival by initiating a "Project Spaceguard" -type program which would allow us to detect incoming asteroids and comets. You know me, you know that I am a great advocate of manned Mars exploration, and I'm not suggesting for a split second that we should delay going to Mars until we have a Spaceguard in place. What I am saying is that if we grandly claim that we have to go to Mars to "Safeguard Man's future" or "Preserve our civilisation and history and heritage and? etc etc?" then we're not being honest, with the public, the politicians - or ourselves. Yes, we have to preserve our species, but I can't help thinking that sending some of our bravest and finest off to a barren frozen world half-way across the Solar System without at least trying to make sure they'll have a reliable support network from home? or even a home to come back to? would be irresponsible and seriously tempting fate.

Yes, we live in a "warm, comfortable home", and it's very nice, I love it here, but until we take steps to ensure that we at least have a chance to stop our warm, comfortable home being flattened by a Texas-size chunk of space rock or ice then let's not kid ourselves that going to Mars will ensure the continuation of our proud genetic Line, or our art, history, music or anything else. Face it: we are a fragile, blue and white duck in a cosmic shooting gallery, and we're long overdue for a prize-winning pick-off from the Universe... :-/

I also think we need to stop assuming that learning how to live on the *surface* of other worlds is the prime objective. We have to learn how to live IN SPACE as a whole, not just on solid alien surfaces. And because most of those solid alien surfaces are far away - and far apart - we need to know how to live en-route to them and inbetween them, in spacecraft, space stations and habitats. We mustn't rush to Mars and rush back, cos politicians will just say "Right, been there, done that" and it'll be Apollo all over again. We have to learn how to fly to Mars regularly, reliably, and safely. Personally I'm a huge fan of the cycle-ship idea, though I know we can't use that for the first mission(s), that can only come when there's sufficient demand for such a service. But for the future I think we have to seriously consider it.

As for what you say about "Learning about Mars", yes, I agree with all your points and goals, and in a way I too mourn for what we will lose when we start to explore. And as for pumping and drinking water from aquifers, well, something Ann Clayborne said in Red Mars ( :: sigh:: I KNOW she's only a fictional character! Don't look at me like that! It's okay to quote characters from literature if what they say makes sense? someone put those words in their mouth, okay? ? ) has stuck with me as common sense: "We obtain water to allow us to explore, we don't explore just to obtain water!"

That's the philosophy we need to take to Mars - do the absolute minimum damage, make as little impact on the places we visit as possible. Of course our beach-head base will be a construction site within weeks of arrival, criss-crossed with tyre-tracks, scattered with sensors and instrument pallets and ten kinds of crap, but I know we can't avoid that, we have to live after all, and I'm not suggesting for a moment some kind of minmimalist presence on Mars when it comes to the landing site? not suggesting astronauts tip-toe away from the lander so as not to disturb any dust! ? what I am suggesting is that on our travels from the landing site we respect the land and the landscapes we will see, you know, kind of like the Wilderness Code you see on notice boards in National Parks etc, "Take only photographs, leave only footprints." Okay, so we'll take more than just photos - like a few hundred pounds of rock! - but the principle is sound.

Landing does not have to inevitably lead to Terraformation, you know? We can - and should, and I actually think will - take generations to explore Mars and study it and get to actually Know it before we even consider terraforming it, not just for the ethical and practical reasons I've already outlined in previous postings, but because I think that once we get there and people on Earth start seeing for themselves just how spectacular a place Mars is, they'll want to see more, and more. There'll be a hunger for views from the floor of Marineris, or the summit of O Mons. And I honestly think that once we get to Mars it will hit us just how hard terraforming Mars will be in practice. It's fine for us to sit here on Earth in our warm labs, running our computer-models in peace, watching Mars' atmosphere thicken and warm, and water begin to pool on the surface, but that's a Disney Mars, it's not real. We can simulate Mars "coming to life" in magnificent detail, but we can also simulate Dune-like sandworms tunnelling across Chryse, or Utopia, it doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. To terraform Mars we'll need to shift truly huge amounts of greenhouse-gas-producing hardware there, or deliver enormous amounts of algae or lichen, we're talking a daunting number of launches, and a staggering timescale, quite possibly too large a timescale for us to consider taking on.

That's why I honestly, hand on my heart believe, for all my Red views about the rights of the rock and the planet itself, that once we get there we'll realise that it's just too big a job, and will have to compromise, dome over craters and valleys and terraform enclosed areas of Mars and choose to live comfortably, and safely, in oases as soon as we can, instead of flogging our guts out in the pursuit of something which will quite possibly be out of our grasp for many many centuries. Why? Well, we're a resourceful and stubborn species, Homo Sap, but evolution has made us impatient; we want things Now, or Yesterday if possible. We just aren't comfortable thinking Long Term, we fidget and fuss and get jumpy. And when we get to Mars the people who dedicate themselves to the New World will want to breathe fresh air and drink fresh water and walk around in shirt-sleeves and shorts as soon as possible, they won't be willing to live in sweaty, locker-room smelling tin can Habs while scientists back on Earth? in their clean, warm labs? smile lovingly at their latest computer model of a terraformed Mars, ignoring the fact that the date displayed in the bottom left corner of the screen is "9000AD".

