A solution to the magnetosphere problem of colonizing mars

[SargeRho]

We don't need to spread our civilization. We are sufficiently capable of controlling how we use what we have now. Just because we don't doesn't mean it needs to be worked around.

We don't 'need' to do anything. Not needing to do something is not a good reason why we shouldn't do it.

Why colonize Mars?

Nearest planet with an easily accessible solid surface, an atmosphere, and all or most necessary materials for a colony laying around quite literally. Personally, I'd rather live on a planet with a solid surface than a space station.

Edited September 27, 2015 by SargeRho

[Xannari Ferrows]

We don't 'need' to do anything. Not needing to do something is not a good reason why we shouldn't do it.

Not if there are long-term negative effects.

[SargeRho]

What long term negative effects would colonizing other planets have? Spreading life to lifeless rocks? Reducing the possibility of humanity going extinct?

[Xannari Ferrows]

What long term negative effects would colonizing other planets have? Spreading life to lifeless rocks? Reducing the possibility of humanity going extinct?

Aha, that's what I was looking for.

We're not the only things to take into consideration. These so called "lifeless rocks" matter, and they matter a lot. If extending our reach as a whole species would disrupt the natural planetary characteristics, which can have some bizarre and harmful effects, then it should be left alone. Just leave it as is to continue doing what it is best at doing.

[Bill Phil]

We don't 'need' to do anything. Not needing to do something is not a good reason why we shouldn't do it.

Nearest planet with an easily accessible solid surface, an atmosphere, and all or most necessary materials for a colony laying around quite literally. Personally, I'd rather live on a planet with a solid surface than a space station.

But it takes less energy to use asteroids to build stations. And eventually habitats that quite literally look like an inside out Earth.

Just because it's the nearest planet with an easily accessible surface doesn't make it easy to get to. It has a very small and useless atmosphere. It requires just as much building as a space colony in space, but the amount of material that's accessible in space is huge, and is quite capable of supporting trillions comfortably. Compared to Mars?

[SargeRho]

Aha, that's what I was looking for.

We're not the only things to take into consideration. These so called "lifeless rocks" matter, and they matter a lot. If extending our reach as a whole species would disrupt the natural planetary characteristics, which can have some bizarre and harmful effects, then it should be left alone. Just leave it as is to continue doing what it is best at doing.

Harmful effects on what? Planets aren't alive, and are constantly changing. If we can spread life to an otherwise lifeless rocks, we 'should', in my opinion.

But it takes less energy to use asteroids to build stations. And eventually habitats that quite literally look like an inside out Earth.

Just because it's the nearest planet with an easily accessible surface doesn't make it easy to get to. It has a very small and useless atmosphere. It requires just as much building as a space colony in space, but the amount of material that's accessible in space is huge, and is quite capable of supporting trillions comfortably. Compared to Mars?

Mars has a solid surface,a space station has a few meters of steel or titanium if you're lucky. A fire on an O'Neill cylinder could easily become catastrophic. You can seal off and vent colony modules. You can't really vent an interior section of an O'Neill Cylinder. Mars *could* eventually be Terraformed, if it is, it's obviously going to be done by its inhabitants, since it's only really a worthwhile expenditure for them, not for people on Earth or on space colonies.

Edited September 27, 2015 by SargeRho

[Bill Phil]

Aha, that's what I was looking for.

We're not the only things to take into consideration. These so called "lifeless rocks" matter, and they matter a lot. If extending our reach as a whole species would disrupt the natural planetary characteristics, which can have some bizarre and harmful effects, then it should be left alone. Just leave it as is to continue doing what it is best at doing.

But we change environments all the time. They're changing anyways, right? So why does it matter?

[Xannari Ferrows]

Harmful effects on what? Planets aren't alive, and are constantly changing. If we can spread life to an otherwise lifeless rocks, we 'should', in my opinion.

The planet. It hardly matters if it's alive; The same argument can be made about a corpse. It's not alive, yet we still don't mess with it. If you claim that it's because it was once a person, I say

But we change environments all the time. They're changing anyways, right? So why does it matter?

If they change by their own accord, that is how it is meant to be, be it if it works around our presence or not. What matters is if we try to change the way it changes itself.

[SargeRho]

The planet. It hardly matters if it's alive; The same argument can be made about a corpse. It's not alive, yet we still don't mess with it. If you claim that it's because it was once a person, I say

Biological impulses and cultural values. And I'd argue that you aren't a person if you don't have a brain. Corpses are very much alive, a human corpse is, by the number of cells in it, only 10% more dead than it was before its death.

