Slashdot Mirror


Charles Darwin's Best-Kept Secret

beschra writes "BBC writes of 'terra-forming' Ascension Island, one of the islands Charles Darwin visited. He and a friend encouraged the Royal Navy to import boatloads of trees and plants in an attempt to capture the little bit of water that fell on the island. They were quite successful. The island even has a cloud forest now. From the article: '[British ecologist] Wilkinson thinks that the principles that emerge from that experiment could be used to transform future colonies on Mars. In other words, rather than trying to improve an environment by force, the best approach might be to work with life to help it "find its own way."'"

254 comments

  1. Re:woot first by greg_barton · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I plant a tree on your first post, sirrah!

  2. Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course everyone knows about his Darwin's biggie, but I am continually amazed with the little-known ideas that Darwin came up with. Going forward, I hope that we can follow his example in carefully and cleverly preserving Mother Earth for future generations.

    1. Re:Interesting tool by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Turning a desert island into a cloud forest is hardly preserving anything...

      I am not terribly bothered by the idea of 'improving' Mother Earth, will anybody have a problem with 'improving' Mars?

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re:Interesting tool by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Turning a desert island into a cloud forest is hardly preserving anything...

      I am not terribly bothered by the idea of 'improving' Mother Earth, will anybody have a problem with 'improving' Mars?

      I don't know if you have ever read Red Mars, and the other books in this series, but it gets in to this question (among MANY others) rather seriously. An entire splinter group of people dedicated to preserving Mars in its cold lifeless state. It's a great set of books that deals with many psychological, and logistical terraforming questions.

    3. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An entire splinter group of people dedicated to preserving Mars in its cold lifeless state.

      That's like trying to preserve death. Why would you want too?

    4. Re:Interesting tool by BradleyUffner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had a hard time relating to that group in the book also. But I think it came down to how you see beauty. Something like the grand canyon, without any plant or animal life at all, is worthy of being preserved. The geography of Mars dwarfed anything seen in the Grand Canyon many times over, at a planetary scale. The splinter group felt that it was it's duty to preserve that geography so that people could better understand the solar system as a whole. At least that's the what I got from it. Red Mars really is a great series of books, it's worth the read.

    5. Re:Interesting tool by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the bigger worry would be what "sprung up" if we actually started turning that "cold dead" world into a green oasis. After all we have seen there are microorganisms that can live for who knows how long in a dessicated state, so how do we know that there aren't bugs that would make the black plague look like a summer cold buried in those rocks?

      I think the first colonists better be prepared for a one way trip, as it would probably be too dangerous for someone who has lived on Martian soil and food grown there to interact with us Earthlings, at least without some serious isolation and a buttload of testing.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Interesting tool by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having Mars as a pristine monument to the universe's beauty would be nice.

      Ultimately, though, it may easily mean giving up many trillions of dollars' worth of economic activity annually - trillions of dollars of the things people need or value - for tens of thousands of years on end, and that's a pretty steep price to pay for a monument. We have a 30,000 light-year monument to the universe's beauty called the "Milky Way" of which humans have affected approximately 0.000%. What makes Mars special? Is it that people can enjoy it more? Trillions of dollars' worth of enjoyment and moral satisfaction at its unblemished state every year? That's a hell of a trade-off.

      (Unless you're pushing a sort of conscientious asceticism spirituality agenda or what-not, which is all well and good, but I don't think you get to speak for the rest of Humanity to make that decision, even if they are a bunch of vapid hedonists).

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    7. Re:Interesting tool by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A year or so ago I came across an article about some protesters who opposed creating garbage dumps in Nevada. They said, "sure, there's nothing here, but how many places are there with nothing??" Apparently not enough.

      --
      Qxe4
    8. Re:Interesting tool by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      You must be talking about the eastern hemisphere, the Wongs own the western hemisphere, it's the best one.

      Only trillions?

      Sure, there may be a substantial fortune to earn on Mars. but you have to reach an extremely high 'activation' energy, through extreme overcrowding, etc... to get enough humans off of their lardy asses to put out the effort to get there first

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    9. Re:Interesting tool by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been in a Hot Topic, have you?

    10. Re:Interesting tool by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have someplace outside our solar system be a pristine monument. Maybe somewhere in the horsehead nebula.

    11. Re:Interesting tool by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they should also halt all archaeological digs. Who knows what they'll find one day? Ancient Mesopotamian weapons of mass destruction!

      Oh, wait, they've already been looking for those ;-)

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    12. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a billion planets in our galaxy alone.

      Only one besides earth is conveniently close and possibly capable of supporting human life.

      You and almost everyone else on the planet will stop pretending to care when overpopulation threatens to starve you to death.

    13. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultimately, though, it may easily mean giving up many trillions of dollars' worth of economic activity annually - trillions of dollars of the things people need or value - for tens of thousands of years on end, and that's a pretty steep price to pay for a monument.

      As it turns out, the monument is actually a giant reactor made from trillions of dollars of turbidium.

    14. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I want what too?

    15. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose we call the monument "Fajita Horsehead"

    16. Re:Interesting tool by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to create new life where there is none? That's just dooming countless lives to suffering and eventual death.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    17. Re:Interesting tool by Vertigo+Acid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think that the Grand Canyon, or any desert region really, is without any plant or animal life at all, you're not paying attention

      --
      Beta is bad enough to make me go edit settings like this sig that haven't been touched since I joined
    18. Re:Interesting tool by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If there were 10 livable planets in our reach, i would support keeping Mars intact.
      But we have only one Earth, and a half-assed Mars, that, with some adjustments could be made somewhat livable.
      A single 100km asteroid can destroy earth, but it is unlikely to destroy both Mars and Earth.
      So, i think it is humanity's best interest to colonise Mars as soon as possible (within 100 years).

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    19. Re:Interesting tool by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly the group felt a strong connection to the planet, not unlike Earth First does for the Earth. In fact they might have been modeled on that organization.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    20. Re:Interesting tool by Xest · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Something like the grand canyon, without any plant or animal life at all, is worthy of being preserved."

      Well it depends, for those lazy people who just pay for a helicopter tour over the top maybe, but as someone whose walked down it, some of the greatest memories I have are not simply the canyon itself, but witnessing life managing to thrive there. For example, having to stop for a family of deer to cross our path as the stag stood guarding the path, catching a magnificent picture of a Raven perched on a rock mid-squawk with a good shot of the canyon in the background, seeing the beautiful purple hue on some Opuntia species and their blooms, turning around on the way back up to see sheep with the biggest horns I've ever seen staring at me from the cliff side.

      Sure the likes of the Grand Canyon may look impressive without life, but it's far better with.

    21. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trees on Ascension Island disagree with you, as do the critters living in their shade now.

    22. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post. Thanks for sharing!

    23. Re:Interesting tool by pinkushun · · Score: 0

      Well I guess if you can't be bothered to improve earth, your kind will just have to die with everyone else then.

      Even if our generation won't see it materialize, if we don't set an example, who will?

    24. Re:Interesting tool by dangitman · · Score: 1

      How can a tree or a "critter" disagree with me? Have you spoken to them?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    25. Re:Interesting tool by Lumbre · · Score: 1

      A year or so ago I came across an article about some protesters who opposed creating garbage dumps in Nevada. They said, "sure, there's nothing here, but how many places are there with nothing??" Apparently not enough.

      By the way, garbage dump != nuclear waste (other states').
      Link to the article? I've never heard about Nevadans opposing garbage dumps or any new garbage dumps being considered ...

    26. Re:Interesting tool by corbettw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's assume for the sake of argument that we had the technology to stop a life-ending asteroid in its tracks, there would still be a strong argument for colonizing Mars (and other bodies): resources. As times goes on, we continue to consume the metals and energy we need for technology to function on this planet. Eventually, we're going to have to start mining the other bodies in the solar system, just to keep our technology moving forward. It might not be for 100 years or more, but that day will come, and when it does concerns about preserving some lifeless hunk of rock floating in space are going to sound pretty short sighted.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    27. Re:Interesting tool by PatHMV · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fair question. How do you know they're suffering? Have YOU spoken to them?

    28. Re:Interesting tool by Thiez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you value humanity instead of humans? BOOM the asteroid strikes, 9 billion earthlings are now dead, but luckily for humanity, there are 500 humans left on mars! Sure, they're alone, cut of from their home planet, from millions of years of history and culture... many tribes in less developed country won't be represented among those few hundred, and will be lost forever. Depending on the state of terraforming (if any), our martians may be permanently stuck in domes, now that over 99.99999% percent of the humans are dead, science is unlikely to advance very fast so they're going to be stuck like this for a very long time.

      What is left? A few primates on a hostile planet, alone.
      What have we lost? Everything else.

      But at least *humanity* survives!

      Screw the colonization of Mars, let's invest in Earth-destroying-asteroid detection and prevention.