We don't - and won't - have the tech, to terraform Mars as quickly as we will want to. Or the patience to wait for it. And that is why I seriously doubt the Big T will ever happen.

And as for thinking about "The Long Term", well, while I agree with what you say about us having a duty to "spread life" if we can, I think it's wrong to take for granted the notion that it's our sole responsibility and duty to "spread Life through the galaxy" because the Galaxy is so big, and so old, that the chances are we're not the only species with that goal. Stephen Baxter covers this concept in his recent (and excellent) book, "Space". Look up on a clear summer night and you'll see the Milky Way cutting the sky in half like a broad vapour trail? it's possible that when you look along those spiral arms that there's already one or more wave-fronts of ET colonisation rippling through them, gathering speed and depth, tsunami-like? So, yes, "spreading Life" is a noble goal, but we're a young, arrogant species in an ancient, patient Galaxy, and there's a good statistical chance that there may be many ancient civilisations Out There with a good head-start on us when it comes to "spreading Life". It's frankly arrogant to assume otherwise. We can't assume that our Life is the only Life that needs, or deserves, to be spread; our "duty" may be to contribute to the great Galactic Gene Pool of Life? or merely to compete with the others, do our best. Natural Selection on a Galactic scale, you know?

But I know, there's no evidence of other civilisations, so another argument says that it is is just Us, that we are Alone? despite decades of SETI work the Fermi Paradox is alive and well? so I accept that just as we can't assume we are the only species with the ability to spread Life through the Galaxy, we can't assume we aren't, either, which brings us right back to why we go to Mars in the first place. How do we justify it, especially at a time like this?

Well, we CAN'T "justify" it - no, we can't, there just isn't an argument good enough, let's be honest about this! None of us could, ever, even if we lived to be a thousand years old, convince an African mother nursing her starving baby, or an Afghani child scrabbling in a minefield for a dropped food parcel, that we Have To Go To Mars, for this reason, or that reason. We can wax lyrical all we want about the need to preserve the species, and they'll just - justifiably - tell us to look around us and see what a godawful mess we're making of things down here, and as us why we shouldn't clean the crap out of our own yard first before going to crap in another one.

What we have to do is just give in gracefully to the fact that it?s in our nature to explore and look for new places. We are a curious species, we are never content to just stay in one place and "make the best of things", we are always drawn towards the horizon, itch to see what's over the next hill, a belief that the grass actually WILL be greener on the other side is wired into us. It's what's led to wars, and horrors, true, a primal desire to get more land, more resources, but it's helped us to survive this long. So no, we don?t have to justify going to Mars because we can't, we just can't, all we can do is obey our programming and go there because it's What We Do, we explore. We need goals, new horizons, new frontiers and challenges. Mars is our next goal, our next horizon, our next challenge.

But the greatest challenge won't be getting there, it'll be STAYING there, SURVIVING there, and we'll only be able to do that - and deserve to do that - by truly getting to Know the planet, studying it, mapping it, its resources and riches. That will take time, a lot of time, and in that time chances are we'll discover life there, and then our duty will be to stop, step back and do everything we can to protect and preserve it. I don't care how primitive or basic it is, it'll be Life, a wonderful, remarkably rare thing. And if we're serious about spreading Life through the Galaxy, if we really feel we have a duty to do that, then if we find Life on Mars we absolutely, absolutely have to stop and get to know it inside out, take as long as we need to to understand it, because if we just take a look, go "Hmm, interesting, but just a bacteria" and drive or build over it then we'll be guilty of unbelievable arrogance. We'll have made a judgement that it's not worth as much as "our" Life, that it's somehow inferior to the terrestrial Life we want to spread across the Galaxy and out into the Universe.

So yes, maybe going to Mars is a test, maybe even a test of our worth to spread Life across the Galaxy. But maybe the test isn't to see how determined we are to spread Life from Earth, it's to see how serious we are about the worth of Life itself, and how much we respect it.

Getting to Mars will be a test in itself, I agree, but once we're there the real exam will have to be sat, the really hard question will have to be answered: if we're so serious about the worth of Life, what will we do when we find it already out there?

Maybe the Galaxy, the Universe even, IS a big, dark, empty cave, and it's our duty, as a species, to bring light into that darkness and turn it green. But maybe it's our duty to protect and preserve the life that's out there already, even if it is just the most basic kind. Maybe it's our duty, our obligation, to be Gardeners, and not Construction Workers.

These are dangerous times, but we'll get through them, and one day we will go to Mars, because we have no choice, it's calling to our monkey brains and no matter how hard we press our hands against our ears we can't block it out. But when we get there, whenever that is, however that is, we'll not be content to stay there, we'll stand on its surface and think "Hmmm? where next?" and eventually move on. What we leave behind is the test. We can either leave a world worth coming back to, a unique world, or a poor copy of the world we evolved on, changed just for the sake of it, to make things easier for ourselves for a while before we found somewhere better.

If we can live on Mars, and study and explore it, without ruining it, we should. And we can.

