New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Meta New Mars » AN IDEA FOR THE FLASHLINE FMARS - message board for FMARS » 2002-07-09 12:32:06

JGM

I was on crew #4 this past spring, and we tried a "public interaction day" kind of thing very similar to what you're describing. It went over well despite a big snafu with the email address the public was initially given being offline for a while. As a crewmember, I found this a great way to describe what we were doing and found most of the questions to be very thoughtful. At the time, I thought it would make sense to have such a system available at all times.

The only problem would be in having the crew feeling obligated to answer questions promptly. We were constantly behind schedule on reports and maintenance tasks and, though the public interaction was a great change of pace, it was hard to find time to give it a lot of attention. I'll certainly suggest the idea to those involved with the analog stations.

#2 Re: Not So Free Chat » First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ? » 2002-07-06 16:25:27

JGM

'lo Cindy. smile

I've thought over creationism [not exclusively of the Judeo-Christian version] versus evolution.  To me, they both wind up at dead ends.

Creationism is actually 99% belief 1% fact. Evolution is 99% fact 1% uncertainty. Creationism attempts to use science to ?prove? the existance of a deity. This question, of course, is neither provable or unprovable, so all creationism is doing is depreciating the science of evolution in the name of a creator.

If one believes a Supreme Being created everything...well, who created It?  How did It come into being?

I think the common argument is that It has always Been. And therefore it just Was and always will Be. So time is irrelevant with regard to a Supreme Being. Which is why it's funny that anyone would use science to prove Its existance. Especially doing so only depreciates their ?case.?

If one believes purely in evolution, we go back to the same sort of questions:  How did the process start?  How could something come from nothing?  Isn't it illogical to think that something -- anything -- could come from *nothing*?

That's the thing. Evolution doesn't profess to say how we got here. For all we know we were ?seeded? here many millions of years ago by an alien civilization. Evolution just defines how things have been going for awhile. You can call evolution the biological study of time, if you want. It does not, and it cannot answer the Ultimate Question of the Universe. Nothing can.

(It should be noted, however, that we have been able to recreate complex organic molecules in the laboratory... out of formally inorganic chemicals...)

Evolution doesn't profess to say how we got here. For all we know we were ?seeded? here many millions of years ago by an alien civilization. Evolution just defines how things have been going for awhile. You can call evolution the biological study of time, if you want. It does not, and it cannot answer the Ultimate Question of the Universe. Nothing can.

Just after posting the comment taken from Gould's book I saw that Josh had already made the same point here. Taking off from Josh's point about having been seeded here, it sounds a lot like panspermia. There's a good way to get under a creationist's skin. "In a galaxy long long ago and far far away God created bacteria..."

#3 Re: Not So Free Chat » First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ? » 2002-07-06 15:55:03

JGM

I've thought over creationism [not exclusively of the Judeo-Christian version] versus evolution.  To me, they both wind up at dead ends.

I've just finished reading Steven Jay Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus. One of the points he makes repeatedly is that evolution does not make any statement regarding how life began. It simply describes a process (natural selection) which there is plenty of evidence for in the fossil record. Creationists love to make the argument that evolutionists are claiming that evolution describes the origin of life and that there is insufficient evidence for such a claim. This mistake was made explicitly by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion to the landmark decision in 1987 which ended the Creationis-favored equal time clause for teaching of "creation science" in public schools in many states. It's also interesting how even those who favor evolution forget it's not about origins- just about the way organisms change through time.

#4 Re: Human missions » Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it! » 2002-07-05 15:35:37

JGM

I'm very glad to hear that the Russians are excited about this and would make a strong internationally based proposal (and on this timeframe). Unfortunately, I don't see much chance of it really going through- and I'm not even sure it should with this mission architecture. I re-read the article and it's clear it's not Mars Direct. The plan is to have two space craft; an orbiter and a landing craft as in Apollo. Three of the crew members would stay in orbit and the others would land.

There are two things I think make Mars Direct really stand out. One is the reduced risk from the redundancy of sending the first ERV 2 years before humans are sent. The manned mission doesn't need to commence until telemetry indicates that the ERV is ready to bring them home. The other big positive is that the mission is designed to be ongoing. The fact that the manned team goes along with a second ERV implies that if all goes well a second mission is already in the works. In contrast this Russian plan sounds very risky and very much like flags and footprints all over again.

