This story first appeared in the Spring 2005 Issue of Ad Astra Magazine
"Men are
weak now, and yet they transform the Earth's surface. In millions of years
their might will increase to the extent that they will change the surface of
the Earth, its oceans, the atmosphere, and themselves. They will control the
climate and the Solar System just as they control the Earth. They will travel
beyond the limits of our planetary system; they will reach other Suns..."
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky c.1926
Say
the word "terraforming" amidst a gathering of space
enthusiasts and it's a bit like upending your beer mug in an Australian pub. It
means you're ready to duke it out with anybody in the joint. And the fight
usually breaks out along these lines: One team sees the quest to replicate the
biosphere of Earth on other planets as a moral imperative, an inevitable
destiny, or both. Others -- equally passionate -- recoil at such pretension,
proclaiming with surety that humans have no right to interfere with Nature as
writ large upon the face of other worlds. Both viewpoints are, of course, so fraught with self-defeating conflicts as to be, well,
flat out wrong.
Weird,
isn't it, that an enterprise that no one now alive can remotely hope to see
fulfilled should arouse such fire and fury? [Nobody quibbles much about warp
drives, wormholes or what we're actually going to reply to ET.] But there seems
to be something about the notion of taking a planet upon whose surface you did
not evolve and changing it to suit yourself that catalyzes all audiences
immediately to one pole or the other.
Bind
yourself to the nearest mast and try to listen dispassionately to the
combatants and you'll start to hear these discussions for what they really are:
religious conflicts. Disagreements rooted in faith, belief and longing. What
you won't hear, usually, is good science.
Not often sound engineering tips. And not much of immediate practical
use to those of us who want to expand Humankind's range to include the resource
base of space, a primary goal of the membership of the National Space Society.
Equally
odd, if you think about it, the terraforming tirades
seem to swirl solely around Mars. The asteroids are much easier to work with.
Earth's Moon is closer, better known and sports a more fun-friendly gravity
field. Europa,
and (likely) other moons of the gas giants, may have lots more liquid water and
could harbor more complex life. Comets
have mega-tons of water and organics and they visit us predictably. And, as
long as we're talking technology that doesn't yet exist, we might imagine (as
Carl Sagan, and a generation of science fiction
writers before him, did) thinning and cooling the atmosphere of Venus -- a
virtual twin of Earth in size and mass -- as least as easily as we could cause
a thicker and warmer atmosphere to magically stick to the low mass of Mars.
[See Randa Milliron's
excellent article in the winter 2005 issue of ad Astra.]
Yet
Mars is where the terraforming battle rages now. So
let's face it.
Designer
Worlds
"Can
we do it? We're doing it on the Earth," argues Jim Bell, lead scientist for the
Mars Exploration Rovers' PANCAM, "We're changing the Earth's atmosphere whether
we realize it or not. It's certainly within the realm of a reasonable
extrapolation of future technology to think we can do it on Mars. Must we do
it? I don't think that's our call. I think that's the call of the people who
are living there a hundred years from now, living in spacesuits, dealing with
this gritty dust that's all over the place, having to manufacture oxygen from
rock or ice underground."
Not
everyone wants to wait that long: "We have the capability now of being the
pioneer species that can go out to a currently barren island out there on Mars
and make it habitable for life," declares engineer and author Robert Zubrin. "Really, what humans are doing is, in a sense,
fulfilling an obligation on behalf of the terrestrial biosphere."
Gaia Weighs In
There
is a notion -- strangely, embraced by both ultra-liberal tree huggers and rabid
reactionary exploiters -- that the Earth is somehow a self-regulating über-organism. This idea implies that Terra's vast mass and
complex biosphere will adapt to human-induced alteration in a manner that is
ultimately favorable to that biosphere as a whole system (though not
necessarily good for humans). But why would it be that Earth can do that, while
Mars seems to have "areo-formed" itself from a warm
wet world to a cold, dry barren wasteland?
As Jim Bell puts it: "How do you go from an Earth-like
place, to a Mars-like place?"
That
is a central question behind the current Spirit/Opportunity missions. And their
Principal Investigator, Steve Sqyures, has this to
say about terraforming: "We are very far from being
able to control -- or even fully understand -- the climate of our own planet.
