Reds Versus Greens

[ephedra]

*Originally posted by Drastic *
**
What would count as living sustainably? Mere passage of time? I’m taking it that that our stay thus far doesn’t count as “sustainably” in your opinion–what would satisfy that condition? A million years, two, ten, a hundred? Outlasting the cockroach? (If so, we’re in for a long grim race… )
**

Sustainable in this case, would mean to me that we wouldn’t be pushed off the planet by overpopulation or environmental degradation. I think if living on Mars is our only hope, then things are looking pretty grim for our species, because currently living on Mars would be a lot harder. By then earth would have to be in a pretty sorry state, and if we messed it up that bad, how long could we make Mars last?

The scenario you propose sounds reasonable enough. Taking thousands of years to play with and perfect the environment, doesn’t sound like we’re high tailing it to Mars because we just let off a bunch of nukes. In which case, we’re not colonizing Mars to avoid extinction, but because we have succeeded so well that we have the time and energy to go somewhere else.

So, if there is life on Mars, then it wouldn’t be a matter of Mars bacteria vs. humans. We probably have as much to learn about sustainable ecosystems from Mars’ native one as we would from making our own.

The “eggs in a basket” metaphor is well taken. But if its to protect ourselves from our own technology, then it’s pretty much useless, because we’ll be facing the same problem on Mars that we faced on Earth. It would be a far better idea to control and understand our need for technological growth. Inhabitable planets don’t grow on trees you know. What fails on one planet will fail on another. And soon we’ll be left with nowhere to go.

[kasuo]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**
Is terraforming Mars even possible or practical? On earth, the ecology is such a delicate and complex balance of spontaneous order that the extinction of even one species can cause unpredictable ripples throughout the environment. Can science effectively create an ecology on a planetary scale that will be self-sufficient?
**

I believe it is both possible and practical only where necessity exists. Unfortunately, I believe people are generally fickle and won’t want to invest on a project as grand as terraforming (or areoforming) Mars until people are threatened.

Science is remarkable in many ways. Human ingenuity is even greater.

**
Will the horse bite the hand that feeds it? Assuming that science is able to create an oxygen rich atmosphere in which man can survive and that natural selection will apply on Mars, can an environment emerge that is so hostile to man that he will find he has created a Frankenstein? Will creatures evolve who eat men or give men incurable diseases? Will man “fit” into his new creation?
**

(See previous comment on “science” and “ingenuity”).

**
If there is already microscopic life on Mars, will terraforming destroy it? And if it does, will there be any negative ecological effects? Can Martian gravity hold a sufficiently dense atmosphere to which man can successfully adapt?
**

I do not believe there is any active life on Mars although I could be wrong. However, I don’t think the impact of the microscopic life is significant, at least not anymore (if you believe that Mars once had an active biosphere).

Since Mars:

• lacks a nickel/iron mantle
• has little-to-no volcanic activity
• significantly smaller mass than Earth

… atmosphere maintenance will be a great concern. We will most likely need to use a weather-control system of some sort to maintain the Martian atmosphere.

**
How much havoc will the solar system itself wreak on Martian colonies? What will happen when micrometeors hit plastic domes like hypersonic bullets? What will happen when Martian shrapnel showers the habitats and factories in one of the many violent Martian wind storms?
**

People will have to deal with each natural disaster as it hits. We are always at the mercy of our environment but it does not mean we cannot try to overcome such hardships.

However, regarding Martian wind storms, since there are winds that move at approximately 150 m.p.h., it would be of little concern since the atmosphere is relatively thin, measuring at approximately 100 millibars, which is only about one-tenth the density of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level (correct me if I’m wrong). And even when the atmosphere becomes thicker, the wind speed should drop significantly with the increase in air pressure.

**
Is colonization itself unethical? Is there some ethical principal that gives man the right to invade an environment and form it to suit himself? If existing Martian life is destroyed by terraforming, is that a bad thing? Will man have interfered in an evolution that might have taken place without him?
**

Our survival depends on our expansion into the universe. Some might say that it is our “manifest destiny” to go out and conquer the stars. However, I just see planetary colonization as a way of stretching our arms out. After all, humanity has a great drive towards survival and reproduction and our Earth can only hold so many people.

