Some thoughts on space colonization

[asthfghl]

Some comments I recently came across on an article about Martian colonization and terraforming made me thinking. One said,

"We do need to save our planet, she is drowning."

See, the planet itself will be fine. We won't. Unless we learn to live in drastically different conditions to the ones we've been used to, and have evolved in. The planet has undergone multiple sets of conditions, some drastically differing from others. There've been mass extinctions leading to new eras. The planet will still be here no matter what we do, it'll have a different climate, and different life will evolve in those conditions. The question is not if we can "save the planet" (the term doesn't even make sense). The real question is, will we keep it survivable for humans. By extension, the question is also if we had the capability to increase our chances of long-term survival by spreading to more than one planet in case some cataclysm happens on this one, why shouldn't we take the opportunity.

Populating other parts of the cosmos isn't incompatible with keeping our planet habitable. It's not an either-or dichotomy. Besides, keeping all eggs in one basket is not a wise choice. Say we make our planet perfectly habitable and we stop climate change (hint: you can't stop climate from changing but nevermind). Then an asteroid or a comet slams into Earth. Game over. You'll wish you hadn't been so much of a "Remainer" when you had the chance.

I really don't get the rationale behind the "Remainer" camp. How does expanding to other parts of the Solar system negate the efforts of taking care of this planet? I constantly hear the "why go to space, we must fix our planet first" argument, and honestly I don't get it. Why should this be a choice between two options, either stay here and fix this place, or abandon it and leave to somewhere else? That's not the point of colonization at all. The point of colonization is development. In this case, it's even more than that - it's increasing our chances of survival.

As for Mars, sorry Elon Musk, but your idea does look like a pipe dream. I mean, why terraform the entire planet? It would take effort and resource that is by multiple orders of magnitude greater than creating domed areas that are more easily manageable. Creating a network of terraformed domes around Mars (especially underground) seems the more viable option. Like in The Expanse series.

Comments

[abomvubuso]

Absolutely. The "First let's work on making Earth a better place to live" argument very much sounds like "Let's stop all air traffic and focus on making all sea travel 100% safe".

[nairiporter]

It's a matter of resources and effort. If you divert a considerable part of these to one cause, this means you're doing it at the expense of another. Then the question arises, which of these causes is of more pressing importance. I'm sorry that I'm making it sound like a zero-sum game, but in many senses, it is. There aren't a unlimited amount of resources currently in our grasp, and neither is there a unlimited number of billionaires willing to invest their wealth into important causes, or world leaders and governments prepared to throw their support behind them.

[garote]

Not exactly.

https://garote.dreamwidth.org/270028.html

It’s more like saying, perhaps we should concentrate on coming up with forest management that really works, before we attempt to construct a giant floating wooden castle.

I would happily accept 1000 years of additional delay colonizing Mars, if it meant the difference between humans living here for another 1000, and living here for another 100,000,000 years.

That’s the fine thing about Earth: All we need to learn is how to not throw it too out of balance, and we’re good here for longer than any of us can even conceive of.

Mars can sit there, inert, for a million more years and be exactly the same whenever we do set foot on it.

[garote]

Increasing our chances for survival? Pffft.

Sure, the same way laboriously transporting a sno-cone to the center of Death Valley is an insurance policy in case Antarctica melts.

[asthfghl]

That's the funny thing with the whole "let's transport water to Mars" plan, if I'm reading your analogy correctly. You don't have to transport water to Mars. Like, at all. It's already there, in the soil, under the surface, around the polar regions, etc. Also, diverting comets that are already full of water from the Oort cloud to Mars is more viable than bringing water from Earth to Mars. Your analogy doesn't make much sense, by the way, because why would you want to bring frozen water to Death Valley when you're expecting a lot of water to pour into the world oceans anyway?

[garote]

Not water. Fertile soil.

[mahnmut]

It's all about the change man. People don't like it. Every finding and every change that science brought us has been resisted by people.
What did you expect will happen when someone says: "Let's move to анother planet"?
You are absolutely right imo. It's just that people like their routine. Sometimes even at the cost of their own life.

[luzribeiro]

What a great piece you have written here!

Found myself nodding all the way through :-)

[ex_flameandsong751]

I agree. I've been saying this for years. We should do what we can to help fix Earth so it's not completely uninhabitable for humans, but our best long-term survival strategy as a species is to spread out across other worlds. In the very, very long term this means other solar systems, because eventually our Sun is going to die. That won't happen for hundreds of millions of years, but if humanity is still planning on being around then we absolutely have to leave the solar system. Colonizing Mars is a good first step there.

[garote]

Completely ruining Earth is not a given, but if we assume it is, or even allow for the possibility, we are admitting defeat.

If we lose Earth, we straight-up lose. There is absolutely no replacing it. To declare otherwise is to collectively commit suicide for the sake of our ape expansionist wanderlust. Look at what humanity has puzzled out in terms of physics, chemistry, mathematics, et cetera, in just a few thousand years, while this planet ticked along around us on effective autopilot. What's at stake - right now - is whether we can get another span of time like that a thousand times over. More time to innovate than any of us can imagine, yet still a blip on the geologic timeline for Earth.

[dancesofthelight]

This, along with 'ew nuclear energy bad' is one of the cases where the Left proves that its posturing to support science is more expediency than conviction. In the right circumstances it's every bit as zealously Luddite as the Right, and it takes very little to get it there.

That said I still remain skeptical that if humanity isn't colonizing Antarctica or the Atacama desert that terraforming Mars is feasible, let alone will happen.

[garote]

There are some very feasible plans for making Mars habitable, but they require us - humans - to be able to put out a stable, sustained effort for thousands of years. Plans with steps like “nudge a million chunks of ice out of the asteroid belt and wait for them to float over to Mars”, and “use wind and drones to spread genetically engineered bacteria over the whole planet, then wait several hundred years while they chemically alter the rock and spew gases into the atmosphere”, and “use as-yet-un-invented nuclear energy tech to spin up the core of the planet” and so on...

But of course, we have to thrive here, for that whole time and beyond, or it’s all a fool’s errand...