rs or so, though, all it takes is a science fiction fan and some ambition to turn science-fiction into science-fact.
In science fiction, we might be able to drop a couple of devices and terraform the planet into something that we can live on — like the original “Total Recall” — but in reality, is it possible to terraform a planet?
Can We Terraform Mars?
Earth took billions of years of evolution before it was finally suitable for human life. With that sort of timetable, could it even be possible to turn a planet like Mars into something that could support human life without the use of domes or suits?
Theoretically, Mars has everything required to support life: water, carbon, oxygen — found in carbon dioxide — and nitrogen. The problem, at least for human life, is that it’s in the wrong concentration. Earth’s atmosphere is made up of:
- 78.1% nitrogen
- 20.9% oxygen
- 0.9% argon
- 0.1% carbon dioxide.
There’s also a number of other trace gasses in the atmosphere. Mars, on the other hand, has an atmosphere made up of:
- 93% carbon dioxide
- 2.7% nitrogen
- 1.6% argon
- 0.2% oxygen
It’s made up of the same components, but in concentrations that human beings cannot breathe.
To terraform Mars, scientists would have to raise the level of greenhouse gasses on the planet to encourage life to begin growing on its own. This would probably take hundreds of years. While it’s not science-fiction-level terraforming, scientists believe that after a couple of centuries, Mars might be capable of supporting human life.
Should We Terraform Mars?
The biggest question isn’t whether or not we can terraform Mars — we already know that we can, even if it might take centuries. The biggest question here is whether or not we should change the surface of the red planet to suit our own needs.
There are two adamant opinions on the matter. Some people feel we should terraform the red planet because it doesn’t support life on its own, while others feel we would simply be greedily snapping up everything that comes across our paths like humans are wont to do.
First, let us look at some of the pros and cons of terraforming Mars:
- Pro: Mars becomes a backup plan in case something happens to the Earth, whether of our own making (i.e. pollution, nuclear war, etc.) or as the result of a natural disaster.
- Con: If there is life on Mars that we haven’t discovered yet, even at the microcellular level, our plans to terraform the planet might destroy that life.
- Pro: Humans would be able to sustain a larger population on Mars because there would be no need for Earth-like environmental controls or support.
- Con: Terraforming the planet could potentially be interrupting Mars’ natural lifecycle. We’ve assumed the planet is dead, but there’s still evidence of water. The planet is still actively volcanic and all the building blocks for life are there.
What it really comes down to is the difference between intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Mars, it might be argued, has a high intrinsic value which would supersede any value we place upon it. In essence, the argument is that Mars is not merely another piece of land to be purchased and developed, but rather an essential part of our cosmic ecosystem. We have no idea what the repercussions of terraforming the planet might be.
On the other hand, though, staying home on planet Earth could detrimentally affect our ability to travel to the stars. Launching shuttles and rockets from Earth requires massive amounts of fuel to overcome the planet’s gravity. By staging our space-flight operations on Mars, we could potentially use 62% less fuel to achieve the same altitude, due to the reduced gravity on the red planet.
“Can” vs. “Should”
Can we terraform Mars? The answer to that question is a resounding “yes,” even though the process might take centuries. The question we haven’t bothered to answer yet is whether or not we should colonize the red planet, our celestial neighbor. In this case, human arrogance and our inherent superiority complex toward nature should be sidelined in favor of doing the right thing, even if we don’t k