New Mars Forums

I haven't read through yet; but the title leapt out at me and I felt I had to comment.

"Right to have children"?

What right?

Nobody has that right; it is a privelage, surely. We have a right to live, certainly. But a right to create life? No, that is definitley a privelige. Not everyone is capable of it; and if you call it a right, then those who aren't capable are somehow deficient, as they aren't even capable of something that is a basic right to others. Therefore, it must be a privelige.

Don't you think?

But other, more interesting planets will be discovered. Its just a matter of time. And then we'll see just how interesting people find Mars.

Although, I'm sure lots of people will want to live there... but will they stay? Towns and cities have often been established with high hopes, but have never grown to their full potential, because a better place to live arrived. With Mars, things might prove to be the same.

I agree that any system that cannot handle progress is doomed to fail; but really, I think just about any system is doomed to failure. There just is no 'best' way to do anything.

And I'd just like to say: I'm not a Red. Nor am I a Green. I just don't think terraforming Mars is a very good idea when we don't understand the ramifications of such an action to any decent degree. 

Despite the irritation that answering a question with a question might cause, I fear I must ask, what reason, then, is there to not leave Mars alone?

My apology, ecrasez_l_infame, I was not precise in what I said. I did not mean it was permissable to kill one person because there are six billion others; I was referring to the fact that saying it is okay to terraform Mars because there are likely billions (probably more, considering the vastness of the universe) of other similar planets is not a good reason to do so - just like using the excuse that one persons life means nothing when there are six billion others around isn't. Sorry I wasn't clear.

But, actually, in a way, terraforming Mars could be considered homicide, or rather, perhaps, areocide.

It just depends on how you see the planet.

AltToWar said:
"Humans going to mars and terraforming will bring life to a dieing world."

If you see Mars as a ball of rock that needs life in order to be meaningful, then it isn't killing anything at all.

But if you value everything in the universe, and not just life, then you would see that everything is equally important. Without the other things, life wouldn't exist. But everything else would exist just the same, without life.

But what is life? Is our galaxy itself, alive? Isaac Asimov, through one of his many literary constructs, (Janov Pelorat, to be specific, in Foundation's Edge) noted how like a living, breathing organism the galaxy would be if viewed top-down, with time accelerated using a computer.

Even if Mars holds no life, it is still alive. For it exists. And who is to say that Mars might not hold life that we could not even recognise, much less understand? What if we destroyed life that we couldn't even see?

Is an empty space in a park less valuable than one containing a tree? Or do both have their merits, their advantages, and disadvantages? Admittedly, even the 'empty space' contains life, but thats besides the point. Just because life doesn't exist somewhere, it doesn't mean we should take it there. Why, I've heard people decrying the missionaries of years ago for that self-same thing! The only difference is, you wish to take life before death, as opposed to life after death. Why? What good will it do?

I was going to comment on the 'when a law goes against beauty, it is an unjust law', but I think any opinion I have to give on that doesn't have to be said.

Here's a very quick question, and a similar quick point. Quick for me, at any rate.

I was reading through the posts, and I noticed two things. First, the quote above. 

Do we have any right to interfere in the natural evolution of another planet? Is evolutionary acceleration inteference, or not? And if it is interference, is it correct to interfere in something which you do not entirely (or ever near-entirely) understand?

Second, ecrasez_|_infame said:

"There's zillions of galaxies out there with kazillion more stars, and billions of planets no doubt.  So "Earthlings" want to try and make some changes on [to date] just -one- of billions of worlds.  Is that such a crime?  If someone took a penny from Bill Gates, wouldn't he look like the supreme jackass to have a conniption fit about it, running screaming to the press that someone took ONE PENNY from all his billions?  Yeah, I'd say so."

I'm afraid I don't understand this. If someone steals, they have stolen. Thats that. It doesn't matter how much, or how little; they are wrong. Obviously, occasionally there are circumstances which might be considered - and I stress might - extenuating. But - the bare fact remains, theft has occurred.

Does it matter if you kill one person? There are at least six billion more, after all.

Where do you draw the line? Such generalizations are dangerous; even if not immediatley such. And the times we live in may well set the trend for the next two thousand years, or more, as did the turn of that millenium which Western culture sets its clock by. And I hope maybe we could do a little better, this time round.

