[deleted]
Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
21–30 of 217 posts
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, why fixate on turning one planet into “habitable” while we do the opposite to the one we are already on? I’d like to see us address those issues of society first before we spread our influence across the literal galaxy.
Because mars is a dev server. Earth is prod.
Yes,
When we start on Mars, with a difficult challenge, make a bit of headway and then wipe-it out for some short term benefit on Earth, then it can serve as an object lesson.
Surely that will convince us to conserve life on earth when none of the other obvious arguments seem to do that convincing.
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#23Things I know about Mars: >No oceans >No plants >No phytoplankton >Massive planetwide dust storms lasting several months >Average surface temperatures at or below freezing >Space suit required Things I know about Earth: >Drinking water falls from the sky >Food grows on trees >Breathable atmosphere >Clothing optional in most areas >I can feel actual sunlight on my face every day
But surely terraforming a barren wasteland is going to be easier than terraforming a (relative) oasis of life! But in all seriousness, the point of colonizing Mars is not to be a replacement for Earth (although redundancy is quite motivating). It's because colonization and population growth has been our MO for the last 200,000 years.
It also happens to have a relatively shallow gravity well; if we can figure out how to economically exploit the rare (on earth) materials in space, Mars could be a good balance between habitability and low-delta-v accessibility.
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, why fixate on turning one planet into “habitable” while we do the opposite to the one we are already on? I’d like to see us address those issues of society first before we spread our influence across the literal galaxy.
Because a fresh start allows us to try out different ways of running societies and escape established structures. It's so hard to change things in established systems. I think there's pretty good historical evidence of this. The establishment of the USA is an example. It can be a good way to, over time, enact change within the established societies. A similar argument can be made that the unique technological challen…
Wouldn't a self sustainable pod in Antarctic or the bottom of the ocean be the starting point?
And you'd start a settlement on Mars just because you don't like some of the social systems?
just buy yourself an island from a govt somewhere, that would be cheaper and far more manageable.
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#25Things I know about Mars: >No oceans >No plants >No phytoplankton >Massive planetwide dust storms lasting several months >Average surface temperatures at or below freezing >Space suit required Things I know about Earth: >Drinking water falls from the sky >Food grows on trees >Breathable atmosphere >Clothing optional in most areas >I can feel actual sunlight on my face every day
But surely terraforming a barren wasteland is going to be easier than terraforming a (relative) oasis of life! But in all seriousness, the point of colonizing Mars is not to be a replacement for Earth (although redundancy is quite motivating). It's because colonization and population growth has been our MO for the last 200,000 years.
The Anthroposcene is terraforming Earth...into a planet less-suited to support life. Maybe "retro-terraforming" would be more accurate.
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#26AFAIK, the ability to tolerate oxygen is an advanced property of terrestrial life — the simplest, oldest life forms were totally unable to survive in the presence of oxygen.
The Great Oxygenation Event [0]. Arguably the planet's first mass extinction.
To say that nothing we have done to the planet is as bad for the environment as the Great Oxygenation Event would be to pat ourselves on the back for not literally poisoning the atmosphere.
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#27But it may not have enough carbon dioxide: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/maven/files/2018/08/Inventory-...
there are other, significantly more effective, greenhouse gases.
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, why fixate on turning one planet into “habitable” while we do the opposite to the one we are already on? I’d like to see us address those issues of society first before we spread our influence across the literal galaxy.
We have to start somewhere that isn’t earth. Interstellar travel over the next 100-1000 years will be a requirement for the next 5000-10000 years if humans expect to survive that long. Starting development now to understand terraforming and building out the primitives that allow for it in the future is something we owe to generations to come.
If you're arguing species-level survival, really we're going to survive longer than that, short of a meteor strike or maybe nuclear war.
Sure, 99% of the population might die, the equator could become uninhabitable, and we might lose advanced tech in the ensuing wars, but it'll take much more than climate change to completely wipe out homo sapiens.
We do need to be colonizing other stars within a quarter billion years or so though. The sun won't last forever!
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a fresh start allows us to try out different ways of running societies and escape established structures. It's so hard to change things in established systems. I think there's pretty good historical evidence of this. The establishment of the USA is an example. It can be a good way to, over time, enact change within the established societies. A similar argument can be made that the unique technological challen…
Wouldn't a self sustainable pod in Antarctic or the bottom of the ocean be the starting point? And you'd start a settlement on Mars just because you don't like some of the social systems? just buy yourself an island from a govt somewhere, that would be cheaper and far more manageable.
The difference I think comes down to a few things.
- One is that it is a hell of a lot harder to cheat on Mars than it is in the remotes of Earth. Once you establish the outpost, its not like you can just call in a maintenance team and have assistance at your door within a few days. This forces teams to find ways to make it work. This also makes it much harder for changes in leadership to cancel the mission.
- The other is that developing tech for extraordinarily hostile remote environments tends to produce more potent solutions because the cost of not being sustainable is so much greater.
Re: Mars likely to have enough oxygen to support life: study
#30Things I know about Mars: >No oceans >No plants >No phytoplankton >Massive planetwide dust storms lasting several months >Average surface temperatures at or below freezing >Space suit required Things I know about Earth: >Drinking water falls from the sky >Food grows on trees >Breathable atmosphere >Clothing optional in most areas >I can feel actual sunlight on my face every day
But surely terraforming a barren wasteland is going to be easier than terraforming a (relative) oasis of life! But in all seriousness, the point of colonizing Mars is not to be a replacement for Earth (although redundancy is quite motivating). It's because colonization and population growth has been our MO for the last 200,000 years.
[deleted]