- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmit.online
You must log in or register to comment.
Now show me that moss growing in perchlorate-salted soil at 6 mbar oxygen-free CO2, say, at Mars equator, and you might have a story.
We’ll probably fuck up our own planet badly enough that we’ll never actually get the chance to try terraforming Mars
I heard sometime interesting regarding that recently, if we have the ability to terraform Mars, we’ll have the ability to hear on earth. So why not just fix it here where it’s millions of times easier than doing it on Mars.
The solution for Earth isn’t going to be some pie-in-the-sky terraforming (which, I’d like to note, means “to make Earth-like”) project, but changing our psychotic economic system that depends on infinite growth and consistently elevates the worst of us into positions of power.
That’s why I think we’ll never manage to unfuck ourselves. There’s just way too much power invested in keeping things the way they are
Does that mean you’re for or against teroforming Mars?
I have nothing against the idea of terraforming Mars, I just don’t think terraforming is going to save us from ourselves.
Like I said I just don’t believe we’ll ever get to that point – because we’ll fuck things up on the only currently livable planet so badly that I doubt mass-scale industrial society will survive long enough for terraforming Mars to become relevant.
If things ever work out on mars, it will be because its a hyper isolated, filtered microsociety that has nothing to do with “humanity” as we know it.
Right, because “humanity” has nothing to do with hyper isolated, filtered microsocieties.
Well they are trying it here too of course, but obviously it will be easier when there is lots of empty space between you and the people that want to disturb your isolation. Humans be humans after all.
Two things:
-
Who says capitalism depends on infinite growth? I often hear that criticism, but I don’t see where it’s coming from? I’ve not heard a capitalist say this, only anti-capitalists. What is it about capitalism that requires this growth?
-
Can you name anything, anywhere, which exists without growing? Doesn’t even have to be alive, just asking for any phenomenon that just exists without growing.
So I guess it’s one point expressed two ways: “Requiring constant growth” is not a valid criticism of our current economic system.
The modern take on stock investment is to not give dividends, so the only way for shareholders to make money is to have the company grow indefinitely.
Obviously a capitalist won’t tell you that. My economy professor kept insisting that efficiency is always positive because it only concerns making a bigger cake, so there is more cake to be divided among the people involved, which he called surplus. In reality greater efficiency has a cost, and the cost is paid by people, while other people pockets the surplus. Fuck capitalists.
So making money in the stock market only works if the pie keeps on expanding? I think that’s a way to take advantage of the fact that our economy is expanding, but I don’t think that’s the definition of capitalism.
Your original point was that the pie doesn’t need to keep expanding, so you have been disproved I would say. Saying that the economy need to keep expanding is the same as saying the economy is based on infinite growth. If it stops expanding the stocks are not profitable anymore and the shareholders are going to vote to replace CEOs, so the CEOs have an incentive to make he companies grow at any cost.
You explained how one business relies on growth, in order to enrich its stockholders.
That is not the same as saying how the entire economy needs to expand.
Also it doesn’t differentiate it from anything else, since literally everything (I’m using the word phenomenon in its most literal form here — feel free to challenge me on any phenomenon) must grow or cease existing.
-
We won’t have the ability to terraform Mars until we try to terraform Mars.
Perhaps Mars’s greatest contribution to our civilization wont be that it hosts cities or future life, but rather simply that it gave us a place to experiment so we could test things once before implementing them here.
So why not just fix it here where it’s millions of times easier than doing it on Mars
¿Por qué no los dos?
Also, I’m not entirely convinced that the problems are analogous. Mars needs to be warmed up, Earth needs to be cooled down. I think a more appropriate challenge would be terragorming Venus.
If we can teraform Venus we can teraform the galaxy. The planet is inhospitable in every single way. We can’t even land spacecraft that last very long. If materials don’t melt from the heat and disintegrate from the atmosphere, then the volcanos ought to do the trick.
It’s also harder to get to Venus than it is Mars.
Kurzgesagt did a video on the topic. We just build a planet-sized sunshade to freeze the atmosphere, launch the excess CO2 into space, and import water from the ice moons of the gas giants. Simple, really.
We just build a planet-sized sunshade to freeze the atmosphere
Cost, 100 to 1000 trillion. We can barely fund NASA
Why is the only argument I ever heard against thinking about things in the cool space future “we couldn’t do it this financial quarter so it’ll never be possible at all”?
I like to think about the spacefaring AI (or cyborgs, if we’re lucky) that will inevitably do this stuff in our stead, assuming we don’t strangle them in the cradle.
I have a feeling we’ll learn plenty of applicable lessons from one with the other.
Why not both?
Although Mars is still a terrible candidate for terraforming. It’s at the outer edge of the goldilocks zone, and even if you can solve the temperature, radiation, and atmosphere issues to create a viable ecosystem, it’s still going to cause problems for humans thanks to the low gravity.
Venus on the other hand could realistically function as a second earth if we clean up the atmosphere.
Venus on the other hand could realistically function as a second earth if we clean up the atmosphere
The cost would thousand of trillions at least, in fact it may cost more money to do something like that than currently exists. We can barely fund NASA.
Frankly if humanity ever could get together politically to allocate enough resources to do anything like this, Im fairly sure a few greedy billionaires would stick most of those public funds in their pockets, and we’d end up with nothing at the end.
Im sorry to say Im pretty pessimistic about us as a species getting anywhere. Hell we’re 80 year out from WW2 and still struggling to control fascism.
No one’s trying to put terraforming Venus into next year’s budget. This is all theoretical talk about what would be possible to do some day.
