
The Argument Against Terraforming Mars (2016) - rethab
http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/85/the-argument-against-terraforming-mars
======
TeMPOraL
> _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.

~~~
dTal
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.

~~~
ouid
that's also the original moral.

------
II2II
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.

~~~
monkeycantype
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?

~~~
gonvaled
Interesting, but is it doable? It is not only breathing that needs
refactoring: how do we resist very low pressures? What about radiation?

What else needs a complete overhaul?

------
devuo
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.

------
rfeather
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.

~~~
mileszim
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.

------
0xFFFE
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.

~~~
Bakary
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.

------
monochromatic
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.

------
rl3
> _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.

~~~
Kenji
Considering the earth has roughly 2.5 times more gravity, the climb would
probably be quite a bit less exhausting (after terraforming Mars).

~~~
rl3
Good point, though climbers can always add weight to get that Earth-like
experience.

~~~
Grangar
At that point you might as well 'just' climb Everest.

------
ranprieur
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.

------
SirLJ
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...

~~~
Santosh83
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?

~~~
monochromatic
If the species dies, all of my potential descendants die. I have genes that
have evolved to prevent such an occurrence.

~~~
jpttsn
People have genes for all sorts of things, from over-eating to cheating on
their spouse.

~~~
monochromatic
And?

~~~
jpttsn
Rational decision-making involves second guessing or even countering your
genetic programming.

The "my genes made me do it" argument is no less flawed in a discussion about
terraforming than one about what to order at McDonald's.

------
nonsince
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.

------
leonvv
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.

~~~
andai
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.

------
mileszim
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

------
gleglegle
Keeping something dead for the sake of beauty is a very sad argument when the
alternative is the potential for another living planet.

------
mythrwy
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.

~~~
Bakary
The pageview-linked revenue is quite real and immediate, though.

------
rdlecler1
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.

------
Houshalter
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.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Makes terrorists too powerful, everyone living under one dome.

~~~
Houshalter
Perhaps every square mile could be walled off separately so if one area fails
the others would be ok.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Yeah. Even without maliciousness, it would be good to have airlocked
subsections.

------
firethief
This formula could be used to argue literally anything.

------
sunstone
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.

------
strin
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).

------
UhUhUhUh
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.

~~~
nickparker
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.

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

[2]: [https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-
spee...](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-speed-of-
solar-wind-stripping-martian-atmosphere/)

------
zipwitch
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_.

------
sr2
We have to terraform Earth first incase of climate chaos surely?

------
rasz
Terraforming Mars is our Manifest destiny.

------
taneq
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.

~~~
MereInterest
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.

~~~
jdietrich
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.

~~~
Santosh83
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.

~~~
jdietrich
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.

~~~
the8472
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.

------
43224gg252
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).

~~~
tokai
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.

------
louithethrid
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.