I think it can't hurt to get people thinking about this and maybe it will remind Americans that we can't be sitting on our laurels from Apollo forever. NASA will have to at least give serious thought to a Mars roadmap. I'd be curious to hear Zubrin's reaction to this.

#5 Re: Human missions » Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it! » 2002-07-05 14:36:34

JGM

New AP report- check it out!

They're proposing a six-man mission in 2015 as an international effort- they would pay for 30% of the mission. Price tag $20 billion. Has to be Mars Direct.

#6 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please? » 2002-07-03 15:59:32

JGM

anarchy = no rules

I've tended to think of it as emphasizing no hierarchy of power. This makes it attractive to me since it would implicitly recognize that all sentient beings have equal value. I would have no problem with a rule that enforced this basic principle and countered the development of systems which fostered effective disparities in the way individuals were valued. In other words, I don't want to be a part of a system in which I am under anyone's overt control nor do I wish to control anyone else.

#7 Re: New Mars Articles » The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go? » 2002-07-03 08:36:05

JGM

"Earth defender" sounds very poetic at face value. But since we're talking about Earth's living things, is it fair to apply that blanket label to groups like Earth Liberation Front (whose preferred weapon is arson)? Environmental lawyers who will rob thousands of logging industry workers of employment, to save an 'endangered' owl or frog? I don't think it is.

In the same paragraph that I used the term "Earth defender" I qualified my view by saying that I'd like to find common ground with the "mainstream" environmental movement. The quote above seems to indicate you'd be more comfortable with pigeon-holing all of those who care about the Earth with a convenient label so can oppose them more readily.

I think this kind of us vs. them mentality is counterproductive. You also suggest that the leadership of the Sierra Club doesn't think like I do about Mars. It would surprise me very much if they did. If so they'd probably be in the Mars Society instead. What I spoke of was finding common ground. There are countless people on this planet who love the thrill of hiking up into a spectacular alpine valley or experiencing the solitude of the desert. Many of them haven't yet given much thought to what wonders await on other worlds. I'm just thinking it wouldn't hurt to expand their horizons a little bit.

There are forces that oppose us in our objectives to get a wave going in support of manned missions to Mars. Generally, however, I feel that our biggest enemy is apathy and lack of vision. We can do more by helping to ignite the passions of those who are natural explorers than we can by trying to isolate and attack the naysayers.

I believe that any serious attempt to win their approval will either lead them to demand changes to the Mars Society's goals which many members might disapprove of, or will simply attract more unwanted attention from the aforementioned hostile elements of the 'Earth First' movement.

This sounds like fear speaking. Worrying about our ideals being diluted by contact with strangers who think differently than we do sounds very much like the attitude that destroyed the Ming Dynasty. If we're sure enough in our vision it's we who will be opening minds rather than the closed minded working to shutter ours. If we insist that the Mars Society only be composed of those who agree to a very stringently defined platform of goals and objectives we'll dwindle rapidly into total irrelevance. I believe this movement has to grow to succeed. That means finding new blood not among our natural constituency and offering our vision of a new view of humanity. A multi-planet species that respects the web of life wherever it resides. We are a product of our biosphere. It just makes sense to consider the health of this biosphere that feeds and nourishes us as we move forward and expand into space.

#8 Re: New Mars Articles » The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go? » 2002-07-02 17:46:06

JGM

I noticed that the Sierra Club actually donated to the Mars Society. They could prove invaluable in persuading the public against the extremists if they support manned missions to Mars.

I've thought along the same lines and am even a member of a yahoo group called Greens4Mars that tried to foster this kind of connection. Unfortunately, discussion has pretty much died down to nothing over the last year or so (unless I somehow got unsubscribed  ??? ).

One place where I think there's a natural intersection is in our mutual desire to explore exotic and desolate landscapes. A lot of Sierra Clubbers are backpackers and could probably relate to the thrill of backpacking in .38G through Valles Marineris or on Olympus Mons. Maybe it's time to found a Planetary Exploration Society or something like that and try to attract some mutual membership across the divide between techies and tree huggers.  smile

#9 Re: New Mars Articles » The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go? » 2002-07-02 08:27:22

JGM

OK then, back to the main question: is there a real urgency to get to Mars? The concensus so far seems to be yes, which shouldn't be too surprising since this is New Mars. I think where the Gaia/environmentalist part enters is in identifying who the enemy is- who or what is most likely to cause us to miss our chance. Several have pointed to the radical environmentalist crowd as likely to be influential in swaying humanity against an interest in space. Phobos, OTOH,  mentioned the dangers of space militarization and the likely barring of emigration to other planets by free individuals.

