> The decision to terraform Mars would also exhibit hubris. Often understood as an “excessive pride before the gods,” hubris has ancient roots and is perhaps best epitomized by the fabled Icarus, whose wings of wax and feathers melted when he got too close to the sun in his attempt to reach heaven.
One man's hubris is another's whole raison d'être of humanity. I suppose the reference to Icarus is a good one here, because I wholeheartedly agree with Randall Munroe: "But I've never seen the Icarus story as a lesson about the limitations of humans. I see it as a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive.".
I can understand appeals to aesthetics. I can understand pointing out generic irresponsibility of humans in aggregate. But hubris? The strong drive to adapt the world to what we see fit is literally what separates us from animals.
Let's not forget that Daedelus, with careful engineering and aeronautical prudence, successfully designed and constructed a set of personal wings and flew them 70 miles to safety and freedom. I think that's really the larger story.
The true moral is "do not exceed the design flight envelope on the maiden flight of experimental aircraft". Pretty sensible advice.
Even that is giving the author a free pass. Because, using a story that did not happen like Icarus to justify your world view is hubris. Building stuff on the other hand is just engineering.
> Because, using a story that did not happen like Icarus to justify your world view is hubris.
The story of Icarus, written by a human within his own world view, is part of our collective history. The events in the story not being real has no relevance at all on its philosophical implications.
The events in the story are physically impossible. But still, using the plot line of The Walking Dead to justify yourself feels silly, but somehow old story's are given a free pass.
Sorry, using a collection of meaningless words to justify thoughts or actions is irrational.
Exactly, it's fine to make a point with a story, but it should not provide justification only clarity.
To go back to the original point, I've never understood the problem with 'hubris', it's not as if we have evidence for something or someone taking offence and then taking it out on us. There's no reason to believe we wouldn't be able to terraform a planet eventually. Even if we do screwup a couple of times, there's enough resources in the solar system to try again a bunch of times once/if we can get to them.
There's something to be said for a human locust swarm over the milkyway. Just imagine one day in the future having an internet connection between earth and mars. For some reason imagining operating those links is even more exiting to me than the original colonization (which I'd partake in given half the chance). How would be deal with the immense latency? How would facebook or google sync their datacenters? Once a day? A private uplink with 30m lag? What?
>The events in the story are physically impossible. But still, using the plot line of The Walking Dead to justify yourself feels silly, but somehow old story's are given a free pass. Sorry, using a collection of meaningless words to justify thoughts or actions is irrational.
Sorry, but the story of Icarus is loaded with meaning, a meaning which has been examined, discussed, and argued about for two millennia by some of the greatest thinkers.
Most of myth, just like cautionary tales and proverbs, is meaning concentrated. It is an observation/insight/point made into story.
It's your comment that rather seems devoid of meaning, seeing that humans have been able since forever to construct stories, metaphors, and examples from both real and non-real-world-events to convey particular ideas, concepts and worries.
There would be nothing silly to "using the plot line of The Walking Dead to justify" one's self if it works for making their point.
What would be silly would be if someone conflated Icarus or the Walking Dead plotline for something that actually happened. But nobody does that -- they recognize it for what it is, a metaphor, and are able to see the point being made, regardless of if there are wax wings or zombies in real life.
In a modern context it may seem like nobody could ever have believed Icarus, but that's unlikely. People look back on the 'great' thinkers for what they got right and ignore thinks like a great logician comparing volcanoes to the bowel movements of animals. Consider all of the outrageous things people firmly believe in a religious context (not pointing fingers there is plenty of things to go around even if you exclude whatever your personal faith is.)
So, unless you have very firm evidence the tale may have be out before the moral.
As to using the walking dead to make a point, think this through a little more. Because it's pure circular reasoning. A is true because of A.
>Sorry, using a collection of meaningless words to justify thoughts or actions is irrational.
Any action we take is irrational at its root. If you remove emotions, there's no compelling rational reason to do anything or favor one action over the other. In that case, a person can very well decide to reject Icarus as being meaningless, but they will not be able to remove all such meaningless thoughts from the way they live their lives, or even a small fraction of the stories they live by.
There will always be numerous narratives and mental models of varying accuracy that will determine our choices and actions. Anything from a sense of our own self and memories, to beliefs in some exterior entity or cause, to even abstract thoughts about the world itself that we came up with or received from others. On this basis, we use reason to move towards our goals but the goals themselves are still irrational.
