Is Mars Ours?

[JBaymore]

It is estimated that the Earth can take up to and beyond 12 billion people before we have too many people on the planet.

I don't know about that.  Pollution and over-use issues are already affecting so many things..... from mercury in seafood to topsoil erroding into the oceans to various food sources being harvested to non-sustainable levels.  Add to the current mess that the non-industrialized nations are just starting to become industrialized.  Watching the rampant land clearing and development here in the Northeast USA......... and traveling in places like Japan....... really shows me the impact of too many people using too few resources.

What the heck ever happend to the "Zero Population Growth" movement in the 60's?

best,

..................john

[Bubblehead]

Everything that Silverfox listed can be done on eath cheaper and safer. I'm not totally against exploration but there should be balance. Modern technology failed to save us time. There is still 24 hours in a day and we seem to always out of time - or hurry up and wait. We spend billions looking up black holes yet we have no cure for the common cold. Where do we usually go on vacation? the beaches, the forests,  swimming, hiking, playing golf, etc. not locked on to a telescope all day and peeking at the moon or Mars. Funny thing about technology. While watching the Discovery Chanel one day, I saw some primitive people in the Amazons just laughing and playing and having a good time. How can they have fun without the Honda, the TV, the PC, the microwave, the calculator, the cell phone?

But this argument can go on and on. I sense that some sound irritated, so after this, I will forever hold my peace.

Nanu Nanu to you all.

Don

[Smoke2much]

The reason that we have no cure for the common cold is that it is not one disease but thousands, perhaps millions, that all cause the same symptoms.

A bit off topic there but it is 5AM and I'm very bored indeed LOL.

Will

[SilverFox441]

Ask yourself why this & other technology wasn't embraced with open arms & not already in use. With a tiny percentage of the effort expended on space exploration this could have been a reality long before now.

Much of this technology is just now maturing...look at the recent releases of hybrid cars...based on the batteries developed by NASA that offer greater energy density.

As for the tiny percentage of effort...effort at what? Pure research? Not one dime would have been spent, and if it had no company would try to apply the unproven technologies. A man-rated spacecraft is a massive proof of concept vehicle for many technologies.

Earth can support 12 billion and more. I'm not talking about giving people cars, computers and TV's. I'm talking about feeding them.

Also its the fact of whether we get that many people on earth. AIDS is set to take a huge toll on the worlds population. There is not only the problem in Africa but I believe its spreading in Asia too.

See, nature has ways of controling population growth. If there are too many of a certain speices then they starve intill they have a supportable level again.  

This means there is no reason to go to mars because we run out of space on earth.

The bright flash you see will be the signal that there has been a sudden population density inversion. All animals, homo sapiens included, compete for resources. Our toys are just a "little" more dangerous than most other species though. As the finite resources dwindle there will be overwhelming pressure to keep them for ourselves...whoever "ourselves" happen to be. That last war will have no winner...just thousands of extinct species and an uninhabitable radioactive sphere.

This is all very well but I come back to my original point. Logistics. How would it be possible to transport that many people & supplies to Mars? It would obviously be confined to a select few. Just how those few would be chosen is what concerns me. Or more to the point - who gets left behind? Now we seem to be on the subject of putting factories on there as well. Forgetting the logistics of this aspect for now - the complete cycle starts all over again. The whole idea is a nonsense.

We don't transport that many people...we colonize. People then breed more people. As for supplies...like what?

Food...greenhouses. Plants need minerals (that can be extracted from the Martian soil) and carbon dioxide (on Mars the bigger problem might be in limiting the amount in the local atmosphere) and light. None of this is evn much of a challenge if we set our best minds to it.

As for factories...Well, there is a Japanese company that has perfected a way of making concrete, in a vacuum, out of the lunar regolith. All they need is water, which can be extracted from the ice on the Moon. Metals and most gases can be found in abundance in the asteroid belt. There is even speculation concerning massive amounts of complex hydrocarbons, gas and oil. Sure these weren't formed the same way as on earth...but they are quite probably up there.

Everything that Silverfox listed can be done on eath cheaper and safer.