If you look at Benford's analogies, the Ming Dynasty as well as the Moslems, both share a wave of conservatism as a strong factor in causing their societies to retreat from the exciting new worlds that their strength and exploratory zeal had exposed them to. We could see exposure to space as causing this same type of reaction. After all, it's only been half a century since we were totally grounded within the gravity well. As global warming heats up and other human-induced climatic factors become evident the environmentalists will be able to make a compelling argument- no doubt through liberal use of exaggeration and hyperbole- that we've overstepped our bounds and the planet is paying the price.

I wonder if it's possible to begin a wave of cautious enthusiasm for space rooted in a responsible and far-sighted approach to the future that can counteract the doomsayers and conservatives. I don't think we foster this wave by bashing the Earth defenders or by beating the drums of terraformation and rapid exploitation of Mars. We need to find a middle path, aligned with the mainstream environmental movement which draws on the natural tendency of many people to care about and love nature, and outline sensible steps forward to an exciting future that includes a balanced and stable Earth ecosystem. We need to emphasize that the choice is not to solve Earth's problems or to explore space. We can have our cake and eat it too.

#10 Re: New Mars Articles » The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go? » 2002-07-02 00:34:05

JGM

this stuff about the electromagnetic pattern of the universe being alive sounds suspiciously like 'Intelligent Alien Life' to me, and you know that there's a forum just for that

In defense of rhw007, this did lead pretty directly from the Gaia hypothesis which would seem to  be an important part of the discussion. Personally, I have no problem with holding the view that mankind's technological efforts are nothing to be ashamed of - being entirely 'natural' - and also finding the Gaia hypothesis to be a helpful way of understanding some of the mysteries of the Earth. Mystics have been derided for millenia by rationalists for talking nonsense. I've had my mystical moments when I experience the ineffable, the eternal ground of being, the Tao. It's impossible to speak of it in a scientific way but it is still entirely real to the one who experiences it.

Where I think environmentalists fall short is in assuming that we as a species are apart from nature. Our technological efforts are no less a part of Gaia's development than is a beaver dam or a redwood forest. I think of Gaia as a glimpse of the true interconnectness of the universe but with an Earth-centric perspective. Mars Society member Gus Frederick, an environmental technologist if there ever was one, one said that humanity is Gaia's sex organs and, through us, Gaia is about ready to spread its seed to other planets. Another way of looking at it is that we are Gaia's brain.

Either way you look at it, if the Earth is a living entity then I can't see how its extension into space via humanity's technology is a bad thing. To me, Gaia - which fully includes humanity -  is like a multidimensional plant that's running out of room to grow. Maybe the enviro-technologist's battle cry should be "Gaia is suffocating- let her breathe free!"

Joel

#11 Re: New Mars Articles » The urgency question - Could we lose our chance to go? » 2002-06-29 10:51:58

JGM

I'm tempted to make this a poll but that feature seems to be having some trouble so I'll just try to spark some discussion. There are two contrasting viewpoints regarding the urgency of launching a human mission to Mars. The first view, as expressed in Zubrin's writings and in the Benford article and interview here, uses the Ming Dynasty analogy to illustrate how we can't assume that our civilization will always be capable or have the will to launch a major initiative like settling another planet. If we don't do it soon we may never do it, in other words.

The contrasting viewpoint is expressed by Chris McKay in his answer to the third of the questions: how did life begin?, are we alone?, and where are we going? He expresses a faith in the progress of science and technology resulting in a continual cheapening of the costs of such a venture. This is the "If Columbus had waited long enough he could have flown to the New World" view.

I tend to lean in the direction of the more pessimistic view, but find Chris's arguments offering glimpses of hope. Perhaps a bigger question would be what is our role in this? Do we have the luxury of waiting out the answer or is it incumbent upon us to work toward influencing the outcome. If we are at such a critical juncture as a species where do we focus our efforts? Is the Mars effort only symptomatic of some larger flaw in society we need to help correct?