Whether life first existed here or on Mars is pretty much a moot point, as far as the terraformation of Mars is concerned, though, isn't it?

After all, I seem to recall reading somewhere (forgive me for not recalling where, but I'm sure someone out there saw it as well  ) that HUBBLE had observed some form of sugar - glucose, or something similar, I seem to recall, though I may be incorrect - in deep space. Such a find would seem to strengthen the argument that life in the universe is abundant, surely, and therefore whether life on Mars exists or not, is, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

Human beings matter more than microbes, after all. And if there are Earth-like (i.e. insofar as bearing life, and being possessed of a similar geological and meteorological history) planets out there, then most certainly there are Mars-like planets out there. And if there are, then the microbes there just aren't as important as they would be if life in the universe was rare.

I really can't see any way that possible Martian microbes can be attached any value whatsoever, simply on accounts that Martian microbes do not make our survival as a species either easier, or more difficult. Hence, they do not matter.

On Earth, however - getting off the subject slightly - all life is precious, as it helps to support our existance. And that is how Mars is different to Earth.

If we wish to live there, we should. Although, I still say it would be nice if we left it as close to its current state as possible... 

I'm pretty sure most people who wish to see a terraformed Mars are largely swayed by the adventurous side to such a massive venture. But it wouldn't be so. Each and every time we conquer a new frontier, it comes with a massive cost. And why?

Because we conquer it.

Surely, after so many years of expansion through conquest (both socially and physically) humanity should begin to learn the lesson that conquest is simply not efficient enough; far better to become a part of your new environment, and to find a niche, and settle.

To terraform Mars is to conquer it; and that conquest is what we find appealing. Human beings love to be in control; but the truth is, we very rarely are. We simply don't understand enough, and perhaps never will. But the best way to make up for the lack of understanding is to find the best way to fit into the universe as it exists now - not change it to suit our needs, so we needn't struggle. Thats like running 15 miles to the nearest store to buy milk because you can't be bothered to milk the cow, don't you think?

I think it would be terribly unscientific to terraform Mars.

"I know only this of the future and that is that the "no can do" s have been repeatedly proven wrong, in the past, by the "lets try it and see what happens"s. The "NoCanDoers" and the "Doers"."

Fine. It can be done. But does that mean it should be? Hitler was a "Doer"; he believed that the Jews could be completely exterminated, and so he attempted it. Just because people say it should be done and there are examples in the past where people said it could be done, and then it was done, does not mean that that will apply now. I'm sure there are a thousand good examples of people dreaming and making their dreams real, but there are a thousand examples of people dreaming and creating a nightmare.

'"Life" allways "terraforms", where we go we will help life in this, and thereby "we" will eventually "terraform" Mars to some extent, in the future.'

"Life" always "terraforms"? What do you mean? And why is this a good reason to terraform Mars?

'I do not fear freezing and thawing. I takes a VERY long time to level a mountain on Earth, should not take any less time on Mars.'

Mountains might not be levelled, but valuable land formations that are more valuable could be wiped off the face of the planet. And there is alot of pressure on the Martian lithosphere. So perhaps a mountain could be levelled in a far shorter time than on Earth.

'A big industrial sized project seem, to me, less attractive and less likely.'

If only. If we do terraform Mars, it WILL be a big industrial project, or it won't happen at all. The longer it takes, the more it costs. That applies to everything - or so investors believe. And so the faster they can get Mars terraformed - and the money would have to come from somewhere - the better. And a slow, thoughtful process just would not be fast enough for the people backing the project, should it happen. And they won't care about destroying an entire planet; all they will see is pound signs, or dollar signs, or yen signs. Mars means nothing to them; the possibility of an entire new market to monopolize does. So it would be a huge, mammoth industrial project, almost certainly. :angry:

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

My mistake, was referring to a different model for stellar mechanics. Its not popular, and I'm afraid I don't have a reference for you. But I'll get ahold of it.

Oh, and Nirgal82, I believe BNFL are working on a way to reuse spent nuclear fuel. Try there website at www.bnfl.co.uk (I think that address is right, though it might be a tad out of date).