Cases for the colonisation of Mars

[Undesired Walrus]

Buzz was on Newsnight a few days ago, talking about the moon, and the exploration of space.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8131880.stm

Time and again, space exploration comes up against the same argument: 'Why should we spend so much on space when we don't spend nearly enough on aiding the people's suffering here on Earth'. The simple answer is, we shouldn't. But Carl Sagan said that he never understood why there should be an 'either or' situation. Why can't we send people to the stars at the same time as we save society down here? Why must space exploration come in for the chop?

Sagan once said that we first gain maturity when we become aware that we are looking at ourselves in the mirror. He said the next stage in maturity can be when we look back on our Earth from a distance.

All this said, I'm not either sold on either scenario: staying here, sorting stuff out, or setting out for Mars and colonising the planet, and giving some serious thought to making it habitable for future human existence.

It may be the case that in 500 years Humanity will look back on us and shake their heads in disbelief that we kept all our eggs in one basket -a basket vulnerable to catastrophic failure- thus threatening the very existence of what may be the only intelligent species in the Universe. Or they may look back and marvel at our ability to solve our problems on such a small lump of rock, together.

There has been a big advantage of studying other planets. Our study of Venus gave us (as I understand it) our first views on our planet's own greenhouse effect, and the danger that poses.

Other than poetic reasons, are there any good reasons for exploration and colonisation of Mars, with Human beings rather than rover landers?

 

[theprestige]

Before there's good reasons to explore and colonize Mars, I think we'd need to see good reasons to explore and colonize the Sahara Desert, inner Antarctica, and the Continental Shelves of all the world's oceans: Three places that are all easier to live in, cheaper to supply, and safer to explore than Mars... And yet so far we haven't seem to have found any reason at all to establish anything but a token presence in any of them.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Well, there's a chance we could discover some long-buried artifact from an ancient spacefaring civilization that will rocket our technology forward a few hundred years, making interstellar travel possible by way of "mass relay gates" that "fold space."

Another completely valid reason is that Mars is known to have women with three tits.

_{Good god, do I ever play too many videogames and watch too many movies.}

I'm sorry. I can't resist.



YOO UNTIE MEE NAAOOOOO!!!

 

[Toke]

Maybe I have read too much Sc/Fi as a kid, but I want us to explore space, this solar system and beyond.

I just whish those physists could get their fingers out and come up with some new physical teories that will let us travel faster than light.

 

[Quinn]

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact it's cold as hell.

(Totally ripped off from REO Speedwagon)

 

[JihadJane]

It may be the case that in 500 years Humanity will look back on us and shake their heads in disbelief that we kept all our eggs in one basket -a basket vulnerable to catastrophic failure- thus threatening the very existence of what may be the only intelligent species in the Universe. Or they may look back and marvel at our ability to solve our problems on such a small lump of rock, together.

It is more likely that they will look back and ask "Why did those idiots burn all that oil?"

 

[johnny karate]

The advancement of science and our understanding of the universe always seemed to me to be a good enough reason to explore space.

 

[Lensman]

As has been already pointed out - the Earth is too small and fragile a basket to keep all of humanity's eggs in.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The advancement of science and our understanding of the universe always seemed to me to be a good enough reason to explore space.

Out of interest, what would a base on Mars achieve in this field? I mean, of course we would find stuff out about the rock, but anything in particular that helps us as a species (medical, enviromental)?

 

[dudalb]

I want a date with Dejah Thoris. #1 reason for going to Mars.

 

[dasmiller]

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact it's cold as hell.

(Totally ripped off from REO Speedwagon)

Elton John did something very similar

But no cover could stand up to Shatner's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN3MGN899yE

 

[theprestige]

The advancement of science and our understanding of the universe always seemed to me to be a good enough reason to explore space.

There's plenty of ways to accomplish this, though.

As exploratory tools, humans have huge advantages in versatility and creativity. Unfortunately, they have huge disadvantages, too: extremely expensive support requirements, and a very low threshold for risk.

The first Mars probes were launched in the 1960s. I doubt the total costs of all the Mars missions--flybys, landers, orbiters--between then and now would be enough to fund the sending of a single human being to Mars and keeping him healthy and active for fifty years. And I doubt he could do as much Mars science in those fifty years as we've done in the past fifty years without him.

 

[theprestige]

As has been already pointed out - the Earth is too small and fragile a basket to keep all of humanity's eggs in.

Pointed out by whom?

And is it, really?

Earth would have to get a whole hell of a lot more inhospitable, before it was anywhere near as inhospitable as Mars. Even if it did reach that point, it'd still be a lot cheaper and easier to sustain humanity in artificial habitats here on Earth, than on the Red Planet.

Not to mention the real problem with this concept, from my point of view: Humanity is pretty much optimized for living on Earth. Our bodies are physically adapted to thrive in this gravity well, in this atmosphere, with this radiation shielding, etc. We live, and breath, and have our being within a mind-bogglingly vast and complex ecosystem. An ecosystem that doesn't exist on Mars.