Stu

saxifrage · 2001-10-17 12:52:46

Stu:

First you point out how even if we launched a human mission as soon as possible, we could not have self-sufficient colonies until decades later, and that in the meantime a killer rock could wipe out Earth life. I do not argue going to Mars to save our lives. I say we WILL continue to explore in the grand human tradition and eventually live on Mars, and the miniscule chances of asteroid impact in the next few decades has positively nothing to do with it. Certainly in the very long term becoming a multi-planetary civilization will help ensure our survival, but by the time that happens we will have the technology and ability to protect ourselves and our homes from asteroids and comets, regardless.

You then discuss how we need to learn about living IN SPACE, and broaden our focus from just looking at planetary surfaces.

I agree with you.

However, I strongly suspect that average humans will, for a very long time to come, hold a certain psychological and emotional desire to live on a World. Earth and Mars (and possibly the Moon) will likely meet that desire in 100 years. Regardless, this has little to do with Mars or its terraformation.

You also speak a great deal about governmental funding of crewed Mars missions and the accompanying expense. I think that the first humans on Mars will get there primarily with taxpayer money. But the colonists will only go if it is in their personal interest, and if they can afford it. This is why I imagine colonists being able to buy their own ticket, just as Europeans did when coming to America. The single largest factor there is bringing down the price of launch from Earth. Once that happens, and space commerce really booms, the rest may just be inevitable.

Ann Clayborne says: "We obtain water to allow us to explore, we don't explore just to obtain water!"

I say we do both. As I said, I am interested in Mars for its scientific payload, but my primary desire is to see humanity survive and embrace its potential in the larger universe. Mars is SO HISTORIC in this regard. It may be the first planet we change from nonliving to living by our own will. Viriditas! How many planets will bear the terranDNA stamp in 10,000 years? That is up to us.

I agree it will take generations if terraformation is to happen. But I disagree that the job will be too large. Look at the evolutionary curve of industrial output over the past 200 years. We will be able to harness the power to engineer a nascent planetary ecosystem within 100 years.

Regarding other civilizations: They may be out there seeding their own life 'round the galaxy. That's fine. But we should join the play if so, and if not then we do have an obligation to the universe as its sole known conciousness.

I'd love to write more, but I gotta catch a bus.

sax

Stu · 2001-10-18 16:12:36

Sax:

Another very thought-provoking post, thanks?

> But the colonists will only go if it is in their personal interest.
> ? and if they can afford it.
> ?I imagine colonists being able to buy their own ticket, just as Europeans did coming to America.

Hmmm, all interesting points that I'd like to comment on, and use to float a scenario or two? ;-)

What "interests" might those be? What reasons and motivations might individuals, or groups of individuals, have for wanting to go to Mars? (And I assume we're talking post Settlement-founding here, not "first citizens". )

1. POLITICAL: Perhaps some will be drawn to Mars because it would provide them with a place where they could hold, and develop, their unconventional political views and beliefs and systems, without interference from, or disapproval of, others? Perhaps they might see Mars as a place for "political asylum" if their own beliefs became dangerously unpopular on Earth? Mars might be seen as a kind of "clean slate" for these people. Or a recruiting ground.

2. RELIGIOUS: Basically the same reasons as above.

3. PERSONAL: Staying with the "clean slate" image, Mars might provide people with a "personal escape" from any one (or several) of many problems - relationship problems, financial problems, family problems. Mars might be seen by people like these as a place to make a "new start". As long as they pass the Security checks, there shouldn?t be a problem.

4. CAREER: Obviously many people will go to Mars because it's their job, or their partner's job. There will be many scientists involved in many different projects and research fields, and they'll have assistants, staff etc. But Career Settlers won't be limited to "beakers". A Settlement will need engineers, doctors, a legal team, all manner of experts and specialists. And, ::sigh:: I guess they'll even have Politicians, sooner rather than later, as relationships with Earth develop and evolve. Some politicians will travel to Mars to become Ambassadors, or Representatives, liasing between Earth and Mars. Others will want to represent various groups within the Settlement population itself. Still others might fancy themselves as Settlement President (or King! ;-) ) and will travel to Mars with very grand designs? but hopefully the only politicians we'll see in a Mars settlement will be people from the Settlement, who just want to serve, and make life on Mars better for everyone.

Oh, and let's not forget Journalists? any Mars Settlement will have to have journalists, not just to archive and record the growth of the Settlement but also to ensure, during times of strained relations between Mars and Earth, that the true story is told. Mars will be a HUGE story for a dedicated journalist - the chance to be there at the birth of what will literally be a new civilisation will be too much for many to resist, surely..?

5. PIONEERS: Ah yes, the Pioneers, can't forget them.:-) Some people will want to go to Mars for all the Zubrin-esque reasons. It represents a bold, dangerous, exciting New Frontier, a place to be challenged and defeated, a place where (cue theme music from "The Big Country"!) men can be heroes again, untamed lands can be tamed, the wilderness crossed, and broken, to forge a new? yeah, I know. But seriously, many will want to go to Mars because they will see it as a frontier, and it will literally be a New World, presenting Settlers with unique new challenges - not just scientific and engineering challenges, but social and cultural challenges, political challenges, medical and spiritual challenges too. Some will want to go because they dream of living in the Great Red, and want to wander the planet seeing as many of its spectacles as possible. Others will want to get down in the fines and build a new civilisation literally from the ground up, that will be their challenge, and their reward.