    29. Re:Interesting tool by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Ohh I totally agree with terraforming Mars. I was just trying to explain the mindset of a group of people described in the book Red Mars. They actually came off a bit crazy and extremist to me also, but I think that was part of the author's point.

    30. Re:Interesting tool by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Fair question. How do you know they're suffering? Have YOU spoken to them?

      No, I haven't. But they are certainly doomed to death.

      The "suffering" part was a bit of a trope. You know, life equals suffering. A pretty reasonable assumption, though. Nobody lives without death or suffering.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    31. Re:Interesting tool by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Well.. they will have computers, copies of Wikipedia, the complete collection of all literature ever, etc. And probably way more than 500 people. If a giant asteroid strikes the Earth, it's not the impact that kills us is it? I thought it was the nuclear-winter-like conditions from all the debris that is thrown up into the atmosphere. So with nuclear power and all that, we could last a year, plenty of time to send more shuttle loads of people to Mars. If not a bunch of people, then at least a bunch of information that hadn't yet been sent to Mars.

    32. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The desire for resources is a terribly weak argument for colonizing Mars. Really, it's because of foolish ideas like this that nobody takes you humans seriously in the galaxy. If you want resources, you work with asteroids. Why would you want to do your mining at the bottom of a gravity well? No, you colonize Mars for the glory of your species and because it's an awesome adventure.

    33. Re:Interesting tool by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1

      hopefully the Ur-Quan dont arrive by then.

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    34. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Someone should write a book about a small Mars colony that toughs it out for 500 years, and then recolonizes the Earth after a super asteroid. Who knows what they would find?

    35. Re:Interesting tool by boxwood · · Score: 1

      why not invest in both?

      the hard part of both problems involve sending equipment into deep space. having the technology to divert asteroids and comets would be an important part of terraforming mars. A lot of water in comets and a lof of minerals in asteroids... divert a few of them to mars before we have any people there, and look at that, we've got some water and building materials on the surface of Mars. And we have lots of experience in diverting asteroids and comets.

    36. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck "economic activity". Dollars are not the ultimate measure of everything. You're thinking like a businessman, and I use the term in the most derogatory way possible. I hate this mindset that views everything as subservient to "The Economy". It's supposed to be a means to ends we decide on other grounds, not an end in itself.

      We should colonize Mars because it's a glorious adventure, a creative act to inspire all of humanity, a worthy challenge on a scale heretofore unknown, and something that would open new horizons of experience and knowledge and ultimately improve our species. Not because it creates jobs or lets some people make a buck! Why, contrary to your notion it might not even produce a return on investment in pure economic terms. What then? I say do it anyway. The economy is our servant, not our master.

    37. Re:Interesting tool by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the value of "humanity" is unclear, earth protection and colonization are hardly opposed to one another. It's the same shortsightedness and indifference to others that leads us to forget about space exploration and only halfheartedly plan for asteroids and other natural disasters.

      (Whether Mars can be made habitable is unclear, but humanity could certainly multiply fast enough to fill it, and most of modern culture can be transmitted on a flash drive--almost all of our history is already long forgotten.)

    38. Re:Interesting tool by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      That's one of the big problems I had with the end of Battlestar Galactica. After all the effort of saving humanity and escaping the cylons - they destroy all the culture and become cavemen on a place where there were already cavemen.

      It's not the species that's so important, it's all the knowledge and culture that's been created by it that's worth preserving.

    39. Re:Interesting tool by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      On the first part of the journey
      I was looking at all the life
      There were plants and birds and rocks and things
      There was sand and hills and rings
      The first thing I met was a fly with a buzz
      And the sky with no clouds
      The heat was hot and the ground was dry
      But the air was full of sound


      I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
      It felt good to be out of the rain
      In the desert you can remember your name
      'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
      La, la ...

      Horse with No Name - America

    40. Re:Interesting tool by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      And suffering begets strength. Strength begets accomplishment. Accomplishment begets peace of mind. Thus, life begets peace of mind.

      We can play these trite-theory games all day long. ;)

    41. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, lets invest in Earth-destroying prevention, as it's more likely the doom is in our hands and not in an asteroid.

    42. Re:Interesting tool by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's like trying to preserve death. Why would you want to?

      "Life -- hate it or loathe it, you can't ignore it."

      Maybe they're clinically depressed robots with brains the size of planets?

    43. Re:Interesting tool by nickdwaters · · Score: 1

      Ugh. The Grand Canyon has a large number of endemic species including plants AND animals. This mean there are species that evolved within the canyon that do not occur anywhere else on the planet, and there are more widely dispersed species which also occur there. It is not an empty barren wasteland, but, I can understand why people might think that way about it compared to a redwood forest.

    44. Re:Interesting tool by soliptic · · Score: 1

      <snark>No, you're the one not paying attention.</snark>

      Sorry, I couldn't resist, but that's not actually fair, his sentence is indeed ambiguous. Where you inferred "which is without...", I inferred "but without...".

    45. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth pointing out that the ultimate goal doesn't have to be a population of 500 of Mars that might be able to propogate successfully enough to keep our species from going totally extinct. Who knows what we could manage some day in the future.

      And does Mars have to be our only and last stop? Couldn't we start with Mars, and then maybe perfect living is even more bizarre places? Perhaps in space itself on a large scale?

    46. Re:Interesting tool by Grygus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Someone should write a book about a small Mars colony that toughs it out for 500 years, and then recolonizes the Earth after a super asteroid. Who knows what they would find?

      Zombies. You've just written the next big first-person shooter.

    47. Re:Interesting tool by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's been too long for me to find that specific article, but here is web page of Nevadans against garbage. Really, you should have been able to find it with a few seconds of Google.

      --
      Qxe4
    48. Re:Interesting tool by budgenator · · Score: 1

      By the way, garbage dump != nuclear waste

      Actually it does, when DHS installed the radiation detectors at our boarder crossing, they had to turn back every trash truck for 3 days due to radioactivity, and that's 350 trucks a day. Finally the Canadians had all of the trash truck steam cleaned which got the radiation down enough to get across the boarder, they still have to steam clean a couple times a month. Household refuse is a disgusting toxic stew with everything imaginable in it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    49. Re:Interesting tool by blair1q · · Score: 1

      There's not "nothing" in Nevada.

      There's hundreds of holes made by nuclear weapons tests.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Nevada_Test_Site_craters.jpg

      The Yucca Flats/Yucca Mountain area is actually the perfect place to put nuclear waste, because it is nuclear waste.

    50. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?

    51. Re:Interesting tool by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Mars is a rusty rock.

      Jupiter, on the other hand, is fucking gorgeous.

      http://library.thinkquest.org/18652/jupiter_io.jpg

    52. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those metals don't just disappear into nothingness, they get re-buried in a landfill somewhere that will probably be more lucrative to mine and re-refine with the concentrations of those minerals being far higher than they were in the original rock from which we dug and refined them.

      While we may legitimately be running out of oil or something which is chemically transformed into useless gases by our use of them, we really aren't going to ever run out of the things which are simply broken or obsolete and constitute the vast majority of the stuff produced by mankind to date.

    53. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could do both? It's a false dichotomy.

    54. Re:Interesting tool by TCPhotography · · Score: 1

      That makes sense if you reject the possibility that humanity has the potential to destroy itself. What happens when some crazy guy weaponizes an Influenza strain that releases blue ring octopus toxin? Or breeds a hybrid of influenza and small pox?

      Having a remote location that you can seal off is worth it.

    55. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I'm misreading GP's post, I think his point was that even if there was something like the Grand Canyon that didn't have life, it would still be worthy of preservation. I don't think he was trying to say that it doesn't have life.

    56. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider that humanity is able to direct its resources towards many different goals, not just one as you seem to be implying.

    57. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BRAHHHH BRAHHHH phantomfive blowing the bullshit asshole horn

    58. Re:Interesting tool by suman28 · · Score: 1

      There certainly is.... Marvin, The Paranoid Android – Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy, (1978 – 2006) (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/166933/top_25_screen_robots.html)

    59. Re:Interesting tool by Xest · · Score: 1

      No I agree, but my point was that adding life to it even if native life doesn't exist there wont necessarily detract from the beauty of it. Effectively there's no reason it's beauty can't be preserved but also become a home to life as well.

    60. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we do both?

    61. Re:Interesting tool by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Slashdot post begets slashdot post. Slashdot becomes self-aware...

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    62. Re:Interesting tool by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      When some of the main characters met at the top of Olympus Mons you could really feel their disgust and pain at the loss of pristine wilderness caused by the apparent invasion of the moss or lichens even in that remote and relatively airless place. They didn't just change Mars, it wasn't even the same planet anymore. Granted, IMO it was all for the better, by that point in the story IIRC you could walk on the surface naked.

