
How settling Mars could create a new human species - rgun
http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-martians-are-comingand-theyre-human
======
mmanfrin
Yes, but they will be closer to Earthers than the Belters will be, sa sa?

( _The Expanse_ covers ideas like this; inner planets (Earth and Mars) are
more like-now human, but those who grew up on space stations and asteroids,
aka 'Belters', are physically different, taller, lankier)

~~~
molsongolden
Awesome to see this in the comments. The Expanse does a neat job of working
through some socio-political thought experiments.

------
dfar1
The idea of colonizing another planets is so surreal it makes me wish I would
live another 100 years. Having mars as our launch pad, I wonder where we could
go from there.

~~~
wyager
Strictly speaking, it should be possible for humans to go interstellar using
current technology. Practically speaking, it's not, due to the partial nuclear
test ban treaty. Here's a good start to that Wikipedia hole:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propu...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_\(nuclear_propulsion\))

~~~
martey
Most of that article deals with _interplanetary_ travel. The only reference to
interstellar travel is in the "Theoretical Applications" section. If you look
at the chart in that section, you will note that the two theoretical
spacecraft are using 300 thousand or 30 million bombs. This is a problem,
since estimates of current worldwide nuclear weapon stockpiles range between
10 to 15 thousand.

I think
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion)
is a better article, since it talks about a variety of theoretical spacecraft.
You'll note that almost every single application uses a unmanned craft in
order to reduce mass and keep travel times down to about a century.

Charles Stross (cstross) has written on his blog about the difficulties of
human interstellar travel multiple times:

\- [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2007/06/the_high...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html)

\- [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2009/11/the_myth...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2009/11/the_myth_of_the_starship.html)

He also has written about the difficulties of radiation shielding on
interstellar travel: [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/08/san-
trom...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/08/san-trombone-
exoplanet-reality.html)

> " _Anyway, the point I 'd like you to take away from this is that while it's
> really hard to say "sending an interstellar probe is absolutely impossible",
> the smart money says that it's extremely difficult to do it using any
> technology currently existing or in development. We'd need a whole raft of
> breathroughs, including radiation shielding techniques to kick the
> interstellar medium out of the way of the probe as well as some sort of beam
> propulsion system and then some way of getting data back home across
> interstellar distances ... and that's for a flyby mission like New Horizons
> that would take not significantly less than a human lifetime to get there._"

~~~
wyager
I know. That's why I said Project Orion was only the start of a Wikipedia
hole.

~~~
martey
My point is that you explicitly claimed that human interstellar travel is
possible with current nuclear propulsion methods. Project Orion doesn't
support this claim (since Dyson's models require a number of nuclear weapons
several orders of magnitude larger that current stockpiles). Other similar
projects don't support this claim either, since they use unmanned spacecraft.
I referenced the Stross blog posts because finding a reasonable propulsion
system is only one new technology that needs to be invented before human
interstellar travel is possible.

If you have other sources (Wikipedia articles or otherwise) that suggest
differently, please feel free to post them.

------
irremediable
I highly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson's _Mars_ trilogy. Great scifi books
about a vaguely realistic Mars settlement, and the cultural/biological changes
that occur.

~~~
erispoe
I never could get beyond the first dozens of pages, I was very annoyed by the
way Robinson paints broad group of people as having homogeneous traits (the
"arabs" living in a martian kasbah and depicted as backward people). Does it
get past that?

~~~
irremediable
Did you start with the first book? I wouldn't have thought it would start with
that stuff, because Mars isn't colonised at the start of the series.

IMO it is better than that most of the time, in any case.

------
mc32
A different question altogether, but interesting none the less, let's say
Russia or China get to colonize Mars first, then let's say they find a safe
way to thrive there. could they then by extension manage new colonization of
Mars the same way we colonized earth? That is the colonizer could regulate who
might get to further colonize Mars --ie require a kind of interplanetary visa
(if we allow many people from many places on Earth have the means to get
there)? Are there treaties which require any colonizer to allow other people
to set a foothold there? And what if the new Martians just declare
independence? Do we cross our arms?

~~~
azdle
There is the Outer Space Treaty [1]:

> The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial
> resource such as the Moon or a planet.[3] Art. II of the Treaty states that
> "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject
> to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or
> occupation, or by any other means". However, the State that launches a space
> object retains jurisdiction and control over that object.[4] The State is
> also liable for damages caused by their space object.[5]

I assume "other celestial bodies" would include other planets.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty)

~~~
NickBusey
So, while no one can actually claim the land, if they land a bunch of habitat
shaped 'space objects' on the surface, it is still under the jurisdiction of
the country that launched them. Sounds like a loophole? "We don't claim this
land, it's just covered with a city sized grouping of space objects that we do
claim."

~~~
SixSigma
Dispatcher: Hello 911

Caller: Someone just broke into my space pod.

Dispatcher: Ok, I'll send someone right over, should be with you in 6 months
or so.

~~~
dmytrish
Add several hours of delay between phrases.

------
api
This is absolutely correct from a perspective of bog-standard evolutionary
biology. A "fork" of a species into two very different environments with
limited gene flow between them is virtually guaranteed to eventually lead to
speciation event.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

~~~
rawnlq
Where does the selection pressure come from though?

