Terraforming

[EvilRedGuy]

Whats your opinion on terraforming.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If it can be done, we should do it. A home from home in our own solar system would be a huge bonus for our species - in addition to the "second chance" it would give us in the event of a planetary disaster on Earth, it would provide a massive space for further cultural development and diversity, expanding the bounds of what it means to be human. This would be especially important in light of the fact that a human civilisation capable of terraforming planets is likely to be very closely interconnected, perhaps even a monoculture. But the light-speed lag between Earth and Mars or Venus would provide a degree of seperation with the added bonus that it's simply not worth oppressing the "other" - cultural variety without cultural conflict.

Hopefully the terraformation planets within the solar system would be but a small part of an even greater venture into the great unknown...

[EvilRedGuy]

This is why i love your posts NoXion, allways so interesting.
Hell this is why i love alot of posters here.

[Revy]

Well, plants produce oxygen by absorbing CO2. That would help create a breathable atmosphere on Mars. We might need some kind of weed that grows a lot, and can thrive in cold temperatures. if the soil is a problem maybe genetically engineer a plant that can thrive in it. Or maybe algae and mosses. If that's not feasible I'm sure that they could develop a way to synthesize oxygen and pump it into the atmosphere.

Warming the planet is another issue entirely, also introducing water into the climate so that it rains. Maybe we'd have to warm the planet and create the oceans first before we could keep plants growing. I'm not sure. I'd still consider creating a breathable atmosphere to be the main priority. One hole in your suit and you suffocate to death doesn't sound good.

Some people think it's outlandish or far-fetched but I don't.

[Ocean Seal]

If it can be done, we should do it. A home from home in our own solar system would be a huge bonus for our species - in addition to the "second chance" it would give us in the event of a planetary disaster on Earth, it would provide a massive space for further cultural development and diversity, expanding the bounds of what it means to be human. This would be especially important in light of the fact that a human civilisation capable of terraforming planets is likely to be very closely interconnected, perhaps even a monoculture. But the light-speed lag between Earth and Mars or Venus would provide a degree of seperation with the added bonus that it's simply not worth oppressing the "other" - cultural variety without cultural conflict.

Hopefully the terraformation planets within the solar system would be but a small part of an even greater venture into the great unknown...
For all these reasons I believe that we should focus on developing terraforming techniques. I think that there is strong evidence that terraforming could be completed on other planets (however only a small fraction of all the planets).

Additionally, the scientific possibilities that terraforming allows are absolutely tremendous. Imagine having satellites around all the planets and the solar systems that contain the planets that we terraform. The possibility to learn is absolutely endless, so many new compounds and such a great chance to interact/study other life forms from the simple to the complex. And at the same time by the time we actually discover how to terraform the economy will probably be communist so we wouldn't need to worry about wars against ourselves.

[mikelepore]

They don't even know yet whether Mars can hold onto an atmosphere for very long. With an acceleration of gravity of only 3.7, the new breathable atmosphere that you produce, with molecular masses less than that of carbon dioxide, might leak away into space as fast as you produce it.

[Crimson Commissar]

If we can do it, then definitely. Terraform and colonize as much as possible. Humanity must settle every last piece of land that is possible for us to settle. We shall bring Socialism throughout the entire galaxy! :thumbup1:

[Klaatu]

They don't even know yet whether Mars can hold onto an atmosphere for very long. With an acceleration of gravity of only 3.7, the new breathable atmosphere that you produce, with molecular masses less than that of carbon dioxide, might leak away into space as fast as you produce it.

Yes I agree.

CO2 has a molar mass of 44 g/mol
O2 = 32 g/mol
N2 = 28 g/mol

Being lighter gases, some oxygen and nitrogen are going to exit Mars' outer atmosphere.
Besides, we need billions of plants, plenty of water, and temperatures
of over 10°C for photosynthesis to take place (possible at the equator)
The most disappointing thing of all is that we also need millions of years
for the O2 content to come up to breathable range (20%)

[Revy]

Yes I agree.

CO2 has a molar mass of 44 g/mol
O2 = 32 g/mol
N2 = 28 g/mol

Being lighter gases, some oxygen and nitrogen are going to exit Mars' outer atmosphere.
Besides, we need billions of plants, plenty of water, and temperatures
of over 10°C for photosynthesis to take place (possible at the equator)
The most disappointing thing of all is that we also need millions of years
for the O2 content to come up to breathable range (20%)

This is what I'm talking about. Extreme pessimism. Millions of years?

If Mars always lost a lot of atmosphere it would have no atmosphere left. But it does.

The advantage is that humans will have the technology to make the terraforming process relatively quick.

