Slashdot Mirror
Terraforming - Human Destiny or Hubris?
jangobongo writes "Space.com has a thought-provoking article written by Dave Brody for Ad Astra Magazine about the practical and ethical aspects of terraforming other planets. Mars is currently the focus of most terraforming debates, but the author's conclusion is: 'What works is what takes the least work: [terraform] asteroid/comet resources in near Earth orbits... Humanity would get lots and lots of cheap, free-floating, scalable, designer settlements in interesting, useful orbits.' These would then become stepping stones to other planets in our solar system and beyond."
Technically, haven't we terraformed Earth by cutting down forests, building cities where heat builds up in localized areas, and by raising the temperature of the globe? We definitely have the potential for it, but we need to work on applying it positively.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
We already have terraforming on a massive scale right here on Earth. Massive walls. Massive dams. Massive strip mining. Flattening mountains. Canals. The irrigation of deserts. Hell, even something as simple as bulldozing a swamp for yet another Wal-Mart is terraforming. It's here. It's been here. And to answer the question... I think it's hubris, and when not done properly, you get what you have in the US... lots and lots and lots and lots of flat, paved parking lots that all look the same. We still don't adequately understand the consequences of what we do on a large scale like this (or even a small scale), but I'm guessing that it can't be good.
I don't respond to AC's.
Or a moon of Jupiter? Or for that matter Phobos or Deimos? (Which incidentally give access to Mars surface if you really want to.)
I mean, the surface pressure of Mars is 0.6% of an earth atmosphere. By any normal standards it's really practically a vacuum; the living accomodations need to be basically the same as a space vehicle. There's nothing known to be special about Mars, no energy sources (although you can certainly take nuclear power with you), and it's difficult to trade stuff with Earth or other places because of its moderately high gravity. So people there are likely to be fairly poor in the very long term IMHO. It seems a very expensive place to live.
But I'm personally not opposed to it, it just seems to be a purely emotional thing about it being nearby.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"This is where we are going, right now all our eggs are in one basket, and this basket has proved itself to have major shake ups in the past, I dont think there could be a geological event that could kill ALL humans, but it would definately set us back thousands of years.
Terraforming is the one skill that will define Humanitys' ability to spread, and consequently SURVIVE, And its not about terraforming asteroids, sure its a step, but not a viable habitat should all technology fail, thats what terraforming is all about. Its a "save point", set up another system, such as a planet, where should all modern technology fail, humans could have the time and resources to rebuild to an albeit different but self sustaining civilization. And keep the process going for how ever long we have viable resources.
On the ethics of terraforming, I guess im a bit too darwinian to bring any ethics into this, for me and many others its simply a SURVIVAL issue, if there were life on a planet that we wanted to make in our image, should we kill them to support us? I am confident we can handle that question when It arises, and not piss ourselves thinking about it now, we are already developing the technology, and its only a matter of time.
You can liken terraforming with the modern industrialazation. Yes, a lot of people and places died to make it happen, and there were lots of areas we pretty much destroyed in the name of progress, but we are better off from it, we still have national parks, and most of our natural beauty on earth. But we have moved forward. There is no doubt my kids generation or later will have to deal with "Planet huggers" and what not, but generations later they will have the ability to complain, because of the work we will do for our survival.
There is truth in humor.
Here's what I want to know: How do you work with raw rock, when there's no gravity?
You can't use conveyor belts. You can't brace your heavy equipment against the ground for stability and leverage.
Your rubble doesn't settle into neat piles near your work area, for easy disposal or use in some other project.
Every time you act on the work surface, your tools are pushed back into the outer darkness.
And thanks to the vacuum, you can't even use suction or other airflow techniques to manage your rubble.
Space industry, at the very least, will require huge amounts of reaction mass; also sturdier, bulkier, more complex machinery (think lids for all your power-shovel buckets, and enclosures for all your three-dimensional conveyor gears)--machinery that must first be manufactured on Earth, and then lifted into space.
Forget about terraforming! I want to know how we're supposed to work the asteroids!
==========
Actually, I have an idea: nanotechnology. Say, a canister of tiny Von Neumann machines, which "disassemble" the asteroid, lock away its valuable raw materials in the body-structures of their newborn brothers, and when they're done, combine into one big ball and launch themselves at some orbital factory. At the factory, they could march happily into the new structures the asteroid was mined to build.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
No, I think you can. Make it like a spiral. A spiral has outward acceleration at all points. There's probably other ways to do it too.
You can't brace your heavy equipment against the ground for stability and leverage.
Why not? Just stick a bunch of crampons into the rock. What's the big deal?
Your rubble doesn't settle into neat piles near your work area, for easy disposal or use in some other project.
Stick it in a bag. Again, big deal. Bags are reusable, and lightweight in large sizes (cube/square law).
machinery that must first be manufactured on Earth, and then lifted into space.
Nah. Just lift a milling machine, and smelt your own raw materials up there.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Sounds like an excellent way to get slaughtered by the equivalent of the Fremen or Sardaukar.
Terraforming means creating an Earthlike/human habitable environment. What we are doing is moving the Earth's environment away from the human habitable zone. One could make the argument that, after some centuries of learning our trade, via space habitats and Martian terraforming, we will some day come back and 'terraform' the Earth.
Trust me -- terraforming any of the planets in our solar system is going to be cheaper than that.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Maybe you haven't read enough science fiction. Solar panels in orbit around the inner planets to beam back energy to Earth or space stations, and building underground cities to protect against harmful radiation (which is what they will need to do for the moon base), been featured in various stories for decades. The technology to actually do it is getting more practical every day.
of course.. by the time you've hollowed out the asteroid, you no longer have a reason to inhabit it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
would that number outweigh the number of barrels of oil required to put them there in the first place?
I suspect that in order for orbital energy collection to be truly energy efficient, we need self sufficient orbital industries first (so as to reduce the energy cost of putting them there).
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Solar panels in space-- yes, that makes sense. Solar panels orbiting Venus for the purpose of beaming power back to Earth... that's just stupid. Even if you WERE going to have them orbit an inner planet, why Venus? Why not Mercury? It's even closer to the sun, doesn't have any satellites. Like the AC said, it makes much more sense to put solar panels in orbit near Earth. In geosynchronous orbit, for example, they'd receive sunlight 98% of the time. Also, supporting your argument by claiming to have read a lot of science fiction is a little nutty. It's called fiction for a reason.
He did not suggest the human race should give-up, he just stated the obvious. Intelligent creatures don't give up, they just die trying ;))
You can't handle the truth.