But the irony is, that the PIONEERS will probably make up the smallest part of the first groups of Settlers to set-off for Mars, simply because of the cost of the seats on the ship. Even when launch costs come down, way down, getting to Mars will still be hugely expensive because it will only make financial sense to send large ships, carrying large numbers of people. I mean, we could be talking in terms of hundreds here, because the cost of sending a dozen at a time would just be prohibitive. So, the first Settlement ships will have to be big bloated things simply because they will have to cram as many people in as possible to make it worth launching them in the first place.

But hang on a minute? What about the guys slaving away on their "X-Prize" projects? Well, personally I think that they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of doing it. I admire them greatly, there are some very dedicated, clever and passionate people around the world working on this, but they haven't got - and will never have - the power or the funds to resist the tech-poaching big businesses or agencies. And if past history is anything to go by, as soon as a viable low-cost-access-to-space technology emerges from someone's garage or basement, NASA will either buy it, or strangle it, just to maintain its monopoly on manned spaceflight capability.

And this means I think that, sadly, there will be no romantic repetition of the settlement of the US. There'll be no Martian "Oregon Trail" for (mylar?)covered wagons to rattle and roll across, no rag-tag, Battlestar Galactica-type settler fleet heading for Mars. And, as much as I love the image personally, it will be a long, long time before there are dozens of Ingalls family Little Houses on the Martian Prairie scattered over the Red Planet. Instead there will more likely be laboratories, churches, embassies and "official" buildings, because for the first couple of decades following the establishment of a Martian Settlement, the only people wanted there will have either expertise or money, and preferably both.

So if getting to Mars is going to be so damned expensive, how could it possibly be achieved by non-Governmental programs or groups?

I think the scenario outlined in Gregory Benford's excellent "The Martian Race" is possible, in as much as there are several individuals alive today with enough personal wealth to back such a venture, but I think that rather than being the pursuit of one man it is more likely to be a long-term investment by a group of several large companies - a MegaCorp if you like. Why bother? Why not leave Mars exploration to NASA or world Govts? Because a) they haven't got the money or the patience, or, let's be honest, the interest, and b) when the settlement of Mars begins, as it will, the same companies that dominate the business world here on Earth now will desperately want a presence - and influence - on Mars, on the New World. They'll want a presence, a commercial outpost or beach-head, on that new frontier. It's just sound business sense: they'll want to make sure that they're well-placed to take commercial (and political) advantage of the situations which will arise on Mars. It's basically all going to be about INFLUENCE.

Because the three basic needs of a fledgeling martian settlement will mirror the needs of a Mega-Corp Mars program and ship construction - Engineering & Construction (of Habs, spacecraft, rovers, labs etc); Communications and Data Pricessing (comms on Mars, between Mars and Earth, keeping track of Settlement systems and records etc); Medical and Life Support (again, on Mars, between Earth and Mars, etc).

Let's speculate? which huge international companies could, right now, collaborate on a Mars mission as a Mega-Corp..?

* Engineering & Construction - Boeing? McDonnel Douglas? Airbus?

* Communications and Data Processing - Microsoft?

* Medical and Life Support - no idea, sorry. Anyone any suggestions?

The key would be to keep everything INTERNAL. Avoid interference from Governments or agencies such as NASA etc.

This is why I believe that any Settlers going to Mars will be paying passengers - or, more likely, paid-for cargo - on a big, bulky, logo-covered Mega-Corp hauler.

How could this work?

Well, here's one scenario, just for fun. Let's say that tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the First Landing, and after half a dozen crewed flights there is a small Settlement on Mars, ready and eager for expansion. After months of secret meetings Boeing, Microsoft, CNN and a handful of other companies call a Press Conference and announce the formation of BMC-Mars, a Mega-Corp dedicated to "accelerating the human colonisation of Mars?" They propose to enlarge the existing scientific settlement on Mars by building a purely civilian "suburb" of several modules and Habs, inhabited by volunteers, not career scientists or astronauts. They plan on taking 50 people to Mars, in a specially designed and constructed cargo ship? and here's the killer?while half the seats are taken up with BMC-Mars employees and staff needed to run the new sub-Settlement, the other half are for sale to anyone and everyone interested?!

Of course, it's not quite that simple. For a start there's the cost: $400,000 per berth. Oh, and Settlers have to fit the criteria laid-down by BMC-Mars, they have to be useful when they get there, have skills and abilities which will benefit the Settlement, but apart from that it's a free for all!

Now, obviously that $400K is a big obstacle for people who want to go. True, it's only a fraction of the cost of a seat on an old Space Shuttle, but it's still not exactly loose change. So, BMC-Mars announce they are willing to pay the fares of people who can't afford or raise the money themselves, or can't obtain sponsorship. All the potential Settlers have to do is sign themselves over to BMC-Mars and agree to work exclusively for them, on Mars, for a ten year period. In effect, they're selling themselves for a decade. At the end of that period, the Settlers will have paid-off their passage, and are free to either stay on Mars as free citizens, or return to Earth - which would be expensive again, but terms could be agreed, surely?

How many people do you think would sign-up under these terms? Would people be willing to basically sell themselves into virtual slavery for the chance to get to Mars?

