BARBELITH underground
 

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


Should we terraform new planets or should they terraform us?

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:49 / 23.07.07
I'm finally reading 'Blue Mars', the last part of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy that was written, oooh, about five million years ago. But one of the many themes in these books which are thick enough to hurt a child with, if you aim right, is the question of whether the colonists of Mars are right or wrong in trying to make Mars more Earth-like and therefore easily habitable.

I'm posting this here rather than in the Laboratory because I have no interest and little understanding of the processes involved. But say we have developed spaceflight and travel to other planets, not just Mars, not necessarily the planets in this solar system, is an option. Do we use our brains to think of ways to adapt those planets to what works for us, or do we use our brains to adapt to living on those planets instead?
 
 
COBRAnomicon!
17:59 / 23.07.07
Lots of moving pieces on a question like that. But if we knew to an extremely high level of certainty that Mars was devoid of life, I don't see a problem with terraforming (or, rather, I only see one problem: making Mars Earth-like would reduce by one the number of non-Earth-like planets available for study; but if we've reached a level of technology where terraforming is possible, that's probably not that big a deal).

The sticking point, it seems to me, would be that level of certainty. How do you know that there isn't indigenous life tucked away somewhere you haven't looked?

Of course, terraforming would be a slow, slow process, so the reality of it is that you'd be living in some sort of technologically-adaptive environment for a long time while the planet was in flux.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
16:04 / 24.07.07
Just out of interest, what are the arguments against terraforming from the Mars Trilogy (or elsewhere) because I honestly can't see any unless there's a hitherto undiscovered ecosystem somewhere on that chilly dust ball.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
16:25 / 24.07.07
I don't see why it has to be an either or solution, or problem for that matter. Not saying anyone's insisting on that either, it was just the way the OP phrased it.

So, I guess I'd like to rephrase the question a bit, and ask: What kinds of interactions can we imagine working or not between types of planets and types of adaptations?

Say if the only other planets in our system were gas giants or tiny planetoids like Pluto - then what? Terraforming as traditionally conceived - ie making another planet as Earth-like as possible without radically changing the terraformers - would only really work for planets within a certain range of the sun(the Goldilocks range) and constants like size and gravity within a certain range as well.

Does it make sense to assume a kind of balancing act in that if a habitable space mega-object (planets, moons) falls within an extended* Goldilocks range then might make sense to adapt the planet to us, and if not, we'd have to adapt?

*Taking into account not only distance from the star, but also size, density, composition, velocity and other factors.
 
 
Evil Scientist
05:06 / 25.07.07
Related Lab thread - non-technical.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:08 / 25.07.07
Would it be totally inconceivable to think of some kind of basic encounter suit, or vehicle, or something, to which could be added "plug-ins" a la Firefox for different environments? I mean in a much more holistic way than just adding a new booster rocket or something.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:30 / 25.07.07
Well, living within technological "shells" is the way that we've interacted with alien environments up to this point. To be honest that'll be the way it'll continue for the next few decades or even centuries. Without radically re-designing the human form to be able to exist unprotected on, for instance, Mars then it's the only way to go without making the planet fit the organism.

But even then we'll have an effect on the planet as no suit is 100% waste efficient.

The thing is that it all depends on the scale of colonisation. If simply using the place as a springboard to other worlds is the goal then it'd be possible to remain inside a technological shell (i.e. a base, a suit, a rover vehicle). However, if establishing a society with a view to making it independant of Earth is the goal then some level of human adaptation to the environment is needed (even if it is for things as basic as gravity).

From the wiki on Colonisation of Mars.

There are differences, of course, between Earth and Mars:

The surface gravity on Mars is only one third that of Earth. It is not known if this level is high enough to prevent the health problems associated with weightlessness.

Mars is much colder than Earth, with a mean surface temperature of -63°C and a low of -140°C.

There are no standing bodies of liquid water on the surface of Mars.

Because Mars is farther from the Sun, the amount of solar energy reaching the upper atmosphere (the solar constant) is only about half of what reaches the Earth's upper atmosphere or the Moon's surface. However, the solar energy that reaches the surface of Mars is not impeded by a thick atmosphere like on Earth, so that solar energy at the surface of Earth or Mars is largely the same. If Mars were to be terraformed, significantly less sunlight would reach the surface.