Not just untrue, but farcical. Zero-G crystals cannot be grown on Earth...and they are important for many of the newer discoveries. The improved insulin comes from research into 0-G crystals. Without space exploration we wouldn't even be aware of the possibility.

Please describe how to do biological research in a safer manner on Earth than in orbit? In orbit you have many disposal options...like using a Hohlman orbit and dropping the offending contaminent into the nearest star (our Sun). Down here...what backfill with concrete and pray?

As for my list....well it's a list of benefits already received. These are spinoff technologies. Things that came about because of space research.

Quote:We could always decide to stay here and "Take care of Earth first."  


This is the obvious answer. Unfortunately it will never happen. We will just go on dreaming about the Utopia we can create on another planet & continue "defecating in our own back yard" in order to achieve it.

I was being ironic...there is actually no way to turn our back on space that doesn't doom the human race to extinction...and a lot of Earth's species with us.

Just imagine what happens as 3rd World countries develop....or do we use force of arms to keep 'em down?

If we raise them, or allow them to raise themselves, then the pollution load on this planet becomes intolerable. Not in a generation or two, but today, before noon. Imagine the effects of 6+ BILLION cars and trucks, 6+ BILLION TV sets, 6+ BILLION refridgerators, 6+ BILLION stoves, or 6+ BILLION dishwashers. The only cure is to look outward to new vistas and new resources...or to take a darker view:

We could always get rid of the troublesome excess now. The planet would be quite nice at around 780 million. Forget deciding who goes and who stays. If you are against the idea of expanding our resources then tell me one thing:

Who survives?

If everybody survives then we doom everybody to an existance of subsistence farming.

Not now, not even in the next generation.

But within 100 years it will be too late to divert resources to the one area that can offer salvation to the entire biosphere of Earth. A plague of mankind will roam Earth, eating, breeding, fighting, and suffering from epidemics that would make AIDS or SARS look like minor sniffles. Billions would die...and keep on breeding and dying. There is a very real chance of a new dark ages that would not end. Imagine a collapse of civilisation and the survivors trying to rebuild...but in an environment where most of the easily accessed resources have already been taken.

So pick a realistic vision...

• Space and a chance at species survival
• Mass murder to limit the draw on resources
• Mass die-offs through natural causes

One of them is going to happen.

I vote for #1.

[Travis]

Well, there is another option, but it would be so hard to enforce that it is sort of pointless.

Eliminate a generation through a "no breeding" policy.  No one on the planet would be allowed to breed and produce a child for 20 years (which is approximately one generation).  This would eliminate a third of the worlds population, but there would be no children for twenty years.

Sounds like a bad movie on Sci-Fi, possibly starring Dean Kain . . .

[Smoke2much]

I'd go with the second of the three options.  Sounds quite fun, more fun than the no kids!!!

[Hagar]

Contrary to how it might appear I have no objection to the exploration of space & our universe per se.

Much of this technology is just now maturing...look at the recent releases of hybrid cars...based on the batteries developed by NASA that offer greater energy density.

This might be correct but I've seen practical battery & hydrogen powered cars that were developed over 20 years ago. This came to nothing as further research was quashed due to pressure from interested parties in the supply of carbon-based fuels. This will continue all the time commercial interests & profits control government policies.

We don't transport that many people...we colonize. People then breed more people. As for supplies...like what?

So what happens to the poor buggers back here on Earth? From what you're saying we have quite enough already. We certainly don't need any more. As for supplies, I suggest it would be a very long time before any colonisation project became fully self-supporting.

As for the tiny percentage of effort...effort at what? Pure research? Not one dime would have been spent, and if it had no company would try to apply the unproven technologies. A man-rated spacecraft is a massive proof of concept vehicle for many technologies.

This is not was I was suggesting. For research to succeed it needs an objective. If that objective had been the salvation of our own planet rather than putting men in space (originally for political purposes) maybe we would be getting somewhere.

I'm not inclined to believe all these scare stories about overpopulation. As Woody pointed out, nature has its own ways of dealing with that problem. Famine, disease & "natural" disasters, not to mention war & conflict. People are starving all over the world as I type - yet what do we do about it? I'm sure that much of this could be put right if the interest was there. On the other hand, perhaps this is one example of nature controlling the population.