      Hell, they removed two moons. One impacted into the planet, the other slung away at high speed, they belted the planet with the space elevator cable, they introduced whales and big cats... It's an excellent vision of the future.

    63. Re:Interesting tool by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      It sounds like DOOM, only in reverse. We could call it... MOOD!

    64. Re:Interesting tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like shade, but starvation might occur sooner in a Redwood Forest than most deserts. AFAIK slugs are inedible.

    65. Re:Interesting tool by robertinventor · · Score: 1

      It's easier to survive under the sea or on land on Earth than mount an exhibition to Mars, and would have better chance of surviving an asteroid impact - no need to build spacecraft and travel back to Earth as you are already there.

      Evem the biggest impacts in the past were survivable e.g. at bottom of ocean and with the resources a Mars settlement would have, unless unlucky enough to be at the impact site.

      To deal with that make sure you have say 3 undersea hideouts, each staffed with say a dozen researchers at any time. Would be popuplar bases for undersea exploration and study so no problem keeping them inhabited at any time, and make sure you have supplies, equipment etc. enough to make them self-sustaining for several years - again no problem, a submarine can be self sustaining under sea for several months.

      For that matter any of our nuclear subs would survive an asteroid impact if far enough away and could continue under the sea for months, eventually surface when all the fires etc. have died away.

    66. Re:Interesting tool by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

      Phantomfive said "A year or so ago I came across an article about some protesters who opposed creating garbage dumps in Nevada"

      Well the casino's are there, they have already turned it into a dump. If you throw in the other parts of Vegas it will become a nuclear waste dump.

  3. ok... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    let's spray the bugger with lichen, they seem to survive everywhere

    http://library.thinkquest.org/26442/html/life/plant.html

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
    1. Re:ok... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You were modded funny, but it is not particularly hard to imagine a specially engineered lichen growing in the northern hemisphere of Mars. It could go dormant during the winter, and briefly grow during the summer when the sun begins to melt the (mostly CO2) icecap creating strong southward winds.

      Scientists discover new extremophiles every year, the more we learn the more we discover the window that life can survive in is larger than we originally thought.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:ok... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On a tangentially related note, I hear that peas are one of the prime candidates for farming on the Moon (which has month-long day/night cycles and plenty of cold).

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:ok... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      You were modded funny, but it is not particularly hard to imagine a specially engineered lichen growing in the northern hemisphere of Mars. It could go dormant during the winter, and briefly grow during the summer when the sun begins to melt the (mostly CO2) icecap creating strong southward winds.

      Scientists discover new extremophiles every year, the more we learn the more we discover the window that life can survive in is larger than we originally thought.

      Oh lets just throw everything on it and see what sticks.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you tried to be funny or not but I think that this is a pretty good idea.

      Nature has a way of working around problems that sometimes could be hard for humans to predict.

    5. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda reminds me of the Nights Dawn Trilogy by Peter F Hamilton where after global climate change the only thing that grows and survives is a moss like grass.

    6. Re:ok... by Xest · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about Guanacos too.

      When I was in Chile, up high in the Andes crossing into Argentina, there were two living things up there; Lichen, and Guanacos. Even the drought tolerant and hardy cacti weren't alive at that altitude in such a barren area, nor was there grass or any such thing.

      Lichen sure, but I still to this day have no idea how the fuck the Guanacos survived up there!

    7. Re:ok... by tubs · · Score: 1

      Do they eat lichen?

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    8. Re:ok... by Xest · · Score: 1

      I just Google'd it and apparently they do amongst other things, but as that's all there was at that altitude, presumably some groups of the species live purely off that, unless seeing them there was just part of a migratory route and they only live off Lichen for shorter periods whilst they're up there. To be able to live off lichen and nothing else for any period of time beyond a few days, let alone weeks, possibly months, is in itself absolutely incredible.

    9. Re:ok... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Oh lets just throw everything on it and see what sticks.

      And when we finally have a manned mission to lush green Mars we are greeted by the lines, "Feed Me!"

    10. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudzu

    11. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is what the folks in TFA did with Ascension Island. It seems to be a valid way to do things.

    12. Re:ok... by gringer · · Score: 1

      Oh lets just throw everything on it and see what sticks.

      I don't know if you tried to be funny or not but I think that this is a pretty good idea.

      I think that was the general idea of Darwin et al., as seen on Ascension island.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    13. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell the works of Kim Stanley Robinson here ;)

    14. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, living without oxygen would be a more impressive feat. Let's give the lichen a while to take hold and start producing oxygen maybe before we start sending large herbivorous mammals up there...

    15. Re:ok... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      You sound pretty sarcastic, but why not? It's a pretty good idea and it'd even be cheap. Just take some old cold-war era biological warfare ordinance, load it up with as many microbes as you can thing of, and cluster-bomb half of Mars with it. The only downside is you'd run the risk of wiping out whatever native life supposedly might be there already.*

      * I find this to actually be even more of a reason to try it. The idea that earthen life, completely un-evolved for Martian life, would be more effective at surviving on Mars than native life that specifically evolved to life there is pretty crazy. Realisticly I'd expect you'd run into a "War of the Worlds" situation where the Martian life completely dominates the Earthen life (which is at a disadvantage by being outside of its environment, despite possibly being far more advanced). If however that proved to be the case, it'd make a pretty strong argument for the technical possibility and practicality of terraforming.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    16. Re:ok... by Foolicious · · Score: 1

      Scientists discover new extremophiles every year

      More like every day...and just by reading Slashdot.

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
    17. Re:ok... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure any conventional plant life would require carbon dioxide.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.. eating lichen?

    19. Re:ok... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You're thinking like an engineer. Space programs are currently controlled by scientists who go to freakish lengths to ensure no Earth life contaminates Mars.

      They can play until we figure out how to sustain people up there, but once that's a GO, game over, the dirty apes and their microscopic pals are taking over.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Mars? by drumcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can't even terraform Earth right. What makes anyone believe that an oxygen-less place like Mars is going to just suddenly sprout weeds? Unless you can turn rust into Miracle-Gro, you're pretty borked.

    1. Re:Mars? by LiENUS · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      oxygen-less is pretty easy... mars is Atmosphere-less

    2. Re:Mars? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well for one thing, plants usually need CO2, not oxygen....

      Suddenly sprout weeds? Of course not. With sufficient money and engineering eventually support plant growth? Why not?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:Mars? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why of course! That explains all the severe weather there! Wait, that's not how weather works at all... Mars most certainly has an atmosphere, and it is quite active. It just doesn't have a particularly dense atmosphere.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    4. Re:Mars? by LiENUS · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mars has a serious problem in that any time any reasonable level of gases begin to accumulate. You know approaching the levels we might need to terraform it. The sun strips it all away.

    5. Re:Mars? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let alone radiation galore because it has no magnetic field.

    6. Re:Mars? by Aliotroph · · Score: 2, Informative

      They need both. This gets overlooked a lot, but plant cells, at least in plants they showed us in high-school biology, needed oxygen too. In an ecosystem like we have, perhaps they use a lot of the oxygen they create, but they need some to start with. Perhaps it's best to start with even simpler life.

    7. Re:Mars? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, solar wind eroded its atmosphere out into space over time. I have a few questions.

      1. If possible once replenished, how dense can an atmosphere get on Mars?

      2. Is there any photosynthetic life that could survive on Mars being so cold and the atmosphere so thin? It's like, what, 1% of Earth's at ground level?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Mars? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The solution is easy. Just bring a few thousand music CDs.

    9. Re:Mars? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The lack of a magnetosphere will always present an issue for human life, but it wouldn't prevent life in general from getting a foothold. You wouldn't want to terraform the entirety of Mars to human standards anyways, it'd take far too long. More realistically you'd get some sort of 'crop' going to over time convert the soil into something usable and in the meantime set up sealed colonies. Far easier to terraform a geodesic dome or a martian cave than an entire planet.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    10. Re:Mars? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      It's like, what, 1% of Earth's at ground level?

      Something closer to half a percent on average as I recall. ;)

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    11. Re:Mars? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But is that not the exact same problem that had with water on that island, that is the point of the plants.
      not that it would work, I am not convinced that anything on earth has a chance to adapt that to mars quickly enough to survive, at least nothing that would have a chance to do any good.

      not that life that would help could not exist.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    12. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, with this method you can also solve the lack of oxygen.

    13. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radiation is more harmful to the individual than to life in general. The higher mutation rate might actually work in you favour.

    14. Re:Mars? by dargaud · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The lack of a magnetosphere will always present an issue for human life

      I could probably run the computation, but I don't feel like it right now, so, would it be possible to create a magnetosphere by laying down a (supraconducting) cable along the equator and running a current through it ? Or more simply two shorter cables circling the poles ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    15. Re:Mars? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Uhmm, plants don't need oxygen, they make it from CO2.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    16. Re:Mars? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      But is that not the exact same problem that had with water on that island, that is the point of the plants.