Icarus itself isn't even a bad story, as far as tales go. There are several examples in human history where our ambition and drive caused enormous suffering. Looking at the twentieth century or even the last six thousand years can make you wonder whether it wouldn't have been better for us to stay in small tribes until the Sun burns the planet to a crisp. Is the current and marginally less awful world worth all the misery that came before it? Hard to say for sure, even if I do fully agree that we should be as hubristic as possible in today's circumstances. It's too late to go back so we must move forward.
Except such stories are meaningless because they are random in nature. Unlike in the Icarus story, air gets colder with altitude so does that suddenly reverse the meaning of the story?
Now, we can use a real world example like car accidents as traveling 35+ MPH is unsafe. But, now the counter arguments are obvious because in the real world there are trade offs and meaningful stories are more open to interpretation.
I don't know why people take the Icarus story at face value instead of seeing it as a colorful metaphor. I'm not sure how the Greeks considered their own stories but it seems doubtful they would believe them in as literal a sense as the monotheists who succeeded them.
As an abstraction it does not demonstrate hubris being bad. You can say it's discouraged in a culture with slaves etc. But, again that does not mean it's actually bad just not a norm for a very different culture. You can find plenty of stories that use it as a plot device, but the world does not work on narrative causality making that rather meaningless.
So, if you look at it as a metaphor then bringing it up is just saying: Hubris is bad, because hubris is bad. Which adds nothing to someones argument.
I see what you mean. I interpreted a little differently, as another poster here mentioned in the sense of "avoiding extremes" or overconfidence in general. So all in all a rather basic notion that people are familiar with from culture, historical events or their own life experience but dressed up in a way that ticks a lot of satisfying mental boxes. But if you interpret it in the way you mentioned then I agree that it's not very useful.
>Except such stories are meaningless because they are random in nature. Unlike in the Icarus story, air gets colder with altitude so does that suddenly reverse the meaning of the story?
Obviously not, because the meaning of story lies in how things work in the context of the story.
Only if the general point (devoid of storytelling flourishes) was invalid it would invalidate the story as a cautionary tale.
But the general point still holds as general advice: "Avoid extremes" [1].
Dismissing most of the world's heritage, because one is a literalist, is what is irrational.
By this logic, mathematics discovered for curiousity would not have applications, something which is not at all true. Number theory is just one example. There are many others like using 'imaginary' numbers used for solving polynomial eqns, later becomes basic to engineering.
All life modifies its environment one way or another. We do so in greater magnitude that's all. And often irresponsible modifications. Abstract reasoning (mostly) sets us somewhat apart from the rest of animals. Nothing special as far as it goes.
I think the difference in quantity here creates a whole new quality - both in terms of doing the adapting and in what it means to imagine a different world state than we see.
Ok. But I stand by my point that controlling our drives and using intelligence to override what it tells us to do,is what that really differentiates us from other animals.
Isn't the haste to abandon earth and colonize other worlds just like a panic response of an animal that finds it's resting place on fire?
I mean, it is not going to see if the fire can be quenched, it is just going to take off..
You have an interesting point here. Personally I do sometimes wonder if sci-fi movies depicting space travel don't make people feel it's much closer a reality than it really is, thus making them care less for our planet because "if shit hits the fan, we'll surely find another one".
That said, the current crop of space entrepreneurs seem to care more about long-term survival of our species in case of cataclysmic events not necessarily of human making - e.g. asteroid impacts.
I just realized I've never read Icarus' story as a story of hubris.
To me it simply read as a "trust people who know better" exactly like little red riding hood, or the "don't cry wolf" one.
I feel cut out of the world know.
Actually "trust people who know better" could be an interesting description of the moral of hubris.
To have something to work with here a description of hubris from wikipedia:
"In its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior or challenges the gods, and which in turn brings about the downfall, or nemesis, of the perpetrator of hubris." [1]
The "gods" are the "people who know better" and you shall trust them. Otherwise you will get hurt.
I think you always read the story as a story of hubris, just without using that exact word.
I don't understand the appeal to aesthetics at all.
Is a lump of rock more aesthetically pleasing than a statue?
