Making Mars Habitable
Here’s a popular video that provides the steps for turning Mars into “Earth 2.0.” Though there’s nothing theoretically impossible about it, it’s obviously not going to happen anytime soon if it happens at all. Perhaps the most interesting thing about it is the philosophical question it raises: Is it morally right to extend this hell-hole we call a civilization into space? Does the universe really need another planet:
• Run by people like Trump and Putin?
• Whose environment we can ruin with our excesses?
• Where the richest 85 people have more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion?
• Where war is the go-to solution for the resolution of conflicts?
• Where religious fundamentalism gives rise to terrorism?
Maybe we should just stay home.
It is unlikely that Mars could ever be made habitable. The video failed to consider two problems what would probably make it impossible:
1. Mars has only 38% of the gravity that earth has. That would result in greatly lower atmospheric pressure, pressure which would be considerably lower than 38% of earth’s atmospheric pressure. And, because of the lower gravity, escape velocity would be much lower thereby permitting atmospheric gases to diffuse into outer space.
2. Mars has a much lower magnetic field and therefore radiation from outer space can much more readily reach its surface. That would greatly increase the rate at which atmospheric gasses are lost to outer space in addition to subjecting any life on Mars to damaging radiation.
As to the uncivilized nature of earth, yes it is to a considerable degree. However, in spite of problems, it is less uncivilized than in previous centuries. If it seems less civilized, it is mainly because we now have far better knowledge of what is happening all over the world and because modern technology has made war much more deadly. Also, uncivilized behavior which was once considered acceptable is now considered to be unacceptable; examples are legion.
Improvement has occurred. However, advances are generally not linear and straight forward. Generally advancement is two steps forward and one step back. We must not let steps back make us think that there will be no more advancement.
Re: your last point, I hope you are correct. Keep in mind, however, that we’re damaging our world in ways that will last far beyond Trump’s administration, namely the make-up of the Supreme Court and vast long-term environmental damage.
Craig,
Like most Utopian’s what you really hate is humanity! The variable often contradictory nature nature of the human species is what provides imagination,creativity, achievement and ensures survival.
It’s also scary, since with imaginative awareness comes the knowledge of insecurity. Fear often produces self-loathing, and a gloomy perspective. The urge to morally blame society or a lack of “moral values” for causing your fear,derives from a very natural desire to feel secure by control of everything and everyone to conform with your values and aspirations.
The reward for knowledge is not contentment, but the desire for more knowledge.
My “values and aspirations” are peace, harmony, justice, freedom and from needless suffering for the people of Earth. I don’t think that’s too controversial.
I wouldn’t say that I hate humanity; the vast majority of people on Earth are kind and honest. But does anyone think this civilization is on the right track at this point? The problem seems to be the “mob mentality,” where a demagogue comes along and successfully appeals to the worst in people’s nature; that’s certainly what happened here in the U.S.
Craig,
“peace, harmony, justice, freedom and from needless suffering for the people of Earth”
These values may not be controversial, but they are “apple pie” aspirations and really just platitudes.
The Human Species has survived and prospered due to developing a highly complex, often contradictory, set of skills.
“peace and harmony” must be offset by human aggression, discord, curiosity, ambition, avarice and competition.
It can be argued that only by suffering does human society evolve and triumph ! Whose to say what’s “needless”?
The human species are not shy, doe-eyed, timid little Forrest dwellers, humbly eating tender leaves. We are aggressive problem solving animals, determined to dominate our own destiny and control evolution itself.
In the generations to come we will evolve to expand beyond the realm of known physics, to to other planets and solar systems.
(I feel sorry for any species we encounter).
There is actually a great deal of very interesting material about Mars. A good counterpoint to the “how we can do it videos” are the “why we will never be able to do it videos.” In the latter are items including what Frank mentioned: gravity, atmospheric density, radiation, storms.
The gravity alone is an interesting case. Presently we know that the zero g of the space station is not good for humans. We know that 1g is OK but not how the curve between the two is shaped. 38% could be OK or dismal. It is likely not a straight line.
But I also find some inspiration for possible answers an interesting thought candy. So mars does not have a magnetic field and the thin atmosphere will blow away and in any event not afford much protection. What if we could stick the atmosphere together with some kind of magnetic attraction. Could we get it to stick to the planet, increase atmospheric density, and afford some protection against cosmic radiation?