      So you propose to plant trees at the upper edge of the atmosphere to prevent it from being blown away? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes they do. They breathe. Even if a plant produces more oxygen than it consumes, that won't help it on Mars because the oxygen would spread evenly in the atmosphere, so it can't be recaptured later.

    18. Re:Mars? by stms · · Score: 1

      We can't even terraform Earth right. What makes anyone believe that an oxygen-less place like Mars is going to just suddenly sprout weeds? Unless you can turn rust into Miracle-Gro, you're pretty borked.

      Oxygen-less? Last time I checked the atmosphere of mars Was primarily composed of CO2. In fact it says it on this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars#Carbon_dioxide.

    19. Re:Mars? by bytesex · · Score: 1

      The point is more: given some technology or other, is the atmosphere replenish-able faster than the solar wind blows it away ? My guess is that yes, it is.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    20. Re:Mars? by Amanitin · · Score: 1

      Plants need oxygen, the amount they release obviously cannot cover their needs.
      Plants release O2 by water photolysis.

    21. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes you could!

      And the problem is not the electricity that has to flow to build up the magnetic field (building the magnetic field takes energy, but given enough time, it can be done.) The real problem is the solar wind itself. As it tries to strip away the atmosphere, it pushes against the magnetic field. This costs energy and therefore a minimum power output to the superconducting cables.

      I didn't do any calculations for this effect, but prepare to build a few BIG nuclear power plants.

    22. Re:Mars? by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1) Build temperature regulated greenhouse
      2) Fill it with higher pressure martian atmosphere (say 10x pressurised)
      3) Pump in a "bit" more oxygen
      4) Plant sugar cane first thing in the morning thats been kept alive elsewhere before
      5) Sugar cane is bottlenecked by CO2 content of air on earth, on mars probably not, but it should create enough oxygen over the day to sustain itself at night.
      6) ?????
      7) Profit!!!

    23. Re:Mars? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      Mars most certainly has an atmosphere, and it is quite active. It just doesn't have a particularly dense atmosphere.

      That's understating things just a bit. The Martian "atmosphere" is practically a vacuum, with surface pressure averaging something like seven tenths of a percent the air pressure at sea level on Earth. The challenge with Mars would be heating it up enough to release all of the frozen gasses in its crust, giving it a dense enough atmosphere for life to work with.

    24. Re:Mars? by sunspot42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      According to this article from 2007, that might not be the case:

      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070125_mars_atmosphere.html

      Combining two years of observations by the European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft, researchers determined that Mars is currently losing only about 20 grams of air per second into space.

      Extrapolating this measurement back over 3.5 billion years, they estimate that only a small fraction, 0.2 to 4 millibars, of carbon dioxide and a few centimeters of water could have been lost to solar winds during that timeframe. (A bar is a unit for measuring pressure; Earth's atmospheric pressure is about 1 bar.)

    25. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I'm stupid, but don't plants prefer CO2 over oxygen?

      Ever read the Mars Trilogy - Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars?

    26. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of a magnetosphere will always present an issue for human life, but it wouldn't prevent life in general from getting a foothold. You wouldn't want to terraform the entirety of Mars to human standards anyways, it'd take far too long. More realistically you'd get some sort of 'crop' going to over time convert the soil into something usable and in the meantime set up sealed colonies. Far easier to terraform a geodesic dome or a martian cave than an entire planet.

      It'd take a few generations. See the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Stanley_Robinson

    27. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're ssaying is we need to slowly xenoform earth to match mars's conditions givine earth life the chance to adapt, then send that life to mars so it can teraform mars?

      Brilliant!

    28. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course, it's possible that the rate of atmosphere loss is directly proportional to atmospheric pressure, since the more tenuous the atmosphere, the less pressure from the solar wind ...

    29. Re:Mars? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I believe it was Larry Niven who developed a plan to terraform Mars. He suggested gathering an asteroid that was composed mainly of ice and frozen gases (which current astronomy says are abundant in the asteroid belt--conveniently close to Mars, at least if you have the technology to put this plan into action in the first place). Smashing it into Mars to release the water and the gases (primarily CO2 and nitrogen). He did the calculations and a reasonably sized asteroid would supply sufficient gases for several hundred years. One would merely grab another asteroid every few hundred years to refresh the atmosphere (using a less catastrophic approach on subsequent introductions). I have seen several discussions and have never seen anyone dismiss it on any basis other than cost.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    30. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to write a sci-fi book about this.

    31. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In response to question 1, if you are asking in the abstract sense then there isn't a clear limit on how dense an atmosphere you can produce on Mars. The density of the atmosphere at the surface is dependent on the amount of air above it exerting pressure on it (due to gravity). As long the gravity is strong enough that an atmosphere of any kind can be retained for a reasonable amount of time (say on the order of millions of years), you can just keep piling more gas onto the body to drive up the pressure. Venus has a mass very close to that of Earth, but has an atmosphere nearly 100 times as dense. There is some speculation that Earth would have had a similar atmosphere if the formation of the Moon (via planetoid impact) had not cleared off a lot of that gas.

      Now the problem of course is where do we get all the gas to pile onto Mars? We can't realistically import much gas (which is too bad... Venus has a surplus), so we are limited to releasing gas from Martian surface or sub-surface materials. The limit then becomes the availability of the material (and as always, energy). There is a large amount of solid CO2 that can be sublimated, and oxygen bound with iron in the regolith can be released. I don't have precise knowledge but I suspect there is enough to achieve or exceed 1 bar.

      However, nitrogen is probably the biggest problem, if we are aiming to recreate Earth-like atmosphere. As far as I know there isn't much nitrogen on Mars (bound up in compounds in the regolith), but this is one thing that could potentially be imported (at huge expense). There are a lot of ammonia ices in the outer parts of the solar system. Redirecting a few million comets onto Mars would probably be sufficient.

    32. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Inverse square law. Solar already isn't exactly highly efficient on Earth. Mars is a bit further from the sun. Unless you get some really inexpensive solar panel fabs set up on Mars, this is probably not a cost-effective solution.

    33. Re:Mars? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Disks? But there's no AOL on Mars.

    34. Re:Mars? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      8) First group of Martian colonists all end up having diabetes.

    35. Re:Mars? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      We can't even terraform Earth right.

      Don't tell that to these guys. They're making a lot of money at it.

      these guys, too

      And these dudes are just off the hook.

      But that's the trees. This is the forest.

      Turns out, we're pretty good at it. Evolved to it until it's an instinct, you might say.

    36. Re:Mars? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Well, he is making a ring around the entire planet. That's some significant surface area.

      Now, to make solar panels out of CO2 and rust...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    37. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes anyone believe that an oxygen-less place like Mars is going to just suddenly sprout weeds?

      Weeds don't breath oxygen, nor does other plant life. The cold & dry conditions would probably hamper their growth, but by my limited understanding, what little atmosphere there is seems perfect for them.

    38. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's strange, my sugar cane and underpants just went missing!

    39. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're making progress at terraforming earth, but we need to figure out which species we are making it suitable for.

      I, for one, welcome our yet-to-be-named overlords.

    40. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earth + Water = Swamp
      Fire + Water = Alcohol
      Earth + Fire = Lava
      Fire + Air = Energy
      Air + Earth = Dust
      Air + Air = Wind
      Air + Water = Steam
      Earth + Earth = Pressure

  5. yea ok... sure. by bakamorgan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thats not going to happen since mars climate can dip to -100 degrees C (-150 degrees F) late at night, even near the equator. That will kill about anything there is trying to grow.

    1. Re:yea ok... sure. by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

      Leave some heaters on. Nature will find a way

      In an incredibly short time

      Through some perverted logic.

    2. Re:yea ok... sure. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well it would have to be an extremophile.

      "Lichens aren’t only frugal and robust, they jug out because of their very low sensibility against frost. Some lichens, in an experiment, survived a bath in liquid nitrogen at minus 195 degrees." (http://library.thinkquest.org/26442/html/life/plant.html)

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:yea ok... sure. by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't true. Even some species of cacti, for example, those in Canada are hardy down to that temperature. Opuntia humifusa (syn. O. compressa), and Escobaria vivipara have proven hardy down to -120c in the lab. Whilst they wont do much at this temperature, they're examples of more complex plantlife being able to clearly survive it. Cactaceae are also hardly the most adapted to this sort of climate, I'm sure there is plantlife that is even far more adapted to survive such temperatures than these examples.

  6. Nice idea but it won't work by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Royal Navy doesn't have any space ships.

    1. Re:Nice idea but it won't work by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the Japanese Navy does.

    2. Re:Nice idea but it won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet.

    3. Re:Nice idea but it won't work by jacquot · · Score: 1

      The Royal Navy won't have any ships at all soon.