Joel

#12 Re: Water on Mars » H20, where'd it go? - What happened to Marsian water? » 2002-06-26 10:13:59

JGM

I know where Byron is coming from. I live 16 degrees off the equator and summer here gets pretty sticky!
   I have no quarrel with his 280 deg.K planetary average just as long as the northern ocean doesn't freeze over. The problem which bothers me is the high albedo of ice. If you allow too much of the ocean to freeze white, you start losing a lot of insolation through reflection off the ice ... which leads to lower temperatures ... which leads to more ice .... !! A runaway refrigeration effect. As I've recently mentioned elsewhere, this effect, even here on Earth, worries me more than the possibility of global warming.
   Byron is probably right. We'll most likely have to use mirrors to artificially elevate the north polar temperature. Otherwise, as he suggests, we may have to swap cold deserts for hot deserts at the equator and over large areas of the southern hemisphere.
   Just to throw another curve-ball into the argument, I have another little problem I like to try and ignore! Mars has no overall, uniform, magnetic field. I'm no zoologist but I know that many species here on Earth rely on a strong steady magnetic field in order to function properly (or at all! ). What if far more species than we realise have to have such a field in order to live?! What if almost all Earth life gradually falters and dies without that field? Unlikely, I suppose. But it's an idea which has obviously never been tested, apart from a few humans who managed to remain functional on the Moon for a few days. On Mars, at the very least, you can forget about racing your homing pigeons ... they won't know north from south from a hole in the wall! But it could be much more serious than that. Who knows?!
   No tides, no homing pigeons ... maybe no viable life at all! Can anybody out there cheer me up??!!
                                           ???

No tides, no homing pigeons ... maybe no viable life at all! Can anybody out there cheer me up??!!

I'll try. The thing I don't understand about the drive to terraform is why we want to make it into another Earth. To me what makes Mars attractive is its surreal differences from Earth, while still offering the possibility of providing a place where humans might be able to gain a foothold off planet.

I'm intrigued at the possibilties of radically transforming the Mars we see today, largely because it's close enough to Earthlike that to do so we could give life a chance to survive and thrive there (Earth life and any Mars life that might be still holding on). Sax Russell long ago convinced me that life makes a world a very interesting place. I don't want it to end up just like Earth, though. I'd rather we moved out into the solar system enough to be able to restore Earth's unhealthy ecosystems so we always have our original garden planet to visit and admire.

As for Mars, imagine the possibilities of how life would adapt to the unique constraints it imposes. Homing pidgeons would have to find some other way to home. A non-tidal ocean would develop its own unique ecosystems entirely new. Most of all intriguing to me is the idea that native Mars life, were it found still alive, and Earth life could eventually mix and create new hybrid life forms and life communities with characteristics that we couldn't begin to anticipate.

Feel any better?  smile

#13 Re: Human missions » Why We Need To Go To Mars - We need hope for the future after 911 » 2002-06-26 08:11:40

JGM

I say we take all those Taliban prisoners we're holding in Cuba, wrap them up in pig skins, and hang them all on a short rope, and broadcast it to all the world, to scare the living bee-jeebers out of any would-be terrorist to let them know that they will meet up with the same fate when they're caught.

America also stands for a little thing called justice which includes the important distinction "innocent until proven guilty." If we're going to be the leaders in the human drive towards space we can't be sacrificing our greatest human ideals in the process. Unfortunately, I worry that the current administration's only concern for space is in its eventual militarization. I think this is the exact opposite direction we need to go to in. I think our only hope of launching an effective, sustained Mars program on a government level is to be collaborative with foreign efforts rather than trying to enforce supremacy. Otherwise it will always be flags and footprints at best.

Antarctica works as a stable ongoing project because it's an international effort devoted to real science- not just political grandstanding.

Joel

#14 Re: Human missions » Listen Tuesday night to Hoagland and Zubrin! - Coast To Coast radio show » 2002-06-25 20:17:32

JGM

I've never been very receptive to the idea that Earthlife was carried to this planet on an extraterrestrial object.  I don't discount the possibility of some rock with Martian bacteria in it being ejected into space and falling to Earth to seed life, but it just seems more reasonable to assume that Earth life started from the get-go on Earth.

