Kim Stanley Robinson presented a pretty level-headed terraforming scenario in the Mars Trilogy IMO.
This article reflects a false "Green vs. Expert" dichotomy that is, sadly, all too common on the Left. Being green and anti-capitalist means, ipso facto, being at least a primativist lite. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Eric Hunting <[email protected]> wrote: > What Musk was describing in this interview is a concept sometimes called > 'ballistic terraforming' and which can be achieved in a variety of ways. > Musk chose to refer to a method that sounds more realistic to most people; > nuclear bombs. The easier and more practical way more commonly proposed is > steering small comets or icy objects from the outer solar system into > collision with Mars. As inconceivable as that sounds, that's relatively > simple through the use of automated spacecraft as 'gravity tugs' to coax > planned changes in orbit, though it may take decades to move an object into > the desired path. The point of all this is simple; triggering an atmospheric > thermal cascade by putting enough water vapor into the atmosphere at once so > that, by the greenhouse effect, it raises temperature and causes more water > in the Mars crust globally to evaporate into the atmosphere and > progressively increases the temperature and atmosphere density to where the > surface might be colonized by very hardy plants like lichens--if they can be > adapted to tolerate the large amounts of toxic perchlorate salts in the > water and soil. In this way enough atmosphere might be built up to where > humans can operate on the surface without space suits--though still > requiring supplemental oxygen. This 'fast' process is still a process that > would take many generations to accomplish, as opposed to the very many > centuries pumping synthetic greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere would > using the other more commonly suggested method. Realistically, it may take > generations of research from the present day before we even know enough > about Mars to say whether or not these methods would work and it remains an > open question of whether it would be worthwhile given that Mars, lacking an > active planetary core, cannot produce its own magnetosphere to help hold an > atmosphere sustainably--which is why it lost it's formerly dense atmosphere > in the first place. And, of course, we don't even know if long term living > under Mars' reduced gravity is safe or if a clinical solution to that > problem is possible. By the time any of that matters, the technology > proposed may be made completely moot by nanotechnology and the 'human race' > may be long supplanted by transhumans who would need none of these elaborate > machinations to live in that environment. > > So, basically, the author of this piece, triggered by the 'N word', is > complaining about something that is, at best, pure speculation if not > retrofuturist SciFi. What personally annoys me is the playing to the old > argument of; "why should we go to space just to export our terrestrial > madness?" This is rooted in a notion that the human race is ultimately a > mistake that needs to be contained, that all works of man are inherently > profane, and that we need to 'grow up' more and get our terrestrial house in > order to be worthy of doing things in the sacrosanct heavenly realms beyond > Earth. It never occurs to proponents of this notion that the act of going to > space might be a necessary part of that process of growing up. That we might > need the challenge of the space environment to ultimately learn the craft of > sustainability because Mother Earth molly-coddles us with a too-benign > environment that make its too easy to cheat. That we might need frontiers on > which to experiment in new ways of life when every single part of the Old > World is now owned and ruled-over by someone with vested interests in doing > things old ways. > > There is a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of space > settlement here which relates to preconceptions about space activity and its > relationship to the military industrial complex and exploitation for > nationalist prestige. It is assumed to be some expression of militaristic or > corporatist culture--understandable given that the outpost architecture > commonly illustrated is always militaristic in character. But in practice > every plausible space settlement must--of necessity--be a cohabitation > eco-village seeking an ideal sustainability. (on pain of death) The ultimate > space settler will not see themselves as a 'conqueror' of space but a > gardener of the universe and an experimenter in alternative lifestyle. The > garden is the essential functional and cultural core of any truly plausible > space settlement concept. The bottom-line of space development is that > learning to live in space means learning to go from dirt, rocks, and > sunlight to a sustainable middle-class standard of living using tools and > systems on the scale of home appliances--and there is nothing about life on > Earth and the way civilization here works that such capability will not > radically change. If one wished to make a valid argument here, argue about > the largely disingenuous and retrofuturist nature of contemporary proposals > for so-called space settlement coming from governments who are, ultimately, > not in the business of inventing new places for people to go and not pay > taxes and from corporations who are fully aware that the only sustainable > ROI from space not based on exploiting government bankrolls cannot realize > that ROI in banks on Earth but only in infrastructure out there. Complain > about the root corruption of priorities in national space agencies that must > pander to the vanities of opposing political interests to survive as venues > for pork-barrel politics. Complain about the continued elitism and > militarism of the contemporary space development vision when the technology > emerging and already at hand points to a near future where the settlement of > any body in space is soon to become a community project akin to Linux. > > > > On 9/29/15 2:35 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > 1. Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: [Debate-List] (Fwd) Elon Musk's > bourgeois Mars (Michel Bauwens) > > > -- > Eric Hunting > [email protected] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > > Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net > Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net > > Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by > making a donation. Thank you for your support. > https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > -- Kevin Carson Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