It assumes that whatever the end result of terraforming is, will be less aesthetically pleasing than the current vista. This is clearly a flawed assumption. There's no evidence that it is true.
Aesthetics is also subjective. Some people prefer deserts, some people prefer beaches, some people prefer forests. If you prefer deserts, I guess terraforming Mars will be an aesthetic loss. If you prefer any other form of terrain, then it'll be a win.
There are more practical reasons not to terraform Mars. Notably, the most valuable resources for human survival (oxygen and water) would eventually be lost to space. It is a slow process to be sure. In practical terms, it would probably outlast humanity as a species (either evolution or extinction, depending upon your outlook). Yet it does seem to go against the basic idea that many of proponents of manned space exploration tout: a second home to ensure our survival. Terraforming Mars would be, at best, temporary.
My take is that we should go out there, exploiting resources as needed, yet adapting to the environment through technological means. Even if we could terraform Mars, we would still have to adapt in order to go beyond that planet since there is nowhere else within reach that is remotely similar to either planet. Even if you could imagine a sci-fi future where the stars are within reach, chances are that a good portion of the habitable planets will have life of some form. That would raise more serious ethical issues than the subjectivity of beauty.
> there is nowhere else within reach that is remotely similar to either planet
Now, hear me out here but have you considered Venus?
Cons:
Runaway greenhouse effect, sulfuric acid clouds, crazy hot, etc
Very long days (1 year = 1.92 Venus days)
Pros:
Nearer to sun => better solar energy collection
Nearly the same gravity as Earth (0.8-ish)
Lower delta-v to get there from Earth (someone double check my math on that)
You'd need to get material built into a 'solar umbrella' to cool the planet down, reflect light elsewhere. One idea (Kim Stanley Robinson?) was too make mirrors that reflect light from the way-too-bright side and have it instead reach the 'dark for half a year' side.
Once you've got it cooled down, you're a lot of the way there. Bleed off some of that atmosphere (hey, maybe Mars could use it?), get some plants converting CO2 into O2.
It's ludicrous, I know, but I find most conversations about terraforming are. The only real advantage that Mars has is that we could live there while we work on it. Venus, not so much.
Actually, the upper atmosphere of Venus has about the right atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature for Earth. So building effectively cities on blimps means you only need to worry about the sulfuric acid--walking outside only requires a hazmat suit, not a full pressure suit.
It's not clear whether Venus or Mars is an easier target for colonization--that's just a sign of how hard it would be to build a colony on anything that's not Earth.
> It's not clear whether Venus or Mars is an easier target for colonization
Actually, despite my above pro-Venus talk, Mars is still an easier option. I wound up on a wiki-spiral just now reading about options for Venus- turns out plants would not work for converting that CO2. The process for CO2 conversion needs Hydrogen- and Venus has none.
We'd need some kind of trade-triangle between Mars, Venus and Jupiter, dumping CO2 from Venus to Mars, then moving H from Jupiter to Venus. We need to find some product Mars has that Jupiter wants, then we'd have it figured out.
If humanity ends up with the ability to travel to other stars, Mars is but a stepping stone. It would be the testing ground for almost everything else. There's no reason to view that as temporary. It's necessary and the whole terraforming process would include figuring out a way to not lose those resources to space.
We don't really know how long terraforming Mars would take, but it's conceivable that it could take as few as a few centuries, especially given the advance of tech.
Mars has useful quantities of ice and an atmosphere that's 96% CO2. We wouldn't need to export any oxygen to Mars and probably wouldn't need to export much or any water either. Really, the biggest doubt is about the quantity of readily-available nitrogen.
On the grandest scale, we could take CO2 from Venus and hydrogen from Saturn or Jupiter. The logistics aren't exactly straightforward, but the quantities available are immense.
Over millions and millions of years. A civilization that could colonize another planet could manage to mitigate or outright solve that kind of problem with that kind of time.
>Yet it does seem to go against the basic idea that many of proponents of manned space exploration tout: a second home to ensure our survival.
This is slightly tangential, but I think it's important to point out that Mars is more than a survival shelter.
The point of colonizing Mars is to preserve human civilization, not merely our species. Civilization is a higher level emergent thing that can only exist in large prosperous groups of humans. Almost nothing could actually kill the human species, but tons of stuff could end civilization. A self sustaining Mars guarantees our continued social and technological advance.
