sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) (02/26/91)
Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the population problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issue, our propensity to overpopulate. OK, so it's a tangential argument but what the hell, I'm a tangential sort of chap :-) Toodle pip. Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab. Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/27/91)
In article <6956@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: >Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people >to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the population >problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all >green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issue, >our propensity to overpopulate.... You seem to think that terraforming has someting to do with overpopulation. This is a curious assumption. We will never be able to export population in sufficient numbers to avoid having to deal with overpopulation here, regardless of whether there are attractive places to go. Too few people are willing to go and it is too expensive to transport the ones who are. The point of terraforming is diversity, and lifeboats, not replacement. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) (03/04/91)
sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: > Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people > to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the populatio > problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all > green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issu > our propensity to overpopulate. OK, so it's a tangential argument but what t > hell, I'm a tangential sort of chap :-) Terraforming is my least favorite option for creating living space for humanity.. The energy cost estimated for the terraforming of mars, the most earthlike planet in the solar system is in the area of 10^23 watts, or about 100 million times as much as the entire energy consumption fo humanity for all purposes. and that is just to convert the atmosphere! There will still be an immense effor in setting up a self sustaing ecology. for such a cost we could create billions of O'Neill colonies a lot faster.
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/05/91)
In article <PH49X2w163w@bluemoon.uucp> bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) writes: >Terraforming is my least favorite option for creating living space for >humanity.. The energy cost estimated for the terraforming of mars, the >most earthlike planet in the solar system is in the area of 10^23 watts, >or about 100 million times as much as the entire energy consumption fo >humanity for all purposes. ... Ah, but the *easy* planet to terraform is *Venus*. It's atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, which makes it both very hot, and very dense. Now, plants convert carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight into complex hydrocarbons and oxygen. The hydrocarbons, being solid, are removed from the atmosphere. This results in a cooler, less dense atmosphere. Also, the hydrocarbons could act as a humic base for real soil!. Thus to terraform Venus just add a few tons of aerosol phytoplankton and wait a good while. It will become inhabitable with no furhter help. [Note the phytoplankton must be cabable of living floating in air, and with little wate, but that is easily accomplished] -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)
neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) (03/06/91)
In article <PH49X2w163w@bluemoon.uucp> bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) writes: > >Terraforming is my least favorite option for creating living space for >humanity.. The energy cost estimated for the terraforming of mars, the >most earthlike planet in the solar system is in the area of 10^23 watts, >or about 100 million times as much as the entire energy consumption fo >humanity for all purposes. and that is just to convert the atmosphere! > Well, nice big numbers, but meaningless. Watts are units of power, not of energy. For instance, the Sun puts out a continous power of 4.24x10^26 Watts. >There will still be an immense effor in setting up a self sustaing >ecology. for such a cost we could create billions of O'Neill colonies a >lot faster. > Well, I believe that terraforming would be performed with life forms doing much of the work. Earth was terraformed from a methane/ammonia mess without the use of huge artificial power systems, it just took a little while. Humans don't have the capacity now to generate even one tenth of one percent of the power which the Sun pours down onto us, so comparing energy costs with human power consumption or generating ability is pretty pointless. At the moment, humans are a small perturbation (in terms of energy) on the machinery of the Earth. According to some articles I was reading a few months ago, if the surface of Venus were scarred, and liquid water made to collect on the surface (two very big 'if's, but indulge me), a significant fraction of the atmosphere would be absorbed into the exposed rocks. The water catalyzes the reaction so that it occurs on the scale of centuries instead of eons. As has already been pointed out, terraforming will not be used to alleviate overpopulation problems on Earth. That doesn't mean it's pointless, though I don't imagine that people will really want to make a liveable gravity well out of it. Why go all the way out of this gravity well just to leap down the next one? Mars might stand a better chance than Venus of being terraformed, as it's a much more likely place for colonization, and once there, some people might want to give their surroundings some variety. -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | Note: new host. neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | helios will still cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | forward my mail to "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | me on aurora.
rjg2@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Gibson) (03/07/91)
test
jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) (03/07/91)
I can think of some valid reasons to terraform a currently lifeless planet like Mars or Venus. They pretty much presuppose a wealthy society with resources and time to burn. 'Theological': There are a lot of folks who feel life has intrinsic value. If Venus or Mars (Or whatever world you care to insert) have no life, then perhaps they would feel an obligation to introduce lifeforms that could survive there. Societies have invested large amounts of labour into projects which to outsiders seem non-productive; Egyptian pyramids and European cathedrals, for example. I don't think it is out of the question that someone in a few centuries might decide to devote several trillion dollars worth of effort to spreading life throughout the accessable universe, particularly if life seems to be very rare at that time. Judging by the fuss environmentalists make over changing esisting ecosystems, I would guess that one successful attempt to introduce life would poison the well for later ones. 'Condos': Hey, habitats wear out in a few centuries. Earth has persisted for *5 billion years*. Talk about consistant resale value. No, this doesn't make a lot of sense, but neither do condos, and they sell well. Wealthy societies can afford silly luxuries. 'Art': Think of terraforming as a very large example of performance art. James Nicoll