The cost of terraforming Venus would be large, but the benefits of having a second habitable planet are also quite large. Even ignoring the benefits of having more land and resources, there’s also the just the fact that being on two planets means we can potentially survive as a species if something happens to one of them.
It would also have to be heavily automated, and only really becomes realistic once you have machines that are essentially self-sufficient at which point the concept of “cost” becomes a lot fuzzier. It would mean dedicating resources, but you aren’t paying an army of self-replicating robots.
However, the sheer scale of the task means that the benefits would only be seen many generations later. It would require extreme efficiency and long term planning with little tolerance for error. The kind of people who would make such an investment are unlikely to just hand the money over to the shadiest billionaire they can find. And it would be difficult to keep a scam going if they need to show continual progress decade after decade.
Maybe we’ll never see enough progress to overcome the kind of greed and short term thinking that would doom a huge, world-altering endeavor like this. But if that’s the case, it’s more likely that we’d just never try. All the more reason to keep pointing out what could be instead of just accepting the shittiness that we see today.
Just out of curiosity are you writing this from the Fertile Crescent?
ancient alien crazy hair guy appears
Okay but what if we lived in the moon
Terraforming Mars will be a first step to terraforming Earth. We’ll attempt to create a new biosphere and that will help us understand how ours works.
The tech needed to terraform mars is thousands of years away. There isn’t enough water or O2 on Mars to terraform it. As well as a whole host of other issues that we currently have no idea how to fix. (The lack of a magnetosphere is a huge one)
I think terraforming Mars won’t ever be used to create an earth like planet. We can dump water onto it (flinging ice asteroids at it should do it just fine) but without a magnetosphere, everything we add to make the atmosphere better will be blown away by solar winds.
We can still user Mars to experiment with the weather systems and the like, though. Right now, people are seriously suggesting stuffing our own atmosphere with sulfur compounds to correct for global warming instead of reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn (which will work, but will be undone almost instantly the moment we stop pumping these chemicals into the atmosphere).
Right so we give it a magnetosphere.
That’s gonna be very difficult, restarting Mars’ dynamo is going to require some god-like amount of power. We don’t even know what powered the string dynamo it had 4 billion years ago; all we know is that there was a good magnetosphere, and then that collapsed and for a while a much weaker secondary dynamo took over, until that collapsed as well.
To get back an earth like dynamo, we’d need to do something crazy like re-melt huge parts of Mars’ insides in such a way to generate a flow structure that would remagnetise the planet.
I suspect it may very well be easier to cool down Venus than to restore Mars’ magnetic field when it comes to terraforming.
I definitely don’t agree with that take.
First of all, “terraforming” means “to make Earth-like”; climate mitigation is one thing, but if we let things here get bad enough that we have to start thinking about terraforming Terra, we’ve pretty thoroughly screwed the pooch at that point. Ending up with an Earth that is no longer Earth-like would mean that things have gone sideways so badly that I doubt we’d have the industrial capacity or resources to deal with it.
Second, terraforming Mars involves a vastly different process than unfucking our climate and ecosystems. For example, Mars has a very thin atmosphere, which on top of being thin is mostly CO2 and doesn’t have more than trace amounts of oxygen. There’s also no magnetosphere to speak of because its “core dynamo” essentially died when its core cooled down and plate tectonics etc stopped being a thing, meaning that any atmosphere you do manage to generate is continuously getting blasted away by radiation.
Terraforming Mars essentially means pumping more energy and gases into its climate system via whetever method, while the problem here on Earth is that we’ve pumped too much energy into the climate system and we’d have to somehow get it “out” again.
Terraforming Mars essentially means pumping more energy and gases into its climate system via whetever method, while the problem here on Earth is that we’ve pumped too much energy into the climate system and we’d have to somehow get it “out” again.
So because one problem is too much X, and the other problem is too little X, those are distinct problems that don’t inform one another?
Theorists predict that a particular moss can survive on Mars. Scientists await the experimental opportunity to test that prediction.
Man, that title. They grew everything in sand. Regolith is filled with concentrated salts, and there’s no liquid water that we know of. At best, this experiment shows that if your inedible moss in a flower pot is briefly exposed to actual Martian conditions, it might survive when you bring it back inside.
deleted by creator
Plants on Mars?
now they just need a radiation resistant strain and they’re set
The strain is already radiation resistant (radiation was observed to promote growth). We still need something that actually grows in Mars’ atmosphere rather than something that doesn’t die, but not dying is a good start.
So, which locations on Mars’ surface are the most hospitable for this moss? (considering radiation, temperature and water levels)
Also, is a highly irradiated monoculture going to be a stable O2 producer, or is the species going to experience some mutated spinoffs?
Probably a simpler way would be to just start-the-reactor.
Probably the bottom of the valley marineres, where the air pressure is higher and there’s less wind erosion.
may help establish life on the red plane
We should… ya know, make sure there is no life there first. Even a small planet is a big place, and we’ve looked in very few places. Also even if there is no life there’s still a lot Mars could tell us about what a pre-biotic Earth was like.
I just think we need to examine the only other terrestrial planet in the system that won’t light you on fire fairly thoroughly before trying to terraform it into a Wish-dot-com version of Earth.
We’re going to have a very tight window for gathering pristine samples of pre-colonized Mars.
I had dessert moss in a fancy pants restaurant once. Once.
Let’s fuck up Mars!
I’m disappointed no one shares my enthusiasm for fucking up Mars. All these permaculture types insisting we only grow native plants
Let’s fuck up Mars
I wouldnt worry about that, we can barely fund NASA, we aint going anywhere anytime soon