We can't meaningfully speculate about what such a war would look like, technology will advance too much before then.
I don't think it would be nuclear though. Nuclear bombs are delicate devices, the only reason they work on Earth is because they hit too fast to intercept.
Interplanetary war will have at least 1 month long trips between the two planets unless we see some insane tech breakthroughs. A war fleet would be pretty easy to spot and blast out of the sky, as would any missiles launched planet to planet. Hitting something at the insane speeds of ICBMs becomes much easier when you have days to aim.
It's not that hard to fake what is and is not a bomb in space. Consider their is no air resistance so use an inflatable balloon which may or may not have a bomb inside. For 10,000 kg you could probably send up 100,000+ fake bombs which would all have slightly different vectors making hitting them all very hard. Further, if you use something mechanical vs inflation it's not obvious if something was shot down or not.
Worse, the attacker may feel they can use something like that while shooting down any responses.
would it be easier and a better investment to change ourselves? replace mitochondria with something that doesn't need oxygen to produce ATP. If you're planning on you and you descendants spending forever exploring space, would you want to be vacuum native?
I really like the Hyperion Cantos - the Ousters make exactly that decision, to forego terraforming in favor of self-modification. Naturally, the natural humans vilify and hunt them.
There are countless millions of lifeless beautiful giant rock worlds carved and shaped throughout the eons by the interaction of elements. And yet, there's only one of such rocks, that we know so far, has been graced by the beauty of life. Life spreads, grows, adapts, multiplies. It, just like all other elements in the universe that came before it, shapes its environment as it interacts with it. Life isn't any different from the wind and water that shapes the mountains, or the meteor that carves a valley deep into the earth.
I'd highly recommend reading the referenced Mars Trilogy. The debate has some more detail in the words of the characters (though the summary here gets the major points of the "Reds").
What's missing here but present in the series is the counterpoint. For purposes of profit and self preservation, terraforming is all but inevitable. A more useful debate is about how it should happen if you want to preserve some of the Martian natural beauty.
Will second this, Red Mars (and the good parts of the second two in the trilogy) do a fantastic job of working through scenarios of both the sociopolitical and technical challenges we may face as the era of Mars exploration begins.
The general premise of the series is: If you were sent over to Mars with a group of others, who is there to stop you all from creating your own vision for the place instead, if armed with the tools to make it happen? If you have the capability to make your own world as you want it, would you obey the orders of those all the way on earth, or would you make the world in your own image? And what do you do if you choose to craft your mars in one way but others in the group disagree and have the same motivation and are armed with the same tools for their vision instead?
Each character in the series represents and carries out the different possibilities to these questions, and you see the consequences play out over hundreds of years.
We as humans haven't yet learnt to co-exist with other animals and maintain the equilibrium on Earth. What makes us think we are going to treat Mars any better?
Please don't get me wrong, I am all for exploring the planets, in fact I am annoyed that we don't yet have the technology to visit a system like TRAPPIST-1.
But unless we learn to be considerate towards nature and other species which inhabit this planet we are not going to be good residents on other planets. Just my two cents.
The notion of an equilibrium doesn't hold up to scrutiny if we consider all the mass extinction events that came before, or even the continuing random chaos that regularly sweeps species away in favor of others.
Of course, it's also a bad idea to create conditions on Earth where human life is made more difficult or unpleasant. However, we are also part of nature, and other elements of the natural world are only useful in so far as they meet some human need, even if it's just the satisfaction you get from treating another species in a kind way.
Heck, it's not even clear whether leaving nature untouched is actually ethical, considering the form it currently has. As we speak, thousands of beings are violently being killed and eaten by their predators, even with humans out of the equation. The cycle has continued this way for aeons, and only because random events made life evolve in this specific way, with a nervous system that produces suffering.
Well for one thing, as best we understand there _are_ no other animals on Mars. If we operated with business-as-usual human obliviousness there we'd be doing a lot less harm to other species.
On one side of the scales we have that Mars is pretty. On the other side, we have the continued existence of humans in the face of one random asteroid.
I care more about hedging against an asteroid strike than I do about the natural beauty of a planet that no one's even seen up close.
>Mars has many features of extraordinary natural beauty. It is home to the tallest known volcano on any planet, Olympus Mons, whose cap reaches 13.6 miles high—two and a half times the height of Mount Everest.