Many intelligent animals mourn their dead. Humans, Elephants, Whales, specially Dolphins, and Apes, so it's likely biological, not cultural.

You can't harm an inanimate object, like a Planet. We are more important than a planet's pretty mountains.

If they change by their own accord, that is how it is meant to be, be it if it works around our presence or not. What matters is if we try to change the way it changes itself.

That argument would only make sense if there was some sort of divine entity overseeing everything. There is no evidence for such a thing.

[Bill Phil]

Harmful effects on what? Planets aren't alive, and are constantly changing. If we can spread life to an otherwise lifeless rocks, we 'should', in my opinion.

Mars has a solid surface,a space station has a few meters of steel or titanium if you're lucky. A fire on an O'Neill cylinder could easily become catastrophic. You can seal off and vent colony modules. You can't really vent an interior section of an O'Neill Cylinder. Mars *could* eventually be Terraformed, if it is, it's obviously going to be done by its inhabitants, since it's only really a worthwhile expenditure for them, not for people on Earth or on space colonies.

A space station of sufficient size could be city sized. Or larger.

A fire in a forest on Earth could easily become catastrophic. Just because it's in space doesn't mean much.

You would not need to vent an Oneill Cylinder. Even if a pane of one of its windows was penetrated with a rather large hole, it would take decades to fully lose its atmo, if not more. And fires would be easy to put out, just turn on the rain.

Not only that, but much more control is present in a Cylinder.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Biological impulses and cultural values. And I'd argue that you aren't a person if you don't have a brain. Corpses are very much alive, a human corpse is, by the number of cells in it, only 10% more dead than it was before its death.

Hence a long term negative effect. Like cells, we are just tiny forms of life sitting atop a giant, working together and communicating. So if you harm the giant, you harm everything that lives on it. If cells had the ability to travel between life forms, bringing their own functionalities and instructions with them, don't you think that would cause problems? Either it causes illness, or the cells die. The answer is to adapt.

You can't harm an inanimate object, like a Planet. We are more important than a planet's pretty mountains.

So for example, destroying a planet to save a single life would be okay? It's not alive, unfeeling, and couldn't take revenge on you. But it's not okay; You just destroyed a brilliant work of the universe for a very selfish, and quite frankly, empty reason. What of that planet's influence on everything around it? You could set forth a catastrophic chain of events that could take place over centuries, or even millenia that could eventually lead to more destruction.

I'd cry much more at the loss of Pluto than the loss of a life.

[SargeRho]

Hence a long term negative effect. Like cells, we are just tiny forms of life sitting atop a giant, working together and communicating. So if you harm the giant, you harm everything that lives on it. If cells had the ability to travel between life forms, bringing their own functionalities and instructions with them, don't you think that would cause problems? Either it causes illness, or the cells die. The answer is to adapt.

We adapt to the environment by adapting the environment to our needs. And if a location we want to settle isn't all that habitable in its current state, it's the location that will adapt.

So for example, destroying a planet to save a single life would be okay? It's not alive, unfeeling, and couldn't take revenge on you. But it's not okay; You just destroyed a brilliant work of the universe for a very selfish, and quite frankly, empty reason. What of that planet's influence on everything around it? You could set forth a catastrophic chain of events that could take place over centuries, or even millenia that could eventually lead to more destruction.

I'd cry much more at the loss of Pluto than the loss of a life.

If there is no other life on said planet, then yes. And depends on the lifeform itself. I wouldn't blow up a planet to save an ant. I would, to save a dog or a dolphin. A planet is a large clump of rock, it's large, but not exactly a very complex thing. Life is composed of naturally occurring nano-machines, I place more value on that than on a large formation of Silicon, Iron and Oxygen..There is no more structure to a planet than that imposed by gravity and molecular weight.

That being said, I would not blow up Jupiter to save one life, because that would directly impact trillions more back on Earth. I would blow up Pluto for one life though.

To put it in another way: Things that can make decisions are more important than those that cannot.

Edited September 27, 2015 by SargeRho

[Xannari Ferrows]

We adapt to the environment by adapting the environment to our needs. And if a location we want to settle isn't all that habitable in its current state, it's the location that will adapt.

