Would you be for or against the terraforming of Mars?

Question

Many theories have been proposed about how mankind could create an earth-like biosphere on Mars. Should the natural enviroment be left alone? Would you support or dispute it? Also, what if they found life on Mars? Would you support terraforming then?

Answer 1

Regardless of whether someone's for or against it, we (humanity) are still thousands of years away from even contemplating such actions. Our interstellar capabilities are still at a primitive stage - if you think about it, when was the last time we had a moon landing? The late sixties (assuming you don't believe the conspiracy theorists). Even then, the astronauts return to Earth almost ended in catastrophe.

Then you look at Mars. It takes unmanned probes 7-8 months travel time to reach Mars. We don't have any spacecraft (to public knowledge) capable of transporting humans and the necessary fuel and cargo across those distances, not to mention everything for the return voyage. Plus, everything we've ever sent to Mars has been a "one-way" mission; we have no clue what the atmospheric/gravitational conditions are like, and whether or not we'd be able to break through them for the return voyage home.

Answer 2

i think of that we could constantly do it, or a minimum of attempt. to boot, it should not be us who get to make the determination, yet people who finally end up controlling Mars in despite the fact that if many hundred years it takes to do it and that they are going to possibly have a distinct set of priorities (to boot as plenty extra counsel and lots extra appropriate technologies). i could help attempting to terraform Mars basically for the technological know-how cost of carrying out a controlled test of a planets environment. That stated, lots of the objections are nonsense, noticeably the only approximately wanting a magnetic container to guard from radiation which a sufficiently thick environment (which a terraformed Mars could have) would desire to dam only nice by employing itself (magnetic container reversals in the international do no longer reason mass extinctions in the course of the era while there isn't any container, although birds which place self assurance in it for navigation tend to have hardship). yet another objection you may see to terraforming (despite the fact that if this is not possibly an objection) is that we could have a extra Earth-like environment in unfastened floating rotation area habitats than what we could get on a terraformed Mars at a fragment of the time and fee. at the same time as real it does not certainly propose which you would be able to terraform Mars, only which you place your materials into massive area stations and then as quickly as you have have been given adequate room marketplace going you may start up terraforming Mars. i think if we do terraform Mars this is going to ensue at a factor at which we've plenty area infrastructure and such progressed technologies that it form of feels just about trivial to the people doing it.

Answer 3

I would be against it because Terraforming would cost too much money, even if every nation on earth united and formed one super government, they still couldn't afford it, building domes is far to dangerous being so close to the asteroid belt, underground habitats is the only logical answer, Mars once had a active Geo-Thermal period in it's history, so finding lava tubes and caverns on Mars would be a better investment than throwing your money away on Terrafroming.

Answer 4

It is not beleive terraforming would work due to the low gravity of Mars.

To make it work, you'd need to seed DENSE gasses outside the NO2 gasses

Gasses that are SO dense they would HOLD the NO2 close to the surface.

Most of these gasses are lethal and would prevent convection necessary to generate clouds and an ecosystem.

It is generally beleived (subject to future corrections) that most of the NO2 would boil off and leave Mars.

The known laws of Physics state you need to have a certain pull of gravity to hold certain gasses to the surface.

This requires a denser outer atmosphere that weighs down on the planet and compresses the NO2 to the surface.

This requires a secific amount of INERT, heavey gass outside to make this happen.

It is not expected that MARS can hold enough 02 to even cover 1 mile high in atmosphere.

Of course this is subject to future knoweldge.

Answer 5

I would be totally against any efforts to change the planet Mars by people on Earth. At this moment there is total genocide going on in Darfur. People are starving in the Sudan and parts of Africa and we cannot seem to find the eill power to help them. Other radical people seem intent upon driving certain religions down our throat regardless of our personal interest in them. In short, there is to much to be done at home on this planet to worry about conducting massive work efforts on a strange and distant planet miles and miles away. We have big problems right here that need to be solved first.

Answer 6

If the earth gets so crowded that we need to move to mars, then I would say that we would be able to build mssive cities that have thier own atmosphere. That way, the only way we would interfere would be that we were taking up space.

Answer 7

Oppose it, no. But I think we should terraform Saturn's moons, first, espcially since one of them, has been found to have ice. But in reality, we really know so little about Mars.
And Hollywood used to portray it as dangerous.

Answer 8

I'm against this.
I would rather use the money to reach
another galaxy that already has an
earth.
This is not impossible. But, it will require
funding a quantum leap project.

Answer 9

Eventually, we Earthlings will have to find a new home...

I just hope we don't piss off any little green men...