To thrive on Mars, you'd have to dispense with Humanity altogether, and replace it with Martianity (whatever that means). To thrive in space, you'd need some other kind of creature altogether. The only way to get humanity's eggs out of this basket is to get rid of humanity altogether. You don't want the Mars colonists--they're doomed by their human-centered shortsightedness. You want the Transhumanists--if they're right, then whatever comes after humanity will be able to thrive anywhere in one form or another.

 

[Meadmaker]

I used to be a huge supporter of space exploration. On some level, I still am, but I've grown a bit cynical over the years about it. Is it really worth the effort, or is it just a way to make sure some really smart people get to avoid productive employment, while doing what they love?

A big letdown for me was seeing what actual benefits came out of space exploration. Growing up, I kept hearing that there were things that could be achieved in zero G that couldn't be done on Earth. None of those seem to have materialized.

When it comes to a Mars colony (or even a much less ambitious lunar colony) I think I could get behind it only if you could somehow show how such a venture could become 100% totally self sustaining, even if it took a century to achieve that goal.

 

[firecoins]

you can't colonize Mars! Its flat! What about the natives dying of the measles?

 

[GreNME]

I want a date with Dejah Thoris. #1 reason for going to Mars.

Wins the thread.

 

[Distracted1]

I always thought of it as a sort of "manifest destiny" that humans will colonise the solar system. Maybe I have just been too much of a fan of Sci-Fi

From a practical point of view, colonising other planets, and constructing habitats in space will help provide a form of insurance for the survival of our species (thinking of a virus that is terribly lethal and contagious, or a global nuclear conflict, or a comet impact, or some other extinction type event).

Once these planets/habitats are self-sufficient they may provide relief for overcrowding of the Earth- one that does not involve stripping the planet bare in order to support tens of billions of humans.

Many conflicts on Earth seem to stem from a competition for resources, which may one day seem exceedingly ridiculous considering the matereal wealth available to a solar-system spanning species versus that available to the planet-bound.

I hold a silly and irrational belief that if there is a "purpose" to our existence-some greater meaning to the evolution of intelligent species- it is to spread the life of our parent planet; to be a sort of "Earth Sperm" to stretch the metaphore. The Planet we are on can be looked at as similiar to a living organism in a broad sense, if that were the case, reproduction is an imperative for it- hence the evolution of us. I know it is silly but it as good a reason as any religion I have ever heard of.

 

[shadron]

Pointed out by whom?

The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.
--Robert A. Heinlein

And is it, really?

Earth would have to get a whole hell of a lot more inhospitable, before it was anywhere near as inhospitable as Mars. Even if it did reach that point, it'd still be a lot cheaper and easier to sustain humanity in artificial habitats here on Earth, than on the Red Planet.

The point is that earth could easily become much more inhospitable very quickly under a number of possibilities, most of which have been done to death, rather inexpertly and always with a sappy, semi-happy ending, by MegaDisasters. A major caldera eruption (last one was 72,000 years ago, and nearly wiped out homo then), let alone a super-plume eruption (equivalent to the Siberian, Deccan or Emeishan Traps), another asteroid/comet, a snowball Earth, getting caught in the bullseye of a relatively nearby gamma ray burster, a solar flare (not likely life threatening, but could be civilization threatening), a really fine virus (perhaps crafted by our military). Lots of things that perhaps one would like to have an species insurance policy against.

Of course, I don't suppose there is necessarily any particular reason that homo should survive anyway. It would be the final, pyrrhic victory of atheism for the last atheist in the universe to look over at the last Christian and say, "I told you so."

To thrive on Mars, you'd have to dispense with Humanity altogether, and replace it with Martianity (whatever that means). To thrive in space, you'd need some other kind of creature altogether. The only way to get humanity's eggs out of this basket is to get rid of humanity altogether. You don't want the Mars colonists--they're doomed by their human-centered shortsightedness. You want the Transhumanists--if they're right, then whatever comes after humanity will be able to thrive anywhere in one form or another.

Maybe it will eventually come to that; indeed, probably. Maybe it is up to us to come up with our own species replacement. If it takes Mars to do that, then I can't think of anything better to bow down to while listening the winds moan, "It is your destiny!"

PS: for a clue about what Martianity (or Jupiternity, etc) might mean, read some John Varley.

 

[Z]

If we can learn terraforming, it would be worth colonizing Mars. But we can't even prevent the rain forests from disappearing, or terraform the Sahara desert.

 

[Distracted1]

If we can learn terraforming, it would be worth colonizing Mars. But we can't even prevent the rain forests from disappearing, or terraform the Sahara desert.

Where better to start learning to terraform than Mars?

I was perusing another thread and came up with another practical reason for colonisation of the Solar System (presumably beginning with the Moon and Mars)-
"One World Government"