>The decision to terraform Mars would also exhibit hubris.
Speaking of hubris: if we terraform Mars, people are going to want to climb Olympus Mons. Perhaps the volcano would acquire a reputation and body count similar to Everest.
Obviously the future holds great potential for lifesaving technology, but at the same time there's always purists. After all, the people who have climbed Everest probably wouldn't have if there wasn't any danger involved.
I imagine much of the danger would depend upon the finer details of how the Mars was terraformed. Namely sea level, atmospheric composition, and anything else that affects weather at altitude.
Would reaching the summit even be possible without oxygen? It wouldn't be on Earth at that height, but I've no idea if that holds for a terraformed atmosphere on another planet.
There is no extra danger climbing Olympus Mons involved, it's actually very flat: "...an observer near the summit would be unaware of standing on a very high mountain, as the slope of the volcano would extend far beyond the horizon, a mere 3 kilometers away."
The aesthetic argument is weak, because it doesn't make sense to talk about anyone but us having an aesthetic perspective. Mars is beautiful? Fill those canyons with life and make it even more beautiful.
The stronger argument is: look at what we've done to Earth, and it's obvious that we don't know yet how to make a planet better.
If we could terraform, we should do it right away, humanity is one meteorite strike away from extinction... the universe is a harsh place and we have to hedge our bets to survive and thrive...
There's no rational need to survive as a species. An individual protecting its life is a different matter, but what's the point in struggling so hard to survive as a species? What is it that we hope to achieve in the end?
Most matter in the universe is dead. So even if we assume that we can't come up with anything interesting and worthy achieving right now we can still transform dead matter into thinking matter that might eventually come up with something.
At worst you would be wasting dead matter on a useless endeavor while ideally you discover more interesting things down the road. Seems like a decent tradeoff.
We identify as a group - a tribe. In recent millenia, it's worked out well for individuals to identify with even larger groups. Today, it's rational to identify globally, for the benefits of trade, collaborative technological development and peace. There may well be some evolutionary pressure towards this. (Yes, there's reward for defection, but collaboration works even better).
Granted, "global" isn't the same as "species" - but in practice, and forever there is communication between members, they are identical (have the same referent).
We're biological life forms, it's literally our prime directive. Besides that though is there a rational reason to do anything? Ultimately the universe doesn't care so why bother?
> humanity is one meteorite strike away from extinction
According to NASA [0] that's a once in a million year sort of event which, given how behaviourally modern [1] humans have only existed for about 50000 years, is nothing more than a strawman for terraforming.
You do realize that just because its called a one in a million event doesn't actually mean it has to happen every million years, and it doesn't have to wait a million years, right? A one in a million event could happen after 50,000 years, it just means on average it's expected to happen every million years.
Yeah, not really. With the current state of various spaceguard projects working on mapping NEOs (near-Earth objects), the estimated "heads up time" for an extinction level asteroid impact is on the order of decades. The smaller the object, the less notice we get, but the risk also decreases dramatically.
That's a good point and something the article doesn't mention: creating a stable colony off planet effectively cuts in half our risk of extinction due to impacts, supervolcanoes / god knows what horrors.
It's harsh in the sense that not only is there a tiny amount of it that can be safely occupied by humans, but also that the sliver we do have can be easily wiped out by random events, and will be inevitably destroyed in a few million years.
Your earlier comment got me thinking a little more. It's hard to disagree with your logic: since we are there and able to talk about it, that makes the Universe already rather compassionate. In fact, there is no other place to compare its possible harshness to.
However, it's a bit like a parent abusing their child. The kid owes everything it has to their progenitor, but it's questionable whether their existence is worth something to begin with. Even without a frame of reference, I believe you can make the judgment that something is in fact harsh. The very fact that we can conceive of asking this question makes it a possibility. In an easier world we might not even consider it at all.
The destruction-of-beauty argument is not without merit, but no-one makes that argument about Mt Rushmore. You can make something more beautiful, and that doesn't make the destruction of beauty argument moot but it does make it less convincing. The hubris, or "playing god", argument is utterly unconvincing for me. Our environment would be safer if we spent more time playing god with genetic manipulation and less time worrying that the wheat will grow beaks and murder the farmers in their sleep. One era's playing god is another era's everyday life.
