Mars Is Another Neighbor
My research question “Should colonizing Mars be a priority for the Human species?”
The following is a composition of readers in the comment section of Zahaan Bharmal’s article The case against Mars colonisation on British News website The Guardian. Discussing what is being said, points made, and alternative perspectives beside the pro-con debate. The article itself is about arguments as to why we shouldn’t colonize Mars, which discuss that colonizing Mars will contaminate it killing any bacteria that has the potential to create life. The article also discusses that Humans should fix the problems on Earth first before colonizing Mars.
To add a bit of context and history of the subject of colonizing Mars, this paragraph is dedicated for that purpose. According Lisa Ruth Rand in her article Colonizing Mars: Practicing Other Worlds on Earth the topic about colonizing Mars arises around 2014 by Elon Musk. Elon Musk showcased his plan to colonize Mars with his showcase of his Dragon Capsule. Ever since then he has made numerous interviews that include the topic of colonizing Mars. This has stirred up some debate from many about colonizing Mars.
To start off I will discuss the Pros and Cons of Colonizing Mars. Starting with the Pros, Humans need to colonize Mars because of overpopulation and its increase over time, colonizing can help increase the living space on Earth by transferring Humans from Earth to Mars. Global warming (climate change) is only going to continue making colonizing Mars a priority, global warming can make the Earth unsuitable to live on. Colonizing Mars can incentivise the public to get into science and contribute to help advance technology & discover new things. Colonizing Mars will help the Human species survive a mass extinction caused by asteroids or any apocalyptic event, like nuclear war.
Now to introduce the Cons of colonizing Mars: Colonizing Mars is distracting the Human species from solving the concurrent problems on Earth. Colonizing Mars will not solve overpopulation, as the population will still increase even if a portion of the population on Earth moved to Mars. Colonizing Mars will contaminate Mars, such contaminants include bacteria from Earth infecting Mars and it’s bacteria. The trip to Mars will solely cost way too much time & money, it would require advance technology far beyond what we have to make the trip a non-issue. Colonizing Mars can present Health problems for Humans, whether psychologically or physically. The low gravity on Mars can pose a problem for Human physiology since it would be difficult for human bodies to cope with the low gravity. Overall colonizing Mars would cost too much money, including the cost of the trip. Humans aren’t prepared to colonize Mars yet, early stages of colonizing Mars can make us vulnerable (i.e such factors include not being careful & analytic about suitable housing units, food availability, resource production, and future plans). Humans lack the experience/education about sustainability of colonizing other planets, let alone Mars.
These were the main points the readers were making.
Now onto the surprising alternative perspectives, gray areas.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE DO BOTH (colonize Mars & solve Earth’s problems). This perspective raises new question such as “why can’t we do both?” one proposition is that the Space Agencies can handle colonizing Mars while the Government handles Earth’s domestic problems. This perspective was suggested by user: “Cykosis73” which can be in the neutral side of the debate. We shouldn’t “eat planets” and move on to the next is an adaptation of the perspective by user: “Cthulhurising” which implies that we should analyse our actions on the Earth and not just consume for the rest of our lives leave Earth unsuitable for the following generations. A question by user “Wonkothesane76” poses an interesting perspective “Note that we aren’t going to Mars currently, how’s that working out for Earth?” stating that colonizing Mars isn’t going to solve the concurrent problems on Earth. Another perspective by “Wonkothesane76” poses a statement in regard to overpopulation, being a con for colonizing Mars, “We know what we’re doing but we’re incapable of stopping ourselves” making one question whether overpopulation should hinder colonizing Mars. “How does sending a handful of people to Mars solve overpopulation on Earth?” in response to sending a portion of Earth’s population to Mars by user “martinRmartin”. Though in response to all the hinders for colonizing Mars user “NothingBland” poses a quote “Humanity advances through venture, not by standing still.” to show that in not colonizing Mars the Human species will gain no experience in colonizing planets. One surprising perspective to consider is that global warming will sort out the population problem for humans, thus being another incentive for us to colonize Mars instead of a hinder/con.
These were all the surprising alternative perspectives on the main pros and cons.
Now onto the subtle differences of the discussion besides the black-and-white pro-con debate.
In regard to “we should sort our planet first” argument user “littlepump” states that it is “Bad framing, it assumes caring for Earth is costly” which means that it assumes that we cannot do both, colonize Mars and fix issues on Earth. Thus being in the gray area of the debate of why we cannot do both instead of looking for whether we should or should not colonize Mars. An interesting discussion is how is solving Earth’s problems associated with colonizing Mars ? Earth’s problems can be solved without focusing on the issues of colonizing Mars. Colonizing Mars is mainly a space agencies hypothesis & concern while solving Earth’s problems is an open issue that the public & the government can solve. Space agencies get funding by the Government but do not have the power to change policies on Earth to help solve concurrent issues hindering colonizing Mars. One other discussion is presented by user “AnthonyFlack” in his statement “Anything to do with Space Exploration is always framed as a distraction from the real problems we ought to be solving instead. Nothing else is ever expected to be sacrificed, only space exploration”. Such examples that are not sacrificed is plastic usage, leading to the distinction that Humans will find something to blame easier than actually DOING SOMETHING to FIX the problem. Another discussion is “why don’t we colonize the Sahara Desert if we can colonize Mars?” by user “pter1960” noting that there is room on earth for Humans to expand to, and if colonizing Mars is within our reach than we can make unsuitable environments on earth habitable.
With so much controversy about colonizing Mars one has to consider what is at stake. First of all, OUR LIVES ARE AT STAKE, the entire Human species is vulnerable to extinction. Factors that can lead to extinction include asteroid impacts on Earth, food shortage due to overpopulation, global warming, and nuclear war. And once one of these events occur it will be so difficult to rebound from them that it will be surreal to witness such events. So in order to avoid extinction Humans will need to plan for the future of their existence, and the existence of future generations. “Without an eye toward the future, we flounder in the present.” -Sally Ride
News Article URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/aug/28/the-case-against-mars-colonisation
Sally Ride quotation URL:
History of Topic URL:
http://origins.osu.edu/article/colonizing-mars-practicing-other-worlds-earth