Sax also said:

> We will be able to harness the power to engineer a nascent planetary ecosystem within 100 years.

What evidence is there for this? If you're talking in purely technological terms, perhaps; we are making great leaps in that way. But I still maintain that Terraforming is unlikely, if not impossible, because of the time scale involved, and events happening right now provide us with evidence to support this claim. No one country, not even a Superpower, could terraform Mars on their own. Even the initiation of a practical Terraforming program , i.e. one with a good chance of actually succeeding, would require the formation and survival of an international - if not global - technological, political and cultural "coalition", to use the current buzz word. And, just as we are seeing with our present "coalition" against terrorism, support and enthusiasm for the ultimate goal would wax and wane as time passed and circumstances - and public opinion - changed.

I mean, look at the agonies experienced by the International Space Station - and that's a kids' science fair project, an ant farm, compared to Terraforming Mars?

And this is no good because Terraforming would be a very time-sensitive program. By that I mean that once started it would be very vulnerable to delays. Once the terraforming ball had started rolling it would have to be kept rolling, or it would grind to a halt and would take an age to get moving again. Terraforming couldn't be a stop-start project, it would have to be all or nothing, total commitment? and I just don't think that we can do that now, as a species, there are far too many conflicting interests now. Because let's face it, any individual, company, government or trading block which signed up for the Mars Terraforming Coalition would only do so if, and when, it was made clear that they'd get something back on their investment. And what would that be? There's only one thing it could be. What? Satisfaction? Don't make me laugh. Pride? Yeah, right. Honour, at having helped ensure the survival of Mankind? Per-lease! No, they'll want the same two things that all Frontier-hounds want, and have ever wanted: power, and land. They'll want power, and influence, over the way the Settlement is run, and grown. And they'll want land of their own, to fence-off, build-on and exploit once the terraforming was complete.

So, Mars will be carved-up before the first lichen have even been dropped on the poles, or the first nuke was popped under the surface to release water from the permafrost. But only carved-up amongst the richest countries? so those countries that can't afford to ride on the carousel will resent the ones that can, and maybe begin to see them as smug, and trying to escape an overcrowded and resource-robbed Earth? rats, sinking ship, you know?

Bear in mind this will all probably be happening at a time, and in a world, where terrorists had already used chemical or biological or even nuclear weapons, where world peace is shakier than ever before, and where the gulf between rich and poor is wider than ever before, too. We will only initiate a terrafoming program when we have to, when it is seen as a potential species-saving measure? and for it to be that, things will have to be pretty godawful here on Earth. There'll be resistance - vocal, and possibly worse - from people who feel the money, and time, could be better spent here on the troubled Earth.

Okay, fire away? ;-)

Stu

joncarson · 2002-01-07 11:26:56

My humble and succinct opinion:

A choice is a "good" one if it results in additional choices. That is, if it generates greater freedom for the people affected by the choice, it enables greater potential for good.

Terraforming needs to be a decision made by the Martians. All will decide in favor of it in one degree or another: after all, even a hollowed out hillside or a domed settlement is a terraformed space. Terraforming is required for humans to exist on Mars.

Planet-wide terraforming--regardless of the scheme--is likely to be incredibly slow. Increasing the atmosphere's pressure is likely to take decades if not centuries. Changing the atmosphere to a friendly O2-rich on would take 1000s. Given the time scale and the likely primitive nature of native Mars life (if it has any at all), it is probably that warmer temperatures and higher pressures would be at least neutral and probably favorable to indigenous bacteria. (Enzymes work faster when it is warm.) If not, mutation and natural selection would produce variants of Martian life to fill the new niches that arise during terraforming.

Worries about us contaminating Mars are pretty moot. It WILL happen the second humans visit. It's probably already happened when space probes attempted landings there. It's likely to have happened throughout geologic history as meteors between our two worlds cross-pollinated one another.

In the final analysis, since Martian critters are probably from Earth anyway (and vice versa), terraforming creates more options not only for human settlers but for life, itself. Thus it is likely to be a good thing. But it should be a decision made for and by humans, not influenced by spores of archaebacteria.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-07 11:56:56

Uh oh. I remember this thread. My posts were paragraphs long. I went from discussing how Mars was once warm and tropical to accusing Stu of what I called, ?Planetary Necrophilia.?

A choice is a "good" one if it results in additional choices. That is, if it generates greater freedom for the people affected by the choice, it enables greater potential for good.

I totally agree! Terraformation is the ultimate freedom, because there is nothing more free than air! No one ever discusses what would happen if someone had control over the air supplies (and someone would have to control air supplies and life support systems). No one discusses how not terraforming could (would) lead to resource hogging (there is no demand if supply is high, so demand will have to be simulated by securing resources).

This is truely the one reason terraforming is going to happen.

Anyway, the current global warming trend on Mars is not reversable. The temperature is rising, perhaps we need not add anything to the mix.

Bill White · 2002-01-09 21:27:51

A question for Stu and fellow "Reds"

Suppose you learned about a group here on Earth that had decided to fund human travel to Mars, however, their intention was to build permanent human settlements as soon as feasible, enlarge those settlements as fast could be done safely, and that they intended to promote maximum immigration to Mars along with seeking the highest possible birthrates - restricted only by their ability to expand life suport and food production facilities with Martian resources.