There's a couple of ways of looking at this. Zubrin thinks, as I recall him mentioning at last year's conference, that the material exchange between the two planets is so common on a geological time scale that any life that was once on Mars is now on Earth- and likewise Earth life would certainly have fairly frequently had a chance to make the trip to Mars. Since this would likely have happened while Mars was warm and wet we should be surprised not to find evidence of Earth life having once existed on Mars. As Chris McKay suggests, though, Mars had certain advantages over Earth as a place for life to get started- including the lack of a moon-forming impact and the faster potential pace of oxygenation. Zubrin thinks it doesn't really matter which had life first because he's pretty confident it came from the stars.

If it's the warmth from the sun and the presence of large oceans with large tidal fluctuations that give life a boost I'd have to say Earth had the edge- so the Moon works both for and against it happening here first.

There's plenty of guessing involved by all accounts so it's a great incentive to get people over to Mars and get some definitive answers smile

#15 Re: Terraformation » When should we terraform » 2002-06-25 00:08:09

JGM

The law of Nature here on earth is, and has always been survival of the fittest, has it not?

Depends on how you define "survival of the fittest." According to the late Stephen Jay Gould, this doesn't always mean dog-eat-dog but sometimes implies that creatures can best cooperate to find an advantage against nature. Many symbiotic relationships between species are in this category, particularly in regions where nature has the upper hand and there are few species inhabiting large tracts of land (i.e., the Siberian tundra).

Suppose there is microscopic Martian life found and it's not doing particularly well- maybe barely holding on in a few desperate niches. Perhaps our efforts to terraform could give it a hand and allow it to thrive. Then suppose we can commune with it in such a way that it can also aid us in our efforts to survive in a land that is even more extreme to us as it is to them.

Rather than a choice between microbes and man it might be best for microbes and men to help each other survive. Could be the start of a beautiful relationship!

Joel

#16 Re: Human missions » Is the Ming Dynasty a relevant analogy? - Go now or wait til it gets cheap enough? » 2002-06-23 22:08:38

JGM

I would lean toward a combination of a) and f).

I used to get depressed at the idea of Mars resembling another Antarctica. In fact, I even called KSR out on this at last year's conference. I asked him how he went from his grand dreams of a utopian new civilization to just a boring old vision of a research station so fast. I have to say I can't really recall his answer. Nevertheless I feel quite differently now. I don't think Antarctica would be so bad because it really wouldn't be Antarctica. Did you know that all the food consumed in Antarctica is produced off-continent and shipped there? Think that will work on Mars? Also, though the scientists who work in Antarctica usually spend a long season there, they effectively commute there biannually. If the commute time was several months in a space ship instead of a few hours on a plane, you'd probably have a significant incentive to effectively take up residence.

I think the Antarctica model could be a stealthy way of sneaking in a settlement infrastructure which would eventually become permanent. There wouldn't be the seasonal distinction of the polar regions on Earth where very few workers winter over. There would be a tendency for some to work longer and longer shifts on Mars until families became unavoidable. Many would face the choice between devoting their lives to their research or their families until some would demand having their cake and eating it too. When this threshold is crossed it ceases to even resemble Antarctica.

Another reason I really like this model is it makes great sense. There is no other compelling reason to go to Mars in the near term except for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The known abundance of water makes the search for evidence of life of prime importance. We're better off pushing for a sensible short term reason for sending humans to Mars than to spout high-flung ideals of adventure and seeding the galaxy. We should use arguments that have a good chance of engaging the masses and don't make us look like crackpots who just want to blow a lot of money on our fantasies.

Once the infrastructure is in place we can make a good argument for point f). By then humanity will clearly need space-based resources. It will no longer be in the realm of speculation.

Joel

#17 Re: Not So Free Chat » "Certificate of Deserved Entitlement" - An item received via mail from MS » 2002-06-20 22:34:03

JGM

I have yet to receive this mailing (I'll probably get it when I return home from uni) but it sounds like a cheap stunt to me, something which I thought would be below the Mars Society.

I agree entirely. I can't see how this does anything positive for the Mars Society, and probably makes us look more like opportunistic nuts. Mars settlement advocates have been throwing around a lot of great ideas in regards to new forms of government, new attitudes about communal living, etc. In my opinion it shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of the MS membership to presume we'll go batty over our handful of Mars dirt and automatically accept the premise that private land ownership should be taken for granted.