  7. don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

    but (semi) seriously, this guy thinks he found something like a lichen on mars

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6969396/

    would terra-forming Mars potentially wipe out an indigenous species, and would Earthers that were desperate enough for another place to live even care?

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  8. "cloud forest " by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

    "cloud forest " something like "Cloud Computing" of the past??

    1. Re:"cloud forest " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was in the last Ender's book.

    2. Re:"cloud forest " by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it's where Lando Calrissian goes camping.

      Duh!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  9. Humans also made it barren, first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this AscensionIsland government press release :
    http://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/files/Anogramma%20press%20release_%20With%20images_%20Kew%20changes%2009%20June%202010.pdf

    "Goats were released onto Ascension by Portuguese explorers in the 1500s, and ate their way voraciously
    through the island’s greenery for 350 years before the flora was even described to science. By this stage, there wasn’t much left, and the introduction of rabbits, sheep, rats and donkeys, together with over 200 species of invasive plants, further squeezed out the island’s original plant inhabitants. With the rediscovery of Anogramma ascensionis the island’s surviving six endemic plant species are now boosted to a magnificent seven."

  10. It's true, he considered Africans to be sub-human. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the time of the voyage, he (without evidence) always implied in his writings that Africans were of the lowest levels of intelligence. I find this laughable because in the lowest levels of poverty in Europe we
    all endured the Greek Gods like the Hindu and Norwegian Pantheon gods. Africa has it's Voodoo crafts that are no different in corruptive behaviour.

  11. Yeah right, Mars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to study that shit for Earth, because we'll be needing it in the not too distant future.

  12. Not a secret by istartedi · · Score: 1

    They've been planting trees on the edge of the Taklamakan. I read about that years ago, here's a link.

    As others have pointed out, prior humans may have created the problem, so we are really just repairing the damage.

    I don't see how this ties in with terraforming very much, which is taking something that never had life in the first place and establishing it.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  13. Darwin by rootnl · · Score: 1

    1. Send some bacteria to Mars.
    2. Wait 100 years.
    3. ???
    4. Mars Attacks!!

    --

    We are the people our parents warned us about.
  14. Units by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many boat loads in a fuckton?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Units by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be a shit load.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imperial or Metric shit loads?

    3. Re:Units by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      By my best estimates, you have 1.68 imperial assloads to every metric fuckton.

    4. Re:Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      metric or imperial?

    5. Re:Units by NotOverHere · · Score: 1

      That would be a shit load.

      Metric or Imperial?

    6. Re:Units by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      It goes Shit load then Boat Load then Fuckton

      fuckton = ((1.37 Metric Arseloads) / Plank's constant) ^ Volkswagon Beetle)

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    7. Re:Units by sconeu · · Score: 1

      The imperial unit is an assload.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but if a fuckton = shit load, it sounds like I need more Preparation H

    9. Re:Units by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "arseload"?

      --
      -
    10. Re:Units by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      That would be a shit load.

      Metric or Imperial?

      Depends.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Units by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't know.

      [flies into the air]

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Units by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Depends on wether it's a metric fuckton or an imperial fuckton.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  15. funny by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the breakdown of the Martian atmosphere:

    carbon dioxide 95.32%
    nitrogen 2.7%
    argon 1.6%
    oxygen 0.13%
    carbon monoxide 0.07%
    water vapor 0.03%
    neon, krypton, xenon, ozone, methane trace
    The average surface pressure is only about 7 millibars (less than 1% of the Earth's)
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html

    So, Mars does have an atmosphere, but is it usable to Earth life?
    You would need s source of nitrogen, lotsa miracle gro would be handy

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
    1. Re:funny by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      "nitrogen 2.7%" [portion of the Martian atmosphere] ... that seems like a lot of nitrogen if you could extract it from the atmosphere... I guess it depends on how much surface you intend to cover with plants. Even 1% of the surface would be a pretty big dome/colony so you could conceivably get more than enough nitrogen out of the planet's atmosphere.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    2. Re:funny by davolfman · · Score: 1

      That almost sounds like a similar amount of CO2 to Earth atmosphere, with everything else stripped away. With enough nitrogen and enough water that almost sounds to me like you could grow some sort of photosynthetic life. Not that you'd ever have enough oxygen for much animal life.

    3. Re:funny by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Earth atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen, it would take a pretty aggressive nitrogen fixing strategy to grab about 1/3000's as much nitrogen as is available on Earth

      Personally, I would not want to be standing around any 'being' that would be likely to strip all of the nitrogen from my protein laden body

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    4. Re:funny by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      To be able to fix the atmospheric nitrogen it wouldn't necessarily have to be organic, or if organic not the plant life that the nitrogen was ultimately to be used for. It could, for example, be a bacterium engineered to absorb gaseous nitrogen and excrete a nitrogen compound. And if you are worried about being eaten it could be designed so as to find the human body uninhabitable.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    5. Re:funny by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Well, you will not walk around Mars without a suit any time soon, but then, we knew that before. Especially as the solar winds do more than strip atmosphere; they play roulette with your genes, as well. Mars does not have a magnetic shield to speak of and we will have to live with that; pun intended.

        But if we manage to get to a similar CO_2 -> C + O_2 conversion rate as on Earth (in the looong) term, we are looking at 0.01 bar of oxygen as compared to 0.21 over here. Sucking in that much air (21 times the rate of the people breathing inside of whatever we build there) sounds trivial, even accounting for the lower pressure.

      I would be more worried about heat differences and the fact that the lack of fluid water means that weather will remain extreme.

    6. Re:funny by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      problem being that living things tend to evolve.
      If a random mutation produces a strain that doesn't bother spending any of it's energy on fixing nitrogen unless it gains some big advantage from it the new strain will out-compete the old one.

    7. Re:funny by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      We can ship all our shit there! (literally)

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    8. Re:funny by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      If evolution is the problem then we're doomed no matter where we are.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  16. Where to get the big O? by ebcreasoner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't a whole butt load of rust covering the planet? Iron oxide? Iron and oxygen. What now?

  17. Disease doesn't work that way. by Gorimek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Think about it.

    Why would a martian microbe be specialized in feeding off Earth mammals? How would evolution end up there?

    1. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if it shared DNA with Earth critters, for whatever reason?

      What if it was an unspecialized parasite? What if all it needed was a carbon or nitrogen source?

      I think it's all unlikely in the extreme, but still not something we should entirely ignore.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, spontaneous vaporization and a million other possible things are also unlikely in the extreme. I think that we should ignore it completly. If we only focus on possible problems instead of actual problems we will get nowhere.

      I think it is safe to postpone such worries until we are in a position to bring stuff here from Mars or when we have got to a position where we actually intend to send people to Mars.

    3. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Who said they have DNA?

    4. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      An AC responds,

      "Well, spontaneous vaporization and a million other possible things are also unlikely in the extreme. I think that we should ignore it completly. If we only focus on possible problems instead of actual problems we will get nowhere.

      I think it is safe to postpone such worries until we are in a position to bring stuff here from Mars or when we have got to a position where we actually intend to send people to Mars."

      That's basically what I'm saying. The possibility exists, but is so remote that there's no point in worrying about it -- just take some precautions, as you would for any other unknown hazard, once we get there. ("Hey stupid, wear a filter mask if you're gonna be out in all that dust.") After all, we brought back moon rocks and exposed them to Earth-normal conditions, and didn't die. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      No one, actually, but it's reasonable to assume there's some such controlling structure in any organism that reproduces itself, and the generic term "DNA" or "genetic material" is close enough as a descriptor.

      Also, something capable of invading the human organism probably shares at the least some biochemistry basics; otherwise it's going to be like a Windows virus attempting to install on a UNIX box: "WTF? who put all these weird molecules in my way?? How the heck am I supposed to make the unobtainium I need to reproduce if there's no plergbinium in this critter's system??"

      Now, if it reproduces as random organisms based on whatever it finds to hand, or to the need of the moment like replicators, that might deserve a different term, and a whole different set of paranoid precautions. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not impossible those supposed organisms target primitive chemical compounds that are essential to earth based lifeforms, especially if you explore the idea that earth life was "seeded". Then again, it's a pretty abysmal chance and I wouldn't worry about it, any more than I would worry about bumping into flying pigs in outer space.

    7. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by robertinventor · · Score: 1

      Yes, very likely to have shared DNA in my book. Much exchange of material between the planets in the early solar system from impact debris and volcanoes and microbes can survive the transition from Mars to Earth. Still very interesting, would have evolved independently of Earth probably for millions or even billions of years, and in a very different environment.

    8. Re:Disease doesn't work that way. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what I was thinking, yeah. And chemistry is chemistry everywhere, atoms only combine in preset ways, so molecular structures are going to be at least parallel. Probably the nearest related critters on Earth would be the remote-location extremophiles that have had little or no contact with the rest of the world since gods know when.