How does the Internet work? According to the late Senator Ted Stevens, "a series of tubes", because he couldn't comprehend it. Humans have already accomplished extremely complex things within decades.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes I agree.

CO2 has a molar mass of 44 g/mol
O2 = 32 g/mol
N2 = 28 g/mol

Being lighter gases, some oxygen and nitrogen are going to exit Mars' outer atmosphere.
Besides, we need billions of plants, plenty of water, and temperatures
of over 10°C for photosynthesis to take place (possible at the equator)
The most disappointing thing of all is that we also need millions of years
for the O2 content to come up to breathable range (20%)

I'm pretty sure that the bond between hydrogen and oxygen in water is weaker than a carbon-carbon bond, so the job could concievably be done by molecular nanotechnology, if gengineered organisms are out of the question. The excess hydrogen can be allowed to escape into space or bound into useful compounds.

[Ovi]

I'm pretty sure that the bond between hydrogen and oxygen in water is weaker than a carbon-carbon bond
I seriously doubt that.
About terraforming, the only planet in the solar system in the habitable zone is the Earth


In astronomy, the habitable zone (HZ) is the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface and Earth-like life.

So terraforming Mars or Venus is by definition impossible since they're not in the HZ and earth like planets outside of the HZ can't maintain liquid water. Of course that doesn't exclude the possibility of Mars or Venus to maintain liquid water on its surface, but then again that wouldn't be Earth like, thus it wouldn't technically be terraforming, would it? Perhaps enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Mars would make it warm enough, though.

Well, plants produce oxygen by absorbing CO2. That would help create a breathable atmosphere on Mars. We might need some kind of weed that grows a lot, and can thrive in cold temperatures. if the soil is a problem maybe genetically engineer a plant that can thrive in it. Or maybe algae and mosses.

Sadly that won't work with Mars conditions. The atmosphere is too thin, close to a vacuum; there's little to stop the damaging radiation from the sun from destroying all plants. There isn't any oxygen that plants need, not enough nitrogen which is the most important macronutrient, and again, the atmosphere is too thin. It's also too cold for liquid water to exist. And since the vapor pressure of water is larger than the Martian atmosphere except a fraction of a degree above 0 C, liquid water can't exist at all at this moment on Mars. If you can find a plant that survives without nitrogen, water and an atmosphere, that would work though.


If that's not feasible I'm sure that they could develop a way to synthesize oxygen and pump it into the atmosphere.

It's interesting, but not really possible today or in the foreseeable future. All the fossil fuel we burned in the last centuries meant using up less than one thousandth of the oxygen in the atmosphere. To release all the oxygen we have in the atmosphere right now from carbon dioxide would mean requiring about 1000 times more energy than we have generated from fossil fuel in our history. It's not impossible, but I won't be holding by breath for it.


Warming the planet is another issue entirely, also introducing water into the climate so that it rains. Maybe we'd have to warm the planet and create the oceans first before we could keep plants growing. I'm not sure. I'd still consider creating a breathable atmosphere to be the main priority. One hole in your suit and you suffocate to death doesn't sound good.

Some people think it's outlandish or far-fetched but I don't.
It is far-fetched. It might become possible one day.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I seriously doubt that.

Let's see, H2O at room temperature and at one atmosphere of pressure is a liquid that easily evaporates. Carbon at room temperature and at one atmospheric pressure can take many forms, among them being solid diamond.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure carbon-carbon bonds can be stronger than hydrogen-oxygen bonds.


About terraforming, the only planet in the solar system in the habitable zone is the Earth

The Habitable Zone is defined with respect to naturally occuring planets just like the Earth.

A "cold Venus" type planet with an enormous greenhouse effect but sans lead-boiling temperatures would be perfectly habitable via terraformation.


So terraforming Mars or Venus is by definition impossible since they're not in the HZ and earth like planets outside of the HZ can't maintain liquid water. Of course that doesn't exclude the possibility of Mars or Venus to maintain liquid water on its surface, but then again that wouldn't be Earth like, thus it wouldn't technically be terraforming, would it? Perhaps enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Mars would make it warm enough, though.

The object of terraforming is to provide a more comfortable habitat for baseline humans, not to create an exact replica of Earth.


Sadly that won't work with Mars conditions. The atmosphere is too thin, close to a vacuum; there's little to stop the damaging radiation from the sun from destroying all plants. There isn't any oxygen that plants need, not enough nitrogen which is the most important macronutrient, and again, the atmosphere is too thin. It's also too cold for liquid water to exist. And since the vapor pressure of water is larger than the Martian atmosphere except a fraction of a degree above 0 C, liquid water can't exist at all at this moment on Mars. If you can find a plant that survives without nitrogen, water and an atmosphere, that would work though.

