Why colonizing Mars is a terrible idea
You may have heard that as civilization faces the threat of climate change, humanity should look for a second home planet to use as an escape plan in case Earth becomes inhabitable. Proponents of this theory often identify Mars, the red planet, as a strong potential candidate, citing its many Earth-like traits and the possibility of terraforming it to further resemble our home. By altering its climate, atmosphere, and surface, Mars should evolve from a cold and barren world to one that can sustain life and civilization. But alas, this is one of those ideas that initially sounds ingenious, but the longer you think about it, the less plausible it becomes. The concept suffers from several flawed assumptions, unrealistic expectations, misconceptions about technology and logical fallacies. In this article, we will take a deep dive into the idea of terraforming and colonizing Mars, examining and, most crucially, debunking the misinformed arguments of its adherents.
Mars’ Earth-like History
One of the primary arguments for terraforming Mars resides in its past. The planet was once an Earth-like world with a thick atmosphere, liquid water, and possibly life on its surface. Therefore, many assume that reversing the natural processes that made it lose its habitability can restore its former glory. However, this argument ignores that Mars lost its habitability over billions of years due to factors beyond our control. For example, Mars lost its magnetic field about four billion years ago, exposing it to the solar wind that stripped away most of its atmosphere and water. Without a magnetic field, attempts to increase the atmospheric pressure or temperature on Mars would be futile, as the solar wind would continue to erode the atmosphere over time. Moreover, Mars has a much lower gravity than Earth, which makes it harder to retain gasses in its atmosphere. Even if we could somehow generate enough greenhouse gasses to warm up Mars, they would eventually escape into space or freeze on the surface, making the planet uninhabitable once again.
Terraforming Mars with Current Technology
Another argument for terraforming Mars is that we have the technology to do so using existing resources on Mars or in the solar system. For example, some suggest using nuclear bombs, asteroids, or comets to melt the polar ice caps and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Others propose employing mirrors, lasers, or solar sails to increase the solar radiation reaching Mars and heat it. However, these proposals are either impractical, insufficient, or harmful.
For instance, nuclear bombs would not only create radioactive fallout on Mars but also release negligible amounts of carbon dioxide compared to what is needed to warm up the planet. According to a recent study by NASA scientists, there is not enough carbon dioxide on Mars to create a thick enough atmosphere to warm the planet and sustain liquid water on the surface; we would have to import massive amounts of carbon dioxide from other sources such as comets and asteroids — a highly risky operation requiring precise orbital maneuvers and timing to avoid catastrophic impacts.
Using mirrors, lasers, or solar sails to increase the amount of solar radiation that reaches Mars is also implausible, as technology is far from advanced enough to ensure that these enormous interstellar structures could avoid long-term damage from micrometeoroids or space debris while also making any significant contribution to heating the frozen wasteland.
Even if we managed to solve all of those issues and figure out a way to make the barren wasteland that is Mars into an oasis for life, this presents an almost hilarious logical fallacy. As illustrated by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson,“If you have the technological capacity to turn Mars into Earth, and I would think you would surely have the technology to turn Earth back into Earth.” If we somehow overcome all the technological hurdles necessary to terraform Mars, then applying that same technology to fix climate change on Earth –- indeed, the most Earth-like planet known to humankind-would be a piece of cake.
Ethical Issues
Terraforming Mars also poses ethical issues that many proponents seemingly gloss over. For instance, terraforming Mars would necessitate irreversible changes to a unique planetary body with its own geological and climatic history and potential for scientific discovery. By altering Mars' natural state, we would lose the opportunity to study it as it is and learn from its past and present conditions, consequently violating the declarations of laws regarding planetary exploration set by the UN. Furthermore, terraforming Mars would raise the question of whether we have the right to do so without the consent or participation of other nations or stakeholders. Who would own or govern Mars and its resources? How would we prevent or resolve conflicts or disputes over its use or exploitation? How would we ensure that terraforming activities do not harm or endanger other space missions or satellites?
Additionally, attempting to terraform Mars would divert our attention and resources from solving the root causes of our environmental problems on Earth. Rather than investing in renewable energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving biodiversity, and adapting to climate change impacts, we would be wasting our time and money on a fantasy project that may never succeed or benefit anyone. Terraforming Mars would also send the wrong message to the public and policymakers that we can escape or avoid the consequences of our actions on Earth by moving to another planet. This could undermine the motivation and urgency to act responsibly and sustainably on our home planet, which is still the only place in the solar system that supports life as we know it.
Terraforming and colonization of Mars is a fascinating idea that appeals to our imagination and curiosity. However, it is by no means a realistic or desirable solution for climate change making Earth uninhabitable. Terraforming Mars is not only well beyond our current technology, but it draws attention away from solving solutions on Earth, when in reality, solving climate change is unimaginably easier than trying to terraform a barren planet. Instead of dreaming of a second Earth on Mars, we should focus on preserving and improving the only Earth we have.