      Fun times to come for biochemists. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  18. Re:It's true, he considered Africans to be sub-hum by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    I don't know what you are trying to say. I guess you are positing poverty and religion as evidence of the inverse of intelligence? Now I don't know what I'm saying.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  19. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever heard about Darwin?

    If we ever plan to visit Mars, at all, then it is going to be contaminated sooner or later. What happens then is up to the natural forces to resolve and there is not much we can do about it. (Well, we could decide to stay away from Mars, forever.)

  20. Create a Rain Forest in 20 Years by Slur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a video about how a rainforest was created in only 20 years, altering weather and creating a habitat for abundant life. This could be done all over the world to mediate the effects of Human activity.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/willie_smits_restores_a_rainforest.html

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:Create a Rain Forest in 20 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up. This is the modern version of Ascension Island - the "secret" in question

    2. Re:Create a Rain Forest in 20 Years by hedpe2003 · · Score: 1

      For a second there, I thought that Will Smith Restored a Rainforest...

      --
      Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
    3. Re:Create a Rain Forest in 20 Years by osvenskan · · Score: 1

      Humans are already pretty good at accidentally altering weather and changing habitat. How will doing it deliberately "mediate the effects of human activity"?

    4. Re:Create a Rain Forest in 20 Years by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Trouble is that the process risks turning into an industry, at which point cost-saving and efficiency-optimizing managers will enhance shareholder value and synergise scale-benefits by planting only a single species of plant.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  21. Umm lack of a magnetosphere anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Umm Have they forgotton, Mars has no Magnetic Field!! practically useless for humans since any new atmosphere we create through greenhouse effect will be blown away by solar winds, plus we will be in more danger from Cosmic Rays and Solar flares without a Magnetic field

    1. Re:Umm lack of a magnetosphere anyone by capnchicken · · Score: 1

      3/4's of the way down before some sense was made of this. Thank you.

      Not going to get anywhere on that dead world without a molten spinning metallic core capable of shielding the planet from the solar winds.

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
  22. "They were quite successful."???? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    How they figure that? I didn't see a Wal*Mart in the pictures!

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    1. Re:"They were quite successful."???? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      How they figure that?

      Well, you answered it yourself:

      I didn't see a Wal*Mart in the pictures!

      That's clearly success!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  23. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by bytesex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In that case, it's probably already contaminated. I doubt that Russian tech of the seventies, or US tech of the nineties for that matter, could render a huge object 100% sterile.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  24. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, imagine all those nasty spacebugs!

  25. Life finds a way? by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    Dr Ian Malcolm approves!

  26. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I bet a months-long drift through hard vacuum and unimpeded solar & cosmic radiation might have done a fair job, for most of the ship anyway.

    Something with a sealed-in living environment for humans has a much greater proportion of microbe etc. habitat, as well as being much bigger overall.

  27. Darwin also... by drkim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Darwin was also a genius in many other ways...

    Many years before the fossil and DNA discoveries that might have helped him, he conjectured that human life evolved on the continent of Africa and spread outward.

    1. Re:Darwin also... by stormy_petral · · Score: 1

      Lucky guess. He had a 1 in 7 chance of being right, and pulled it off.

  28. This is not new, it's called 'Permaculture' by qwerty8ytrewq · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And the first recorded modern practice of permaculture as a systematic method was by Austrian farmer Sepp Holzer in the 1960s.
    PermacultureEssentially one designs systems that run using existing natural ecologies using paths of least resistance and capturing energy/matter.
    Interestingly enough natural agriculture systems designed using these principle have no theoretical maximum yield.

    --
    Waiting for the other shoe to...
    1. Re:This is not new, it's called 'Permaculture' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > no theoretical maximum yield.

      Shame you ruined such a good post with such a silly ending. A permaculture system is still obviously limited by its input from the sun.

    2. Re:This is not new, it's called 'Permaculture' by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough natural agriculture systems designed using these principle have no theoretical maximum yield.

      Huh? That sounds pretty bizarre to me. It sounds like it should be a violation of an ecological analogy of the second law of thermodynamics - the ecological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Which sounds very wrong.

      The Wikipedia article you cite doesn't make much about yields. So, where does this "no maximum yield" idea come from?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:This is not new, it's called 'Permaculture' by qwerty8ytrewq · · Score: 1

      I think (and am not claiming to be an expert) essentially the concept is that if you create positive localised ecological feedback loops that allow bio-accumulation from sun, animal action, and remove/harvest less than the rate of accumulation (as harvest or yield)) then the whole system can increase with no THEORETICAL limit. but of course there are practical limits like oxygen diffusion, heat penetration, soil slippage etc. also the theory assumes a small finite 'open' system that is not lossy. eg, if you only eat from your garden, and all your compost, human waste, etc goes back to the garden and you encourage material to accumulate in a way that does not cost you more energy than it is 'worth', your garden yield will get better and better.

      --
      Waiting for the other shoe to...
    4. Re:This is not new, it's called 'Permaculture' by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Whoever fed you that line of compost was being inexcusably slippery with the language. The theoretical analysis that is described takes no account of, for example, the fact that sunlight at the Earth's surface (or even at the Earth's orbit, assuming that we can put farms in space) has a finite intensity, and that is one limitation to the inputs of the system. Other, undescribed and unconsidered, limitations include that some minerals are essential elements, and they are only released from rocks at certain rates. The example that I was going to cite was molybdenum, which is an essential traces element involved IIRC in ATP handling in all organisms that use mitochondria, but for this discussion I think that the availability of magnesium might be better.
      A magnesium atom is present in every molecule of chlorophyll. If you want to increase your yield beyond a certain point (when all magnesium atoms are already in chlorophyll molecules, then you've either got to engage in aquatic-solution nucleosynthesis (which would make even Pons & FLeischmann blush), or you've got to put magnesium into the system. On Earth, that happens slowly by weathering of many rock types, and is nearly invisible to the casual observer. But in your orbital farm, the need to ship up lumps of dolomite on a rocket makes the dependency on external inputs obvious.
      Why would I think that magnesium makes a better example of a "limiting nutrient" than molybdenum? Because you can easily see the effects of magnesium deficiency in many farming areas and soil types. Deficiency of magnesium leads to plants that appear to be growing well, but are decidedly yellow compared to their non-deficient neighbours (because the green-reflecting magnesium complexes in chlorophyll are absent, though carotene associates of the photosynthetic chain are still forming along with the rest of the plant) and stunted. The deficiency can vary on a matter of metres in marginal soils - you may see lines of good growth associated with the slightly different soil chemistry along the tractor tracks, for example. It's quite impressive.
      I hope that I don't need to explain the limitation that the intensity of sunlight at a location puts on plant growth (and therefore on the growth of the rest of the ecosystem) ; I'm a caver, and it seems pretty obvious to me.

      But to return to your "no theoretical maximum yield" ... well it's true, if by "theoretical" you mean "theoretical (neglecting all the important and obvious limitations that I've not considered in my theory because I want a punchy punch line)". I'd re-examine everything else that this author has proposed to you through a much more sceptical magnifying glass, because if he pulls this sort of linguistic legerdemain once, he (or she) is likely to pull it repeatedly.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  29. Mars? Doable by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 0

    Pair of rabbits, pair of foxes, pair of mongooses, some star thistle for good measure. It'll be a choked out hell instead of a barren hell.

  30. Mars can't be terraformed. by beta.services · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least not at a planatary scale. It's core is near frozen solid. Leaving it's magnetosphere too weak to protect the planet from solar wind. So, unless they plan to reignight it's core, better start looking at Venus as a new home.

    1. Re:Mars can't be terraformed. by RichiH · · Score: 1

      It _can_ be terraformed to better facilitate supporting human life in sealed enclosures. It can _not_ be terraformed to be a second Earth.

    2. Re:Mars can't be terraformed. by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, there was a very educational documentary made several years back about starting up planetary cores. I think it was called something like "The Core."

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    3. Re:Mars can't be terraformed. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      reignight

      /. seems to have a lot of creative spelling. But I think that this one wins first prize....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  31. Because the volcanic island never had life by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Informative

    The entire point is that with extremely primitive means, they turned a volcanic (read liveless) island into a lush paradise. It proves that the creation of an eco system is something that CAN be managed without waiting for nature to do it very very slowly.

    It shows we CAN reverse de-forestation and it shows that man CAN have a large impact.

    Of course you need to be able to get your head past "but it is not 100% the same so it must be fail" that capability is what seperates the leaders from the sheep. Guess which group you belong too? Baaah!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Because the volcanic island never had life by RichiH · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the general circumstances on Earth seem to better than on Mars. That being said, while I do not expect anything to really happen on Mars while I live, it will be do-able at some point, somehow. Unless we mess up and destroy civilization, that is :)

    2. Re:Because the volcanic island never had life by delinear · · Score: 1

      It would be far more useful if we'd had a control island right next to it to see if life naturally returned in that time. After all, we already know Earth (of this time period) has perfect conditions for supporting life, to use this as evidence that we can terraform other planets is quite the leap, there are much, much bigger issues to solve on Mars than soil erosion.