I have enough faith in our race that even if we have someone who is
genetically less fit for mars we won't just let him die before he reaches a
reproductive age.

So will it be by their potential partners? It would be pretty funny if they
end up developing martian dating apps that requires putting their DNA
sequences online just like how height and race is currently required.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
> martian dating apps that requires putting their DNA sequences online

This isn't how selection pressure works. And while you're correct that we
won't let a human die, _potential partners already do a sort of DNA analysis._
While it's not as ruthless as in the wild, potential partners definitely
evaluate each other based on criteria like fitness, appearance, and
intelligence, which have genetic components.

Consider that the Martian environment might make individuals who are
genetically more susceptible to skin cancer likely to have facial scarring
before reproductive age, or make lanky individuals more graceful in the low
gravity, or make short people able to move through small hab units with less
awkwardness. Or consider the potential effects of claustrophobia or a
proclivity for motion sickness on life in space, or the demands on
intelligence and resulting careers.

These effects would cause some genotypes to be more attractive than others in
a different way than they are on Earth where, for example, height is often
considered attractive and is not penalized by short space hab ceilings. It's
not that those lacking these traits would be prohibited from reproducing, but
that they would have a bit of a challenge finding partners, while those
possessing the traits would find it slightly easier. As a result of a few on
the margin failing or succeeding in finding partners, those with the traits
might have 2.55 children on average, and those without might have 2.53
children. Eventually, this pressure could shift the gene pool in a different
direction than Earth.

~~~
erispoe
> potential partners definitely evaluate each other based on criteria like
> fitness, appearance, and intelligence, which have genetic components

To have sex, yes, but I'm not sure it translates in any meaningful in the
number of surviving offsprings we have, therefore eliminating selection
pressure at the human scale. We have removed a good chunk of selection
pressure, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Selection pressure, however, is still a very real phenomenon for the micro-
biology inhabiting and interacting with our bodies.

------
amorphid
Could Mars ever be terraformed to the point a human, or human derivative,
could operate comfortably in the open atmosphere? It seems pretty cold, air
pressure is low, and there's little-to-no protection from solar radiation.

~~~
kogepathic
Likely no. Because Mars lacks a magnetic field to protect fragile meatbags
from cosmic radiation. [1]

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars)

~~~
Justanothernick
Yes this is true, but there are pockets of very strong magnetic fields which
could presumably "help" protect small stations and camps of us squishy little
carbon bags of water.

[http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/images.html](http://mgs-
mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/images.html)

------
hourislate
It looks like we have to overcome the technological hurdles of creating
gravity and some kind of shielding (invisible) that can protect humans from
radiation. Steady power would be required. Curious if wind power could be
used. If Musk could send a rocket to Mars that was basically a huge wind
turbine that would anchor itself and unfold its blades, couldn't it create
enough power to provide for a small contingent of people? Add some solar and
there could be an abundance of power. With a good source of plentiful and
steady power it would certainly make this endeavor more possible.

~~~
gnode
Artificial gravity can be created with a centrifuge, and pretty much anything
with mass will shield you from radiation. Currently making a centrifugal
spacecraft lined with radiation shielding would be too costly. The cost
efficiency of rapidly reusable spacecraft could make such solutions to these
problems affordable.

~~~
lxmorj
Use an asteroid?

------
M_Grey
I suspect the truth is that we wont' be truly settling Mars for any length of
time, and if we do it will be with automation rather than humans, or humans
who have been extensively modified, maybe even bred for the role. The
alternative is a series of technological breakthroughs which are nowhere
apparent on the horizon.

~~~
xkcd-sucks
Insects, algae, lichens, bacteria etc. are might be stronger contenders than
inorganic self-replicating machinery. They're pretty good at surviving harsh
environments already, evolve pretty quickly, and often have life cycles
adapted to multiple types of environment and timescales of activity, much like
multi-stage spacecraft.

~~~
M_Grey
The problem there is that however we engineer them, we'll be competing with
evolution in situ, and at a great distance. Machines break, but they also do
just what you design them to do.

------
dyeje
Reminds me of The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov. The third part of the book
takes place on the moon where there is a divergent human species / society.
Great book, and there are some really interesting thoughts on how two
divergent human species would chafe against one another in that part of it.

------
macawfish
I'm surprised at how little criticism I hear about the colonization of Mars.
Interfering with the evolutionary development of an entire planet should be a
huge consideration. But it's colonialism as usual.

------
imron
> The harsh conditions on Mars might make such unlikely events more probable
> if the outcome—say, bright orange skin—was very beneficial.

Make Mars Great Again.

------
jack9
This is pretty backwards. We will genetically engineer humans to live on Mars.
This is the only way it can work. Any genetic drift would be optimized and
changed by the same biotechnology, so there's no chance that a new species
would be created in less than a millenia.

~~~
fao_
Genetically engineering someone to live on Mars could itself create enough of
a difference that a new species could be created

~~~
logfromblammo
If the engineering is done correctly, the new models remain backward-
compatible with the old.

