To Terraform or not to Terraform?

[Clinton Huxley]

Just finished reading Oliver Morton's excellent Mapping Mars and there was an interesting section on the ethics of terraforming the red planet.

There are numerous positions on this but the basically boil down to three scenarios:-

1) Mars is dead - we can do what we like to it.

2) Mars has microbial life and it is related to Earth Life - we can do what we like as its not really exceptional and we trash Earthly environments all the time

3) Mars has life and it is unrelated to Earth life - we should leave Mars alone.

Some are really gung-ho about colonising and terraforming Mars, particularly, it seems, those who have bought into the concept of America as a nation that fares best when it has a frontier to conquer.

So what do you think? Mars, conquer or protect?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gee, let's go with the only example we have right now, Earth. *checks* Mars doesn't have a chance in Hell.

[Thinking Aloud]

I've not read the book, so I don't know whether any of this is covered, but to me the concept of terraforming requires such a huge amount of energy and/or materials, one way or the other, that I'd have to wonder a) where it will all come from, and b) how "we" could prevent Mars from reverting very quickly to its current cold, barren state.

But as to the question - if "we" ever got off this rock of ours, I think option 1/2 would be the likely outcome of any large-scale expansion. It's just the way humanity seems to work.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think most people envisage long time frames for this. Some more optimistic than others. I agree that if there is money to be made and we manage to get off this rock, Mars as we know it is doomed.

There are those who think the environment of Mars is worth preserving as is, though, even if there is no life. Maybe some kind of set-up similar to Antarctica.

[Feck]

If it is a lifeless rock then it would seem that terraforming it ethical , but I'm not a great fan of this 'Man's Destiny to spread to the stars' type humanist science fiction . It seems to me that is just like removing the God from religion but leaving the arrogance of Man being so special because he has a brain big enough to tell him that he is no longer an animal . If we cannot manage to survive on this planet without turning it into a shit heap then we shouldn't go messing up more planets even if we percieve them as being barren .

[FBM]

From a tiny, pale blue dot to an even tinier, pale red dot. What's the diff?

[Clinton Huxley]

Dr Zubrin, one of the prime movers in the Mars for the Humans lobby...

Some people consider the idea of terraforming Mars heretical - humanity playing God. Yet others would see in such an accomplishment the most profound vindication of the divine nature of the human spirit, exercised in its highest form to bring a dead world to life. My own sympathies are with the latter group. Indeed, I would go farther. I would say that failure to terraform Mars constitutes failure to live up to our human nature and a betrayal of our responsibility as members of the community of life itself. Today, the living biosphere has the potential to expand its reach to encompass a whole new world. Humans, with their intelligence and technology, are the unique means that the biosphere has evolved to allow it to make that land grab, the first among many. Countless beings have lived and died to transform the Earth into a place that could create and allow human existence. Now it's our turn to do our part.

Hmmmmm.....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We need a lifeboat. My favorite Mars-thing is roofing over a side canyon of Valles Marineris, say a few hundred miles. We live in the cliffs and farm the canyon floor. We could do this without screwing with the rest of the planet.

[Clinton Huxley]

We need a lifeboat. My favorite Mars-thing is roofing over a side canyon of Valles Marineris, say a few hundred miles. We live in the cliffs and farm the canyon floor. We could do this without screwing with the rest of the planet.

Nice idea. Be a while before the lifeboat was self sufficient, though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We need a lifeboat. My favorite Mars-thing is roofing over a side canyon of Valles Marineris, say a few hundred miles. We live in the cliffs and farm the canyon floor. We could do this without screwing with the rest of the planet.

Nice idea. Be a while before the lifeboat was self sufficient, though.

True, and I would do six-seven of them to make sure nothing that happened in one would affect the others, including having "clean room" transitions from one to another. But we could put up a few hundred square miles of solar collector panels without feeling too bad so the energy situation wouldn't be deleterious to the Martian environment.

[Feck]

I'm reminded of Doctor Manhattan's speach about the beauty of a 'barren' planet .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This gives some idea of the potential of V.M. for "ready-made" shelters:

Oof! Big pix spoilered:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Coito ergo sum]

Just finished reading Oliver Morton's excellent Mapping Mars and there was an interesting section on the ethics of terraforming the red planet.

There are numerous positions on this but the basically boil down to three scenarios:-

1) Mars is dead - we can do what we like to it.

2) Mars has microbial life and it is related to Earth Life - we can do what we like as its not really exceptional and we trash Earthly environments all the time

3) Mars has life and it is unrelated to Earth life - we should leave Mars alone.

Some are really gung-ho about colonising and terraforming Mars, particularly, it seems, those who have bought into the concept of America as a nation that fares best when it has a frontier to conquer.

So what do you think? Mars, conquer or protect?

So far, microbial life has never been discovered on Mars. Therefore, as far as we can tell, it is dead. More research on that remains in the future, if humans decide to make the effort. To date, while there have been indications that life possibly existed on Mars in the past, it has been inconclusive to date.

I don't think that the concept of American new frontiers is relevant to the ethical issue.

But, at present, I see no ethical issue with colonizing and terraforming Mars, because as of right now there is no known life on Mars. The long term survival of the human race depends on exiting the Earth, and Mars is the only reasonable choice at this point. It's the next logical stepping stone after the Moon.

[Coito ergo sum]

The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!
As quoted by Arthur C. Clarke in "Meeting of the Minds : Buzz Aldrin Visits Arthur C. Clarke" by Andrew Chaikin (27 February 2001)

[klr]

Just finished reading Oliver Morton's excellent Mapping Mars and there was an interesting section on the ethics of terraforming the red planet.

There are numerous positions on this but the basically boil down to three scenarios:-

1) Mars is dead - we can do what we like to it.

2) Mars has microbial life and it is related to Earth Life - we can do what we like as its not really exceptional and we trash Earthly environments all the time

3) Mars has life and it is unrelated to Earth life - we should leave Mars alone.

Some are really gung-ho about colonising and terraforming Mars, particularly, it seems, those who have bought into the concept of America as a nation that fares best when it has a frontier to conquer.

So what do you think? Mars, conquer or protect?

So far, microbial life has never been discovered on Mars. Therefore, as far as we can tell, it is dead. More research on that remains in the future, if humans decide to make the effort. To date, while there have been indications that life possibly existed on Mars in the past, it has been inconclusive to date.

I don't think that the concept of American new frontiers is relevant to the ethical issue.

But, at present, I see no ethical issue with colonizing and terraforming Mars, because as of right now there is no known life on Mars. The long term survival of the human race depends on exiting the Earth, and Mars is the only reasonable choice at this point. It's the next logical stepping stone after the Moon.

Correct. So we continue to research. And then research some more. Life, if it exists on Mars, is almost certainly beneath the surface. Possibly far beneath. We couldn't move more than a handful of people (relatively speaking) to Mars anyway in the foreseeable future. The near-term worth of Mars is a source of valuable minerals and suchlike, not as a new world to live on. IMHO ...