Mars Terraforming Debate

blackhelicopter writes "This Guardian article describes the implications of terraforming Mars - the subject of NASA's forthcoming debate. Quote from Dr Lisa Pratt, a Nasa astrobiologist, concerning life probably already on Mars: 'We simply cannot risk starting a global experiment that would wipe out the precious sensitive evidence we are seeking'."

Comments

Re:wonderful....

[Scrameustache]

i think we should focus on cleaning this planet up before we decide to punt and basically make a new one.

I think we should make a backup before we start applying patches.

I'm not very concerned with messing the precious barren desert they have going there...not as much as I am about our lush diverse ecosystem anyways.
And if there is life there, well its sure to be better suited to its native environment than what we bring along. At worst we get our first scientific data about how our bacteria interact with xenobacteria.

Premature

[SerialHistorian]

Isn't this just a tad premature? I mean, we haven't managed to get people to Mars yet. We're probably not going to find life there until we do, and since we've landed craft there already, there's a good chance that any life that is there has been infected already by terrestrial strains of whatever. Let's revisit this debate in about ten years when we've got some evidence and when we have some sort of space capacity that will allow us to get people back and forth to Mars. Until then, this and other articles like it are more than useless wanking that reminds me of the homegrown human-apologist "earth first" eco-wackos.

Re:Terraforming - why?

[Mikkeles]

'If there's no life on Mars, terraforming is an easy ethical decision.'

Is it necessarily an easy decision? Perhaps we need to debate the meta-question: Is life the only criterion relevant to whether we should muck around with a planetary system?

You start with microbes.

[Moderation abuser]

Not with masses of plant and equipment. The costs of getting them there are pretty trivial, we already have plenty of probes on the planet. They just have to be able to carry an aerosol canister to disperse them. The hard part is designing microbes which will thrive and multiply in the environment.

Re:From Mike Combs' Space Settlement FAQ

[fyngyrz]

There are severe problems, some of which can be addressed more easily than others:

• Kinetic vulnerabilties (space junk, terrorism, rocks)
• Radiation vulnerabilities (solar storms, supernovas, etc)
• Very short lifespan for photovoltaics (approx 10 years - they're not very efficient, either.)
• Import of resources (there is no such thing as a free lunch - for instance, to grow food, you must bring nutrients to the food. Those have to come from a gravity well at this point.)

This planet nurtures us, protects us, and defines our very nature - and it has been doing this continuously, without much help at all, since we were drawing on cave walls. While I am all for the idea of self-sustaining artificial habitats if it can be done, it looks darned difficult to me to get the things the Earth provides, essentially free for the taking, into orbit such that they are sustainable.

Re:The dangers of the Kyoto protocol

[cgenman]

I stopped reading your post after this line. If this is what you beleive I don't want to read any more of your ideas.

Wow. That's surprisingly open minded of you, and bodes well for the movement. Anything that doesn't agree with your philosophy is instantly turned off without bothering to read the explanation, eigh? Where I come from, that's called fundamentalism, and is a sign of a closed mind and an indefensible intellectual predisposition.

If you had bothered to read further, you would have found that my main arguments for terraforming Mars is the potential for a greater knowledge and appreciation for environmental issues, and as a protection against potential future environmental catastrophes.

Kyoto was a compromise because it will force the closing of, for example certain broken down Russian factories where income is at a sustinence level and potential investments are nonexistent. Certain people in India eek out survival by the completely hazardous and toxic recycling and burning of computer parts. Environmental controls will put these people out of jobs in areas where there aren't any other jobs. That's a reality. That's also fair, as the environmental pollution these activities create is likely to kill more people than the activities themselves support. But to say that that is not a reality of existence in other countries is extremely close-minded.

I fashion myself an environmentalist, having bicycled more miles than many people drive and protested environmentally destructive activities. To this day I'm peeved about the importation of Snails to the North American ecology, and feel that wolves should be re-introduced into the wild. Come to think of it, I'm also a member of the Green Party. If the belief that environmentally sound activities involve compromise with people's other needs is so alien to you that you stick your fingers in your ears and go "La-la-la-la-la," then get out of my movement. That form of fundamentalism is out of touch with the experiences of most people in this world, even most environmentalists, and only serves to feed the stereotype of the lunatic fringe "greenie." A stereotype which has proven an effective weapon against us many times in the court of public opinion.

And don't post annonymously if you believe in something. Have a spine.

- Chris Canfield