4 ms·
The problem is that "terraforming another planet" is stuff that young men who are impressionable read in science fiction, it isn't reality. We can't terraform a
by throwaway5752 9y ago
The problem is that "terraforming another planet" is stuff that young men who are impressionable read in science fiction, it isn't reality. We can't terraform another planet. We haven't even successfully run a fully-enclosed self-sustaining ecosystem capable of supporting human life on earth. We have never sent anyone to another planet, and the rocket equation highly constrains interplanetary transportation, let along radiation shielded interplanetary transportation capable of sending humans.
We will _never_ terraform Mars, I doubt a human will ever set foot there. I doubt we'll even survive as an advanced species for 200 more years.
We actually _have_ every bit of necessary technology to sustainably run something very close to modern society, and we are too stupid collectively do fix terrestrial political problems. We don't even need to terraform our own planet, we just have to stop digging up coal and pumping up oil and burning it. No wasteful and inefficient "negative emission" stupidness is necessary. This is like "clean coal". It's something that very, very wealthy people that make money from oil and coal bring up to essentially troll the populace, and distract them from the problem until we're as close to the brink as possible.
I'm sorry to be depressing, but this magical thinking about sending people to Mars and terraforming planets is counterproductive.
edit: I take it back, we can terraform a planet. The sum total of human activity for 150 years has warmed the Earth few degrees (though they are a critical few degrees)
- Pfhreak 9y agoI can understand the "We'll never terraform Mars" argument. (It's certainly a looooong ways off if we ever even start. I suspect there's not much value in it.) But never landing a human on Mars seems like a bad bet to me. With Musk/SpaceX pushing for it, and our history of landing rovers there, it seems like putting some people on Mars, however briefly, is in our future. I'm curious why you feel this way.
- throwaway5752 9y agoThe energy for the trip, the return trip, the duration, and weight requirements associated with radiation shield are why I'm skeptical. It's technically possibly, certainly. So is switching to a 100% solar fueled grid. But I hate to be to pessimistic: I'm older than average here, and I would feel unbelievably privileged to witness humans landing on Mars. I hope it happens.
- lettergram 9y agoIdk how old you are, but I suspect within the next 20-30 years we will be deploying robots that turn the iron, soil, etc. On Mars into a plastic, resin, metal-frameworks, fuel and water. From there robots can build some facilities or at least materials and humans can land in a pre-constructed environment. I dont know about a return trip though, but I do think long term inhabitation is possible. Especially, with our advances in robotics, genetics, and medicine. Also remember it takes a lot less to launch a rocket off of Mars. For instance, you only need 33 tons of propellant to get an 18 ton MAV off the ground[1] [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151002-mars-mission-nasa-return-space/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151002-mars-missi...
- throwaway5752 9y agoI should make it, then. I hope you're right! I hope we solve ground level problems, first.
- disconnected 9y ago> The sum total of human activity for 150 years has warmed the Earth few degrees I mean, we just managed to do in 150 years what previously took ~100 THOUSAND years of natural activity to achieve. Not a big deal. I don't know why people are even freaking out about it.
- icebraining 9y agoCooling and warming by a few degrees can happen in much less time, possibly just a few centuries - see Younger Dryas. Which, from what I can tell, should make us more worried, since it shows how drastic and unpredictable the climate can respond to changing conditions, like greatly increasing the carbon in the atmosphere.
- 627467 9y agoI find that this sort of eco-doomsaying much less constructive than the impressionable young men with inflated dreams. Regardless of how innefecient it is to feed positive change through impossible dreams, insisting on idea that humans are self-destructive species that will destroy themselves and what's around them is borderline neurotic and ignores the continuum-nature of evolution of Earth. Humans have been terraforming the planet since life has appeared on here.
- throwaway5752 9y agoI doubt that you know the science here very well if you think this is neurotic. AGW won't destroy life on Earth, just a bunch of it. We'll also probably relegate most human civilization to northern parts of North America and Asia. The process of that happening will, bluntly, will be warfare and genocide. The sea level increases will destroy quadrillions of dollars of current value of investment in infrastructure. We will have used up all easily accessible sources of hydrocarbon, mineral, metal, and radioactive deposits. I'm sure than 500M-1B humans will figure out a new way to get buy, but it will be very different that what you or I would be used to. I'm unabashedly cynical on this. We've known about this for over 30 years, and have seen predictions turn out correctly in real time for 20. It's like http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html, except replacing them with the broader population and scientists. Read stuff like this: http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.124.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.12...
- rybosome 9y agoI believe this, which is why I've stopped keeping up with environmental news. It's so fucking depressing and sours my enjoyment of the life I have now. If things genuinely will shake out this way, I want to have enjoyed the sweet life while I had it.
- throwaway5752 9y agoOkay, I missed it. I think that's a very reasonable path if you don't have kids.