Looks like few appreciate the extraordinary value and uniqueness of a colonized Mars.Throwing away political correctness, I'd classify people who want to ban Mars colonization as eco-nazis.
In what way is a colonized Mars of extraordinary value and unique? Let's have a proper debate, not just name calling. Also what is the huge urgency to colonize Mars right away before we have a chance to study it?
Quote from: gospacex on 05/15/2013 08:53 amLooks like few appreciate the extraordinary value and uniqueness of a colonized Mars.Throwing away political correctness, I'd classify people who want to ban Mars colonization as eco-nazis.In what way is a colonized Mars of extraordinary value and unique?
Also what is the huge urgency to colonize Mars right away before we have a chance to study it?
I'm not against colonizing Mars for ever. In the article I just said that the time for the great debate about that is not yet as we don't yet know enough, and suggested a time line of perhaps 50 years before we can do it, could be sooner if a really extensive exploration of Mars by telepresence is carried out right away.
Thank you, Robert, for the great summary on your site; i am sure if more people would take the time to actually read and understand the reasoning they would be less inclined to resort to name-calling.My TL;DR version: If we put too many earth microbes on Mars - and a manned landing would certainly do that - there is consensus that there is a good chance that they will eat up any evidence of past life on mars. And the importance of any insight about past or present life on Mars can hardly be overstated.Even shorter: There is nothing "eco" about this. This is about science and the destruction of evidence.Luckily, NASA as an institution agrees, see http://planetaryprotection.nasa.govWith regards to private efforts in space i expect to see regulations from the individual governments once this becomes relevant, in the U.S. this is explored e.g. in this thesis from MIT: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/62036.
Mars surface area is about the same as Earth land mass.Total Earth's economic value is quite hard to quantify, but by all estimates it is well above 1000 trillion, and likely is 5 times that.Mars populated to the about same density as Earth would be worth about the same (within an order of magnitude)
> Also what is the huge urgency to colonize Mars right away before we have a chance to study it?[What is the problem with studying Mars while it is being colonized?Contamination argument doesn't hold water: Genesis probe crashed on landing, contaminating all samples; yet, scientists aren't as dumb as some might think. They managed to sort out contamination from the samples. I don't see why a bit of ingenuity wouldn't help scientists to unravel Mars mysteries even if some "evil Earth bacteria" contaminate Mars soil.
Okay. You are entitled to your opinion.
But there is a problem.What shall be done if someone would try to fly and land on Mars, disregarding your opinion? Should this evil person be arrested and thrown to jail? What if he is not a US citizen? What if his rocket departs from e.g. Russia?
QuoteMy TL;DR version: If we put too many earth microbes on Mars - and a manned landing would certainly do that - there is consensus that there is a good chance that they will eat up any evidence of past life on mars. And the importance of any insight about past or present life on Mars can hardly be overstated.There is no "consensus" such as you describe, stop making stuff up.
Quote from: robertinventor on 05/15/2013 09:04 amIn what way is a colonized Mars of extraordinary value and unique? Let's have a proper debate, not just name calling. Also what is the huge urgency to colonize Mars right away before we have a chance to study it?I think the burden of proof is on those calling for restraint, or is it restriction?
Bringing Mars back to life will be vastly more valuable to Mars ... It doesn't want to be a cold, dead world forever.
The human race doesn't even value rainforests here that highly. What's a little bit of red dirt?
My take (YMMV): In the unlikely event there are macroorganisms on Mars, e.g., those lichens some people say (99% sure they are not real myself, nevertheless...) then the planet should be quarantined. Only scientists should be allowed to visit at least until we know for sure that human colonies would not cause their extinction. These would be truly unique specimens, and should be allowed to evolve unmolested. The more likely scenario is that there is life, but it is microbial life confined to briny aquifers below the surface. If these organisms are able to exist in Mars's perchlorate-infested, poisonous ecosystem, then they are going to be very hardy creatures and unlikely to be displaced by microbes brought in accidently from Earth. After all, it's likely that there has been occasional transfers of life between the two planets in the past.
Yes, this option is risky, I admit, but if there are microorganisms on Mars, it's likely that they are practically everywhere in the solar system where there is liquid water; therefore, in the unlikely event that Martian life were to be caused to go extinct, other forms of extraterrestrial life would persist elsewhere.
That doesn't mean that reasonable steps shouldn't be undertaken to avoid the extinction of Martian microorganisms, which raises the prickly question of whether terraforming should be undertaken, given the existence of Martian microorganisms. If the case could be made that terraforming would not cause the extinction of Martian microorganisms, then by all means go for it if you really want. Yes, a cosmocentric ethic argues that Mars as it is is intrinsically valuable and that it as it is should not be destroyed without a very good reason. But in this case, the value of a terraformed Mars + human culture outweighs the intrinsic value of the primitive Mars.
And yes, I fully admit that causing extinctions of any kind is an intrinsic moral wrong...
QuoteWhat is the problem with studying Mars while it is being colonized?Contamination argument doesn't hold water: Genesis probe crashed on landing, contaminating all samples; yet, scientists aren't as dumb as some might think. They managed to sort out contamination from the samples. I don't see why a bit of ingenuity wouldn't help scientists to unravel Mars mysteries even if some "evil Earth bacteria" contaminate Mars soil.But it does. Why do you think they are so careful to prevent contamination of Mars with the unmanned rovers? Why do you think the Outer Space Treaty has a specific clause preventing this, and the COSPAR guidelines classify Mars as Category IV?Yes, with a small sample and a lot of work, in a situation where a lot of scientists working on a small amount of material is cost effective because it is so expensive to get more of it, and where you are not looking for life itself, just for a way of separating out individual dust grains that are of cometary origin from those of desert origin, then you can do it.
What is the problem with studying Mars while it is being colonized?Contamination argument doesn't hold water: Genesis probe crashed on landing, contaminating all samples; yet, scientists aren't as dumb as some might think. They managed to sort out contamination from the samples. I don't see why a bit of ingenuity wouldn't help scientists to unravel Mars mysteries even if some "evil Earth bacteria" contaminate Mars soil.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 05/15/2013 07:26 pmAnd yes, I fully admit that causing extinctions of any kind is an intrinsic moral wrong...The eradication of smallpox was an intrinsic moral wrong?