Why put in the effort to do so? Why not find somewhere you can survive, or stick with what works? So it would be okay for a space dwelling life-form with no sense of morality to drain the atmosphere of our planet simply because it can? If you say no because it directly affects us in a negative way, it doesn't care. What if it doesn't even know we exist? That's like asking a cortically blind person to raise their hand when something on a computer monitor changes.

My question is: Why can't it just stay in space? It doesn't care what may be down there. It only wants to better itself and other members of it's species. After all, no sense of morality.

If there is no other life on said planet, then yes. And depends on the lifeform itself. I wouldn't blow up a planet to save an ant. I would, to save a dog or a dolphin. A planet is a large clump of rock, it's large, but not exactly a very complex thing. Life is composed of naturally occurring nano-machines, I place more value on that than on a large formation of Silicon, Iron and Oxygen..There is no more structure to a planet than that imposed by gravity and molecular weight.

Why wouldn't you save the ant? What makes it less important than you or a dog? Any answer you say in response can be shoved aside due to the definition of significance.

To put it in another way: Things that can make decisions are more important than those that cannot.

What about the universe makes that true? Gravity doesn't make a decision, yet it's more important than all of us, because it keeps everything from becoming a big blob of energetic nonsense, and even then that isn't necessarily true.

[SargeRho]

Why put in the effort to do so?Why not find somewhere you can survive, or stick with what works?

Because it's not a good idea to put all eggs in one basket.

So it would be okay for a space dwelling life-form with no sense of morality to drain the atmosphere of our planet simply because it can? If you say no because it directly affects us in a negative way, it doesn't care. What if it doesn't even know we exist? That's like asking a cortically blind person to raise their hand when something on a computer monitor changes.

There is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. It would be very bad for us if that lifeform did that, of course, and thus we would obviously try to defend ourselves against it.

My question is: Why can't it just stay in space? It doesn't care what may be down there. It only wants to better itself and other members of it's species. After all, no sense of morality.

You answered your own question.

Why wouldn't you save the ant? What makes it less important than you or a dog? Any answer you say in response can be shoved aside due to the definition of significance.

Ants are stupid, quite literally. Significance is also subjective. A single ant isn't very significant, and not very unique either. It can't really make any decisions, since ants are driven purely by instinct. A dog is much more intelligent and complex than an ant.

What about the universe makes that true? Gravity doesn't make a decision, yet it's more important than all of us, because it keeps everything from becoming a big blob of energetic nonsense, and even then that isn't necessarily true.

Nothing. It's my opinion, and I speak only for myself. Why would it matter to the universe, something that doesn't have any kind of sentience, if it contains diffuse gas or planets and stars? Everything's going to cease to be in a few billion years anyways.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Because it's not a good idea to put all eggs in one basket.

So control the number of eggs.

There is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. It would be very bad for us if that lifeform did that, of course, and thus we would obviously try to defend ourselves against it.

And if we tried to kill it, other members of it's species would try to stop you, right? If that's to be expected, you could say I would try to stop you from blowing up a planet in order to cure someone's fatal illness or something, and that would be perfectly alright.

Ants are stupid, quite literally. Significance is also subjective. A single ant isn't very significant, and not very unique either. It can't really make any decisions, since ants are driven purely by instinct. A dog is much more intelligent and complex than an ant.

Complexity and self-sufficiency isn't everything. In fact, most of the time, it's unity. Ants can't do much on their own, but together as a colony, they can do some amazing things given their limited biology and capacity for relative intelligence. You can make the same argument for a computer chip. By itself, it can do nothing. What makes it better?

Nothing. It's my opinion, and I speak only for myself. Why would it matter to the universe, something that doesn't have any kind of sentience, if it contains diffuse gas or planets and stars?

Because it's the home of everything. The universe doesn't directly care for us, but it is everyone's place to live, and taking that for granted may not have any repercussions, but why not treat it kindly in return? A devoid lake is unliving, dull, and lifeless. Does that make it okay to pollute or extract from? What happens when it becomes toxic or is just gone?

[SargeRho]

So control the number of eggs.

No, increase the number of baskets. If you have one basket and drop it, you have no eggs left. If you have the same number of eggs, but 3 baskets, and drop one, it's not a big deal. You still have 8 of 12 eggs left.

And if we tried to kill it, other members of it's species would try to stop you, right? If that's to be expected, you could say I would try to stop you from blowing up a planet in order to cure someone's fatal illness or something, and that would be perfectly alright.

Pretty much.

Complexity and self-sufficiency isn't everything. In fact, most of the time, it's unity. Ants can't do much on their own, but together as a colony, they can do some amazing things given their limited biology and capacity for relative intelligence. You can make the same argument for a computer chip. By itself, it can do nothing. What makes it better?

A computer ship is not comparable to an ant. An ant is a complete thing, a computer ship is only a functional component thereof. Like an ant's ganglia.

Because it's the home of everything. The universe doesn't directly care for us, but it is everyone's place to live, and taking that for granted may not have any repercussions, but why not treat it kindly in return? A devoid lake is unliving, dull, and lifeless. Does that make it okay to pollute or extract from? What happens when it becomes toxic or is just gone?

You'll have a hard time finding a lake that is devoid of life.

[Xannari Ferrows]

No, increase the number of baskets. If you have one basket and drop it, you have no eggs left. If you have the same number of eggs, but 3 baskets, and drop one, it's not a big deal. You still have 8 of 12 eggs left.

But here's the thing: Not just any basket can hold eggs. You can't stick a pile of eggs in a gift basket and carry it around, expecting them to stay intact. You need an egg carrier, and to hold it stable. That, or just make multiple trips using your old one, because it works, or just don't bring as many eggs.

Pretty much.

So why would it be looked down upon?

A computer ship is not comparable to an ant. An ant is a complete thing, a computer ship is only a functional component thereof. Like an ant's ganglia.

A single any is hardly complete. It's purpose it to contribute to the functionality of the entire colony as much as it can, just as the computer chips, drive units, and transistor gates all play their part to make a computational device run to the best of their ability.

You'll have a hard time finding a lake that is devoid of life.

That's not the point.

[SargeRho]

But here's the thing: Not just any basket can hold eggs. You can't stick a pile of eggs in a gift basket and carry it around, expecting them to stay intact. You need an egg carrier, and to hold it stable. That, or just make multiple trips using your old one, because it works, or just don't bring as many eggs.

Any basket can hold eggs if you pad it. Similarly, any planet, moon or asteroid can hold human life if we build habitats there.

So why would it be looked down upon?

I don't think destroying something that is attacking you is looked down upon.

A single any is hardly complete. It's purpose it to contribute to the functionality of the entire colony as much as it can, just as the computer chips, drive units, and transistor gates all play their part to make a computational device run to the best of their ability.

A single ant is complete. A microprocessor is comparable to a ganglion, not to a full life form.

That's not the point.

Then what is the point? If it becomes toxic or is gone, you can't extract water from it anymore.

[Findthepin1]

You'll have a hard time finding a lake that is devoid of life.

Kraken Mare

[SargeRho]

Kraken Mare

We haven't sampled it. We don't know if there's some sort of methane based life there. If we colonize the outer solar system, Titan is quite likely to become a MethaLOX gas station I think.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Any basket can hold eggs if you pad it. Similarly, any planet, moon or asteroid can hold human life if we build habitats there.

A pad is still no substitute for a carrier. You're still going to have a rough ride.

I don't think destroying something that is attacking you is looked down upon.

Wrong analogy.

A single ant is complete. A microprocessor is comparable to a ganglion, not to a full life form.

Once again, a single ant is far from complete. It is birthed and tasked with a single skill and function, unable to change it on it's own.

Then what is the point? If it becomes toxic or is gone, you can't extract water from it anymore.

Exactly. Just like destroying a planet to save a life, you fail to see the long term effects. You may not care that you will live long enough to see a source of water grow too densely polluted, or dry up, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't treat it like a dumping ground just because it's the immediate solution. You need to take care of it, keep it clean and full, recycling what would otherwise pollute it. All the same, destroying a planet would affect the gravitational balances across it's entire native system over decades, centuries, or potentially millenia. Just because it doesn't affect you or anyone around you right now doesn't mean it's a good option.

[SargeRho]

I guess we should de-orbit Mercury then, because it might crash into Earth in the far future? My point is: It makes no sense to worry about what kind of consequences your actions now will have in 10000 years.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I guess we should de-orbit Mercury then, because it might crash into Earth in the far future? My point is: It makes no sense to worry about what kind of consequences your actions now will have in 10000 years.

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.

[vger]

We simply need to give Mars more atmosphere...

Is that all?

Well, that's a relief. I thought it was going to be something insanely difficult.

[SargeRho]

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.

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