Mars' orbit is more eccentric than Earth's, exacerbating temperature and solar constant variations.
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is too low for humans to survive without pressure suits; habitable structures on Mars will need to be constructed with pressure vessels similar to spacecraft, capable of containing a pressure between a third and a whole bar.

The Martian atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide. Because of this, even with the reduced atmospheric pressure, the partial pressure of CO2 at the surface of Mars is some 52 times higher than on Earth, possibly allowing Mars to support some plant life. Most higher plants cannot survive without a minimum level of oxygen, however.

Mars has no magnetosphere to deflect solar winds.


Adapting to the planet means having to learn how to modify our physiology to breathe CO2 in a vacuum level atmosphere. Teraforming is not necessarily practical and would be a massive task with unforseen results.

(Sorry if I get a little too Lab, it's hard to talk Martian colonisation without doing so...for me anyway).
 
 
Quantum
11:49 / 25.07.07
Why is life the deciding factor? There seems to be an assumption that if a world doesn't have an ecosystem it's fair game for pillaging.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:23 / 25.07.07
Can you tell me why it wouldn't be fair game for pillaging?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:29 / 25.07.07
Why is life the deciding factor?

It's not necessarily the deciding factor. But discovering the first non-terrestrial life has important scientific ramifications, so it's certainly one of the major factors in deciding whether or not to establish a colony on a planet.

Pillaging suggests that it would be stealing somehow. But why if there's nothing there to steal it from?
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
13:40 / 25.07.07
Because it's nice to have something we haven't fucked up yet?

A non-mined Martian mountain might be just as pretty/inspiring to look at as, say, a Martian tree. It doesn't have to be alive to have aesthetic value, or to be valuable in some other way.

Another basic idea is that studying Mars (or wherever) as it is now may be very worthwhile regardless of whether there exist Martian lifeforms. Perhaps the struggle to adapt ourselves or our technology to let us survive sustainably there will lead to important changes or discoveries. If we make every place we go exactly like Earth, we'll still be exactly like us.
 
 
gnidan
14:01 / 25.07.07
I feel like the existence of life, while it has something to do with a decision, isn't everything we should consider. By terraforming, we are essentially changing that which exists different from Earth into something that is more similar to Earth (or an "ideal" Earth). Unless we can be sure that there will never be a purpose in there being "Mars", I feel as though we shouldn't attempt to make a second Earth.

I think terraforming places the assumption that the status quo of a particular environment is not valuable at all. I don't think we can be certain of that with any planet.

When it comes down to the choice between adapting the environment, or adapting ourselves, which is really harder to perform? I think it would take the same amount of effort to learn to adapt ourselves, or to build the technology to adapt ourselves, than it would take to go ahead permanently altering environments.

There is some value in learning to adapt to a particular environment (Granted, the climate, etc. of Mars is vastly beyond the scope of inhabitable without technological assistance)... there is more information and knowledge to be gained when humans are continually exposed to more diverse situations.

So, personally, I believe that we should try to fit in rather than make change.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:07 / 25.07.07
Because it's nice to have something we haven't fucked up yet?

True, but it's also nice to have somewhere to put some people when a rogue comet comes coasting out of the sky and head-butts the Pacific ocean.

Having people there in any form of sustainable colony means that local resources are going to be used. Realistically there's no need to mine the crap out Mars.

That's what the asteroid belt is for.

Perhaps the struggle to adapt ourselves or our technology to let us survive sustainably there will lead to important changes or discoveries. If we make every place we go exactly like Earth, we'll still be exactly like us.

Absolutely. Terraforming is a massively unwieldy and imprecise tool. As I recall (it's been a long time since I read the Mars trilogy) they only really get theirs going when they start intentionally crashing planetary elevators onto the surface.
 
 
Aertho
14:58 / 25.07.07
When I think of living on other planets, I'm always reminded of a strange TV-Movie about people who colonized the Moon. They were forbidden from reproducing on Moon, due to the fact that the reduced gravity would affect the developing fetus's pressures, densities, etc, and prevent the child from ever returning to Earth with his or her parents, much less travel to other planets with gravity greater than their birth location.
 
