Essay Sample on Mars Colonization

Introduction

Mars is the forth planet from the Sun and the second-smallest planet in the solar system after Mercury. Human being has already undertaken successful missions to the Moon and a colorization of the red planet seems plausible. Earth is finite, meaning that human beings will eventually exhaust its natural resources. The need to turn to space as an alternative is inevitable. In an essay by Frank Golley, he writes; "If we are to live in space it will be necessary to design and construct ecological systems that can support humans indefinitely". Questions pertaining to whether we can design a space-colony ecosystem or whether it is necessary to do so are critical.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Sir Arthur Tansley defined ecosystem as:

A natural system composed of living and nonliving components. Tansley used the word system to stress the physic-like character of his conception and the importance of equilibria in ecosystem dynamics(1935)

According to G.S Robinson, the definition of a space colony is, "a space vehicle in orbit around the earth is a colony (or at least a proto-colony since it successfully holds [ humans...]in a physicochemical system for days and months". To accomplish this goal, we will need both scientific and mechanical approach to build a space colony. Howard Odum points out that a mechanical solution is the instinctive approach of the engineer and has dominated the NASA discussions of space colonies. To quote Golley's essay; "the problem with the mechanical approach is that resupply of parts, repairs, and fuel are required so that while it is obviously possible to sustain humans in space, it is probably not possible to supply them with the requirements to sustain life (food, waste removal, water and so on) while maintaining the mechanical system at a tolerable cost". In the 1960s ecologists suggested that biological organism need to be coupled to humans in some way to solve this problem.

The biological part would supply food, gases, water, and process wastes. Protection from the space environment, control, and monitoring of biological resources, the built environment, recreation, work and so forth are all supplied and maintained by physio-engineering methods.

Therefore, the question of the feasibility of space-colony is possible. To quote from Frank Golley's essay, "Given adequate resources and singleness of mind, it is consequently possible to design a series of experiments that would lead ultimately to a colony in space". Ecologists have argued that a colony ecosystem needs to be large enough and contain sufficient biological diversity for the important processes of production and regeneration to occur by evolving, adapting biological organisms, operating in ecological systems

The Martial planet is rich in resources that geologist suggest are probably grouped in deposits that make them mineable; these resources have fundamental use on earth. Contrary to this argument, there are moral arguments that illustrate a failure of the resource-inclined reason for colonizing Mars. That is, the failure to manage Earth's resources economically such that is advantageous to opt to space for more. Furthermore, it is more economically viable to reach many resource-rich asteroids let alone the surface of the Earth's moon. To quote from Ian Stoner's essay Humans should not colonize Mars, "many resource-rich asteroids are fuel-intensive to reach than the surface of Earth's moon- let alone the surface of Mars. The resources of Mars provide no economic justification or colonization".

Hedging against the risk of a potentially extinction-level catastrophic ordeal like the one that made dinosaurs to become extinct is an argument proposed by many influential people like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking. However, it is argued that a colony on Mars would not protect the human species against externally imposed large-scale threats to the solar system such as; nearby supernovae, invasion by extraterrestrials or by an early expansion of the sun let alone threats that we impose on ourselves like war and environmental distraction. To quote Ian Stoner's essay; "the range of species-level threats addressed by a Mars colony is relatively narrow. A Mars colony would not insure against large-scale threats to the solar system..."

This is Elon Musk's reason for pushing for Mars. Carl Sagan, Ray Bradbury, Stephen Hawking, and Paul Davies have all endorsed some version of the species-survival arguments for space colonies. Everyone on this list agrees that establishing an autonomous colony on Mars is a rational response to the imperative to hedge against the risk of an extinction-level catastrophe on Earth.

Freeman Dyson said that we shall only find out things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our present-day science if we go looking for them. This should be done in order to derive anger to important scientific questions. This is the most genuine reason to go, Mars, because scientific questions about Mars cannot be better answered here on Earth. Particularly, questions on Mar's history, geology, geography, weather, chemistry, and many others. Some of the discoveries that can potentially be obtained from the research done Mars would have a lasting effect through a variety of disciplines. To quote the essay, "these are huge, tectonic questions that Mars can potentially answer, and it is our best bet, in our lifetimes, for answering them"

Another reason to colonize Mars lays in the fact that humans are naturally inquisitive, have the drive to explore, expand and to pioneer. According to Robert Zubrin, humans instinctively have an urge to expand and that this innate nature is noble. However, it appears to be descriptively false claim that humans have an innate drive to discover and subdue the 'wilderness'. Characterizing such a drive as noble according to Zubrin is morally dubious despite the fact that expanding knowledge is usually a gracious undertaking. According to Freeman Dyson, colonizing Mars would provide a new generation the chance to establish a fresh and vigorous society that will complete the human spirit. The con to this argument is that there are plenty of isolated places on Earth that have yet to be settled and every one of these places is much hospitable to human bodies than that of the surface of Mars. Therefore, there is no justified moral or prudential requirement to colonize Mars so as to rejuvenate the human culture via experiments in living.