This is why before you even think about introducing any kind of life onto Mars, you do your prep work by gathering the raw materials needed to thicken the atmosphere acceptably. There are plenty of comets and outer solar system bodies with the requisite elements, including nitrogen if there is insufficient native nitrogen on Mars.


It's interesting, but not really possible today or in the foreseeable future. All the fossil fuel we burned in the last centuries meant using up less than one thousandth of the oxygen in the atmosphere. To release all the oxygen we have in the atmosphere right now from carbon dioxide would mean requiring about 1000 times more energy than we have generated from fossil fuel in our history. It's not impossible, but I won't be holding by breath for it.

Biotechnology and nanotechnology will be powerful tools in this respect thanks to the magic of exponential growth, so such a project might not take as long as you think.


It is far-fetched. It might become possible one day.

I prefer to think of it as something we should aim for as a species.

[revolution inaction]

Let's see, H2O at room temperature and at one atmosphere of pressure is a liquid that easily evaporates. Carbon at room temperature and at one atmospheric pressure can take many forms, among them being solid diamond.

thats irelivent since when h2o evaporats it is still h2o, non of the bonds between the hydrogen and the oxogen are broken in this process



Yeah, I'm pretty sure carbon-carbon bonds can be stronger than hydrogen-oxygen bonds.


find information on the strengths of the bonds, this should't be hard

edit, it wasn't, found it for you here http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/BondEnergy.html

Average bond energies, kcal/mole
C-H 98
O-H 110
C-C 80
C-O 78
H-H 103
C-N 65
O=O 116 (2 x 58)
C=O 187* (2 x 93.5)
C=C 145 (2 x 72.5)
(* as found in CO2)

as you can see a carbon carbon bond is weaker then a oxygen hydrogen bond

[Ovi]

Let's see, H2O at room temperature and at one atmosphere of pressure is a liquid that easily evaporates. Carbon at room temperature and at one atmospheric pressure can take many forms, among them being solid diamond.

H2O evaporates easier than diamond, not because the the H-O bond is weaker than the C-C one. After all, you don't claim that by evaporation you break the covalent H-O bond, do you? Water establishes covalent links only between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen one. Diamond has covalent links between much more atoms in a crystal. On the other hand, water molecules themselves are held together by the weaker hydrogen bond. According to this (http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/bond_energies_lengths.html) table, H-O bond energy is 459 kJ/mol, while the sp3 carbon bonds in diamond (simple C-C bonds), 346 kJ/mol .


Yeah, I'm pretty sure carbon-carbon bonds can be stronger than hydrogen-oxygen bonds.

The sp2 links in graphene are. Those between graphene layers in graphite are not.


The Habitable Zone is defined with respect to naturally occuring planets just like the Earth.

The HZ is the distance from a star at which a planet just like earth could maintains liquid water. It has nothing to do with naturally occurring anything.


A "cold Venus" type planet with an enormous greenhouse effect but sans lead-boiling temperatures would be perfectly habitable via terraformation.

Not necessarily. An enormous greenhouse effect like Venus means an enormous surface pressure like Venus. The pressure at the surface of Venus is 93 times that of the Earth. I don't think that's very friendly for humans.


The object of terraforming is to provide a more comfortable habitat for baseline humans, not to create an exact replica of Earth.

I was just playing with the definition


Terraforming (literally, "Earth-forming") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to those of Earth to make it habitable by terran organisms.
Make the atmospheres of Mars and Venus similar to Earth's, and you get 2 uninhabitable planets.



This is why before you even think about introducing any kind of life onto Mars, you do your prep work by gathering the raw materials needed to thicken the atmosphere acceptably. There are plenty of comets and outer solar system bodies with the requisite elements, including nitrogen if there is insufficient native nitrogen on Mars.

Ceres has a lot of water. Vesta has an olivine mantle. Powdered olivine reacts with CO2 from the atmosphere and forms carbonates, so having it impact Venus might absorb much of the CO2 on Venus.