  32. Lush tropical cloud forest? by hellop2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks more like a few dozen trees and some scrub to me.

    I was thinking "Terraformed!" Like Jurassic Park style.

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    1. Re:Lush tropical cloud forest? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Note the scale legend in the lower-left of the image.

      That "few dozen trees" is a forest a mile long and half a mile wide.

    2. Re:Lush tropical cloud forest? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cool overhead shot. It lead me to some even more illuminating ground photos.

      This barren photo appears to represent the natural state of the island. If you go about one mile there's this photo from the edge of the green zone looking out over the barren island. A mere quarter mile further we find this photo at the heart of the green zone.

      I'd say it's quite a striking transition from dry barren red rock to that wet greenery. I'd say it pretty well qualifies as "Terraformed! Like Jurassic Park style." It's all the more striking when you realize that you can walk from the barren desert on one side in to that third photo, and walk back out to barren desert on the other side, in probably less than two hours. I expect boundary is advancing at a decent rate each year, and the area of the biome increasing by the square of the radius.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  33. ridge != volcanoes by piotru · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the BBC article:
    "Its existence depends entirely on what geologists call the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is a chain of underwater volcanoes formed as the ocean is wrenched apart."
    I beg to differ. mid-Atlantic ridge forms above the spreading zone, and is by no means a chain of volcanoes.

  34. A case for Intelligent Design by howardd21 · · Score: 1

    Not to be a troll, but by his own example doesn't Darwin show that a designer is needed in order to improve things when a system is present and interdependencies are real.

    --
    no comment
    1. Re:A case for Intelligent Design by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Just because something is sufficient does not make it necessary.

    2. Re:A case for Intelligent Design by delinear · · Score: 1

      No, he shows that a designer is needed in order to improve things quickly. Life would have likely returned to the island eventually, once the conditions were right, he just helped it along. Not to mention we hardly "improved" things, since we were responsible for the initial devastation caused by introducing grazing animals, and it's hardly back to its former glory. The evolutionary process on Earth was anything but speedy, if there was a designer's hand involved why did it take billions of years to get to this stage?

    3. Re:A case for Intelligent Design by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      quickly.

      Define quickly. A few billion years? Trillions?

      Here we go, redefining the Universe to meet our expectations. And of course, redefining the forces that we don't understand to match our puny abilities to do make sense of it all.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:A case for Intelligent Design by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No. He shows that it's possible to modify a system.

      He's more famous for showing that it's also possible for a system to self-organize according to its self-contained environment, in the absence of the influences of outside intelligence.

      These facts are not irreconcilable.

  35. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by cyclomedia · · Score: 2, Informative

    BBC News - Beer microbes live 553 days outside ISS
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11039206

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  36. Complete and utter bullshit by RichiH · · Score: 1

    There was no design, they simply took existing organisms and relocated them. Who tells you nature might not have achieved the same in a thousand years? Who tells you natives did not cut down all wood for boats before Darwin came along (I seem to remember some research in that area)?

    And above all: What metrics are you using when you speak of "improve"? Improve for human life? Sure, but then every garden, every park and every agricultural area is proof for Intelligent Design.

  37. disease doesn't work that way by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i think you've been watching "resident evil" "alien" or "andromeda strain" too much and don't really have much epidemiology or biochemistry under your belt. those are pleasant fictional entertainments, but they ignore the economics of basic evolution and biology

    a plague or a predator or a parasite is something a long time in the making, exquisitely crafted by evolution to its intended host. it is not something floating out there on mars or anywhere else that suddenly is able to take advantage of any plant or animal life on earth with sudden and voracious ability. out in space, life is trying its damnedest to survive things like radiation and starvation. things it wouldn't have to worry about on earth, but earth is not something it would be adapted to

    life in space would be hermits, long hibernators, very tough and resilient and specializing in slow growth and long dormancy. life in space would be poor, weak, and asocial. it wouldn't know what to do with other sudden bountiful sources of life around it like on earth, because it would be in isolation for millions of years. it is entirely possible, like andromeda strain, that alien life has been raining down on us, forever. but it is quickly outcompeted by life right here, because life right here knows how to live here and compete against other life. alien space life meanwhile, would be poorly suited to such tasks, and quickly be killed. predators and disease and parasites are forms of life evolved in the raucous promiscuous environment of many different kinds of life around it for millions of years: the opposite environment of space

    life in space has no time nor inclination to be a plague, nor preserve any such ability to do that, even if it somehow could, out there eking by in the cold and the empty. fish in caves quickly lose the ability to see through evolution, because evolution favors losing abilities that are expensive and provide no survival advantage. many times in natural history, birds have found isolated islands and promptly lost the ability to fly, becoming fat slow ground things that a predator from a large continent could easily and quickly dispatch. working wings are very expensive biologically, and only are useful in a high competition environment. likewise in space, where the most pressing issue might be radiation, cold, and starvation, the complex ability to be a plague or a predator or a parasite, is just too dang expensive to keep around, when there is no one else around. an ability to consume or infect other life would quickly degenerate and atrophy

    on earth, for millions of years, life has been pitted against life and has been trying to be that plague you fear to the best of its ability. in other words, the best training ground for a plague is right here, all around you, not out in the cold of space or on some desiccated planet. out there, any form of life has no time nor ability to evolve to be able to do anything with something as exotic as us or anything else on earth. but exposed to us for millions of years? yes, then it is a threat. and that's exactly what you already have here on earth all around you

    fear not mars. fear dhaka. fear taipei. fear moscow. a plague IS possible. it is breeding right now, maybe in your city, maybe in you. in terms of mother nature, our technological and agricultural advances have rendered humanity as a huge sudden recent population boom that, to the eyes of the rest of life on earth, is just a giant food source, winning a lottery ticket. all someone has to do is take advantage of us, and someone will take advantage of us, someday, somehow: influenza, SARS, bed bugs... its a relentless march of close calls, until there are no more close calls, but a direct hit instead. to the parasites and diseases, we are untapped riches. they've been working very hard via evolution to crack the code that will decimate us, and will continue to try hard to make us their food

    but... then they will evolve into something less virulent. because to disease, it doesn't pay to kill your hosts so fast as

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:disease doesn't work that way by blair1q · · Score: 1

      TL, DR, DTR

      (too long, didn't read, doomed to repeat)

    2. Re:disease doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not "long overdue for a population correction due to disease." We as living organisms are always a target for "disease," and always must struggle against it or face extinction. The risk is always there. The risk for disease and ravage is neither greater nor lesser now than it was yesterday.

      And people shouldn't fear disease, mars, or the relative unknown because (what I think your trying to get at is that) we don't have complete control over these things. Rather, we should realize our actions and (technological) explorations have unforeseen consequences, and we should try to be as flexible as possible when dealing with these unknowns. Because, you know, such evolution and adaptability is critical to our survival.

    3. Re:disease doesn't work that way by robertinventor · · Score: 1

      What about microbes developed by parallel evolution. We know what can happen if you introduce a plant or animal from another continent on Earth. But most of the smaller microbes can disperse in the atmosphere and mix world wide. We don't know what happens if you introduce a new variety of one of those to a new planet.

      What if it treats oxygen as a poison and has developed the ability to remove it from the atmosphere and "fix it" - just to throw out an idea, might explain why there is no oxygen in the atmosphere if there is life there e.g. in underground caves.

      Although it mightn't be able to attack many earth organisms - that goes both ways. It may be invulnerable to attacks from them too, it may spread e.g. a mold might spread over the world and it might be that there is nothing that has yet evolved on Earth to eat it - even if it has organisms that eat it on Mars.

    4. Re:disease doesn't work that way by robertinventor · · Score: 1

      Another problem is that introduced Earth micro-organisms could evolve to be hostile in similar way. If micro-organism, and with entire planet to spread over, and high radiation levels, and many generations in each day, and no competition, evolution could be extra-ordinarily rapid once life from Earth takes hold at all.

      Within maybe a year you could have equivalent of billions of years of evolution on Earth for microbes - in a completely different environment. With different versions of it in all the niches on Mars.

      Could cause major problems for future terrraforming of Mars. Could also similarly to native Mars microbes be of danger to Earth life evolved to be no longer recognised as food, who knows, a lot could happen with a planet wide experiment like that, and with all the possible habitats - ice, methane, underground volcanoes and what-not.

      That is what might happen if there is no Mars life already there, or if Earth life turns out to be better suited to Mars than life already there, maybe because of things that have evolved on Earth and not on Mars, like introducing European mammals to Australia.

