Terraforming Mars

[Orion]

In order for us to have sustainable colonies on other spacial bodies like the moon or mars, humanity has to complete some crucial phases of its social development. For one, wars need to become a thing of the past as well as social inequities. I'm hopeful that innovations in energy, such as fusion power, will give us surpluses needed to get over our material greed. (Since with energy, you can basically make anything.)

However, technology alone will not solve this problem because there will be inherent human greed and thirst for power. We won't be able to build colonies and develop them to the point of self-sufficiency if their origin of initial resources, Earth, is constantly being destabilized by wars, disease, social instability, and rapid changes in climate as a result of our willful ignorance.

The idea of terraforming or having bases in outer space is great, but if we don't solve some crucial problems here then those problems will simply follow us wherever we go. This is true of the individual and of the society.

I wouldn't be surprised though if bases are already underway. Portions of the military budget tend to vanish without explanation. For all we know this is funding a space project.

 

[Goshin]

In order for us to have sustainable colonies on other spacial bodies like the moon or mars, humanity has to complete some crucial phases of its social development. For one, wars need to become a thing of the past as well as social inequities. ....

I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't see that ever happening. There will always be those who want more than the next guy, and there will always be those willing to use violence to get what they want. Humanity is not perfectable.

Make energy as abundant as you please...you still need raw materials as well to create products.

Asteroids, moons and comets have lots of raw materials, if we had the techology to get at them...but no matter how abundant raw materials are, someone will be willing to go to war to get the lion's share, imo.

Don't get me wrong, its a nice dream... well, in a way it is, in a way it isn't. There's only two ways to "perfect" humanity, you either change human nature somehow (lots of luck with that), or you put humanity under a totalitarian dictatorship with Big Brother surveillance and 10% of the population with the Secret Police. No thanks.
Sorry to be a bubble-buster and parade-rainer-on'ner. :mrgreen:

 

[repeter]

I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't see that ever happening. There will always be those who want more than the next guy, and there will always be those willing to use violence to get what they want. Humanity is not perfectable.

Frankly, war is part of humanity. We will keep fighting until the day we become extinct. When you think about it, war is natures way to try to control our population. We have no predator which is killing off hundreds of people every day, so we are our own predators. War also helps us advance our technology. If WWII hadn't happened, we might not have had nuclear energy, and we might not have had monoplanes for a few years. War might be bad, it might be brutal, it might be disgusting...but we need it.

 

[DeeJayH]

interesting read

 

[repeter]

interesting read

Which part?

 

[nerv14]

Frankly, war is part of humanity. We will keep fighting until the day we become extinct. When you think about it, war is natures way to try to control our population. We have no predator which is killing off hundreds of people every day, so we are our own predators. War also helps us advance our technology. If WWII hadn't happened, we might not have had nuclear energy, and we might not have had monoplanes for a few years. War might be bad, it might be brutal, it might be disgusting...but we need it.

lol I try to be more optemistic.

At least in developed countries, the birthrate is very low, so I don't think overpopulation would be a problem if the third world became modern. I think in the future, our population will either be smaller or better tecnology will make our way of life more sustainable.


Also, I can imagine a time when if the entire world is democractic and has those values, then there will be peace on the Earth. For instance, what true democracies do you think would fight each other on their own?

If the world was just NATO, Japan, India, S. Korea, Taiwan, and other democracies, I would suspect that war would dissapear. If the entire would had a protection pact, then no one would harm any other country.


If people don't annilate themselves on their own, then I think those problems will eventually be solved.

 

[DeeJayH]

Which part?

the thread :slapme:

 

[repeter]

the thread :slapme:

Lol, I know that, I was just asking which part of the thread. I know now.

I personally feel that if we do overcome human vs. human war, we might get into war with another species we discover that could potentially match or outmatch us in technology. I just hope that if that happens, we don't commit suicide by fighting them to the death...

Still though, you have a point, if there was no Russia, or North Korea, or terrorist states ( too numerous to list) we would probably achieve world peace. But, remember the old latin saying, "He who wants peace, must prepare for war." As long as we are humans, as long as we have trust, we will mistrust, and there will be dispute, the magnitude of which, I don't want to testify to.

 

[Voidwar]

For instance, what true democracies do you think would fight each other on their own?

How Bout Germany and Britain in 1914 ?

Britian run by Prime Minister and Parliament, Germany run by a strong Kaiser, but also answerable to Reichstag and Bundesrat.

 

[nerv14]

How Bout Germany and Britain in 1914 ?

Britian run by Prime Minister and Parliament, Germany run by a strong Kaiser, but also answerable to Reichstag and Bundesrat.

I mean today with the cultures that democracies seem to universally have. Back then imperialism was still going on, so democracies and its people wouldn't have a problem invading each other. And since Germany had such a strong Kaiser, I don't think it would get much more respect for a real democracy then Iran today.

I guess I don't have any real theory for what I said, but I can't imagine any democracy that is considered fair ever invading another one. If someone has an example for one today, I would like to see it.

 

[Voidwar]

I mean today with the cultures that democracies seem to universally have. Back then imperialism was still going on, so democracies and its people wouldn't have a problem invading each other. And since Germany had such a strong Kaiser, I don't think it would get much more respect for a real democracy then Iran today.

I guess I don't have any real theory for what I said, but I can't imagine any democracy that is considered fair ever invading another one. If someone has an example for one today, I would like to see it.

On a Humans in Space timescale, 1914 IS today.

 

[rhinefire]

If and or when we should inhabit Mars who will make the rules and laws? If it is multi-national will we argue politics as to how they will do whatever they plan to do? Will it be "Buck Rogers Versus Commies On Mars"?