Suppose these people have no inherent objection to preserving Mars as Mars, except to the extent it interferes with population growth.

Would you actively oppose such a group being given governmental permission or assistance with such plans?

Would you work actively to stop such a program?

Would you seek to persuade them to adopt a more Red Mars mentality, but still encourage and cheer for the early missions?

Bill White

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-10 22:17:43

Ecopoesis can be accomplished in a matter of decades. It is by far the most important part of terraforming. I am completely in favor of this, but full transformation of the atmosphere to oxygen is indeed such a long term endevour that I recommend either

A. Bring the timescale down to within a human lifetime
B. Adapt people

Now, A might at first sound completely absurd. How is that possible, one asks? Well, two reasons. One, the human lifetime is of course increasing, and if we discover a method of drastically slowing down aging it could well expand to several centuries, or perhaps more. The second reason is that our technological capability, in this case in regard to molecular engineering, is increasing. Humanity might design some sort of molecular device, be it a cell or another stucture, that would speed up the terraforming process considerably. One could also envision, in a society with massive amounts of energy and resources, simply brute forcing things with huge factories and fusion reactors. Of course, nanotech is more likely.

Now, B is really a continuum of ideas. At one end of the continuum, you have a mechanical device which is easy enough to use that the person need never desire to take it off, that is, a device as comfortable as clothing. Then, moving up the continuum, you have various levels of intrusion into the biological workings of the person, finally culminating in the design of an entirely new type of being. Such a being would probably not be biological, at least as we speak of it. It would be cybernetic in nature, a fusion of man and machine, possibly at the subcellular level. Such technology, while today the stuff of sheer fantasy, is not banned by any physical law, nor can it be, since we are simply a variant of it as now.

Stu · 2002-01-10 23:42:50

Bill,

To answer your question... well, to use a time-worn political phrase, "It depends..." ;-)

It depends on the circumstances and the reason. If the group's reason for such a "Firestorm Colonisation" program was survival - i.e. they were going to Mars to ensure some portion of humanity survived an imminent global disaster or something along those lines - then obviously it would be foolish to try and stop them. Such a group would probably be funded by one or more Governments (unless it's privately-funded by some super-rich individual... but that's getting dangerously close to a Mars-based version of "Moonraker"! ;-) ) so Resistance Would Be Futile anyway...

However...

... if the group was just exploitative and land-greedy, an opportunist and selfish group which wanted to go to Mars just to have room and space for themselves, and not for any - I hesitate to use the word - "noble" reason, then yes, I would be opposed to - and speak out against - such a mission, because all along my reason for wanting to go to Mars is to explore it, to learn about it and *understand* it, and, yes, see if there is life there. The sudden arrival of hordes of colonists, determined to breed like rabbits and spread over the surface faster than mould in a petrie dish would seriously impact upon our ability to do hard science on Mars, because there would be fights over resources between the colonists and the scientists.

Call me naive, but I want to see the first people on Mars armed with nothing more than spectromoters, drills and microscopes. So yes, I'd be opposed to any mission that was based purely on grabbing land and covering the planet with as many bawling babies as possible as quickly as possible. Call me naive a second time, but I think we should go to Mars to understand it - and through understanding it, understand ourselves better. The thought of a martian version of the Wild West "land rush" with spacesuited Tom Cruises and Nicole Kidmans tearing across Tharsis in rovers, looking for a place to plant their flag and build a log cabin in a 22nd century remake of "Far And Away" horrifies me.

Food for thought tho, thanks for a very inspiring post. :-)

Stu

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-11 00:08:12

To Bill: expansion is against the ?Red? mentality, in my humble opinion. You can only have so many domes before they become unsightly (even domes that are coloured to fit the environment, which I encourage, actually). The ?Red Building Committe? would have a hard time processing the vast requests to build domes. I would love to see such a committe (if it existed) attempt to prevent people from building domes wherever they saw fit in in Twenty Second century.

Say a dome held a thousand people (which is actually pretty cramped), it would take a million of them to hold a billion people! And there just isn't enough material on Mars to support the building of so many domes (I suppose there is, but it would be a heck of a lot harder to do than to build open air steel structures).

Persuading people to adobpt a more Red mentality is the same as telling people to acquire an air of eliteness and discourage people from immigrating.

To Alexander: At the risk of posting off topic (this is a Red views thread, anyway), I think ?quick terraformation? is totally feasible, without the aid of supertech that doesn't exist yet.

PFC/CFCs can drastically increase the Martian atmosphere, as Zubrin suggests in his Technological Requirements for Terraforming Mars paper, and once we reach a certian point (after the caps melt) I think the whole process could run away with itself until we saw fit to stop it.

And I see this happening within the oceans; but I don't see many articles about using the ocean (and plankton) to aid the terraformation process (with regards to oxygenation). Indeed, I am under the impression that plankton converts much of Earths carbon dioxide. On Mars plankton would not have the unfortunate risk of being eaten like they do on Earth, plus, genetically engineered to be more resiliant, they could thrive much more efficiently than on Earth (in regards to oxygenation and multiplication). And the atmosphere need only be thick enough to support liquid water.