Despite plenty of beneficial reasons put forward to support colonizing Mars, there are moral reasons not to. The principle of scientific conservation is one of the most profound. According to Ian Stoner's essay, states that,

Destruction or significantly invasive investigation of an object of scientific interest is morally permissible only when; (1) significantly invasive investigation does not threaten the scientific or nonscientific values instantiated in that object and (2) no adequate alternatives to the significantly invasive investigation are available.

To that effect, this illustrates that any principle-violating investigation is impermissible unless the principle of scientific conservation is exceeded in importance by a countervailing more important moral value. Hence, employment od a destructive technique in transgression of the principle of scientific conservation is a moral failure. The human colony on Mars would definitely violate the principle of scientific conservation because human presence on Mars is likely to compose a significantly invasive or destructive investigation of the Martian environment. To quote from the essay,

Human colonists, like all humans, would be coated in and stuffed with bacteria, yeast, and fungus. Humans on the surface of Mars would continuously inoculate the planet with new strains of Earth life, constantly sowing possible progenitors of eventual Mars-adopted life

A human being has an adequate noninvasive method available therefore it is pro tanto wrong to use destructive methods.

Another reason for going to Mars is the potential of violating the minimally invasive technique. It is almost certain that Mars colonization will not tread lightly on the Martian environment. If Mars is currently abiotic, human beings will probably introduce microbes from the earth that would potentially transform Mars into the abiotic environment, in turn, altering the planet's ecosystems. The tread lightly principle insists on almost "zero impact" on wilderness areas so that natural processes quickly eliminate our areas of impact. Zero impact means "whatever impact you do make should be indistinguishable from the effect of natural processes after a suitable period of time".

There are other plausible theories against colonizing Mars, one is the challenge of terraforming Mars. The article has defined terraforming as "wholesale rearrangement of the planet's environment by modifications of is energy balance of its material composition so that the planet can be made habitable to life". Extensive rearrangement of a planet's environment by modification of its energy balance or it's material composition so that the planet can be made habitable to life. This is the engineering of the Martian planet enough to support humans and other Earth life ecosystem without protective domes and other enclosed structures. This is a relatively more ambitious approach that would require centuries and will cost a ton of money to build, and parraterraform sections of Mars with a sample of Earth's Biosphere. To quote Michael Collins's essay Mission to Mars "...terraforming of Mars will be an extraordinarily slow process by the standards of terrestrial civilization".

There exist also the problems of distance and gravity. The fuel needed to accelerate the ship from low Earth orbit to escape velocity to travel to Mars is humongous and ships will have to take multiple trips to transfer a portion of the human population to Mars. To quote the article, "Transporting 10,000 people to Mars (the minimum number needed for healthy genetic diversity) requires 500 voyages from Earth, while 4,000 voyages would be needed to reach the 80,000-colonist milestone". Moreover, scientists are not entirely sure what the effects of gravity will be on human health. To quote from an essay by David Warmflash.

On earth, you weigh 0.38 your weight on Earth and we're not entirely sure what this would do to human health.to keep Mars residents' bones from demineralizing, for instance, they might need to exercise inside large centrifuges every single day.

Conclusion

To suffice, ethical and practical aspects about colonizing Mars should be considered in great length before we embark on our mission to the red planet. All the stake holders should be thoroughly examining the feasibility of the mission to ensure there are checks and balances.

Reference

Collins, M. (1988). Mission to Mars. National Geographic, 174, 732-764.

Golley, F. B. (1986). Environmental ethics and extraterrestrial ecosystems. Beyond Spaceship Earth: Environmental Ethics and the Solar System, 211.

Stoner, I. (2017). Humans Should Not Colonize Mars. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(3), 334-353.

Warmflash, D (2014). Forget Mars. Here's where we should build our first-off world colonies. Discover magazine