Should Mars be terraformed?

I don't think we should terraform in that case.

Nope, not for me at least.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps this point has already been made, but Mars would not be suitable for life, even if we did teraform it (whatever that means).

The problem is that there is not a very large magnetic field around the planet, which means it gets bombarded with lots of cosmic rays. This means that long term habitation of that planet is not viable, unless you want everyone to end up with leukemia, or something.

I will add that, perhaps a more interesting option is to terraform Venus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus.

And, checking wikipedia, I see that my theories are at least supported by THAT reference. Here I thought I was being original.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nuclear weapons would be exported to Mars long before the terraforming was completed - and so the newly-inhabited Mars would be in the same, or worse, position than the Earth is in now.

The sword of Damocles will follow our species wheresoever we roam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed. I thought about making the point but then thought 'never mind'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think we need to get here first

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Also i read an article that with current technology it would take a few hundred years a few hundred years. We need the tech to do it.

 

Dude, no one has been crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on earth against an enemy in 60 years. Wtf is a damocles?

 

Dude.. !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

 

Also the earth and humans are not on the verge of death. The entire human population could fit into a single supermetropolis the size of A few countries. We are not covering every square foot of this planet.

 

No, but we are poisoning most of it, if not all.

 

Okay there's two realistic changes we can make.

1.) help the environment stop pollution (which we are doing)

2.) mass suicide.

So why are you complaining about the problem when we are already enacting the only realistic solution

 

sorry but LOL :bugeye:

 

OH i see you have a better idea. Will it work in my lifetime?

 

First of all.. how would the environment go about stopping pollution ?
We don't need to help, we need to completely do it ourselves. And we aren't doing nearly enough at the moment.

Your second point about mass suicide is nonsense. That idea will never be implemented and you know it. It's a fake point intended to draw all attention to your first point and make it look like we are already doing everything we can.

I would propose:
- Much more rigorous action against polluting companies and other polluting sources (such as car owners).
- Global implementation of birth-restrictions.
- Free sterilization and cheap birth control items such as condoms and contraceptive pills.
- Compulsory global practical help to third-world countries in order to help them build a healthy economy (not just money and food, but know-how and infrastructure as well).

 

... this would increase the global population. The inmediadent halt of all foreign aid, food and medecines would drasticly lower the human population ... Not that I'm suggesting this.

Sight yes but then again hybrid cars and solar panels finaly seem to be catching on. They should punish compagnies like airbus harder for making such monster planes. And perhaps figure out a way to use less trucks on the roads (altough they are also a good way of population restriction).

I would propose the further funding of fussion technology and Hydrogen cars, the construction of solar islands. and the deconstruction of coal and steam plants.
Speed limit's for large cargo boads, direct routes for planes, and extra taxes for imported goods.
Less financial aid for children and birth restrictions ones you have more then 4 living children, afther that you get finend and have to proof you can take care of them.

 

On it's own, yes. But not when it's carried out in unison with the other points. All those points are part of one plan, so to speak.
The number of kids people have tends to decrease when societies get more prosperous.

Err.. I wouldn't want to make room for even more people. The population needs to decrease.
As for your birth restriction proposal.. who the hell has more than four kids anyway ?
I would say one, possibly two. But no more.

 

My brothers is with a girl from a family of 13 (parents not included) so there more then you think.
But most especially you can get the idea sold. Stopping the state child support would probably do the real trick annyway.


Making echography's free and avaiable in all countries would probably also inderectly decrease the population of some countries because they selectivly would kill of their own women in favor of boy's... and then their's 20 years later.

It's pretty cruel method and it would probably only be effective with one child policy but it might do the trick.

 

I have a major problem with your first suggestion. It implies that rich people can have as many kids as they want while poor people can perhaps not even afford one.

 

There is another pretty sick method by the way.. involuntary chemical sterilization. Perhaps drinking water can be laced

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The first two points of yours was my first point to help the environmet. No shit, no way would i suggest about mass suicide. But seriously, we are arguieng for a solution that is already being implemented.

 

Human population is an issue we will have to deal with in the future. But the real issue I think is how we evolve as an organism. I think that is the higher and more important question. What impact will out technology have on us? We will certianly continue to automate, build new tools and devices to do our work. There will be an integration of human biology and our tools. We will become one. Can you envision living your entire life inside a computer? What is the impact of our abiltiy to manipulate our genes? There are certianly some challenges in our future...assuming we are not wiped off the planet in a global disaster.

So bottom line, before you can answer the poplulation question you must examine the imapct of technology on us as a species going forward.