Worlds Abundant

[Wraith]

1. By the time we could seriously consider terraforming Mars, we will have hopefully solved our overpopulation problem here on Earth. We already have near 7 Billion people right now, and we can only educate, feed, cloth, shelter, etc. a very small percentage at what could be considered a decent level. If we need to terraform a planet to fix this we have failed horrendously as a species.

We can seriously consider it now. Really. The cost for kicking off a biologically-driven process isn't that high (not doing things like asteroid or comet drops, which would help end habitability but aren't strictly needed). It's about the same as sending rovers to Mars. We've already got and use all the technology required too - it isn't very different from sending rovers to mars. There's also already been a substantial amount of research done on which biologicals to send and in what order and time frame to produce optimal terraforming results. There are other things we can do later (solar mirrors, comet drops), but we've got a few hundred years while waiting for the process to go anyways to get around to doing those things.

2. Nothing we do has purpose except that which we give it. Turning an uninhabitable world into a habitable one to demonstrate our abilities as a species seems like a grand enough purpose in and of itself, and would be a progression of our already existing abilities to alter environments here on Earth.

I disagree. We shouldn't be doing things unless we derive some gain from it. The gain doesn't need to be tangible or direct, but I don't think prestige or ego-boosting is a good enough reason, unless we find ourselves with nigh-infinite resources and energy. Otherwise our efforts would be better directed towards things that do gain us benefits.

[Illusions]

We can seriously consider it now.

We haven't seriously explored Mars, thus we cannot seriously consider terraforming it.

I disagree. We shouldn't be doing things unless we derive some gain from it. The gain doesn't need to be tangible or direct, but I don't think prestige or ego-boosting is a good enough reason, unless we find ourselves with nigh-infinite resources and energy. Otherwise our efforts would be better directed towards things that do gain us benefits.

We've researched and developed a bunch of stuff in the past that has no immediate or direct benefit to humanity, other than to show that we are capable of doing it. Particle colliders have no immediate or direct benefit to humanity other than creating knowledge, or that we can in fact perform some experiment. Its not like they create parents for orphans, or feed the hungry, or create world peace, yet we funnel money into them. Should we stop the particle colliders too?

[EyeKhan]

Otherwise our efforts would be better directed towards things that do gain us benefits.

Just curious, what sorts of things do you consider a benefit, especially in the context of words like "us" and "we?"

[Wraith]

Just curious, what sorts of things do you consider a benefit, especially in the context of words like "us" and "we?"

Resources, energy, useful redundancies, a lifeboat, or just things anything that improves quality of life of people. Mars is an interest to me because being able to drop a self-sustaining and growth-enable colony there substantially decreases the risk of extinction.

[EyeKhan]

I find the latter part doubtful. The hurdle would be monetary and building enough ships, and if we're at a point where we have to move X amount of people or we all die/suffer horrendously, money will not be a problem.

If we're at the point where Mars is needed to support excess human population, there will be no resources to build ships to transport them. It would be vastly cheaper, easier, and inevitable to just let people starve; or fight over the remaining resources on Earth until the population drops to a reasonable size; or more realistically, both.

Ourselves? Isn't that how all initial stages of technological development go? Ask if we can do it on a certain scale, then demonstrate we can?

No. Technological development comes from a motive to make money, learn how to do something, make something easier to do, by accident, or all of these. Individuals, teams or even nations may take on a technological challenge to prove to the rest of the world they are capable, valuable, or superior, I guess. If you consider the Apollo program, the US was interested in demonstrating our general superiority over the Soviets and Communism and more specifically that we can use rockets to deliver nuclear bombs wherever we want. But I'm not aware of any endeavor on a large scale undertaken by humanity just to show humanity what humanity is capable of doing. I can't imagine the humanity I know and love doing something on the scale of terraforming a planet for such a sentiment.

That would be your purpose you ascribe to human beings. Subjectivity and all.

Oh yes, very subjective. But a purpose, definable and capable of motivating, nonetheless.

