Sciences >
Astronomy
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould people be allowed to live on Mars?
Results so far:
| Yes | 73% | 161 votes | Total: 222 votes | |
| No | 27% | 61 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesI agree with Doctor Stephen Hawking about the subject of extraterrestrial colonization. In order for humanity to survive minor cosmic events, such as asteroid or cometary collisions with Earth, we need to prepare a second seat of civilization. We are in constant peril of extinction as long as we keep all of our eggs in one basket. While some may think colonizing Mars will corrupt the red planet, I don't feel this will be the case at all.
Of all of the worlds in the Solar system, Mars is the best candidate for a future colony. It has an atmosphere, albeit thin and loaded with carbon dioxide, it lies close enough to the habitable zone of our system to allow for future terraforming, and it is rich in resources necessary for a young colony. Mars in many ways is a more viable candidate for colonization than the Moon, since a lunar colony would have to operate under hard vacuum and constant meteoric bombardment. While it is true that Mars' thin atmosphere doesn't stop all of the meteorites, such is also true of the Earth.
It wouldn't be easy to colonize either terrestrial body, but Mars' colonization has other advantages over the lunar option. Evidence of geothermal activity on Mars means there is available power just below the surface, while the Moon is stone cold. Near the equator, the temperature rises above freezing for brief periods, and images show evidence of water erosion as well as freeze and thaw cycles. The day is close to an Earth day, while a lunar day is two weeks long. While the energy from sunlight is just a quarter of that on Earth, experiments have show many plants can adapt to such lower light levels, as many already have, yet two weeks of lunar darkness is asking a bit much of anything more than lichen.
The steps to colonization are not easy, nor is terraforming. The first stages to colonization may be the introduction of lichen to transform the atmosphere and create soil, as well as various extremophilic organisms to release oxygen from the abundant iron oxide on the surface. Geothermal sources must be tapped to provide power for subsurface water extraction and energy production. Unlike the Moon, human colonization can begin immediately, since current technology an already derive our basic needs from the Martian environment. While the distances involved may be daunting, so were the first crossings of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Over time, we will get better at it. Practice makes perfect and there is nothing like a few dozen years of space travel to get things right.
Since the practical obstacles are surmountable, there must arise the moral ones. Through poorly thought out international treaties, the United States of America agreed never to colonize other worlds for anything more than research purposes. I feel this was a terrible mistake, but that aside, the moral argument given is that we must keep other worlds pristine and untouched by human corruption. These are high and mighty words lacking in any substance whatsoever. If gold, silver, copper, or even iron show up in abundance on any of these other worlds, pristine would go right out the window. As soon as extraction of such resources becomes economically feasible, the first waves of explorers will be out there. Every capable nation will empty their prisons and heavy lift boosters will be bound for the first extraterrestrial gold rush. Is it moral? Probability not, but it is reality. It happened in the past, and there is no reason it won't happen in the future. The New World colonies arose out of the need to expand territory, gain resources, and export surplus population. Do we want the surface of Mars marred by open pit mines and slag heaps? No, at least not by the more altruistic among us, for the rest of us, take a picture, because if two hundred years, if the human race is still around, you won't recognize Mars. However, it won't be because the surface will become ugly, quite the contrary. As people emigrate, first to pressurized shelters and caves and eventually to a terra formed surface, the priorities of resource exploitation will give way to those of colonial sustainment. The greening of Mars will be in full swing and nothing will stop it.
Nevertheless, is it right? Should we, as the apologists for humanity so often cry, pollute the rest of the universe with our presence? I say we would not be polluting the universe, but bringing our own brand of beauty to it. We are small, very small. We are so insignificant in the scale of the universe; we could never hope to pollute the smallest fraction of it. Our chance of bothering anything outside our own Solar system is more remote than lighting striking us twenty-five times in the same week in five different places. We are so puny that one small comet can wipe us out in a single impact. So small in fact, that the death of all pollinators would kill us in five to ten years. It is morally wrong to consider remaining on Earth and jeopardizing something truly divine.
Be fruitful and multiply.
Learn more about this author, M. Andrew Sprong.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Should people be allowed to live on Mars?
This question is equivalent to asking, should I be allowed to leave my baby in the microwave?
First instinct should tell you it is too dangerous. No other planet in our Solar System is habitable, at least for humans. I will tell you why Mars is too dangerous for us to live in.
NO OXYGEN
There is no oxygen in the Martian atmosphere; one must be housed in the protection suit. Even if we are able to bring in supplies there, there is no guarantee that it can last us that long. And unforeseen circumstances like leakage and delayed return trip to Earth can cause a deficit in oxygen supply.
You may argue that water electrolysis may be performed on-site to obtain oxygen, but there is another problem about water on Mars.
NO SURFACE WATER
Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars due to the much lower atmospheric pressure, and any bottled source would boil off once exposed to the atmosphere. Ice although available, it would require energy to melt the ice and for we know there is no oxygen on Mars, hence burning is not possible and this would most likely require stored electrical sources brought from Earth. This either speeds up the depletion of the energy source brought over to Mars, or we have to bring too much technology (for example, photovoltaic) there, making the trip not only physically difficult, but also financially impossible.
TEMPERATURE
The Mars is further away from the Sun, meaning it will have an overall much lower temperature than on Earth, which means by no chance you will get to expose to the Martian atmosphere.
DUST STORMS
Mars has the largest dust storms and such storms can go to the scale of engulfing the entire planet. It sounds so dangerous and this would mean you would have nothing to do other than staying in your specially-shielded home.
LIFE ON MARS
What kind of activities can one engage on a planet like this? Considering you have to be in the protection suit 24/7 (or at least when you are out of home), I don't think leisure activities like sports, shopping or catching a movie can be accomplished easily (or even possible).
Living on Mars would require imports from Earth. But Mars' outdoors is so dangerous, where can one earn enough money on live on it?
OTHER DANGERS
Imagine when one opens a can of oxygen or canned water from Earth for refill and accidentally pierced a hole in the protection suit. The suit deflates with a bang and the one in the suit is exposed to the Martian atmosphere, and blood vessels rupture instantly due to the abrupt change in pressure, resulting in instant death.
Mars is so dangerous, not only people should not be allowed to live on Mars, and people should not even think about living on Mars.
This article is entirely my own creation and was criticised by tactless D*v*d St*ce* to be one saddled with a skeptic syndrome that controls opinion regardless of proof. I believe it was just a move to attract one more viewer to view his youtube videos.
I must admit, there isn't much any proof I can provide, for I am no astronomer or an enthusiast in astronomy, but that does not mean I know no logic or science. And to include much information already found online and with no absolute proof just make me a thief plagiarising others' precious work. So-called proofs aren't absolute until proven on the day human set foot on planet Mars.
But for the title of this article, which says "should people be allowed to live on Mars?" and English as one of the languages used by a group of terrestials we more commonly refer to as humans, 'people' in the title would be the most common meaning of 'people' we know. Also, "to live" necessarily mean going on a normal(although the concept of 'normal' may be very different there), routine lifestyle on planet Mars.
I am also perplexed about people who are easily taken in by information which are yet to be verified to be absolute truths; they chose to believe information that are (or should I say "may be") schemingly-labelled to be "secrets kept from public by NASA and JPL". True secrets will be kept secret. Technology is to guide us, not to lead us. Sometimes people rely too much on technology and forget that we are its creators (There is a graphics editing program call Adobe Photoshop). It will be absurd for me to believe the random pictures posted online to be true just because the pictures/videos are said to be legally posted under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). I would say picture of myself posted online is also legal under the FOIA. As long it breaks no law, it will be legal under all Acts and Statutes. Don't you agree?
From the view of law and religion (although in many instances, law and religion contradict each other), people should not be allowed to live on Mars, since it is so dangerous. To live there is equivalent to attempting suicide. God might have created all stars and planets, but the other planets are not for our habitation. This is just my narrow point of view, I believe a greater scale of debate may blow up from the religious and legal view on this debate topic.
To conclude my article, in my "skeptical" point of view, we, people should not be allowed to live on Mars simply because of pathetically one reason - Safety.
It is not safe now, although our technology may already have the ability to do so, but we are not doing so because of countless uncertainties. To send anyone to live there would be equivalent to killing (or attempting to kill) them and this can amount to a crime known as manslaughter.
Perhaps similar debate might have sparked off decades ago when man first landed on the Moon. But, human has yet lived on the Moon. It's still too early to talk about Mars.
Learn more about this author, Alexius Tan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