But destroying other life for the sake of the survival of our own is not necessarily right. We have interfered in many species’ evolutions, many to the point of extinction. However, we are never alone in that respect (other animals/species have done the same).

**
This is probably the most complex debate. Who will call the many shots to be called? Private enterprise? Government? Who holds the deed to Mars? Can governments declare eminent domain over Martian territory? If so, which ones?
**

My opinion is that whatever corporation, nation, or alliance settles a region is responsible for governing that area. I doubt the UN is able to effectively enforce the space treaty and the treaty itself will be ratified when applicable.

**
Who will pay for terraforming and by what justification? Will those who provide the blood, sweat, and capital be allowed to own what they have improved, or will politicians step in after the hard work is over and stake their claims?
**

Politicians always like to take the credit for successful ventures. However, paying for terraforming will most likely be a joint venture between governments and corporations. It would be in most people’s interests to live in a habitable Mars.

**
Will Redpeace send saboteurs to throw a monkey-wrench in the works? Will present-day environmentalists be the ones in favor of terraforming or the ones opposed to it?
**

There will always be conflict. There will always be those who don’t want terraforming. I believe present-day environmentalists will be tomorrow’s Reds.

**
Can governments maintain multi-generational projects such as the thousand-year terraforming of Mars? What happens if the process is begun and then abandoned, the way America abandoned exploration of the Moon?
**

The moon landings were strictly a political issue during the Cold War. I don’t think the U.S. “needed” to go to the Moon, rather just to show off democratic “superiority.” Conversly, areoforming Mars is a necessity for successfully establishing a permanent home, especially if millions of people need a new home.

**
Will a Martian war with Earth be inevitable? Will colonists, tired of interference from people thous… er millions of miles away, rebel and declare their independence? Can governments on earth effectively control colonies on Mars?
**

It’s human nature to rebel. American colonists did it in 1776. I believe the Romans (not counting the whole 7 tribes thing) were once a distant colony of the ancient Greeks. I’m sure Martians will eventually want to take advantage once they are settled in and have an effective infrastructure.

Also, there’s the economic advantage if they happen to find something valuable (i.e. asteroid mining, tourism, trade route, etc.).

[ephedra]

*Originally posted by kasuo *
Our survival depends on our expansion into the universe. Some might say that it is our “manifest destiny” to go out and conquer the stars. However, I just see planetary colonization as a way of stretching our arms out. After all, humanity has a great drive towards survival and reproduction and our Earth can only hold so many people.

I think that travelling to the stars and terraforming mars will be not an act of survival, but the result of human instinct.I would liken it to learning to cultivate fire. If our ancestors hadn’t made that choice, I see no reason why they still wouldn’t be living in warmer climates today. They were probably fit to survive without controlling fire.

Honestly, I don’t think we have anything to fear on earth other than ourselves, and we’ll never escape from that, no matter how far we travel.

I believe we can survive without going to Mars, and so far have had a hard time believing that going to Mars would ever seem easier than living on Earth. However, our natural curiosity may be driving our evolution into space faring creatures. If we have the time and energy, it may just be a temptation to exciting to resist.

If there is life on Mars, I think that those that seek to keep humans from mucking up the Earth’s environment would be the same ones trying to keep Mars pristine.

But if there is no life on Mars (the probable outcome), I think the greatest opponents would likely be people who would rather see the money spent elsewhere. If it’s largely a private venture, then there may not be that much that they can do about it, and they may not be as motivated. If it’s a government action though, I would expect significant opposition. That is, unless we’ve solved the perrenial problems of hunger, homelessness, unemployment, inequality, etc…

I think the likelihood of terraforming being performed by a private corporation(s) to be slim. Investors want profits last week, not in a few hundred years.

I would think that a project this grand would be more fit for a government action, but only in times of economic prosperity, like in the US during the “space race”. The chances of it being abandoned occassionally are great, but maybe such interuptions could be allowed for with careful planning.