Joel

#18 Re: Human missions » Is the Ming Dynasty a relevant analogy? - Go now or wait til it gets cheap enough? » 2002-06-19 22:17:45

JGM

The Ming Dynasty was poised to take over the world in 1500AD. They had the wealth and technology and exploration initiative to spread their culture across the globe. A change of regimes launched a conservative wave resulting in the virtual elimination of their impressive navy and all exploration and interaction with the outside world ceased. Similarly, the Moslems were once in a position to lead the world in science and higher learning and they too pulled back due to conservatism in the ranks of the most powerful.

Some think that this civilization may be at a similar juncture. Robert Zubrin, in "Entering Space" implied this as an incentive to move quickly on human missions while we still have the capability to accomplish great things in space. Greg Benford, in the article and interview here on New Mars, suggested that we may be losing our chance to take the leap to the next level and start utilizing space resources. Some think that the very fact that we have not gone beyond low Earth orbit in 30 years is proof that we're already on the decline.

A contrary voice was raised recently that surprised me. Chris McKay told me in an interview (soon to appear on New Mars) that he doesn't find these concerns compelling. He claimed that in another couple of decades, at the rate everything becomes cheaper, we will be able to afford human missions to Mars for the same price we now send probes. As he put it, "If Columbus had waited long enough he could have flown to the new world." The flip side of the coin is that Columbus was Columbus because he wasn't inclined to wait. If we become a civilization inclined to wait, will anyone be able to assemble the resources to "fly to Mars" when the time is right?

I ask this questions because I am convinced this is a fundamental question of great importance. I am certainly inclined to want to go as soon as possible, but I wonder about my deeper motives. Do I just want to see humans on Mars in my lifetime out of selfishness or because I believe we may never do it if we leave it to future generations. Might future generations have enough on their hands dealing with the mess we've left them?

Joel McKinnon

#19 Re: New Mars Articles » Excellent articles on Greg Benford! » 2002-06-15 00:05:02

JGM

The post on "The Skeptical Environmentalist" led me to do some investigating. I came across this highly critical review on AlterNet, a 'progressive' news site.

Clearly I haven't had a chance to read all of the good and bad that's been said about this book. This was the first thing that came up on a google search. Still, it seems there is plenty of grounds for skepticism. I don't doubt that there are doomsayers that use bad science and blow things out of proportion. On the balance, however, it's hard to believe that thousands of active scientists, including a few Nobel laureates, have been totally snookered and this one guy has it right. The US's Environmental Protection Agency- headed by a George Bush appointee with known conservative leanings- just released an official report to the UN so accepting of the imminent threat of global warming that Bush himself had to discredit it.

I think that one reason that the doomsayers often overstate their case is that they know most people won't take the long view. If they say that in fifty or a hundred years we'll be in deep shit most people will yawn and turn back to the sports pages. A lot of my thinking on this comes from listening to Kim Stanley Robinson talking about "the overshoot." The population issue, when combined with the disparity of wealth and  the reality that most of the have-nots have a serious intention to eventually have, is a ticking time bomb.

One of my pet peeves about those who deride "the doomsayers" is the implication that they want it to be worse than it really is. Most environmentalists care deeply about the planet and just want it to be healthy. They should be listened to- not dismissed as loonies. I love nature deeply and want it to be around for future generations to enjoy. That's what drives my interest in finding solutions to problems that are quite real- even if occasionally exaggerated. I imagine most environmentalists have similar motives.

Peace and good will,
JGM

#20 Re: New Mars Articles » Excellent articles on Greg Benford! » 2002-06-14 18:42:15

JGM

Adrian-

I'll have to read Lomborg's book when I get the chance. This sounds reminiscent of what Chris McKay recently told me about how everything gets cheaper and cheaper and eventually we'll be able to send humans to Mars for the cost we now send robots. He said "if Columbus had waited long enough he could have flown to the new world."

There is one potential flaw in this line of reasoning in my view and that is the assumption of the indefinite countinuance of the present trend. There are a couple of things that would seem to constitute a fly in the ointment. One is the overloading of the planet in terms of number of people. So far, if you live in a developed country this doesn't seem to be a drastic problem. The numbers keep growing, however, and extrapolations a few decades into the future are pretty frightening. The second factor is the disparity of wealth. So far, the planet's doing OK with only a small fraction of the inhabitants enjoying a high resource consumption lifestyle. All those people in developing countries, though, want our lifestyle and are taking steps towards acheiving it. When the great bulk of ever-larger humanity wants to use energy and raw materials at the rate of those in the presently developed countries I think we could have a serious problem.