I can remember, not so long ago & when my daughter was at school, that our government was seriously concerned about the birth rate in this country. Not overpopulation but the reverse. The birth rate was actually dropping & they were closing schools down wholesale.

[SilverFox441]

There were some alternate energy source vehicles available 20 years back. Unfortunately their performance was so poor in relation to then-available technologies as to be unmarketable. Newer technologies are, for the most part, correcting tose shortfalls.

What happens to those on Earth?

Well, as space industry matures we move the major polluting industries off planet. Using the asteroidal raw materials we reduce the demand to continually stress the environment. In a mature system the only thing truly cheaper and easier to produce on Earth's surface would be food.

If humans responded to altruistic notions like the "survival of the species", then a push to save teh planet might be succesful. Sadly, most would rather sit at home, in comfort. Just look at this conversation, we are allusing NASA derived technology, via military derived technology, to discuss the benefits of further NASA exploration.

Want proof, look at the flood of benefits to the planet coming out of NASA...and compare it to the similar flood coming out of those countries that haven't been huge supporters of space exploration.

There isn't any.

Countries that haven't paid massive amounts on space have just dribbled money away on whatever alse held the public interest. Not one country launched a huge "Save the Earth" research effort.

As for overpopulation...1+ billion in China. The same in India. Both developing countries are just now getting to the mass consumer level. Populations in the west have been growing even as the local birthrate has been falling.

[Woodlouse2002]

Over population won't be a problem on Earth. The population of Europe is aging rapidly to the extent that one in four people are over 60. In Italy and Sweden it is even worse with up to two in four being retired. This means that in 30 years time the population will go down sharply as all these old people start to die off. And this solves the problem.

As for the third world developing, this is something that we western countries should be helping them to do. A country industrialises to help feed its population. In the 17th and 18th centuary Britains population grew at a huge pace. And this triggered the industrial revolution which enabled us to support more people on less ground.

I heard somewhere that it was possible to feed 1000 people with the food growen on an area the size of a football pitch (Approx two hectres). Now if you add all the world up then thats quite a few people you can feed.

From what Silverfox says, it seems that Mars will become a coloney of Earths elite. With only the best from the planet going there. So how is this fair?

Also, Silverfox mention SARS being a manor sniffle in 100 years. SARS is already a minor sniffle. In three months SARS killed 32 people. Every year 3 million people die from Malaria. Flu kills more people each year than SARS has ever killed. The whole world simply paniced because it was a new disease. Just like they did in the 80's with AIDS.

And as for electric cars, how did space travel make them any better? They can still only about 30 miles before you need to charge them up again.

[Woodlouse2002]

Not one country launched a huge "Save the Earth" research effort.

This is because to have any effect at all a "Save the Earth" effort would have to be on a global scale. Not just with one nation. Kyoto was an attempt at this. However, due to aforementioned circumstances, it has failed to work.

[Bubblehead]

Suggestion:  Develope biomedical technology whereby earthlings will born out of eggs like chicken as opposed to live birth. That'll will simplify travel. It'll hatch by the nine months time it gets to Mars. For further travels like Jupiter or Neptune, it can be refrigirated.

But you guys not to worry about me. You go on ahead to Mars and I'll stay behind on earth and wait for my doom.

Keeping the population down? Let's have more wars and faster cars.

It sure is going to torque your jaws if after all the work and excitement regarding space travel, the earth gets hit by a gigantic meteor. That'll surely solve all our problems.

Peace!

Don

[SilverFox441]

And as for electric cars, how did space travel make them any better? They can still only about 30 miles before you need to charge them up again.  

http://www.gmev.com/specs/specs.htm

Wanna guess where NiMH batteries came from.

Now the EV1 was a commercial failure...but it was put into production by the largest automaker in the world.

From what Silverfox says, it seems that Mars will become a coloney of Earths elite. With only the best from the planet going there. So how is this fair?

I never said anything about elite. I said it would be a colony. It will obviously have to be made up of those willing and capable of going...but then again so was America and Canada.

This is because to have any effect at all a "Save the Earth" effort would have to be on a global scale. Not just with one nation. Kyoto was an attempt at this. However, due to aforementioned circumstances, it has failed to work.