[mikelepore]

It would be better to begin by building your Martian civilization indoors, maybe within a hive of rectangular or hexagonal cells. Glass ceilings if you want to admit light for growing crops. Separate compartments connected together, so that any compartment that gets punctured by a meteoroid can be sealed off quickly. Once people are already living this way, then start worrying about depositing some cyanobacteria or some other photosynthetic organisms outside, to begin transforming the planet. But for the purpose of having a backup civilization in case the earth gets wiped out, it should be in an enclosure. Terraforming will be a much slower process.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

H2O evaporates easier than diamond, not because the the H-O bond is weaker than the C-C one. After all, you don't claim that by evaporation you break the covalent H-O bond, do you? Water establishes covalent links only between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen one. Diamond has covalent links between much more atoms in a crystal. On the other hand, water molecules themselves are held together by the weaker hydrogen bond. According to this (http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/bond_energies_lengths.html) table, H-O bond energy is 459 kJ/mol, while the sp3 carbon bonds in diamond (simple C-C bonds), 346 kJ/mol .

The sp2 links in graphene are. Those between graphene layers in graphite are not.

Surely then molecular nanotechnology designed to seperate hydrogen from oxygen would use sp3 bonds...

Failing that, take the brute-force approach and simply use solar energy beamed from collectors on Mercury to crack the water.


The HZ is the distance from a star at which a planet just like earth could maintains liquid water. It has nothing to do with naturally occurring anything.

A planet just like Earth is naturally occurring. But a terraformed Mars would not be just like Earth.


Not necessarily. An enormous greenhouse effect like Venus means an enormous surface pressure like Venus. The pressure at the surface of Venus is 93 times that of the Earth. I don't think that's very friendly for humans.

That depends on what's causing the greenhouse effect, doesn't it? In the instance of Venus, it is mainly CO2, but there are elements and compounds with much better greenhouse properties.


I was just playing with the definition
Make the atmospheres of Mars and Venus similar to Earth's, and you get 2 uninhabitable planets.

That's because you don't make the atmosphere exactly like Earth's. Like I said, the idea behind terraformation is habitability, not replication. A breathable atmosphere on Mars will need a greater amount of greenhouse gases, while a breathable atmosphere on Venus will need a lesser amount.


Ceres has a lot of water. Vesta has an olivine mantle. Powdered olivine reacts with CO2 from the atmosphere and forms carbonates, so having it impact Venus might absorb much of the CO2 on Venus.

Ceres and Vesta are practically worlds unto themselves. I'd rather not break them up if it is at all possible to use smaller objects for source materials.

[NecroCommie]

From NASA: http://web.archive.org/web/20070915152013/http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/10/10.cfm

[Ovi]

Ceres and Vesta are practically worlds unto themselves.
And Mars is not?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And Mars is not?

Yes, but I hardly think you can compare terraforming a world with smashing it up for raw materials.

[Ovi]

What's the difference? Any life forms would probably be destroyed in either case. By the way, if the most primitive life forms are found on Mars, I assume the whole terraforming Mars ideas would have to be canceled. Let's hope there's no life on Mars then.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What's the difference? Any life forms would probably be destroyed in either case.

Who said anything about life-forms? Ceres is a unique object within the solar system, compared to the countless anonymous potato-shaped lumps that represent the smaller bodies.

Besides, mining from smaller bodies will save energy - all that mass in one place adds a gravitational cost to the task of extraction.


By the way, if the most primitive life forms are found on Mars, I assume the whole terraforming Mars ideas would have to be canceled. Let's hope there's no life on Mars then.

I guess that would depend on how strong the sentiment for terraforming Mars weighs up to the sentiment for preserving any extant life there. But I don't doubt that if we wanted it that badly, we would exterminate any primitive Martian life without a second's thought.

[Theoneontheleft]

I think that terraforming is a good idea, worth investigating for dead planets & moons, but a if a planet already has intelligent life, then they should be left alone. I would not want the human race to become like the Martians in George Pal's 1951 version of "War of the Worlds".

[Q]

I think that terraforming is a good idea, worth investigating for dead planets & moons, but a if a planet already has intelligent life, then they should be left alone. I would not want the human race to become like the Martians in George Pal's 1951 version of "War of the Worlds".

What about unintelligent life? And who is to decide what is "intelligent" or not?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What about unintelligent life?

I'm thinking that would depend on how common it turns out to be. It's entirely possible that planets populated wholly by microorganisms are ten a penny in the universe, in which case it would be no great loss if we were to terraform such a world.


And who is to decide what is "intelligent" or not?

Surely things like that are a matter of observation and experiment, rather than opinion?

[Q]

I'm thinking that would depend on how common it turns out to be. It's entirely possible that planets populated wholly by microorganisms are ten a penny in the universe, in which case it would be no great loss if we were to terraform such a world.
That could only be determined if we can review a large number of planets throughout the galaxy. I don't think we'd wait that long in the case of Mars, if there happened to be life.


Surely things like that are a matter of observation and experiment, rather than opinion?
I think it was you who recently pointed out that vastly more intelligent species (Type III or something) wouldn't even notice us, or could see us as vermin. So, the question remains: what is "intelligence" and by whose standards?