What a beautiful piece of writing. I always saw terraforming Mars as a technological challenge, it's great to see someone consider the ethics of the project. The following paragraph stood out most for me.
'Another reason for believing that terraforming would involve hubris is to consider how we treat Earth, a place we might call our “proper place” or “home.” If we think of our home as a place which nurtures us and in which we grow to maturity, then a case could be made that until we learn to treat our own planet better, any attempt to reshape another planet and call it our “home” would be hubristic.'
Whenever we apply technology people talk progress. Intuitively I would say that progress implies a destination and that progress is about getting closer to it. But can we really say we're making progress if we do not know the destination: how should people live together? When we agree to terraform Mars we do so in the belief that it's a good idea. But 'good' implies an answer to the question. It's very interesting to try to find these implicit answers and see if we can turn them into an explicit answer. Maybe then we'll find that often technology looks like progress, while it's not getting us closer at all.
Well, in order to live well together, people do need to remain alive. There's an argument for creating off-world colonies to reduce the chance of human extinction by any one catastrophe (asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes etc).
I definitely think it's important to learn to coexist with our fellow humans, as well as other life forms, here on earth, but / and it will be hard to do that if we all catch fire and die.
The counter from Sax Russell in Red Mars to this exact debate, straight from the book:
> "The beauty of Mars exists in the human mind. Without the human presence it is just a collection of atoms, no different than any other random speck of matter in the universe. It’s we who understand it, and we who give it meaning. […] The lack of life here, and the lack of any finding in fifty years of the SETI program, indicates that life is rare, and intelligent life even rarer. And yet the whole meaning of the universe, its beauty, is contained in the consciousness of intelligent life. We are the consciousness of the universe, and our job is to spread that around, to go look at things, to live everywhere we can. […] If there are lakes, or forests, or glaciers, how does that diminish Mars’s beauty? I don’t think it does. I think it only enhances it. It adds life, the most beautiful system of all." - Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars
Here's a better argument against Terraforming Mars.
Right now we can't.
If we start approaching a state where we can, other arguments become important. Until then it's similar to an argument against bringing people back from the dead.
If there are no humans around to appreciate the aesthetic value of mars as is, then what's the point? I think human survival trumps the ascetic of a dead planet.
I don't think most terraforming plans are remotely practical. One sort of compromise solution involves building an enormous ceiling and walls of glass over areas we want to inhabit. It could hold in heat and an atmosphere and would require much less effort to fill than the entire planet. Eventually the entire planet could be covered, but we could leave regions untouched as "nature" preserves.
Hmmm if we had the power to bring water to the Sahara Desert and make it bloom would we not do it for aesthetic reasons? The Sahara has been bountiful in the past. There are plenty of other bodies in the solar system to leave in their "natural state" whereas Mars' current condition is more a matter of coincidental timing than of it's being a timeless Platonic object.
This sounds like humans are born to be enemies of nature as they inevitably reshapes what nature looks like. But humans are part of nature, and the symbiosis of human and environments led to the co-existence of beauty and ugliness today.
However, I do think Terraforming Mars could be a bad idea. Technology-wise it is unclear it's easier than transforming human ourselves (say cybernetics).
These are indeed "arguments". There is an actual reason though. Mars cannot be terraformed because it has no magnetosphere. Which is also probably why it is like it is now in the first place. Creating a magnetosphere is not impossible theoretically but vastly unrealistic at this time.
The lack of a magnetosphere is less of an issue than popular science claims it is.
The current atmosphere weighs about 25 terratonnes[1] and MAVEN estimated solar wind is removing 100 grams/sec[2]. That's an annual loss rate of 0.12 parts per billion (10e-10). A thicker atmosphere might strip more quickly, but we only want to thicken it by 2 orders of magnitude. Even if the loss fraction increases quadratically with pressure at 0m altitude, that gets you 10e-6, a millionth o your atmosphere per year, or about 1% every 10,000 years.
Should we terraform Mars is well on its way to being an irrelevant question. Launch costs keep getting cheaper, and there are low-energy (if long) paths between Earth and Mars. The only question is how long before some person or small group decides Mars terraforming is getting started, _now_.
tl;dr Mars is pretty and if we terraform it then that will change its appearance. Good people don't break pretty things, and we want to be good people, so we shouldn't terraform Mars.