    5. Re:disease doesn't work that way by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      What if it treats oxygen as a poison and has developed the ability to remove it from the atmosphere and "fix it"

      1. Oxygen is a poison. It's poisonous to us humans at high concentrations. It's toxic to many forms of life at normal concentrations -- and they were here on Earth well before us. In fact, it was their own disregard for sustainable growth and waste management that destroyed their ecosystem.

      2. Everything fixes oxygen. It's continually being bound up by everything that breathes, everything that rusts, everything that burns, everything that rots.

      I'm not a bit worried about things that evolve with no connection to Earth's biosphere. I'm very worried about things that evolve under the guidance of humans with modern genetic-manipulation equipment, an ever-improving grasp of genetic function, and a bad attitude toward some or all of contemporary civilization.

  38. Einstein photo on a Darwin article? by DeepBlueC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey /. Change the photo on this article! Thankew.

  39. Reclaiming deserts by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    It's been theorized that the Sahara used to be a lush verdant area. Perhaps this technique could reconvert it back to this once pristine state over the course of a few centuries of hard work?

    1. Re:Reclaiming deserts by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > It's been theorized that the Sahara used to be a lush verdant area.

      And also that it had a lot more rainfall.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  40. No Magnetosphere = no life by rraylion · · Score: 1

    I am all for terraforming Mars but there is this major gaping hole

    -- Mars has NO MAGNETOSPHERE, none, nada zip... we on terra firma have this beautiful molten core of iron that gives our planet a magnetic shield against the solar wind, that Mars lacks.

    What does this mean? Well the upper atmosphere is stripped off at a faster pace than here on earth so you will never be able to get a continuous water cycle going on the planet because you will loose so much to space every year. And the other HUGE reason is that with no magnetosphere you are getting hit with a lot more radiation and while thats great for a tan it's just plain awful on the reproductive organs and life in general.

    If we are on Mars we are going to either be under ground or in massive biodomes -- so do not fear we will never terraform Mars until we can give it a magnetosphere.

    1. Re:No Magnetosphere = no life by radtea · · Score: 1

      Well the upper atmosphere is stripped off at a faster pace than here on earth so you will never be able to get a continuous water cycle going on the planet because you will loose so much to space every year. And the other HUGE reason is that with no magnetosphere you are getting hit with a lot more radiation and while thats great for a tan it's just plain awful on the reproductive organs and life in general.

      This is such a great example of non-quantitative, innumerate thinking.

      As another poster has pointed out, actual scientific study by systematic observation and controlled experiment suggests that the rate of loss of Martian atmosphere is very low.

      More importantly, while lots of people have said, "Solar wind on noes!" no one has said, "The radiation flux at the Martian surface assuming attentuation by an atmosphere equivalent to 50% of Earth's would be XYZ." That's the number that matters. I don't care two pins for Mars' lack of magnetosphere, and telling me it doesn't have one tells me nothing about whether unmodified human life is viable there or not.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  41. martianforming people by nten · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rather than terraform earth, we should martianform people. Or adapt ourselves more generally to life on the average desolate locale. I have no ethical objection to modifying whole planets, but I have no ethical objections to modifying a single species either. The latter seems far easier than genetically engineering or otherwise adapting hundreds of species to drag a frozen rock without much gravity into the narrow window of conditions our current physical form can tolerate.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  42. Darwin & racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody tagged this "darwinwasracist" - he may well have been by our standards, pretty much everyone around at that time was raised to hold opinions that would be considered a bit...well, outdated...today, but for when he was, where he was, I think you'd be surprised. I would recommend reading the Voyage of the Beagle - basically Darwin's own description of his voyage (in particular his encounters with slavery in IIRC Brazil).

    Also kind of neat to see him basically figure out plate tectonics along the way by trying to understand the how the atolls & volcanic islands he encounters were formed. His working out of the basic mechanism of evolution (*not* discovery BTW, evolution had been known about for a while, but he was the first to figure out how it works) was not just blind luck, he was clearly brilliant.

    1. Re:Darwin & racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      replying to self here - I found the passage I was thinking of:

      While staying at this estate, I was very nearly being an eye-witness to one of those atrocious acts which can only take place in a slave country. Owing to a quarrel and a lawsuit, the owner was on the point of taking all the women and children from the male slaves, and selling them separately at the public auction at Rio. Interest, and not any feeling of compassion, prevented this act. Indeed, I do not believe the inhumanity of separating thirty families, who had lived together for many years, even occurred to the owner. Yet I will pledge myself, that in humanity and good feeling he was superior to the common run of men. It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal.

  43. Darwin was racist? by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    What's with the Darwinwasracist tag? What is that all about and how is it relevant to the story?

    1. Re:Darwin was racist? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's racist apologia projected on /. as a troll-tag.

      I'll just say it, with a little help from a link:

      Darwin wasn't racist.

  44. Pfffft by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Happens in my fridge all the time

  45. It's already been done in science-fiction by sjvn · · Score: 1

    See Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=25839 Which also deals with just how wise would it really be to remake a world in our image. These are good books, which I highly recommend.

    Steven

  46. Reminiscent of Freeman Dyson by RackinFrackin · · Score: 1

    This makes me think of some of the subject matter of Freeman Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe." I'm thinking in particular of the section where Dyson compares what he calls "green" and "grey" technology. Currently we're using grey tech to go to space, where people live in cans and everything requires "unnatural" sources of energy to maintain its existence. Dyson talks about how genetic engineering, adaptation, and evolution could help us adapt to living in hostile environments (like Mars or the moon) in a way similar to how man has adapted to less harsh environments in the past--things like people in high altitude areas developing greater lung capacities.

  47. Re:Darwin was a fricken Racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could be two things.

  48. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Beer.

    You don't own it, you only rent it.

    Until it takes over the universe.

  49. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by budgenator · · Score: 1

    I would expect that a year and a half in LEO, inside the Earth's Van Allen Belts is a lot less radiation than a 6 month jaunt to Mars.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  50. Plants need oxygen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plants are sort of "just animals" with photosynthetic endoparasites.

    For instance, rainforests are only net O2 producers, and net CO2 consumers, for some hours around noon. The rest of the daytime, and through the night, they are net O2 consumers and CO2 producers, just like animals.

    So perhaps one starts with not just simpler life, but life which desperately avoids leaking O2, and which focuses on reproduction. Atmospheric O2 remains unchanged for a long time, but martian photosynthetic biomass increases. Eventually, the leakage becomes significant.

    Or perhaps one uses life which can't now survive on Earth. Terraforming Mars is basically trying to give Mars its own "oxygen disaster". So perhaps its faster to use life or systems from before Earth's. Life which doesn't waste energy trying to hang on to, and cope with, high O2 concentrations. And thus is better adapted to the current martian environment, free of toxic O2.

  51. Reminds me of my idea... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    ...One of the plot points for a sci-fi book I was thinking of writing but haven't yet.

    Thriving Mars colony already established at time of alien invasion of Earth. Mars was already given plans for a military operation to help reclaim the homeworld, to be put into motion when the shit hits the fan.
    Operation Phoenix sounds like a cool name for that. :)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  52. Re:don't foget the Ganymede rock lobster by robertinventor · · Score: 1

    some spores can survive for millions of years and the winds will spread them througout the planet.

    But probably the number of places on the planet where life can start is small.

    Anyone know if anyone has done a study of how likely it is the planet is already contaminated?

    I'm most concerned about any martian life that may already exist on Mars. The more life we introduce the greater the chance we introduce a species that can out compete it.

    As with not yet discovered species on Earth but more so, the Mars life may have unusual and interesting properties and could be lost before we even find it. Also the native life if it exists may be the best life to use as a basis to help terraform the planet.

    So I think a very thorough exploration with remote controlled robot landers well sterilised needs to be done first.

    Lots of other issues. E.g. do we really need Mars to be habitable now. If we try and because of our inexperience in terraforming it goes haywire, then will we be able to recover from it. May we our some other life form really really need it in the future? If not before may be needed when our sun goes Red Giant, Mars may then become habitable naturally without our interference, and may be just what is needed then.

  53. Needs more T-Rex by kmoser · · Score: 1

    They need to seed the island with cloned dinosaur eggs and turn it into a theme park.

  54. All true by qwerty8ytrewq · · Score: 1

    Your points are all sound. I concur that the 'no max yield' call is outrageous abuse of language and scientific charlatanism. Akin to "continous improvement".

    Positive feed back loops that lead to bio-accumulation(sic) are still cool though. (like the pacific island mentioned that is now collecting water and sun and birdshite much faster that 20 years ago....)

    --
    Waiting for the other shoe to...
    1. Re:All true by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Positive feed back loops that lead to bio-accumulation(sic) are still cool though.

      True.

      But, but ... will nobody think of the poor starving writers of ridiculously hyperbolic headlines?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  55. smells like a plot hole by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    The aliens came all ways to Earth, destroy/occupy it, but they ignore Mars?

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry