https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why

On 1/18/2023 1:22 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why

Hey, I watched Firefly. They found a bunch of new planets.

Lynn

On 2023-01-18, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/2023 1:22 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why
>
> Hey, I watched Firefly. They found a bunch of new planets.

Some other power clearly rearranged that solar system.

-dsr-

On 1/18/2023 11:53 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 1/18/2023 1:22 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why
>
> Hey, I watched Firefly.  They found a bunch of new planets.
>
They _terraformed_ some planets and a bunch of moons and asteroids.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:23:02 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why

They're _mostly_ right and _partly_ wrong.

The exoplanets we know so far, even the most "Earth-like" of them, are indeed
uninhabitable. Turning Mars into another Earth - "terraforming" it - is far beyond
our present capabilities.

And we could not evacuate the Earth's people even to the Moon, let alone a
distant planet. One day's increase in the Earth's population is far beyond the
number of people we can launch into space in a year.

All of that is true. The fight to prevent our foolish actions from rendering the
Earth uninhabitable _must_ be won, or 99.999% of the human race will die.

So where are they _wrong_?

Preventing the Earth from becoming uninhabitable *is not fully under our
control*. We aren't yet set up to be able to divert any asteroid that could
possibly hit the Earth, although we are working on it. There is also the small
matter of some nuclear weapons being under the control of irresponsible
parties, like one Vladimir Putin.

Mars can't be made into another Earth. But a few habitats could be hollowed
out underground, and made quite Earthlike - enough to support about a
thousand human beings or so. Humans _can_ live elsewhere than on Earth,
not by finding a natural habitat filled with life _like_ that on Earth that they
can already live in, but by bringing the life from Earth with them, and providing
it with additional habitat.

Supply the air and the rocks and the light, and bring lichens. Add water. Gradually
introduce other forms of plant life. And bees. And ants. And earthworms, when there's
enough soil for them.

Ensure that humanity will continue, even if something goes terribly
wrong. Because it can despite our best efforts. There may be those who
will refuse to participate in avoiding the Earth's destruction as a home
for humanity unless we bow down to their tyranny.

Having a population elsewhere will show them that they can't win.

John Savard

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 5:38:12 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:23:02 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why
> They're _mostly_ right and _partly_ wrong.
>
> The exoplanets we know so far, even the most "Earth-like" of them, are indeed
> uninhabitable. Turning Mars into another Earth - "terraforming" it - is far beyond
> our present capabilities.
>
> And we could not evacuate the Earth's people even to the Moon, let alone a
> distant planet. One day's increase in the Earth's population is far beyond the
> number of people we can launch into space in a year.
>
> All of that is true. The fight to prevent our foolish actions from rendering the
> Earth uninhabitable _must_ be won, or 99.999% of the human race will die.
>
> So where are they _wrong_?
>
> Preventing the Earth from becoming uninhabitable *is not fully under our
> control*. We aren't yet set up to be able to divert any asteroid that could
> possibly hit the Earth, although we are working on it. There is also the small
> matter of some nuclear weapons being under the control of irresponsible
> parties, like one Vladimir Putin.
>
> Mars can't be made into another Earth. But a few habitats could be hollowed
> out underground, and made quite Earthlike - enough to support about a
> thousand human beings or so. Humans _can_ live elsewhere than on Earth,
> not by finding a natural habitat filled with life _like_ that on Earth that they
> can already live in, but by bringing the life from Earth with them, and providing
> it with additional habitat.
>
> Supply the air and the rocks and the light, and bring lichens. Add water. Gradually
> introduce other forms of plant life. And bees. And ants. And earthworms, when there's
> enough soil for them.
>
> Ensure that humanity will continue, even if something goes terribly
> wrong. Because it can despite our best efforts. There may be those who
> will refuse to participate in avoiding the Earth's destruction as a home
> for humanity unless we bow down to their tyranny.
>
> Having a population elsewhere will show them that they can't win.
>
> John Savard
I've been working through a lot of this in my own project. My own scenario has been ca 8,000 people on Mars 25-30 years after initial landings, including up to about 1,000 "natives" born on planet. From there, you could get up to 10-20,000 people. Without either serious terraforming or equally hardcore genetic engineering on the settlers, you probably wouldn't get past 100,000. The paradox is that by the time you have 3-5 generations of a self-sustaining colony, they won't be keen on going "home" if priorities change. The tricky part is the politics. If you have the major powers united to support expansion into space, the mere existence of the colonists could be enough to keep the peace. If they are competing to claim territory and resources like the European powers did in Africa, you have a setup for a World War long before you get a sustainable settlement.

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 7:28:01 PM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:

> The tricky part is the politics. If you have the major powers united to support
> expansion into space, the mere existence of the colonists could be enough
> to keep the peace. If they are competing to claim territory and resources
> like the European powers did in Africa, you have a setup for a World War
> long before you get a sustainable settlement.

My scenario is simply that this happens in the near future, when one and only
one country has the ability to establish a colony on Mars: the United States of
America.

The idea being that there is a threat of having a World War *anyways*, but with
the colony self-sustaining, the result would be that the American Way, in space,
would be the last survivor in any case. Thus discouraging such a war, perhaps.

John Savard

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:23:02 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why

Same old same old, version 395305.