With respect to a pessimistic view of extraterrestrial society, this reminds me of the atheists perspective: “all religions are controlling and mindless therefore I must advocate a life without religion.” There is an argument for the original premise and the logic yet the conclusion is overreaching because the original premise is not inclusive. There are exceptions. As long as there is the hope that not everyone is a slave to the worst in religion, humanity or society then there is a chance.
We can meet lots of miserable people in the course of our day or lifetime, but we hold out hope that our appeals like some seeds will reach fertile ground and grow.
Your misanthropy is showing here Craig.
🙂
It doesn’t become you.
You’ve brought up two separate questions: first whether we CAN terraform Mars; second whether we should.
The first is easy: no.
Not within the next several generations, and not without a paradigm shift in launch costs, as we would need to build a station on the moon capable of sustaining a colony that could then build/assemble much larger launch vehicles, and separate water and other critical compounds and elements from the moon dust.
The cost would be on the order of tens of trillions just to set up the moon base, and then further tens of trillions to begin the multi-generational campaign for Mars. (It is highly likely that we could easily produce atmosphere far more quickly than it could escape – on the order of thousandsfold. It’s also likely that we could have sufficient GHG’s present in the atmosphere that we could make Mars habitable without making it toxic, though I haven’t personally tried to hash that out… Furthermore, I imagine that it would be far easier to have exercise regiments that would enable a perfectly healthy person at 0.38 g. I cannot believe that would be a problem just because 0 g is a problem).
But though I believe it’s quite plausible, in today’s day, where global science budgets are slashed to the bone, the idea that we can scrape together tens of trillions to get started on this is just wild-eyed absurdity. It’s also wild-eyed absurdity to think that we SHOULD spent tens of trillions on a long-term colonization project when we’re facing all kinds of different problems here on this rock. We will need those tens of trillions to mitigate and accommodate global warming, we’ll need those tens of trillions to eliminate global poverty, eliminate global hunger, homelessness, pollution, etc… I can think of lots of things that would be better purposes to spend that money on.
Perhaps in a generation or two we might be at a place (again assuming a paradigm shift in launch costs) where we’d start such a process, but that won’t happen within the foreseeable future.
The second question that you raise is even easier: Should we expand humanity?
Yes.
Of course.
We have no idea of whether or not our trajectory is “better” or “worse” than that of other evolved sentient species on other worlds. We know, mathematically, that it is nothing short of insanity to assume anything other than that they exist out there… but we don’t know whether they are more cruel or kind than us. We don’t know whether they are more selfish or altruistic.
But this isn’t a Star Trek style “first directive” question in any event. It’s not a question of us going forth to conquer the peaceful utopian advanced civilization or polluting a pristine paradise. It’s a giant frozen rock with no life more advanced than microbial, that will never be viewed from Earth without advanced imaging equipment as more than a small dot of reddish-hue light. Our arrival wouldn’t harm anything that has any value to any living thing (the microbes would appreciate us warming the place up and adding humidity, and there’s nothing else there). So there’s no reason to think we’d be harming anything at all by going to Mars… and really there’s really no reason to suspect that we’d be somehow contaminating our theoretical peer sentient species by propagating ourselves forth for the next several million generations. Just because we ourselves can find fault with ourselves, we don’t know that others evolved any better… and we don’t know that we are done evolving (both biologically and socially) in the next several thousand generations before we’re likely to encounter a peer species.
In terms of misanthropy, you’re right. I don’t like what I see here. I know the vast majority of the world’s population is composed of good people, but the power/leadership of these people is clearly headed in the wrong direction.
I would say that anyone whose assessment of humankind hasn’t taken a down-tick in the past few years isn’t paying attention. How did you feel when you realized there were 62 million Americans who would vote for a rude, fraudulent pathological liar and admitted, in fact proud, sex offender? I was totally shocked. I would have guess there were a couple of million voters, max, who placed no value on the character of the person they would elect to lead them.
It’s certainly true that we don’t know what’s out there. Trump may be a prince among men compared to the leader of some other civilization. I’m not sure how this affects the discussion, though.
Glenn,
Well said !