 

[repeter]

If and or when we should inhabit Mars who will make the rules and laws? If it is multi-national will we argue politics as to how they will do whatever they plan to do? Will it be "Buck Rogers Versus Commies On Mars"?

And then we start fighting...again...until we all die out ( again) or someone finally "wins."

 

[the makeout hobo]

If and or when we should inhabit Mars who will make the rules and laws? If it is multi-national will we argue politics as to how they will do whatever they plan to do? Will it be "Buck Rogers Versus Commies On Mars"?

Mars would by necessity be more communal, possibly more "socialist". If you think about it, the probability is that people will be living in isolated, self-contained structures, such as domed craters or the like. In a situation like this, more communal coordination is needed, since everything must be ticking like a swiss watch, or else you risk tremendous loss of life. Rugged Individualism doesn't work in confined settlements.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Doesn't work all too great here on Earth, contrary to what many people seem to believe.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Doesn't work all too great here on Earth, contrary to what many people seem to believe.

What doesn't?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Sorry, I should have Quoted. Rugged individualism. Complete and total myth used to justify morally bankrupt business and political practices by people who need others to support their own power and privilege.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Mars would by necessity be more communal, possibly more "socialist". If you think about it, the probability is that people will be living in isolated, self-contained structures, such as domed craters or the like. In a situation like this, more communal coordination is needed, since everything must be ticking like a swiss watch, or else you risk tremendous loss of life. Rugged Individualism doesn't work in confined settlements.

Nonsense.

The original pilgrim colony tried to be socialist. Naturally, it didn't work. Socialism never does, so there's no reason to presume interplanetary colonies will be that diseased.

What will drive manned space exploration in the long term is the desire to make a buck. That's what's driven colonists throughout history.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Nonsense.

The original pilgrim colony tried to be socialist. Naturally, it didn't work. Socialism never does, so there's no reason to presume interplanetary colonies will be that diseased.

What will drive manned space exploration in the long term is the desire to make a buck. That's what's driven colonists throughout history.

Economics is part of it. The desire to live according to their beliefs is another, like the pilgrims.

Think about it: to live on Mars, you would a very complicated and detailed life-support network. Imagine we have a colony of 1,000 people living in a domed off crater. For people to live there, you need some sort of oxygen creation system, either by plant-life, or through chemical means... you need maintenance of the dome, you need to make sure that whatever you have to screen radiation is in good shape, you have to make sure the water system is working... I could go on, but there are dozens upon dozens of systems that need to be working in our hypothetical colony, that effect everyone in the dome equally. What are you going to do if someone doesn't pay for radiation screening, or dome maintenance? Throw him out?

 

[AuHtwoh64]

Nonsense.

The original pilgrim colony tried to be socialist. Naturally, it didn't work. Socialism never does, so there's no reason to presume interplanetary colonies will be that diseased.

What will drive manned space exploration in the long term is the desire to make a buck. That's what's driven colonists throughout history.

Actually the Pilgrim colony of Plymouth was driven by commercial interests. The largest group of the people in the voyage were driven more by a search for relief from religious persecution, but the promotion for the journey was made possible by monied interests looking for a stake in the New World, and the pilgrims signed on along with some seeking financial gain, and even some indentured servants. There was no government involvement in any of the first British colonies in America, like the Virginia settlements, Plymouth, the Massachusettes Bay Colony, or the Hudson Bay Company. The pilgrims weren't able to repay their loans until the original pilgrims were quite old. For Mars the financiers will probably be huge Corporations needing a human presence to make their "pilgrimage" projects viable.

As for terraforming Mars, I think it will take place something like this: The first colonies will be similar to those at Plymouth. First will come commercial interests in space to mine asteroids and certain cometary bodies. Some of these will be in orbits close enough to Earth, but finally closer to Mars and then human crews will be involved. This will enable our presence in space to grow, and over time the whole enterprise will expand.

Eventually, after the costs have been reduced by growing technical knowledge base, we will establish a human presence on Mars, as a peripheral application of expanding our presence in space. The first presence on mars will be in self contained dormatory type structures, a little after that they will live under domed settlements where a large part of their sustenance will be home grown/supplied, which will be necessary from the very first; a form of "living off the land". The most valuable human type will be the "generalist/adventurist" rather than the "specialist", a "handy-man", a lot like the specialists that provide the backbone to the human presence in Antarctica for the past 60 years.

Over time some very old bodies, possibly some frozen masses of methane, the second most common material on Titan which might exist in substantial amounts in frozen bodies in the asteroid belt. They could be moved to Mars to be induced into the Martian ecology by air-braking them into the atmosphere, where their mass would be broken down and distributed. With enough time the air pressure and content of Mar's atmosphere could be altered. This could be accomplished over many millenia, so some kind of space/raw material economy would need to be developed there for that to happen. Certain human types would rather live there than here, just as the same types chose the "New World" over the "Old World".

Chances are, the settlement of the New World, will be like the development of the airplane, once the base is created, it would grow exponentially. Seeing what is done with "air-platforms" today, it's hard to imagine our early efforts in air transport a hundred years ago.

Gigantic mirrors unimaginably thin would eventually be put in orbit around Mars, to reflect heat onto the poles. For these to have any effect they would have to be really large, but the passage of time could eventually make them practicle.

Although we search for water, in much the same way we used to search for extra-stellar planets (exo-planets), as if the were not there untill actually proven, there are probably vast reservoirs of water under the Martian surface, waiting to be tapped and released much like our oil wells are on Earth, with the weight masses or rock laid over the top of them.

It's a hostile environment, but we would find ways to tame it, and only economic enterprise could get that job done.

 

[Dayton3]

As far as I'm concerned, whoever gets to Mars first and has a sustained presence there makes the rules.