Colonize Mars to save our species

This was the recent proposal of a friend. And you’ve surely heard this argument: We need to “diversify” where humans live - the “all eggs in one basket” scheme whereby we all live on Earth leaves our species vulnerable to an asteroid strike or other Armageddon-level catastrophe.

I had a couple of questions for him (which he didn’t address in any detail). The first is how long would it take for a Mars colony to become fully self-sustaining, so it no longer needed any support from Earth. It seems to me this could be an extremely long time, and the cost of the ongoing Earth support (probably at least many dozens of missions) would be something enormous - surely enough to make the cost of the initial missions being proposed today (roughly in the $500-billion range, depending on who you listen to) seem like chump change.

The other question dealt with an alternative way to buy some species-survival insurance: Create several large-scale “hardened” habitations on earth. These would be underground cities of a thousand or so, provisioned and equipped to survive a disaster on the scale of the K-T event and its aftermath. They would of course be hideously expensive, but only a tiny fraction of the cost of the Mars scheme. Is this a better alternative?

One detailed question: What is the most recent Earth catastrophe severe enough to guarantee that the “multiple hardened shelters” scheme would not have worked? (Presumably, the “giant impact” that formed the Moon is one such.)
Your thoughts?

Bio Domes for farming of plants and livestock.
Underground tunneling for living quarters and radiation shielding.
Ice or underground rivers to break down and filter for water.

I highly doubt Humans from Earth colonize Mars in the next 30 years. The trip there and back is too long and dangerous. If a ship could get there and back in a week or so, it would be possible.

The moon-generating collision is the most recent thing I can think of. Nothing much short of that wouldn’t be cheaper and easier to survive than the expense and difficulty of colonizing Mars. Not one of the “big five” extinctions, not a Snowball Earth, nothing much short of melting the continents and boiling the oceans wouldn’t leave Earth still more useful and survivable than any other spot in the solar system.

The problem with both the “Colonize Mars!” and the Bio-Dome/Dr. Strangelove-esque underground bunker approaches to surviving catastrophe is that they ignore how the underlying prerequisites of human civilization—even post-industrial societies—are fundamentally tied to the global biosphere of the surface and oceans Earth and how difficult it is to recreate Earth-like habitable conditions on Mars or elsewhere, even in deep mine shafts, and notwithstanding how separation from the environment which we have evolved in would impact human beings on both an individual and societal level. We are so accustomed to virtually free access to all nature of environmental resources, from air and water to the just-so filtered radiation and plant nutrients, that we don’t think about just how many layers of systems are needed for efficient availability and recycling would be necessary to sustain even a modest population of human beings necessary to maintain even a minimum level of social interaction, basic skill base, and genetic diversity.

A truly self-sustaining “colonization” on Mars is very likely a nonstarter; even though there is water (in sparse amounts, largely in extremely briny recurring slope lineae or in an underground polar lake) it is not distributed enough to support diverse colonization nor is there any kind of hydrological cycle. The surface of Mars lacks much in the way of the nitrates necessary for agricultural cultivation (though there are signs that at least trace amounts may be found deeper in the regolith); but worse, the soil is contaminated with large amounts of toxic perchlorates which would have to be laboriously and intensively washed out with that precious water to be useful as a substrate for plants; the alternative is hydroponics, which works great for marijuana or hothouse tomatoes but is no basis for intensive grain agriculture. The real kicker, though, is the Martian gravity; at 38% of Earth normal, it is likely to have some long term physiological effects, and would likely cause difficulties in natal and childhood development beyond the common trope of musculoskeletal weakness. The costs of transporting all of the necessary infrastructure to extract resources is unimaginable, even assuming several orders of magnitude reduction in space launch costs.

Underground cities suffer from the opposite problem; all of the conditions and resources (air, water, soil) to reproduce terrestrial surface-like conditions exist, but expanding and accessing resources will be challenging, especally if the surface is rendered completely uninhabitable by some hypothetical disaster. Talk to a submariner who has spent a few deterrence tours in a boomer and he’ll tell you how claustrophobic life is, not just because of the small compartments and cramped conditions but because there is no sky for months, which is why the greatest treat is to be able to take a rare few second peak through a periscope just to have a glimpse of the horizon.

Off-planet colonization will almost certainly require one of two developments; either solar-orbiting large diameter rotating space habitats made with space-based materials, to economically produce sufficiently Earth-like conditions and support the necessary hydrodynamic and thermodynamic cycles necessary for a comprehensive, self-contained ecosystem. Even that would require the development of a space resource extraction and delivery infrastructure that is well beyond what can currently be done even with a focused effort, and will require significant bootstrapping and automation to become viable.

We are far better off—for the time being, certainly, and likely for the foreseeable future—to take all necessary steps to preserve and protect our own planet, which we have specifically evolved to inhabit to the extent that we do not generally realize just how much it provides for us. I don’t mean this in a mystical “Gaia”-like spiritually sense, but in the very grounded sense of systems ecology as outlined by researchers like Vaclav Smil (see The Earth’s Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change, Harvesting the Biosphere: What We Have Taken from Nature). And protecting our planet—both from our own excessive desires and from external threats—is vastly cheaper than any interplanetary colonization or mass underground civilization plans which has the benefit of also developing the kinds of technologies needed for eventual extraterrestrial habitation.

Stranger

My true thoughts are, “Why care at all?” If an asteroid hits us and extinguishes life on Earth, then we’re all dead, so who’s around to care? Sooner or later humanity and all life in the universe will be extinguished, so what difference does it make?

The way I see it, humans either have objective value or subjective value. If the latter, then when the subjects cease to exist, then so does the value. If the former, then it nearly forces us to believe in a god of some type, and once we go there, then this god can either prevent our extinction or there is value in it. Either way, building hardened bunkers seems fairly worthless.

One of the issues with your ‘fallout’ concept to save humanity, is that the restart of humanity is in a place where there is not assistance and resources have been depleted by a pre-apocalyptical society. A Mars colony can build with assistance as for what resources that is still to be determined. That said a fallout shelter is achievable right now and has existed for some time but it’s not the future, a mars colony is a investment in the future of humanity. If we can make it on mars we have proven one of 2 things that is needed to prove the survival of humanity, the second one would be interstellar travel. For that second one colonizing mars would be a better step towards achieving interstellar travel then a underground earth habitat.

Stranger, great post! I am in agreement with your conclusions.

Another thing that is often glossed-over is humanity’s very nasty tendency to slaughter ourselves over trivial matters. This has been a constant issue for us since we became human. Sure, we have been very successful, in spite of this feature, given the vast resources the surface of the Earth offers - there is always some “other place” to go when things get bad. Put a population of humans in a confined space anywhere and eventually there are going to be problems among people, and the confinement will not make matters easier to resolve.

As stated already, we need to focus efforts on sustaining our current existence in our current home. How do we constructively solve our differences? Given current trends, our inbred savagery toward one another is more than likely to do us in long before any existential threat surfaces or we are able to engineer our way off this place.

Once mankind gets to Mars, how long will it take for us to trash it?