Why? Why could not one country do the research to develop the techniques whereby the planet could be saved? Implementation would have to be world wide, or at least mostly, to be effective. I would like to know why no new technology has come from a national or international effort to develop the new "Earth Saving" techniques though. The simple fact is that it has been over 40 years since JFK stood up and made his Moon speech. In that time we have reached the Moon and reaped the benefits. So what happened with conservation...lot of talk, little motion.

Compare when the US and Canada phased out leaded gasoline...and when "environmentally concious" Europe did it.

http://www.junkscience.com/news2/eulead.htm
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/AIRPAGE.NSF/0/adebd4b8879d36bc88256c0800760bf5?OpenDocument
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/stakeholders1198/minutes/lead.html

Seems the people who don't make the most noise, make the most progress.

The simple fact is that "Joe Civvie" doesn't much care about saving the planet...and he's not going to pay for it.

He will pay for a space extraveganza...even if it saves the planet indirectly.

[Hagar]

The simple fact is that "Joe Civvie" doesn't much care about saving the planet...and he's not going to pay for it.

This is the whole crux of the the matter which makes further discussion pointless. There are patently two sides to this argument, both equally passionate, so we can never agree. This expansion/colonisation project will be put into effect despite any shortcomings or whatever its chances of success because it's a romantic idea that appeals to "Joe Public's" imagination. Conservation is seen as boring & involves some personal inconvenience to our way of life.

Whether he would care if the alternatives were presented with the same enthusiasm as space exploration we shall never find out. This will never happen & knowing the human failings of selfishness & greed present in all of us I very much doubt it could succeed.

Conservation is impossible unless it's agreed & implemented on a global scale. There's no point in a few countries being committed to this policy, even in a small way, if others blatantly disregard it. Fortunately I won't be here to see the results of this folly.

[Katahu]

The majority of this world, especially teenagers, wishes to move on to another planet.

So basically, we can all go on with this discussion and the colonization will happen anyways.

BTW, I don't think Mars will be a place for Earth's most intelligent. For starters, yes. But eventually, it will be populated by common, everyday people that you see working at fast-food resturaunts, farms, and pushing carts in Publix.

Like I said before, due to the very existance of Capitalism, we will see Privately-owned companies that will offer cheaper and cheaper rides to Mars in the not-so-distant future. But first, we have to prepare Mars.

For those who don't believe that Mars can be prepared, consider this:

A simple plant can survive for VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY long time inside a sealed, glass jar. It's possible because it was my homework for Environmental Science back at high school. But I failed the homework because I found out that the jar was not sealed properly while a few others got an "A" because they managed it properly.

You can even mimic the desert with this kind of biosphere.

But when it comes to copying the biosphere in a much bigger jar [about the size of Mars], you need Earth's finest and most intelligent. Otherwise, the fate of humankind will have to depend on a bunch of burnouts.

And don't think that America and Britain are the only places planning to colonize as a team. Japan and various other major countries are joining the band wagon as well.

[Woodlouse2002]

In that time we have reached the Moon and reaped the benefits.

What benifits did we get from going to the Moon? You simply went there, determined that it wasn't made of cheese and that there wasn't a man inside and came home again. So what benefits came from that? What was achieved by going to the moon that could have been achieved by at most, circling the world in a tin can?

The majority of this world, especially teenagers, wishes to move on to another planet.

I cannot personally think of anyone I know who wishes to move to another planet. I would think that this statement would be more true if the words "this world" was switched with the word "America".


For those who believe Mars can be prepared for colonisation, consider this. Firstly, even plants need oxygen to survive. They might not need very much but they need some. Secondly, plants need water to survive. And there isn't very much of that on Mars. Thirdly, it was several million years before Earths atmosphere became suitable for life. And that was with a lot more water than Mars can yield. There were bacteria life forms on Earth before there were plants. These provided the small amount of oxygen required by plants. Then there were one hell of a lot of plants before multicelled organisms arrived.

So basically, if you are already packing your bags in readyness for your new life on Mars your in for a bit of a wait. It will take millenia to make Mars suitable for life. And thats if its possible at all.