We could have a living breathing ocean right under our fingertips. A slimy carbon dioxide breathing creature that could speed up the process immensely! And after a certian point, we either introduce a predator to lower their uncontrolled population growth, or we kill them off using whatever other technological means.

The best part about this is that we could use the ?oceanic soot? as soil!

Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself.

(Edit: Aaahahah, why in the heck do I post 15 minutes after someone else does!? This is insane.)

joncarson · 2002-01-11 08:01:25

Engineer these Mars bugs (i.e., Nostoc, a hardy cyanobacterium) to secrete a non-toxic hormone or factor that makes the bugs "commit suicide" when it reaches too high a concentration. Fairly simple project for a motivated grad student in 2050.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-13 19:02:56

Sagan's Blunder

Carl Sagan once said that, if we find microbes on Mars, we should not terraform Mars, because that would infringe on the rights of the microbes. I think this argument is absurd. Once we have categorized, studied, and know how to reproduce every general type of microbe on the surface then we have nothing more to learn and can begin ecopoesis. Yes it will take some time to do this, mabye as much as a century in the case that they live in remote underground regions. Yet if they live in those regions, we may be able to begin ecopoesis immediately, because any effects may be so long in waiting that we'll have ample time to study the microbes before their habitat is gone.

You save wildlife for two reasons. Beauty and usefulness. Microbes are not beautiful. Nobody will ever see them except for a few specialists. Usefulness could abound, but once it is used up, we can go ahead with making Mars more hospitable to humans.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-13 23:43:57

Alexander, I assume you mean living microbes? The likelyhood of living microbes on Mars is very low, dormat, possibly, but not living.

Once we have categorized, studied, and know how to reproduce every general type of microbe on the surface then we have nothing more to learn and can begin ecopoesis. Yes it will take some time to do this, maybe as much as a century in the case that they live in remote underground regions.

I think it would take many, many, many lifetimes, even with super futuristic AI technology. Mars is big. Very big compared to a puney human. It would be extremely hard to search everywhere. The question is; when do we decide to give up searching? If we do find life during the planned search period, we would be compelled to search every inch of the planet. And I'm sure the Reds would use that argument very successfully (and I'm not quite sure I would be against such an argument). In the event that that did happen, Mars would not be terraformed for a very very long time.

So how would the search happen? After preliminary geological surveys are complete we would have a good idea where to search, and that should not take long at all, really, since most of it can be (and is being) done from space. After these specific spots are searched rigorously (one to two decades sound fair?), we would have either found what we were looking for (life) or we would not.

Personally, I don't see us finding anything living on Mars. I believe the atmospheric deterioration was too quick for anything to evolve and adapt. There is a slight possiblity of dormat microbes, but I don't see that happening either. I think it would be bad science to waste time chasing ghosts. If nothing can be found in a certain period of time, we shouldn't go off uncovering each and every rock.

So anyway, yes, terraformation should definitely happen regardless. However, I don't see it happening any time soon if there is life on Mars. And I'm not sure it should. Not until the ecosystem was completely mapped. And that could take many lifetimes. (Dormat species might be an exception, but science tries not make unverifiable assumptions, so even in the instance that we found dormat microbes in ice somewhere specific we may still be compelled to search the whole planet.)

Stu · 2002-01-14 14:25:59

Alexander said:

<< Once we have categorized, studied, and know how to reproduce every general type of microbe on the surface then we have nothing more to learn and can begin ecopoesis. >>

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound like some bacteria-hugging evangelist here, but I really don't think that's the point at all. Even after we've learned a great deal about any martian microbes - and I say "great deal" because I personally think we'd be incredibly arrogant, as a species, to ever decide we'd learnt all there was to know about any lifeform, never mind an extraterrestrial one - we would have no right to just wipe them off the blackboard of the Universe and just suit ourselves. It would be wrong! That's not our call, not our decision to make. They were on Mars first, it's their planet, you know? I know they'd not be intelligent, or sentient, and might only be visible through microscopes, but again, that's SO not the point. The point is that they would be alive, and unique to Mars, in all likelyhood as unique to the Universe as we are. We would have no right to exterminate them, just so we could walk around in the open air on a planet that would be much more beautiful if we left it as it is anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the discovery of primitive native martian life must mean abandoning the colonisation of Mars completely. Not at all; if I thought that way, I wouldn't be a member of this community which is dedicated to the exploration and eventual settlement of Mars. But such a discovery would absolutely mean we would have to reassess our long-term plans, and re-think our methods and technology to take account of the existence of native life on the planet. If Mars is dead fine, build away. But if it isn't then that is a whole different kettle of cyanobacteria, and we would have an obligation, a duty to both preserve the life that was clinging on to existence there before we came along. We would have a duty to protect it.

Yes, even from ourselves.

<< Yes it will take some time to do this, mabye as much as a century in the case that they live in remote underground regions. Yet if they live in those regions, we may be able to begin ecopoesis immediately, because any effects may be so long in waiting that we'll have ample time to study the microbes before their habitat is gone. >>

That sounds horribly like the pronouncement of a death sentence to me. And it's not our place to issue that, it really isn't. And who's to say there's not some form of Universal Karma going on Out There? If we disregard the rights of martian microbes to exist because they're so much simpler than us, who's to say that a ruddy big fleet of alien ships won't arrive and being exterminating us, because we're just as far beneath them?