 
Quantum
16:20 / 25.07.07
Can you tell me why it wouldn't be fair game for pillaging?

As pants said, there are beautiful things that aren't alive. The Grand Canyon, Uluru, Mons Olympus. We preserve areas of outstanding natural beauty on Earth, why not elsewhere?

Realistically there's no need to mine the crap out Mars.
That's what the asteroid belt is for.


Quite. Nearer, cheaper, accessible heavy elements, no terraforming involved, no gravity well to speak of, the obsession with planetbound living is unnecessary.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:45 / 27.07.07
Well, it's not "nearer" is it? I am under the impression the Belt is between Mars and Jupiter, but still a lot more practical to mine, mostly for the lack of atmosphere and gravity (a lot less rocket fuel necessary to leave), but it will probably mostly be done by robots, anyways.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
16:36 / 07.08.07
We preserve areas of outstanding natural beauty on Earth, why not elsewhere?

The problem I'm seeing with that is in how to determine the standards that define beauty and whether or not this means it should be protected. Chances are the definition relates to human survival (i.e a toxic waste dump isn't as pretty as a mountain stream because it'll kill us) and if this is the measure of beauty, than terraforming a planets function for our survival is of greater beauty than preserving it for its form.

Another problem is whether or not these value judgements can be applied to other worlds, and more importantly, whether or not they should be applied at all - if something meeting standards of beauty means that it should be preserved, does this mean that failure to meet those standards should lead to pillaging?

If not, then it seems as if the value judgement has no actual value in itself, though if so than how consistently can we be with this value judgement - why should it apply to areas of natural beauty and not the natural beauty of a person?
 
 
NansiBoy
10:58 / 24.08.07
Not to stray too far from the topic at hand, but I feel it might be interesting to consider the same questions in more familiar, terrestial terms. After all, right the way through the development of human culture and society we've been altering our environments to better suit our purposes, and usually our ways of life to better suit our environments. The lifestyles of the plains indians were very different from the lifestyles of the common man in eastern america, partly because of the different qualities of the landscapes they inhabited and partly because of the different approaches they took towards reshaping these landscapes. The establishment of farms is a minor and very mundane kind of terraforming, keeping with the wild west the way the Mormons transformed an area of hostile, presumed uninhabitable land into a large and flourishing city is surely analogous to the terraforming of other planets. The issue being discussed here therefore is not some sci-fi, distant future moral problem, but also relevant to the current day, our interpretation of history and our everyday lives (the morality of mowing a lawn that might have bugs and stuff living in it? Okay, I'm reaching a bit, but I'm sure you get my point).
 
 
Triplets
12:24 / 24.08.07
Do we use our brains to think of ways to adapt those planets to what works for us, or do we use our brains to adapt to living on those planets instead?

On a realistic level we're always going to adapt the terrain before ourselves. We've done it since Neanderthal times and we'll keep doing it that way for a lot longer. Before anyone points out, yes, evolution has shaped us but that's been a passive process rather than a conscious process to modify a certain portion of the population for a particular enviroment. As NansiBoy says, we've always been terraforming. From the farmer's field to the motorway.

A big problem, I think, with exoterrestrial biomods would be the perceived loss of humanity equal to the amount of obvious modifications. Bob has four arms, he's not like us. Freida has gills and has to wear a breathertank, she's not like us. They're less. Think about how much humanity in this day and age, as a whole, has a problem with just skin colour, or physical disabilities. Then add prehensile limbs or scaly skin.

Would it be right to distance people from the general population for the sake of lessening geological impact on uninhabited worlds? Obviously, these re-engineered people would have to willingly sign up (one hopes) but I'd worry for their chances of reintergrating with the bulk population of humanity. Remember, with the biomod route you're essentially sending altered people to an enviroment to collect date/harvest resources with as little affect on the surrounding planet as possible. But what do they do after this? To stay they'd have to, surely, start their own terraforming to live in that enviroment (although, this would be far less than sending baseline humans, obviously), which leads us back to the start. We will change everywhere we touch.
 
  
Add Your Reply