As to whether we're already facing a serious crisis I'd have to disagree with you on the basis of the measurable actuality of global warming. More and more evidence is piling up that the problems are occurring now. There are gigantic lakes of glacial meltwater in the himalayas that could soon result in devasting dambreaks wiping out entire villages. I don't think we're far off from seeing the effects of significant changes in sea level driving hordes of people from the low-lying regions of Bangladesh.

Also, the appearance that everything is fine is there if you are 1) a human being and not one of the many species of plants and animals permanently threatened by habitat degradation or 2) someone who cares about the permanent loss of nifty things like the Siberian Tiger, just to name one of the many species in seriously bad shape at present.

I realize we can probably find a way to survive for another few hundred years on this planet by micromanaging all of these problems to get the most efficiency as we can out of our limited resources. Do I want my children's children's children to live on such a world? Nope. I want the human race to start acting now to alleviate the conditions that are likely to be faced far down the road. That means planning seriously to venture into space and beginning to impliment those plans in the very near present.

JGM

#21 Re: New Mars Articles » Excellent articles on Greg Benford! » 2002-06-14 13:11:54

JGM

I've been hoping to find a way to foster a link between environmentalism and space science for a long time. It seems natural to me that these are allied interests with a lot in common. Benford's lecture really helped me to see that it's just a matter of taking the long view. We really have no choice whatsoever whether we reach out into space or not. This planet will simply become unlivable much sooner than most of its inhabitants suspect if we continue to try to find and produce all of the necessary resources to sustain an advanced civilization here at home.

Now the question is- how do we reach the environmentalists with this message? They have to stop thinking the solution lies in an anti-technological stance. This is a losing battle. Modern humanity will insist on being technological. It's just a matter of what resources we exploit and how we reach them most effectively.

JGM

#22 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » The Doctrine of Expansion » 2001-12-28 11:54:49

JGM

Josh,

I also was amazed at the arguments put forth for anarchy in the FAQ link you posted. It seems one of anarchy's biggest problems is the negativity associated with it when it is actually a very positive and hopeful philosophy.

One point that stood out was in regard to the argument that it is human nature to have hierarchical power structures in society and that this will always be with us. The author states that this is only really true for the past 5000 years and as such, is not an ingrained aspect of the human condition.

Ironically, I had just read an essay by Mars Society member John McKnight (don't have a URL handy) that spoke about the origins of despotism in the agricultural kingdoms of Sumeria where a handful of the elite controlled the welfare of the bulk of the population through their control of the irrigation systems.

The author of the FAQ says that mankind has learned the hierarchical behaviour and that this can be unlearned. One of the big problems with unlearning it is that the system has such tremendous inertia. One can't become an anarchist within the current social reality without seriously jeopardizing one's security. I'd love to quit my job to free myself from wage slavery but I know that all other options open to me would result in much greater difficulty feeding and housing my family.

This problem of inertia may make Mars the ideal opportunity to establish anarchy as a system of government. It would also be best established and developed with a small population ideally suited to a society involving the maximum amount of cooperation between empowered individuals.

Thanks, Josh for providing the link. I intend to forward it to quite a few of my friends as a basis for discussion.

Joel McKinnon
http://www.chooseyourworld.com/mars

#23 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2001-10-16 14:26:35

JGM

Clark-

Your analysis is lacking in one significant factor that, for me,  tips the scales strongly toward the red planet... romance.

When I imagine the two worlds from the perspective of an astronaut roving the surface I picture the moon as we've seen it in all the movies shot in the Apollo program- grey rock, heavily cratered, black sky, cold and forbidding. When I imagine Mars I see something entirely different. A colorful world with a great diversity of surface features, gigantic mountains and canyons, glistening polar caps, dynamic weather, a salmon sky, and two moons of its own racing overhead. Above all I picture its immensity. I imagine a world with endless mystery and potential. Where the moon looks to me like at best an outpost- I see Mars as something that people could someday call home.