Resources, energy, useful redundancies, a lifeboat, or just things anything that improves quality of life of people. Mars is an interest to me because being able to drop a self-sustaining and growth-enable colony there substantially decreases the risk of extinction.

I think the only benefit here that colonizing Mars could reasonably be expected to provide is redundancy/ lifeboat. Resources would be easier to get from asteroids. Energy easier from the sun. Quality of life? On Mars? Best case scenario is a generally cold and gloomy place after its terraformed. I can't imaging living there in the many generations it would take to complete that project. Miserable at best.

[Wraith]

I think the only benefit here that colonizing Mars could reasonably be expected to provide is redundancy/ lifeboat. Resources would be easier to get from asteroids. Energy easier from the sun. Quality of life? On Mars? Best case scenario is a generally cold and gloomy place after its terraformed. I can't imaging living there in the many generations it would take to complete that project. Miserable at best.

I thought you were asking more generally than just Mars. Mars gets us living space and useful redundancy. Agreed on resources and energy being found more easily elsewhere. Perhaps it's not the most useful thing we could be doing, but because of the incredibly long time until payoff, fairly low costs for kicking it off, and risk mitigation potential, still worth doing IMO.

Also, you're not supposed to live there until it's done. Terraforming Mars doesn't need local human presence. We just need to drop biological payloads there every fifty years or so.

[EyeKhan]

I thought you were asking more generally than just Mars. Mars gets us living space and useful redundancy. Agreed on resources and energy being found more easily elsewhere. Perhaps it's not the most useful thing we could be doing, but because of the incredibly long time until payoff, fairly low costs for kicking it off, and risk mitigation potential, still worth doing IMO.

Also, you're not supposed to live there until it's done. Terraforming Mars doesn't need local human presence. We just need to drop biological payloads there every fifty years or so.

Nothing is that easy. Mars won't be terraformed just by seeding it with life - unless you go to very great lengths to fine tune the organisms you use, the order you seed them, where you seed them, how often, etc etc. Yeah, I guess that's a given. Monitoring that process could be done robotically, but it would be more efficient and effective to at least have a permanent lab on the surface staffed by good old fashioned biologists. And furhter, if you want it to be comfy for humans there, you'll have to do more. Mars needs heat, it needs nitrogen, and it needs a surrogate for a magnetic field (unless you have a means of melting its core...). On the other hand, given the time involved, it might be easier to just engineer humans to live in the shitty environment there. But then, of course, you have two human species. And they'll fight over the rest of the solar system. And beyond.

[Illusions]

No. Technological development comes from a motive to make money, learn how to do something, make something easier to do, by accident, or all of these. Individuals, teams or even nations may take on a technological challenge to prove to the rest of the world they are capable, valuable, or superior, I guess. If you consider the Apollo program, the US was interested in demonstrating our general superiority over the Soviets and Communism and more specifically that we can use rockets to deliver nuclear bombs wherever we want. But I'm not aware of any endeavor on a large scale undertaken by humanity just to show humanity what humanity is capable of doing. I can't imagine the humanity I know and love doing something on the scale of terraforming a planet for such a sentiment.

Uhm, I don't know why you're trying to contradict me, we usually demonstrate new tech first before moving on. Are you honestly going to argue that we don't?

Also "Hello World".

[EyeKhan]

Uhm, I don't know why you're trying to contradict me, we usually demonstrate new tech first before moving on. Are you honestly going to argue that we don't?

Also "Hello World".

Trying? I agree people do things like discover new technology just to for the sake of accomplishment - it feeds the ego. (And others do the engineering to find a use for it...) But the human species going to the expense and time of terraforming an entire world for no other reason than to feed the collective human ego?

[Illusions]

collective human ego?

I don't see how the following:

Are we able to terraform a planet?

Humans Terraform Mars.

Yes we are able to terraform a planet.


...is ego.

But I really think you don't understand that we do stuff for demonstration purposes, to see if it will work. Feel free to argue that we don't.