A solution to the magnetosphere problem of colonizing mars

[Xannari Ferrows]

And it would be extremely stupid of me Not to. Of course I would delay the Toba eruption by 10000 years if I could.

I can't believe I'm hearing this. Why would it be stupid not to? Either way you look at it, surface life dies that day. It's just a question of how many lives and progress you want to destroy. Why not just get it over with?

[SargeRho]

I can't believe I'm hearing this. Why would it be stupid not to? Either way you look at it, surface life dies that day. It's just a question of how many lives and progress you want to destroy. Why not just get it over with?

Why not do something to avoid having to deal with it directly? Would you rather let a civilization-killer hit Earth now, or deflect it with the risk of it hitting a few centuries later?

[WestAir]

The odds of Mercury crashing into Earth over the timescales of hundreds of thousands of Earth lives, ignoring the eventual expansion of the sun, might as well be indistinguishable from 0%. Why fix what isn't broken?

That's extremely selfish of you. What of the ones who live in 10000 years? That'd be like delaying a Toba eruption 10000 years because you don't want to end the world right now. You'd be destroying just as many, if not more innocent lives that way, as well as the more advanced works of humanity all because it was the immediate solution.

I feel this quote surmises the human mindset of life and death, because it assumes humanity isn't already doomed.

Remember: Nothing lasts forever. Humans are all going to die -- the Earth is going to be destroyed -- the Galaxy will whither away and become indistinguishable from the background radiation of the observable. These are all facts. The fact that our society treats everything like it will last forever has swayed many to feeling like our species is immortal. You don't need to go far to hear someone say never, always or forever. (Be it a discussion on political policy, what happens to plastics in the ocean, or anything. We subconsciously assume our problems are the most important problems that ever have been or ever will be - and that's a very long time)

My point is this: By delaying our demise (which will happen, mind you), we give 10,000 years worth of generations the chance to experience life. That's a gift, not a curse. It's no different from taking medicine to lower cholesterol because you want to delay your heart attack from happening now or in 10 years. Life is fun, why end it sooner than it needs to end?

[vger]

Remember: Nothing lasts forever. Humans are all going to die -- the Earth is going to be destroyed -- the Galaxy will whither away and become indistinguishable from the background radiation of the observable. These are all facts.

IMO:

If we kill ourselves, we lost.

If the universe kills us, we won.

Though, we should still make the universe work very, VERY hard to kill us.

Edited September 28, 2015 by vger

[Xannari Ferrows]

Why not do something to avoid having to deal with it directly? Would you rather let a civilization-killer hit Earth now, or deflect it with the risk of it hitting a few centuries later?

If there is a decent chance that deflecting it now will cause it to no longer be a threat, than yes. If it was guaranteed to return, then no.

This is because it says that you tried to save everyone rather than just letting the clock run longer. I would take the abuse rather than someone more important than me.

- - - Updated - - -

My point is this: By delaying our demise (which will happen, mind you), we give 10,000 years worth of generations the chance to experience life. That's a gift, not a curse. It's no different from taking medicine to lower cholesterol because you want to delay your heart attack from happening now or in 10 years. Life is fun, why end it sooner than it needs to end?

Well here's a question I give to you: Life may be fun for some people, and we can keep ourselves alive for as long as possible, but to what avail? If we're talking about the eventual doom of our species, I ask what the point of our existence is in the first place. For that matter, what about me or you? Think about it: We live, do things, and die. Everything trivial that we have done is lost. Every major thing we have done that is memorable will die off with the half-life of memory eventually. Everything unforgettable that we have done will die with the eventual extinction of humanity, and even farther from that, everything any life form in the entire universe has done will be wiped completely when the universe achieves thermodynamic equilibrium.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[SargeRho]

If there is a decent chance that deflecting it now will cause it to no longer be a threat, than yes. If it was guaranteed to return, then no.

This is because it says that you tried to save everyone rather than just letting the clock run longer. I would take the abuse rather than someone more important than me.

Letting the clock run longer is the only thing you can do anyways.

Well here's a question I give to you: Live may be fun for some people, and we can keep ourselves alive for as long as possible, but to what avail? If we're talking about the eventual doom of our species, I ask what the point of our existence is in the first place. For that matter, what about me or you? Think about it: We live, do things, and die. Everything trivial that we have done is lost. Every major thing we have done that is memorable will die off with the half-life of memory eventually. Everything unforgettable that we have done will die with the eventual extinction of humanity, and even farther from that, everything any life form in the entire universe has done will be wiped completely when the universe achieves thermodynamic equilibrium.

Life has no inherent meaning, since meaning is subjective. We each give our own life meaning.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Life has no inherent meaning, since meaning is subjective. We each give our own life meaning.

Those meanings, this definition, these words, and everything will be destroyed with the extinction of our species. To live in the now is to blink an eyelid.

[WestAir]

Well here's a question I give to you: Life may be fun for some people, and we can keep ourselves alive for as long as possible, but to what avail? If we're talking about the eventual doom of our species, I ask what the point of our existence is in the first place.

You asked "what's the point of our existence" if we are doomed to die off in 10,000 years. I ask you a counter question: What's the difference between us lasting 10,000 compared to 10 billion? I think the answer to your question of what's the point has the same exact answer for both, and that's why I suggest we shoot for the later and try to make it 10 billion years.

[vger]

A dark path, heading down, this thread is.

[Xannari Ferrows]

You asked "what's the point of our existence" if we are doomed to die off in 10,000 years. I ask you a counter question: What's the difference between us lasting 10,000 compared to 10 billion? I think the answer to your question of what's the point has the same exact answer for both, and that's why I suggest we shoot for the later and try to make it 10 billion years.

If you had the opportunity to create a new form of life right now, would you?

If you said yes, why? They're doomed to go extinct eventually, just like we are. If there was a way to create a species that can last indefinitely, that would be the best thing, but you should never let something make there mark in the universe, just to have it ripped away. The larger the mark, the more is lost.

[WestAir]

I disagree.

I say that's what makes us special. To quote Dr.Who: Humanity is all that has meaning in a Universe that is meaningless.

[Xannari Ferrows]

And what happens to that meaning when the universe ends?

[vger]

And what happens to that meaning when the universe ends?

I hate to sound abrasive, but you sound like someone who is trying to get justification for suicide via people failing to sufficiently answer your question.

If life is meaningless, then so is bickering about it.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I hate to sound abrasive, but you sound like someone who is trying to get justification for suicide via people failing to sufficiently answer your question.

If life is meaningless, then so is bickering about it.

In the end, it doesn't matter how everyone lost their lives. Is arguing about such meanings of life the meaning itself?

[vger]

In the end, it doesn't matter how everyone lost their lives. Is arguing about such meanings of life the meaning itself?

Survival is the first instinct of life (on Earth anyhow). Nothing would've gotten any further without that. So I'd say that is the purpose of life, to strive for existence no matter what. So if we CAN last long enough to be clinging to whatever energy is left over at the end of the universe's life, then that's what we should be doing.

You don't need a command from an all-powerful deity, or any kind of philosophy to get that. It's right there in our DNA.

Beyond that, even by religious standards, "concrete knowledge and understanding" is impossible. If we want to make it more fun than just survival, that's up to us.

[Xannari Ferrows]

"Survival is insufficient. If you're going to survive, you should live. If you struggle to even survive, is it worth the effort?"

[vger]

"Survival is insufficient. If you're going to survive, you should live. If you struggle to even survive, is it worth the effort?"

Yeeeah... read the last sentence again on my last post. Be thankful we actually have the freedom to choose the forms of entertainment that take us from "just surviving" to "living."

[Guest]

How about we shut up, or I get a mod in here?

Also, another idea to solving the problem:

It isn't in anyway feasible, but we could hollow out the very most center and fill it with iron...

- - - Updated - - -

Also a reason to colonize mars:

We have a built in need to explore, and to conquer our solar system has always been a dream of scientists. I don't think we should therefrom entire planets, but to be able to say 'we conquered space' is a want with no borders. We have made space a place of peace. The U.S. docked with s Soyuz, and we have an International Space Station which would have never been seen as possible during the space race. Now let's make this forum a place of peace.

[SciMan]

As far as reason, there's also that whole "as far as we know so far, Earth is the only planet in the universe that has confirmed presence of life (let alone intelligent life) as we know it".

I don't like the odds of being a single-planet species in the long-term. We'll be here tomorrow, but what about a hundred years from now? A thousand years? More? The longer we stay confined to this planet, the greater risk we run of having an extinction-level event (of any cause or origin).

Two planets cuts those odds roughly in half. More is even better, but still harder. More than one star is several orders of magnitude better than being confined to one. And so on.

This is the logical conclusion of thinking about the extreme-long term survival of humanity, and therefore life as we know it.

As far as "solving" the magnetosphere "problem" of colonizing mars, just dig under the surface a few meters. There's probably other reasons to do that anyways, like finding water.

Even without that, I have to ask something. What magnetosphere problem?

Even the tiny wisp of an atmosphere that Mars does have is enough to shield the surface from most of the solar particle radiation. It might not shield from UV, but people on mars need to wear suits anyways.

The solar particle radiation is the real hazard, anyways, cosmic rays are only a minor contribution to background radiation, even while in low earth orbit.

Also, people keep using LNT. We know for a fact that humans can repair a certain amount of radiation damage on a continuous basis (background radiation, X-rays, CT scans, etc.).

The problem is that we don't know what the threshold is, and we're unwilling to do the experiments that would be the most straightforward way of collecting the required data (long term human radiation exposure testing). For the record, I consider the reasons for not conducting those experiments completely valid.

This limits us to collecting the data thru reports of various radiation accidents and incidents, and several military experiments in the past that are of questionable morality.

In other words, I'm sure there's a threshold, but we don't have enough data to determine what that threshold is, and if it's a "hard" or "soft" threshold. More data is needed, and we need a better way of testing to gather that data.

Perhaps long-term radiation exposure tests on non-stem-cell human tissue cultures from adults that have given informed consent? That takes care of all the objections that I know of, except for the whole "where do you get the money for this" thing. That's probably the real problem, but people keep saying the other "little" problems because it sounds "better" to the layperson than saying "we can't afford it".

[Requia]

I thought the magnetic field was needed for radiation protection, not to stop the planet loosing atmosphere???

It blocks radiation but so do things like an atmosphere (even a wimpy mars one) or thousands of kilometers of rock which tends to reduce the radiation by very close to 50%.

[SargeRho]

Thousands of kilometers of rock would block just about 100% of the radiation.

[Mazon Del]

Even without that, I have to ask something. What magnetosphere problem?

The primary problem that most people have with the idea of terraforming Mars in absence of a magnetosphere is that doesn't really have anything to do with the radiation, it's more that it is like filling a bucket with a pinhole in it. Can you fill it to the brim? Certainly. Can it be filled past some arbitrary line? Of course. But slowly it is going to leak away faster than evaporation would dictate, and maybe you think that the time you have in between filling the bucket and the water reaching your limit line is too short.

However, in many peoples opinions this shouldn't be too much cause for concern. On the time scales we are talking about, you still get several million (if not tens of millions of) years where a human could walk around unaided.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Mazon Del

[Findthepin1]

And it would be extremely stupid of me Not to. Of course I would delay the Toba eruption by 10000 years if I could.

If the Toba eruption happened 10000 years later, the genetic bottleneck that supposedly gave humans their intelligence might never have happened. Never mind that the cooling that it caused may have helped kickstart the last glacial period.