Also, even if there happened to be only non-intelligent lifeforms, who are we to deny them an evolutionary future towards "intelligence", civilisation and whatnot?

I'm posing ethical questions here, not so much technical ones.

[Klaatu]

It would be better to begin by building your Martian civilization indoors, maybe within a hive of rectangular or hexagonal cells. Glass ceilings if you want to admit light for growing crops. Separate compartments connected together, so that any compartment that gets punctured by a meteoroid can be sealed off quickly. Once people are already living this way, then start worrying about depositing some cyanobacteria or some other photosynthetic organisms outside, to begin transforming the planet. But for the purpose of having a backup civilization in case the earth gets wiped out, it should be in an enclosure. Terraforming will be a much slower process.

In the movie "Total Recall," humans live on Mars, indoors. There is an enormous machine left by the prior residents (spoiler alert)

[Klaatu]

This is what I'm talking about. Extreme pessimism. Millions of years?

I did a few calculations (this is what I do for a living anyway) and came up with a figure of about 500,000 years for the O2 content of Mars' atmosphere to get to 20%, via photosynthesis. Remember that Mars is twice the distance from the sun as Earth is, therefore receives only about one fourth the sun's energy, slowing the photosynthesis process. Cool temperatures slow it too.

Someone had pointed out that the Martian atmospheric pressure is quite low (less than 1% that of Earth) therefore water would boil at a low temperature (of around 25°C or so) but plants can still grow at 10°C, and can adapt (evolve) to the "boiling" conditions in that environment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That could only be determined if we can review a large number of planets throughout the galaxy. I don't think we'd wait that long in the case of Mars, if there happened to be life.

Well, the current low temperatures of Mars appear to rule out complex multicellular life, which needs lots of energy.

Nevertheless, it's likely that we'll explore the length and breadth of Mars before we terraform it, for the simple fact that it's easier. That will give us more than enough information to make a reasoned decision.


I think it was you who recently pointed out that vastly more intelligent species (Type III or something) wouldn't even notice us, or could see us as vermin. So, the question remains: what is "intelligence" and by whose standards?

If there are Type III species out there that would consider us to be their equivalent of vermin, then that is something beyond our control, at least for the forseeable future.

What we can control is our attitude to less complex lifeforms.


Also, even if there happened to be only non-intelligent lifeforms, who are we to deny them an evolutionary future towards "intelligence", civilisation and whatnot?

I'm posing ethical questions here, not so much technical ones.

Killing microbes doesn't deny them anything because there is nothing they can be meaningfully said to desire.

If the unrealised potential of alien ecosystems lacking any intelligence is bothersome, then one should look into the possibilities of uplifting them, rather than leaving it to hack-and-slash processes of natural selection.

[Magón]

Just make sure you don't fall into any of these guys, when you're Terraforming another planet/moon.
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/alien1.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just make sure you don't fall into any of these guys, when you're Terraforming another planet/moon.
[IMG]

Interesting you should bring that up; I think there is a greater danger of alien life being biochemically incompatible with Terran organisms, than of being eaten by said alien life.

Which means that aliens are more likely to make you throw up than burst out of your chest.

[Klaatu]

Just make sure you don't fall into any of these guys, when you're Terraforming another planet/moon.

Don't get too friendly with Ripley either. And stay out of Speilberg's basement. :lol:

[Magón]

Interesting you should bring that up; I think there is a greater danger of alien life being biochemically incompatible with Terran organisms, than of being eaten by said alien life.

Which means that aliens are more likely to make you throw up than burst out of your chest.

Ah man, and I wanted to be a Space Marine, battling these fuckers. :thumbup: It's no fun when I have to just get a Flu Shot. :lol:

[Crimson Commissar]

What's the difference? Any life forms would probably be destroyed in either case. By the way, if the most primitive life forms are found on Mars, I assume the whole terraforming Mars ideas would have to be canceled. Let's hope there's no life on Mars then.
Does it honestly matter? We can't cancel our plans for bringing civilization to Mars simply because there are a few very primitive species on there. Humanity comes before all else. Sorry if that offends you. :rolleyes:

[Theoneontheleft]

What about unintelligent life? And who is to decide what is "intelligent" or not?

That is a very good question. Maybe, we need to evolve more, so that we can determine a species' intelligence. Atleast the crew of the "Enterprise" had Sock to do "Vulcan Mind Melds" in order to determine a species' intelligence. In all seriousness "Star Trek" had brought up many interesting concepts, such as life that was not carbon-based and intelligent plant life.

[Klaatu]

That is a very good question. Maybe, we need to evolve more, so that we can determine a species' intelligence. Atleast the crew of the "Enterprise" had Sock to do "Vulcan Mind Melds" in order to determine a species' intelligence. In all seriousness "Star Trek" had brought up many interesting concepts, such as life that was not carbon-based and intelligent plant life.

I recall an intelligent form of life, in the form of a crystal, in a Star Trek episode. I think Michael Crichton stole that idea when he wrote "Andromeda Strain" (?) Anyway, there must be unlimited possibilities for intelligent life to exist. There was even an episode of the 1960s series "Outer Limits" where communication was established with a being whose biology was based on nitrogen, not carbon (as is ours) The point is that, just about anything may be possible where life is concerned, and we need to keep our minds open to the many possibilities... There may be life where we least expect to find it (?)

[Theoneontheleft]

I recall an intelligent form of life, in the form of a crystal, in a Star Trek episode. I think Michael Crichton stole that idea when he wrote "Andromeda Strain" (?) Anyway, there must be unlimited possibilities for intelligent life to exist. There was even an episode of the 1960s series "Outer Limits" where communication was established with a being whose biology was based on nitrogen, not carbon (as is ours) The point is that, just about anything may be possible where life is concerned, and we need to keep our minds open to the many possibilities... There may be life where we least expect to find it (?)

That does brings us back to the question, "How do we define life?" There are indeed an infinite number of possibilities.

[noble brown]

i hope there arent any aliens around when we do try (the capitalist sytem is running out of natural resources and we all know that leads to expansion) to colonize space. cause if i was them then i wouldnt want us up there. right now we're fucking cancer! we'd just go up there an fuck shit up.

now maybe you mean after we get our shit together. assuming we do, i would hope that that would mean we were just as eager to keep our enviroment alive and well as ourselves. under those circumstances yes i think its a good idea, but i wouldnt even think of condonning any sort of effort into space right now. it'd be about like letting the dog that likes to eat baby heads into a day care. fucking plain irresponsible!! so until the day that we do get it together comes, hell no! its just plain irresponsible!!

[Klaatu]

What this planet needs, is a highly-respected prophet, like Jesus or someone, to tell everyone what a piss-poor job we are doing in taking care of our planet's environment. He might also convince people that it is capitalism, for the most part, that is doing the job of fucking up the rain forest, oceans, etc. :crying:

[Revy]

What this planet needs, is a highly-respected prophet, like Jesus or someone, to tell everyone what a piss-poor job we are doing in taking care of our planet's environment. He might also convince people that it is capitalism, for the most part, that is doing the job of fucking up the rain forest, oceans, etc. :crying:

We'll probably need to terraform Earth to make it livable again. Too many chemical toxins and pollutants being released into the environment every second.

[La Comédie Noire]

I've heard Mars used to have an atmosphere, but lost it because it's core wasn't magnetic enough to resist solar flares and damage from space debris. Is this true? and if so what could future engineers and Scientists do to fix it?

[Magón]

I've heard Mars used to have an atmosphere, but lost it because it's core wasn't magnetic enough to resist solar flares and damage from space debris. Is this true? and if so what could future engineers and Scientists do to fix it?

Yeah, I think that's pretty much one of the most accepted hypothetical reasons to why Mars is how it is. As for how to fix it? I don't know, I guess some form of Terraforming of the ice caps maybe? (I'm really just in it for the alien squashing. :))

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've heard Mars used to have an atmosphere, but lost it because it's core wasn't magnetic enough to resist solar flares and damage from space debris. Is this true? and if so what could future engineers and Scientists do to fix it?

The atmospheric erosion you describe occurs over periods ranging from millions to billlions of years. You could get away with doing nothing but an occasional top-up of the atmosphere every million years or so.

[Technocrat]

Here's a question: would human curiosity be sufficient motivation to mobilize society to provide the tremendous investment of resources and time that space colonization would require? Remember that this is a project that could potentially take centuries. So, would human curiosity in a post-scarcity environment be enough to sustain the effort required by such a project? Or would people just be content to live on the Earth after we've eliminated capitalism and cleaned up all the pollution? Most sci-fi is written from a capitalist perspective, but I'm trying to imagine how it would work in a post-capitalist framework.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here's a question: would human curiosity be sufficient motivation to mobilize society to provide the tremendous investment of resources and time that space colonization would require?

I don't see what curiosity has to do with it - exploration certainly satisfies that, but colonisation is a different matter. It's about a desire to create a home away from Earth, which I think is seperate from curiosity.


Remember that this is a project that could potentially take centuries. So, would human curiosity in a post-scarcity environment be enough to sustain the effort required by such a project?

I don't know, but I would hope that enough people support the idea for it to get off the ground in a meaningful way.


Or would people just be content to live on the Earth after we've eliminated capitalism and cleaned up all the pollution? Most sci-fi is written from a capitalist perspective, but I'm trying to imagine how it would work in a post-capitalist framework.

I imagine that extraterrestrial colonisation on any meangingful scale will be motivated by a combination of pragmatism and idealogy. After all, what better way to isolate your community from political influence than moving out somewhere nobody's lived before? And if it is materially self-sufficient, disaster could befall Earth and your own little utopian enclave would be unscathed.

[noble brown]

yeah thats a brillant idea!! colonize space!...

we've ran out of land to colonize and then you got them pesky natives, always want something back. and after you showed em the value of good honest days work. at least in space we wont have that problem and we can exploit all we want up there. it took em centuries to give a shit about their immediate enviroment and way to late at that. i mean whos gonna care if we dump all our toxins on mars?! they dont care if we dump it a couple of blocks down the road much less on another planet as long as it aint in their backyard!

like i said "brillant idea!"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yeah thats a brillant idea!! colonize space!...

we've ran out of land to colonize and then you got them pesky natives, always want something back. and after you showed em the value of good honest days work. at least in space we wont have that problem and we can exploit all we want up there. it took em centuries to give a shit about their immediate enviroment and way to late at that. i mean whos gonna care if we dump all our toxins on mars?!

If people have colonised Mars they might care.


they dont care if we dump it a couple of blocks down the road much less on another planet as long as it aint in their backyard!

like i said "brillant idea!"

What rubbish could we produce that we wouldn't be better off recycling in some fashion?

[razboz]

Okay,

First off some terms i feel people of this thread have failed to define:

Terraforming:
Do we mean: the transformation of other planets into something that is similar or identical to our planet (named Terra here, to avoid confusion)? The creation of extra-terrestrial habitats, which can sustain human or Terran life? Or the creation of extra-terrestrial habitats that can support any kind of carbon-based life? What would a terraformed planet look like? Is terraforming a hegemonising project?

Life:
A lot of people seem to accept that life should be protected. Firstly, is life valuable, and why? Is it intrinsically so? Is human life valuable collectively, individually or not at all? Second, what do we mean by 'life'? Would we cleanse a planet of sillica-based life forms, or destroy intelligent life in methane seas? Would we do it if our own species or planet was in peril?

Some practicalites:
Who would carry out terraforming, and why? Will it and can it occur in a post-scarcity society? Can it happen in any other kind of raw-materials situation,such as peak-oil or peak-uranium? Capitalism does not need to be overthrown for terraforming to occur: how would this affect our involvement in the effort? What about colonialism, and new markets?

I'd like to spend some time answering these questions, because all of these are important to me in explaining my position on Terraforming, which i believe is what the OP was asking about. But my computer is quite literally falling apart so ill try and get to the center of what i want to say:

New, powerful technology has always been weaponised by the State or capitalised by Capitalists. Often it has done both. Terraforming is a different project to most technical challenges, however. It proposes that we create an entire habitat away from Terra which can sustain life, and particularly intelligent life such as ours. This project will require vast amounts of raw material and energy, almost regardless of how it's done. But while it's very different to most, it is very similar to one particular project. Colonialism on Terra has always been about transporting your home environment to a new (empty) one. It is very easy to say that we wouldn't allow a colony to be built on a planet with intelligent life on it, but much more difficult to define both 'life' and 'intelligent'.

When Australia was colonised it took hundreds of years for the government to recognise anyone was even living there, let alone give them rights and things. Anthropologists, back when it was a Science, went to great lengths to demonstrate that the Aboriginal people were not really people at all, and at best they were a people without a culture. This is something that the creepier wings of evolutionary biologists really picked up. A reflection of this is Marx's unstoppable march of progress. The idea that survived into the 20th century is that evolution tends to produce more advanced organisms from more primitive ones. With the growing realisation of the mortality of our own species, we've been forced to re-adapt that model. Now it seems life shoots out in different directions. Things like intelligence, culture or omnivorism are not hallmarks of a successful species, but really just of ours. Our planet's most successful species are dumb. Many of them don't even have more than one cell, and there are many molecular structures that come so close to being alive, it makes me wonder how far the life-non-life spectrum extends.

This intellectual transformation accompanies a much more sinister transformation of our planet. While colonial scientists debated whether or not the colonial subject was intelligent, human and cultured or not, the native people of the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Middle East were forced endure the "the long night of 500 years", in which genocide, ethnic cleansing, appartheid and exploitation were the norm. This period also sets the seeds for the propagation of thousands of European animals and plants into the rest of the world, and the transfer of disease into the global pathogen pool. All of these changed the ways ecosystems work everywhere, and in mnay cases this has resulted in loss of biodiversity (is biodiversity good?)

Colonialism in this style was a response to a changing pool of needs. While aristocrats and nobility controlledthe initial parts of colonialism, the growing petite-bourgeoisie trading classes of Europe wrested intellectual and eventually material control of the process away from the aristocrats. The effect was to tremendously strengthen the budding control that Capitalism could have on the totality of society. Because of the intellectual and ideological aspect of colonialism, capitalists reclaimed it for themselves, and eventually reclaimed the academic disciplines that evolved to understand Colonialism.

The situtation with Terraforming is similar. Capitalists, however, are now in total control. All of the Sciences are moulded into the Capitalist project. How would a terraforming project be able to break out of these moulds? One obvious way is by destroying capitalism and creating a technocratic (or otherwise) society which could mantain production, while arming itself with truly independent philosophers, biologists, mathematicians and assorted scientists and thinkers to really understand what's going on.

This revolution needs to happen before terraforming begins.Theconsequences of capitalist terraformation are potentially disastrous. We may go on to destroy ecosystems vastly superior to ours, or anihillitng cultures that we just don't have the defenitions to understand-- all without knowing what we are responsible for. Additionally, themmain crises in Capitalism tend to come from scarcity. Without the scarcity of limited Terran markets, i can see no reason why capitalist exploitation should ever end.

"If you want to imagine capitalist terraforming, just imagine a boot stomping on an infinite number of delicate flowers, for ever."


One particular avenue of discussion, which specialists would need to come to a consensus to before a morally sustained transformation of the Universe was underway, is what value does life have in the universe. it is not obvious to me that anyone's really researched this, and if we can't even say that life is good, then we have no basis on which to say we should spread it. (Maybe life is good because we are alive?)

Im a bit tired of writting this post, so ill add more thoughts on this later. But maybe a different approach to terraforming to the standard "send humanity to seed new planets", is to really get down to efficiency. Extract the minds of a number of individuals (maybe the entire human race) and implant them in roaming clouds of space-faring self-replicating nano-technologies. These would exist entirely in the 'vaccuum' of space, consuming resources not already part of some other process (and here we don't decide wether that process is 'life' or not). I guess what im proposing is less terraforming space, and more transforming humans to adapt to space,and the universe.

[noble brown]

Terraforming:
Do we mean: the transformation of other planets into something that is similar or identical to our planet (named Terra here, to avoid confusion)? The creation of extra-terrestrial habitats, which can sustain human or Terran life? Or the creation of extra-terrestrial habitats that can support any kind of carbon-based life? What would a terraformed planet look like? Is terraforming a hegemonising project?.

im assuming the feeling here is that the solar system, the universe is ours and we're free to do w it as we wish. so if we wanna make all potential life supporting (as we understand "life) planets livable for us and our planet then so be it. its our right. after all it belongs to us, right?




Life:
A lot of people seem to accept that life should be protected. Firstly, is life valuable, and why? Is it intrinsically so? Is human life valuable collectively, individually or not at all? Second, what do we mean by 'life'? Would we cleanse a planet of sillica-based life forms, or destroy intelligent life in methane seas? Would we do it if our own species or planet was in peril?

i dont think life has a value. its not something that can be bought sold or traded, one for another. nor does the trees or the rock we call earth. we are all part of a giant macro-system. this system ecompasses everything we can experience, not just life. when you give a thing a value you automatically subjectify this thing realative to your need or use of the thing. now this thing has a value thats relative to your needs or perceptions. now this is your worldview. everything becomes yours, if you can only beat the competition. if you value it then someone else must want it otherwise the value loses meaning cause it cant be gained (thru competition) cause everyone would just give it too you it cant be taken (thru competition) no one wants it and it cant be traded. it all becomces about what we want and need. so if we attach value to life or the enviroment, then it by default becomes ours. i mean who competes with humanity for the enviroment, no one, its NOT THEIRS!! and w/out competition then its mine. but the reality is that N O N E of this belongs to us. it belongs to the macro-system collectively.


But while it's very different to most, it is very similar to one particular project. Colonialism on Terra has always been about transporting your home environment to a new (empty) one. It is very easy to say that we wouldn't allow a colony to be built on a planet with intelligent life on it, but much more difficult to define both 'life' and 'intelligent'.


thank you.