Yeah, this seems to be yet another of the misanthropic arguments about how nature is inherently good, and how humanity is inherently corrupting, without making any attempt to justify these beliefs.
I think it's more narcissistic than misanthropic; it presupposes that we are something distinct and apart from the "natural" world. A bird building a nest is "natural", a human building a house is "un-natural". In this worldview, we are a fundamentally and categorically unique kind of living thing. Our behaviour is not that of a highly evolved mammal, but of a lesser god.
In as much as we resemble cancer, yes, I struggle to see how the human species works in harmony with the rest of nature, as it exists on Earth. If we want to say we're a part of nature, we should consider modifications that are improvements or at least not wholesale dismantling of planet-wide ecosystems, all in the neurotic hope that science will come in at the last moment or save the day. Or guns will. Or spaceships will. None of them seem likely to. At least not save anything beyond the dregs at the bottom of the barrel.
Before all the cyanobacteria turned up, earth had a nice inert atmosphere. They start with their newfangled photosynthesis and suddenly the atmosphere is full of this horribly reactive oxygen stuff. Now the planet is crawling with life, irreparably damaging the unspoilt beauty of our natural geology. You can hardly find a piece of rock on the planet that doesn't have algae or lichen all over it. Cyanobacteria ruined this planet for their own selfish ends.
Not to mention that they caused a massive extinction, eradicating most species that can't handle oxygen, except a few survivors that stuck to a few low-oxygen niches.
Nature does not work in harmony with nature. Natures eats other natures.
Nature is brutal and ugly from an ethical standpoint. Eat or be eaten. Poison, trap, munch, crunch. --And one does not generally observe moral behavior among animals, one does not observe 'selfless' acts of compassion to other species. Con-specifics can be the target of some 'selfless' acts, but in fairly limited scopes.
The only reasons we look at nature and see harmony and beauty are 1)we enjoy patterns 2) we enjoy colors 3)not many things eat us anymore.
Exactly. We only think empathy, kindness and gentleness are important because of our social-mammal-centric viewpoint. We only think nature is "nice" and "good" because we're largely no longer the victims of it.
It's a ridiculous argument because Mars is a sterile* desert, and the plan would be to fill it with nature.
(* New evidence may come up in future to contradict this, and that might require a change in the plans depending on the form that Martian life takes and how widespread it is)
If you actually look closely at life on Earth, you'll notice that historically it's been pretty damn ugly for everyone involved. Now, with modern technology, medicine, and more stable, peaceful social structures, it's alright for a fair minority of humans. We still have some refinements to make but a "natural life" is horrible and I want no part of it. Nature's only beautiful when viewed from a safe vantage point, a long way away.
I don't understand why the same people who want to terraform mars claim climate change is soon to be irreversible (which they seem to have been saying since the 60's).
We are really good at warming planets up. That's what you need to transform Mars. We not that good at cooling planets. That's what you need to save the Earth.
Mediocre People inventing fairy tales to not look as cowardly as they are besides ambitious people.
The problem is, that the writer of such a piece, after completing it- turns around to a humanity hungry for a next, risky, feet. So hungry in fact, it would vote for a mad man to axe the risk avoider caste.
So our writer turns around and exclaims "Sorry, no big feets available today, maybe you all should relax and come back for a nth-chance tomorrow."
Now, where else to turn too? Those claiming to be pro-risky steps?
Mostly company cronys, who marketing crowned with "bold moves High-Performers" but who got where they are, by constant small incremental steps, and putting up arbitrary expensive obsticles behind them, to keep a little privacy.
Imagine sheparding a asteroid with a tug-drone from the belt into moon-orbit, how much this price winning inbred hunting-dog-show would wail to avoid the chase, while those with nothing too lose and everything to gain, would be busy drilling in a high-rad, zero-g environment.
This is why we got Trump, and will get Trump again, Incarnation after Incarnation, because this species always voted pro-risk once the mamoth was eaten.
One man's hubris is another's whole raison d'être of humanity. I suppose the reference to Icarus is a good one here, because I wholeheartedly agree with Randall Munroe: "But I've never seen the Icarus story as a lesson about the limitations of humans. I see it as a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive.".
I can understand appeals to aesthetics. I can understand pointing out generic irresponsibility of humans in aggregate. But hubris? The strong drive to adapt the world to what we see fit is literally what separates us from animals.