I also disagree with the contention that Mars is equally dependent on resupply of all life's essentials as a Moon base. Early missions would certainly be that way, but I trust humans to find ways of using Mars' resources to their advantage in unimagined ways. Have you read KSR's Mars trilogy? If so, you know that there are myriad ways that humans could adapt and alter existing landforms and terrain to give their world a sense of soul and relative comfort. Could you burrow into a polar cap on the Moon and raise happy and healthy children scampering amongst the arboreal bamboo housing and splashing in a genuine liquid water lake? Could you seal off lava tubes and plant gardens beside streams coursing through a "valley" lit by natural light piped in from above? Could you use the raw materials around you to build vaulted chambers with plenty of elbow room for growing industrious populations? Some of these things could be done on the Moon and will be eventually, but on Mars there are considerable advantages due to the reality that Mars is a world sharing a lot more in common with Earth than does the Moon.

You might say that these fantasies are only possible many centuries in the future and to a degree you may be right. Even so, it is the dream of what could be done that will motivate a movement to open up a new world for settlement and exploration. My contention is that neither the Moon nor Mars will be visited again until a sufficient groundswell of interest is generated in the masses. This kind of a movement is pushed by the dreamers and the romantics, not by the scientists and engineers. These crazy fools for the future will find Mars a far greater muse for their visions than our cold and lonely friend the Moon.

Besides all this mystical "nonsense" I'm still convinced that from a purely pragmatic viewpoint Mars is a better objective. This is because Robert Zubrin (not exactly a mystic) has build a very strong case for it and until I hear an equally strong rebuttle I'll be cheerleading for Mars first.

Joel

#24 Re: Mars Society International » Seizing the moment- moving forward - Implications of 9-11 attacks, MS agenda » 2001-10-12 15:26:34

JGM

I'd like to promote discussion of implications of the 9-11 attacks and the potential for embracing the international community in moving forward on the Mars Society's agenda. I've discussed these ideas in the essay, Opportunity springs from chaos.

One thing you'll notice is the essay is lean on specifics of how we can achieve the objectives of embracing the world in our quest to make this a viable project for humanity. I'm hoping that others can follow up on this idea by proposing some reasonable approaches to getting the world on board the interplanetary express.

Joel McKinnon

#25 Re: Terraformation » Red Views » 2001-10-11 12:48:50

JGM

Sax talks about how terraformation will take such a very long time that there will be plenty of time to study Mars in something very close to its natural state. I believe this is largely true, but I'm still bothered about something.

When I read the Mars trilogy, I found myself mostly attracted to the Sax Russell viewpoint and found the dream of bringing Mars to life very appealing. The Anne Claiborne view struck me as contrived and obstructionist and I had a hard time relating to this perspective- despite the fact that my training is as a geologist. At some point, though, I saw it. When they were making that trek to the pole to mine the water ice I thought about that new road they were making across the virgin plains and I suddenly felt the red view. I realized that Mars is currently a perfect untouched wilderness. It's amazing to think that there is a land area out there equal to Earth's with absolutely no roads across it. The moment we build the first road on Mars we've defiled this purity. Sure, it will happen, but there is something to lament about the loss of that pure Martian essence.

That's my aesthetic objection- which is usually well-overruled by my desire to see a new world opened up in all it's glory. The scientific argument is a little different. If global terraformation is begun very early the impact on science will be significant, despite the long time scale before terraformation begins to have a noticeable effect. This is because the areas that are most interesting to life scientists are the lowest areas- the depths of Valles Marineris and low-lying craters that may have once held standing water. If life does exist in these areas it's quite possible that subtle changes to the atmospheric pressure and temperature will have a powerful effect- either by destroying this life or causing it to change dramatically to adapt to the new conditions. Life may go on- but it won't be the same life that made it through the millennia when Mars was undisturbed. I don't think the question of where that life came from should make or break the issue. If there's life that's been surviving there on its own- regardless of its origin- it is something that scientists will be screaming to study in an undisturbed state.

What happens if we find no extant life? That's when the really tough issues arise. Proving the lack of such life would be extremely difficult. It could take centuries to study all of the potential sites of extant life to clearly rule out its existence. Starting the global terraformation effort too early could easily result in a great loss to science. My gut feeling is it's best to limit terraforming to enclosed structures such as roofed over craters and lava tubes. These kinds of areas could be made Earthlike in a short time scale- decades at most. I would gladly give up the pleasure of seeing Earth algae growing unprotected on the surface of Mars for the privilege of strolling through an Earthlike settlement in shorts and a t-shirt.

Joel McKinnon

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB