Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

The Colonisation Question.

Page: (1)2

11:35 / 16.06.05

A couple of the threads here in the Lab and over on Head have got my thinking gland pondering the subject of colonisation of the other planetary bodies of our solar system. I wondered if anyone else wanted to talk about this?

As it stands we've made only the most basic of progress towards establishing permanent colonies on our nearest neighbours. The US, being one of the more proactive countries where space exploration is concerned, made a big noise about wanting to establish long-term bases on the Moon within our lifetime.

So, what kind of problems are currently facing us with regards to planetary colonisation? Is it right to introduce an alien organism (i.e. us) onto a planet without first confirming there is no life there?

If there is life, but it's of a basic microbial nature, should we go ahead and colonise? My opinion would be yes. We can't wait around a trillion years to see if basic lifeforms are going to evolve into a sentient species. Expansion of the human race off Earth is far too important for that.

How strictly should exploitation of other planet's resources be regulated? Is it okay to gut an asteroid for iron and nikel? Should we be attempting to leave even uninhabited planets in an utterly pristine state?

I await your views.

15:26 / 16.06.05

Not enough time before I go home to give this topic the attention it deserves but for an interesting treatment of this in fiction see Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars" trilogy where the terraformers are in conflict with those who wish to preserve Mars as is.

sdv (non-human)

16:00 / 16.06.05

Doesn't the nature of the question really depend on the amount of sentient life in our local Galaxy ?

The notion of human expansion and colonization depends I would imagine on the amount of local sentient competition and the solar system's ability to move human and non-human beings out of the system to other places. I put it in these terms deliberately because I imagine that humans will take cats, sparrows, iguanas, mice, bacteria and and more reluctantly rats with them...

If there are very few other sentient beings I can't see it will be a problem - though if the technology is available I'd imagine we'll change the human (and the definition of the human) to fit the local environments. However if there are many sentient species/beings then surely the problem will become extraordinarily difficult and rather traditionally political...

Roger Penrose, Brian Aldiss - White Mars is rather nice on some of these issues.

s

All Acting Regiment

20:13 / 16.06.05

I think that whatever happens we should take a good fucking look at humanity's previous efforts at exploring our own world, specifically European explorers. Look at the devastation that was caused. I mean, we really have to learn from our mistakes.

23:01 / 16.06.05

Expansion of the human race off Earth is far too important for that.

why is it so important, evil?

08:06 / 17.06.05

Why is it so important, evil?

I suppose in the short term it isn't. But colonisation of other planetary bodies in the solar system would allow us, as a species to survive events that could render the surface of the Earth uninhabitable. It would be a case of not putting all of our eggs into one basket.

I agree with Legba that we should be extremely careful about how we go about interacting with an alien ecosystem should we discover one. Even microbial ecosystems would have to be carefully studied before we took the decision to colonise that planet.

As far as I am aware the place in the solar system most likely to harbour complex life at the moment is in the seas beneath Europa's ice fields. So we should take a massive amount of care when investigating there. We cannot risk Earthborn micro-organisms contaminating and possibly damaging the first nonterrestrial creatures we encounter.

11:03 / 18.06.05

I agree with Legba that we should be extremely careful about how we go about interacting with an alien ecosystem should we discover one.

Would we even recognise it? seeingas how our definition of 'life' is biased towards the type of life found on earth...

16:30 / 18.06.05

I’m all for human colonization of other planets (not only in our solar system but beyond) for the reason already stated, eggs in one basket, leaving the cradle, and all that.
However, I have to also say that life is not as fragile as we may think it is. We are animals as well and the life on another planet/moon could very well have massive effects on us and our unsuspecting Earth biota. For example, let’s assume that there are Martian bacteria barely clinging to icy cracks and small underground wells, once we start mucking about with the planet, (i.e. heating it up, drilling, melting and releasing water.) We could be giving these alien organisms the chance they need to spread like wildfire. Do you really think we’re going to keep the buggers out of our bodies? Bullshit! We could be looking at new diseases or mutations cause by these bugs mucking around with us. The whole time we’ll be colonizing their rock they’ll be colonizing our nice warm hospitable cells! You can’t change something without being changed yourself. So I do agree we extensively study the native life before we drink the water.

17:06 / 20.06.05

It's funny, two days after my last post there's this.

bobotheanticlown

03:37 / 01.07.05

"Terra is the cradle of humanty, but we must not live in the cradle for ever"

we must relise, with the current level of POSSOBLE genetic engineering, we could open up areas of earth then no one ever dreemed of living in- People With enlongated feet abnd gills any1?

but ya im all for colinasion and terraforming other planets

Our Lady Has Left the Building

09:52 / 01.07.05

I think we can be fairly confident of spotting a functioning ecosystem if we come across it, at least in the short term of colonising the moon and Mars. It's the next stage, spotting whether that ecosystem supports any life, and whether that life is intelligent or not which is the tricky.

12:33 / 04.07.05

As much as I'm wracked with self-loathing for our species (geeks), I think that unless we get off this rock we've consigned ourselves to provincialism. If you take it, as I do, that there are others out there, then it seems a shame to sit here in the clubhouse until bedtime. Plus, y'know: eggs, basket, asteroids. It might be nice to know that all of our efforts won't be overturned by a stray chunk of space lint.

If the point of issue we stall on is the potential for ecological imperialism, we're obviously not going anywhere. In any event, that doesn't really affect us in the short term. As far I can tell, there's nothing alive on the Moon, prolly nothing alive on Mars, and odds are nothing yet on Europa, Ganymede or any of the other would-be cradles.

Henningjohnathan

14:41 / 22.07.05

Actually, after reading Ed Regis' GREAT MAMBO CHICKEN AND THE TRANSHUMAN CONDITION I agree with the L5 Society that exchanging one fertile live planet for a barren rock is a bad idea. Planetary colonisation, hell, planetary life, has an uncountable number of drawbacks for a spacefaring species. First, you have all that gravity caused by the huge mass and 99.9999999999999999% of that matter is inaccessable. So, if you want to go into space, you have to expend most of your propulsive energy just getting out of the driveway so to speak. Also, you can't control the exposure to sunlight for your gardens due to the fact that the big unmanipulatable rock has its own rotation and revolution. You have to deal with seasons and so on.

It is a much better idea to build orbital colonies. It is no less feasible an idea to shoot the materials you'd need to terraform a dead planet covered with toxic chemicals like Mars than to build a colony in orbit and put the materials there. Also, orbital colonies throughout the solar system would provide much more efficient systems of travel than having to drop down to the planet and jump back out again on every stop along the way. Even if you still want to terraform other planets then first building a network of orbital platforms or asteroid-like mobile space colonies would be a better way to transport and maintain the materials and personnel needed to do the terraforming.

sdv (non-human)

16:11 / 22.07.05

On a side note - I heard this week that the recent Mars Rover which was supposed to be completely sterile, actually arrived on Mars with living bacteria on board.

Terraforming ? Looks like life is already migrating from the planet before long before humans actually planned it...

s

Henningjohnathan

16:27 / 22.07.05

Sounds like the plot for a horror movie. In the future a crew of terraformers becomes infected by the monstrous bacteria that survived and thrived there from the rover.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

14:37 / 25.07.05

Wasn't that the first Quatermass?

All Acting Regiment

20:14 / 25.07.05

I think something we could consider is the concept of "Single (Human) species Space Travel"- the traditional view- VS "Multispecies Space Travel".

Because, I mean, we see this as a human eneavour. Our society always talk about humans doing this and that in space, but already other organisms are begining to take the ride as well.

Also remember that as there is plant material in the human stomach, and plenty of bacteria too, the idea of multi-species space travel has already happened, even if you don't count the soviets and their dog.

In fact, if you look at it properly, it's never been anything other than a multispecies affair.

20:17 / 25.07.05

Henning, I totally agree. We shouldn't be so focussed on colonizing planets that we forget the obvious benefits of off-planet stations.

And, as you mention, if we are going to colonize a planet, it makes more sense to first establish an orbital station, wherefrom you can study the planet and prepare the terraforming.
This would also be vital if we want to soften the impact on existing organisms. Instead of crashing down on the planet and beginning to disturb it, we could first study it from orbit and with minimum-impact (with regard to the local environment) probes, before deciding how to procede.

15:02 / 30.07.05

Well, they've found a frozen lake on Mars... that's good news for future colonists.

22:04 / 30.07.05

at least they know to pack their skates.

10:27 / 10.05.06

Flicking through New Scientist's website I noticed an article called "Mars: The ultimate gated community?".

There are a number of organisations in the world whose stated intention is to develop and expand space travel and exploration independant of government authorities. But the organisation mentioned in this article actually hopes to form an independant colony on Mars.

NASA was hoping to have established a Martian colony by 2030, although given the current state of it that is unlikely to happen. Independant organisations such as the one mentioned in the article may well be the only way of colonising another planet in the immediate future.

But is that a good idea? Should independant organisations be allowed to colonise another planet? Are there any laws governing or restricting such a colonisation from taking place (assuming it were possible)? If an independant colony decided to claim the planet as it's own what could be done about it? The article mentions their intention to utilise nuclear energy to sustain the colony. Would the space-capable governments of the world even allow such a project to get off the ground (as it were)?

13:36 / 10.05.06

Of course they would, and tax them for the privilege. If the colonists get uppity or try for independence you just send in the Space Marines, no private company is going to be allowed a military unless they promote the economic interests of the governments involved. (I refer the doubtful to the situation in Iraq & the world's largest private army recently formed to protect U.S. oil interests. Google it if you don't believe me.)

So MammonCorp or OmniConsumerProducts approaches NASA and bids for the right to launch, promises mineral rights and tax income to the gov't, greases the way by offering board positions and stock preferences to the individuals deciding on the contract, build a Marsbase (many people probably die due to profit constraints and the cheapest contractors cutting corners) and the U.S. claims the planet as a fait accompli, ignores international law and exploits Mars to subsidise the unsustainable American lifestyle for a few more years. Then terraforms it as a bolthole for the rich when the Earth can't sustain life.

They say we consume more than one planet can produce, so the only way to maintain the Western voter's standard of living is to keep most of the world poor or find another planet of virgin territory to exploit. Or both...

It'll be like the Wild West all over again, in space! Red, dusty plains extending to the horizon, full of weird Martian Cattle Ranches and the salt-of-the-Mars cowboys, small boom towns where the asteroid belt miners raise hell on the Barsoom beer and woo the beautiful native princesses, gondoliering along the canals to the romantic Cydonia pyramids.

Come to Mars! The Red Planet needs YOU! Have space suit? Will travel! AresCorps pays top dollar to those with herding, military or xenobiology experience!

18:29 / 10.05.06

*threadrot*
I know that's supposed to be a negative view of the future Quantum, but I'd sign up for that right now.
Even better, when it all goes tits up you get to be the next George Washington/Thomas Paine and help throw off the shackles of the evil inter-planetary corporations and their governmental stooges.
*end threadrot*

09:14 / 11.05.06

Read 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Heinlein, or 'Red Planet' or 'Space Family Stone' also by him.

Realistically though, you could become an asteroid miner if they hurry it up, or if you live long enough. It will be like working on an oil rig I reckon, ship out to the LaGrange waystation, zoom off in Red Dwarf to refine iron ore from the Belt on the way to MarsBase where they'll use it to make domes...

14:04 / 11.05.06

Alex Thoth wrote: "For example, let’s assume that there are Martian bacteria barely clinging to icy cracks and small underground wells, once we start mucking about with the planet, (i.e. heating it up, drilling, melting and releasing water.) We could be giving these alien organisms the chance they need to spread like wildfire. Do you really think we’re going to keep the buggers out of our bodies? Bullshit! We could be looking at new diseases or mutations cause by these bugs mucking around with us.

War of the worlds had the Martians being wiped out by catching Earth bugs. Wouldnt it be ironic if we go to Mars, bring some Martian bug back and wipe ourselves out.

Seriously though I think we should get out there and soon, not only for the "eggs in one basket" argument. I think that as a species we need to constantly be expanding our frontiers otherwise we will begin to stagnate and grow insular. I see no problem if the destination is uninhabited even to the point of (for example) bombarding it with comets to increase atmospheric density and therefore mean surface temperature. If ways to make money can be found, then industry's on earth will all potentially benefit bringing in more resources and ultimatly reducing costs and increasing quality of life for everyone.

If there were simple life such as bacteria on the planet I think we should set up isolated reservations to preserve it but generally move in; however if there were more complex life we should look at adapting to the ecosystem rather than go for an all out terraform - or as much as technology can handle).

At the least we are increaing the resources available to us; potentially removing part of the strain on the earth. But as we move out there and the first "off worlder" humans get born whole new cultural concepts will begin to occur enriching our world view back on earth.

There are also other advantges such as the possibility of finding new mineral forms; not to mention perhaps new life etc.

The one benefit I dont think we will see is a drop in the population. As Carl Sagan illustrated in "Pale Blue Dot" the Earth population is growing by 1000s every day. Therefore you would need to launch more than that everyday to make an impact.

If I was in charge of Nasa I'd be off tomorrow.

16:20 / 11.05.06

I think that as a species we need to constantly be expanding our frontiers otherwise we will begin to stagnate and grow insular.

I disagree. I especially disagree that we'd need to launch thousands of people every day to counter overpopulation, they say contraception works wonders to reduce birth rates. I also think we need to reduce our consumption to a sustainable level on this planet before we go and trash a fresh one, otherwise our distant future is the villains from Independence Day, travelling from system to system devouring their resources like Galactus.

I agree we should go to space, for sure, but let's sort out our own back yard first. Go to google earth, look at the Amazon basin, notice the black rivers darkened by runoff topsoil? Let's not do that sort of shit to Mars please.

Tryphena Absent

16:29 / 12.05.06

None of this can happen unless they build an effective space station and since they downgraded the ISS so massively I personally hold no hope for terraforming. I mean, how are they going to get anything so far when we're launching everything through an atmosphere in its primary stage of travel? It's nonsensical. Space development needs to stop being so nation-centric. Japan and America working together is not an achievement, we need mass co-operation to build a shuttle that works (can you imagine what the Russians, Americans, British and Japanese could come up with if they designed the parts they were technically best at!), re-expand the ISS and then start working on vehicles that can be constructed outside of the atmosphere and thus don't need the power to launch. Then we could downgrade the amount of carbon we release into the earth's atmosphere in the long term by transporting material as energy efficiently as possible.

Sorry, am a bit off topic.

22:08 / 12.05.06

..and the station could pay for itself by manufacturing high value things only possible in zero-gravity, say, advanced chips, industrial diamonds, carbon nanotubing etc. orbital shipyards are the first step up the space ladder I reckon.

11:35 / 13.05.06

There are a number of organisations in the world whose stated intention is to develop and expand space travel and exploration independant of government authorities. But the organisation mentioned in this article actually hopes to form an independant colony on Mars.

I have been reading a lot about this these past few months. It seems like private corporations are finally going to take space into their own hands. My hopes of going into space are coming back from the dead.

13:05 / 13.05.06

Yeah, and like they say in Fight Club, in the future it will be the Big Corps who will name the celestial bodies:

Planet Starbuck

Star MacDonald's

Galaxy Microsoft

Nebulae Nike (that one may even work better, since "Nike" used to be the name of the Greek goddess of victory - that little chich in Athena's hand)

Asteroid belt Denfeld (oops)...

Henningjohnathan

19:22 / 18.05.06

Since I read about the L5 society in Ed Regis' great book GREAT MAMBO CHICKEN AND THE TRANSHUMAN CONDITION, I have to ask why we would want to spend the resources to move from a living planet to terraform a dead one and still have the same problems with about 99.9% of the matter being inaccessible and impracticle to use, uncontrollable weather patterns and a set length of daylight as well as being stuck far down into the planet's gravity well making space flight very difficult if you want to move.

It seems that artificial space colonies would be much more sensible and possibly even less difficult endeavors than colonising other big rocks.

Henningjohnathan

19:54 / 18.05.06

I also agree that if expansion into space is our only answer to overpopulation, then we probably don't have the imagination necessary for the challenges.

09:49 / 19.05.06

I especially disagree that we'd need to launch thousands of people every day to counter overpopulation, they say contraception works wonders to reduce birth rates.

Absolutely. In order to use off-world colonies as a way of releving population pressures on Earth you would need to have an environment capable of sustaining millions, and as Anna points out the technology for effectively achieving this hasn't even been developed yet.

With current technology it would be far too expensive (not to say environmentally unsound) to launch hundreds of thousands of people to, for instance, Mars. Even if a sustainable colony had been set up surely the easier way to populate it is to start with a seed population of several hundred and make humans the old fashioned way.

Unless you were offering a free replicant to every colonist you would have to either rely on volunteers or force people to go, and if you're doing that then it would surely be cheaper to just sterilise vast swathes of the population. (Note: Not advocating that, just saying that your basic evil totalitarian regime isn't going to waste money blasting surplus population to the Moon is it?).

I also think we need to reduce our consumption to a sustainable level on this planet before we go and trash a fresh one, otherwise our distant future is the villains from Independence Day, travelling from system to system devouring their resources like Galactus.

One way or another any space-faring civilisation is going to resemble this. Local resources are the easiest to utilise.

But this does bring up a question. To what extent should we restrict development and consumption of local resources? Should we be looking at the other planets in the solar system in the same way we look at Antartica in terms of exploiting local resources? If no life exists on a planet/asteroid then why not mine it and implement restrictions to minimise environmental damage?

10:26 / 14.06.06

Should we be looking at the other planets in the solar system in the same way we look at Antarctica in terms of exploiting local resources?

I think so, yes. Let's extend our responsibility for the environment to wherever we go, let's try and avoid irrepairable damage to virgin territory. I'm all for asteroid mining if they're just big lumps of nickel-iron floating in space, but any planet (or even moon) needs protection from us IMO.

Humans must establish a base on the moon and colonize Mars within the next 40 years if we're to avoid extinction from global warming or another catastrophe, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said yesterday.

I found myself agreeing with the sci-fi writer-
Science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson said Hawking's remarks were "a wasted opportunity." "You want to treat this planet like the only one we have because Mars is poisonous," he said.

17:50 / 01.12.06

Stephen Hawking warned that future generations would need to leave the planet to ensure the survival of the species...His warning came as he collected Britain's highest scientific award, the Royal Society's Copley Medal

In the news today. He reckons matter/antimatter annihilation propulsion can get us to the stars.

Page: (1)2