And I think that changing the climate of an entire planet in an intended
direction, getting an intended outcome and betting people's lives on that
outcome strikes me as a chancy proposition for the foreseeable future. It
sounds like a tough thing to do."
Perhaps
this whole business may turn out to be about simply taking control of the pace
of biological change rather than about redirecting towards or away
from Earth's biology.
Astrogeophysicist
Chris McKay, one of the first scientists to look seriously into the notion of
purposefully guiding the biological evolution of Mars -- and one of the founders of the
so-called Mars Underground -- thinks of a Red Planet re-engineered, but for the
original residents. "If there is life on Mars, it's not doing very well. We
know that from just looking at the planet. And it could use some help," McKay
believes. "I think we would be ethically on good grounds to support it, to
encourage it to flourish into a global scale biota like we have on Earth,
especially if it was on the verge of extinction which it could well be."
McKay would champion a technological
effort to nurture these, presumably microbial, or at least miniature, Martians:
"They would have the right to evolve on their own biological trajectory.
Although Mars is a very interesting world without life, my own personal
judgment is that life is a more intrinsically valuable, beautiful phenomena." Chris McKay perceives a marked difference
between warming the planet up to support simple, stupid life and fully
engineering a human-shirtsleeve balanced Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere at water
cycling temperatures. On McKay's Mars, the first is possible and desirable; the
second is not.
To
do either requires giving the rusty red world a much thicker atmosphere. Mars
atmospheric scientist Scot Rafkin isn't sanguine
about that possibility: "I think it would be tough. And more than the technical
aspect, you have to wonder how expensive it would be versus, say, enclosing
huge regions of Mars and modifying the environment for human habitation. It
might make more sense to do that than to try and add significantly more mass to
the entire atmosphere."
"Life
on Mars probably died out young when the planet went through this
transformation to a thin, cold atmosphere," says planetary scientist David Grinspoon. "There's nothing about the ancient past of Mars
that was so different from Earth that the origin of life should not have
happened. I think it's quite reasonable to look for fossils on Mars (but) in my
opinion Mars at present is dead, dead, dead."
Lacking
any other examples of life in the Universe, there's no denying that Earth
life's propensity to begat more life is spectacular. "The fundamental policy of
life is one of talking barren environments and transforming them into those
that are friendly to the propagation of life," opines Mars Society founder
Robert Zubrin. "That is why we have oxygen in Earth's
atmosphere and why there is soil on Earth's continents. It's an artifact of
life. Symbiotic communities of plants and animals have transformed the Earth."
Earth life and Mars life could be
rooted in the same DNA. Or they could have had independent origins. "The
question of going to Mars if there are, in fact, Martians - even microbes - is
a question that tends to be glossed over by people that are really excited
about the idea of going to Mars," David Grinspoon
adds. "The good news is that there aren't Martians, I'm pretty sure. But we
have to be a lot more sure before we go starting to
set up our strip malls and sports stadiums."
Given
our track record of modifying Earthly environments, can we safely conclude that
Nature has pre-destined -- or at least deputized -- Homo sapiens to be the
agent of its spread to the stars?
Again,
Bob Zubrin: "Human beings in bringing life to Mars
will be, in a very real sense, continuing the work of Creation. We will not be
playing God but engaging in that activity that God gets the most credit for
doing. By so doing, we will show the divine nature of the human species and,
therefore, the precious nature of every member of it. No one will be able to
look at a terraformed Mars and not be prouder to be
human."
Designer
Humans
Ah,
but what is a human in this brave new Universe? Though the specifics are fuzzy
at best, no one disagrees that true, deep change of an entire planet -- Mars or
any other -- will take "a long time."
Our great-great grandchildren may find that it is easier to reshape and
supplement people to live on varied worlds than it is to rework those worlds
for the sake of people. The bio-memetic revolution is
just now being born. And it may seem to its beneficiaries, a few generations
hence, that the idea of altering an entire globe to perform like Earth is
rather like Michelangelo depicting God as a great white, corpulent, male,
cloud-floating human. It's a great work of art, but it now seems awfully
exclusive and faintly embarrassing.
Could
be our concern here ought not to be for what our descendants will think of us
for having contemplated terraforming, but rather what
the terraformers' progeny will think of them for
having actually done it. Heady stuff.
Next page: The Designer's Galaxy