Okay, joking there? kind of? but it's a valid point just the same.

If we find life on Mars it's almost certainly going to be older than us. We will have a huge amount to learn from it. We'll never STOP learning from it. And even when we'd mapped every one of its strands of DNA, every single primitive, ancient gene, we would have an obligation to ensure its continued survival. After all, it would have survived everything the Universe had thrown at it for billions of years. Would we have the right to just stamp on it? I don't think so.

<< You save wildlife for two reasons. Beauty and usefulness. >>

Well, they might be your reasons, and others too, but how about a third reason for saving wildlife: BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO! ? I was honestly quite stunned when I read that! I know what you mean, but come on, whales aren't "beautiful", and yet we want to save them. Manatees are ugly critters too, yet we struggle to save them when a passing speedboat chops them up. Wildlife isn't a decoration, or a resource. It's LIFE! And okay, the Universe, for all we know, might be teeming with life, there may be millions of planets coverted with bacteria? but even if there are, martian microbes would have a right to exist.

On the other hand, maybe the Universe is an immense dark, cold desert, and life, even primitive life, is scattered in tiny warm and light oases tens of thousands of light years apart. If that's the case, then martian microbes are just as special and incredible as we are, and - being stronger and more advanced than them - we would have an obligation to shield them as best we could.

If people truly believe that the only reasons for saving wildlife are "beauty" and "usefulness" then let's get to it, let's stop wasting time - and resources! Let's kill every creature on the planet that isn't either beautiful or useful. But hang on? who decides what is "beautiful" and what is "useful"? Those are two very subjective judgement calls there. Sloths are commonly thought of as ugly and useless - does that mean we should wipe them all out? Octopuses? octopi..? Shudder factor 10, and about as "useful" as a chocolate jet engine, but deserving of extermination for that?

<< microbes are not beautiful. Nobody will ever see them except for a few specialists. Usefulness could abound, but once it is used up, we can go ahead with making Mars more hospitable to humans. >>

Well, perhaps microbes aren't beautiful to *you*, but believe me, to the first biologist who goes to Mars and sees them through the eyepiece of her microscope they'll be the most beautiful thing he or she has ever seen! :-) And you're wrong, EVERYONE will see them, their electron-microscope potrtaits will be on every newspaper, TV news and science website in the world on that amazing day. Remember the "fossil" found inside ALH84001? That's now a "cultural image", a huge percentage of the world's population has seen it. The first ever pic of a LIVE (or even dead) martian microbe will have a thousand times more exposure. And whole movements will spring up around it. Some nutters, admittedly, but others more reasoned and considerate, making the same points I'm making.

And this whole "exhausted usefulness" thing? I just don't get it, sorry. Even after we've learned all we can about them, native martian microbes will still be "useful" because they'll give us a new and very serious responsibility: stewardship and guardianship.

If we have the capability to exterminate them, then that's exactly the reason why we shouldn't.

It would be a sign we'd grown up.

I guess it all comes down to how selfish and arrogant we are.

Once, just once, I'd like to see us do The Right Thing, you know?

Stu

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-14 22:52:34

Once, just once, I'd like to see us do The Right Thing, you know?

Sir I think this one statement is basically a summary of your entire argument. Therefore I must show you why it is fundamentally flawed. The truth is that what "the right thing" and the "the wrong thing" are is up to us to define. We, and not some absolute, define it. Therefore, by saying that killing bacteria is not worth billions of potential human lives, you have simply stated that you don't value human life enough to care. Sorry. That's the truth.

Updated by Moderator 2021/09/22

admin corrected 9-23-21

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2001-09-09 06:52:22

Re: Red Views

#2 2001-09-12 21:16:47

Re: Red Views

#3 2001-09-13 13:52:07

Re: Red Views

#4 2001-09-13 14:04:52

Re: Red Views

#5 2001-09-20 15:26:20

Re: Red Views

#6 2001-09-22 12:33:38

Re: Red Views

#7 2001-09-22 19:33:26

Re: Red Views

#8 2001-09-30 08:26:28

Re: Red Views

#9 2001-10-10 11:43:26

Re: Red Views

#10 2001-10-11 12:48:50

Re: Red Views

#11 2001-10-12 14:59:13

Re: Red Views

#12 2001-10-14 04:12:32

Re: Red Views

#13 2001-10-17 12:52:46

Re: Red Views

#14 2001-10-18 16:12:36

Re: Red Views

#15 2002-01-07 11:26:56

Re: Red Views

#16 2002-01-07 11:56:56

Re: Red Views

#17 2002-01-09 21:27:51

Re: Red Views

#18 2002-01-10 22:17:43

Re: Red Views

#19 2002-01-10 23:42:50

Re: Red Views

#20 2002-01-11 00:08:12

Re: Red Views

#21 2002-01-11 08:01:25

Re: Red Views

#22 2002-01-13 19:02:56

Re: Red Views

#23 2002-01-13 23:43:57

Re: Red Views

#24 2002-01-14 14:25:59

Re: Red Views

#25 2002-01-14 22:52:34

Re: Red Views

Board footer