New Mars

Joel McKinnon airs his views on the implications on the existence - and non-existence - of Martian life based around presentations at the 2001 Mars Society Conference. As ever, the issue of terraformation is discussed here with the usual suspects involved; Chris McKay, Robert Zubrin and the never-disappointing Kim Stanley Robinson.

It was the morning of the fourth day of the Mars Society Conference at Stanford University. Thus far, most of NASA scientist Dr. Chris McKay’s plenary presentation had been a discussion of the various forms Martian life could possibly take and how this might affect potential human exploration and terraformation of the planet. During the presentation, Chris stopped and peered toward the back of the hall and called upon a hand raised for a question. “Charlie,” he said.

Dr. Charles Cockell, a British microbiologist studying life in extreme environments in Earth’s polar regions outlined his thoughts on the issue. “Chris, the thing is that the discovery of a dead Mars is just as interesting as the discovery of a live Mars. From a biological point of view obviously it’s good to find life on Mars - it means there will be assistant professorships in Martian microbiology - but from an evolutionary biology point of view, if you go to Mars and find no life, it does suggest that life neither originated there nor was transferred, which tells us something about the specificity of terrestrial life. Now the reason why I think that point is important is really, from two points of view; first of all scientifically, it’s just as interesting to find no life on Mars as it is to find life. In fact, one could argue that the discovery of life on Mars would in many ways be less interesting than the discovery of a dead Mars. Based on what we know of early Mars and the impact transfer of life, you might expect to find life- so to find no life is in some ways less expected.”

Dr. Cockell continued, “But the other point I want to make is I think that it’s important for the Mars exploration program as a whole. If you convince the public that the reason for going to Mars is to find life and you find nothing, the program is going to be dead, but if you can convince them that the discovery of a dead Mars is just as scientifically interesting - and that’s a very difficult thing to sell - but I think it’s a critical thing to sell, then you can get to Mars and find no evidence of life and you’re not going to disappoint people. That’s an angle that I think is less attractive from the point of view of pushing the reasons to go to Mars but it’s something that tends perhaps to get overlooked.”

Charlie had just restated a point that I had tried to make, with far less eloquence, three days earlier at the panel discussion entitled “Building an Ecosystem - Healing the Earth by Means of a Martian Genesis.” This panel was a noble attempt by the organizers to revisit a traditional topic of Mars Society discussion and often the focus of significant disagreement - the value of terraforming Mars - this time with the perspective of finding a way to help the Earth.

The forum was composed of Chris McKay, Mars Society founder and president Dr. Robert Zubrin, educator Gus Frederick, filmmaker Sam Burbank, science fiction novelist Kim Stanley Robinson, and moderated by Maggie Zubrin, Executive Administrator of the Mars Society.

Chris McKay started out the discussion by showing some viewgraphs. “I’ve never in my life given a presentation without viewgraphs,” he joked. He began by displaying the “Planet Earth Management Plan (Technical Section),” with the following bullet points:

• Maintain habitable conditions for humans
• Maximize the richness and diversity of the genome
• Maintain utility of the biosphere for humans; life support, recreation, education, etc.
• Get out before the sun goes red giant

Dr. McKay has a spiritual devotion to the study of life and this forms the basis of his viewpoint. He would love to discover evidence of a second genesis on Mars because of what this could tell us about the nature of life itself. He’s also got a great sense of humor and a talent at cutting straight to the heart of the issue as you can see by his “management plan.”

In this discussion, Dr. Zubrin seemed a little out of place. Zubrin’s interest is not so much in studying Martian life or in healing life on Earth as it is in opening a new world for humanity. He doesn’t want to see Martian life or more likely the remote possibility of Martian life, get in the way of that goal, which would of course require terraformation. What he believes is that humanity’s current course, without the goal of reaching beyond our home planet, is stultifying and amounts to slow dissolution of the species.

Gus Frederick speaks in terms of Gaia. In his view, Earth itself is an emerging mega-lifeform. It has reached a stage of adolescence in which its brain cells (humanity) have developed self-awareness and its sexual organs, in the form of human technological capabilities, are ready to procreate and make new Gaias on other worlds. Mars is the logical first child of Earth in this view.

Sam Burbank believes global terraforming is a no-brainer; we shouldn’t even consider such a thing until we know much more about what is there. He doesn’t believe this should stop us from going there as soon as possible, but he, like Chris, believes in a localized human presence rather than taking the Zubrin ‘make a new home for humanity at all costs’ route.

Perhaps the most provocative speaker this night was Kim Stanley Robinson. In his Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars trilogy, Robinson unveiled an epic vision of what Mars could become. Similar to Zubrin’s dream, his Mars became a second home for humanity, telling the story of the people who brought life to the planet and remodelled it after their home planet. Notably, the Mars trilogy was written before the discovery of the evidence of fossilized life in the famous Allen Hills meteorite and Robinson thinks this changes everything. In his opinion, if there is life existing on Mars, any thoughts of humans going to Mars should be out of consideration for a very long time. His present, modified, vision of the human future on Mars is more akin to the way we now inhabit and study Antarctica, with a few small research bases dedicated to scientific research. Robinson daringly claimed that no one in the audience would ever set foot on Mars, so our discussion should consider the question of the future of that planet in this context.

It was in the Q&A session that I thought I detected a bias on the forum toward the consideration of two options; life was already on Mars or life would be brought to Mars and it was only a question of how fast. A young lady named Meghann Ribbons, stated her view that Robinson was wrong because she fully intends to be the first human on Mars. As a biology student she stated the belief that life, even in its most primitive, microscopic forms, was all important and should be studied and cultivated by humans on the scene. Chris McKay agreed, saying, “Life is where it’s at.”

At this point I had to make my own point which was essentially that Mars, even as a dead world solely consisting of rocks, was valuable in its own right, something that has been described as the ‘Red’ view. In Robinson’s novels this is the geologist Anne Claiborne’s position as opposed to that of the terraformer Sax Russell. “This panel is stacked with Sax!” I proclaimed. Unfortunately, my rhetorical flourish backfired on me somewhat, because I was at once seen as a fanatical Red by the bulk of the attendees who were clearly Green to one degree or another. When a hand count was called for those who considered themselves Red vs. Green, I raised both hands to emphasize that both views could be held, that it is permitted for a single individual to hold seemingly contradictory views.

In retrospect, I think Dr. Cockell’s point from the opening of this account was only a part of what I was attempting to say. The larger issue to me is the proper approach of science and the “pure” scientific view. Scientists should go to study the planet to see what is there and not be biased one way towards or against the possibility of life of any particular form or origin. If the planet is dead, so be it. This leaves wide open the issue of whether or not to terraform and to what degree. Admittedly, terraforming on a global scale and studying the effects of such an experiment could provide an invaluable insight into planetary management and possibly help to one day save the Earth from global environmental catastrophe. While there is science to be served in either approach, vigorous terraforming could severely eliminate opportunities to understand the past geological and possibly biological history of Mars. This is where I see Zubrin’s new world approach potentially colliding with the aims of science at some point.

Filed under: Articles on September 27th, 2001