Introduction
Robinson as cited by Golley (1986) succinctly defines a space colony as a vehicle in orbit with the capability of successfully holding humans for months in its physicochemical system. Numerous attempts have been made to establish an independent space system which can host humans, allowing them to live normally and reproduce without support from Earth in terms of energy, material and other inputs. Is this goal achievable? Challenges surrounding the matter is how to appropriately remove carbon dioxide, and supply water and oxygen in the desired quantities in such space. Claims have been made that agriculture can thrive since Martian soil is said to be fertile; and carbon dioxide and sunlight are readily available. Notably, human waste can be utilized as fertilizer as is the case on Earth. Moreover, oxygen will be generated by plants as a by-product of photosynthesis (Collins, 1990). Remedies to space colonies as projected by NASA involves a mechanical solution ( Golley, 1986) . Limitations entailed in this solution include fuel, repairs and parts resupply. Therefore, sustaining the mechanical system to support human life through provision of food, water and removal of wastes would be very costly. Clearly, this kind of space colony would only survive by being Earth’s parasite. Nevertheless, the latest space adventure involves advances in research to create an extraterrestrial ecosystems. Laconically, an ecosystem is a natural system in which an equilibrium is set between biotic and abiotic elements. To support life in space, then an ecosystem must be designed or constructed within it so as to sustain human life infinitely. Problematic issues surrounding such construction entail direct metaphysical and utilitarian components since the ultimate unit of ecology is an ecosystem ( Golley, 1986). Owing to these issues, the big question: can we design a space-colony ecosystem? Should we design space-colony ecosystems? Drawing on the practical and ethical concerns raised in the questions, the paper aims to object the notion that Mars colony is a goal worth pursuing. To achieve this objective detailed arguments against Mars colonization will be offered in the next section explaining why Mars is a danger zone for human life and survival.
Proponents of NASA and fictional science have championed the agenda of designing a space colony. The rationale for such aggressive support include “the utilitarian interests of obtaining resources in space, escaping from Earth, building utopian societies, and the psychosocial interest in meeting a challenge or pursuing an adventure.” ( Golley, 1986 p.5). The western culture has been guided with utopian thinking for years. The essence of pursuing space is a move towards a better world. The present world order is marked by machine utilization – machines literally do everything for human kind. An enormous faith is laid on machines. Therefore, the idea of a world dominated by machines is rather more appealing ( Golley, 1986). Consequently individuals overlook the effects of a space colony marked by extensive use of machines.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Subject Matter
The challenges facing Mars include lack of water, food and oxygen for human survival. Its colonists would have to supply these essentials supplies to achieve any meaningful life in it (Collins, 1990). Atmospheric composition of Mars consist mainly of carbon dioxide (95%) which cannot support human aerobic respiration. Other components include nitrogen (2.7%), argon (1.6%), and water vapor (up to 0.1%) (Collins, 1990). Martian soil has inadequate phosphorus to support growth of crops not to mention penetration of excess ultraviolet light through the atmosphere which would have detrimental effects on plants (Collins, 1990). So fertilizers must equally be supplied by colonists if food production is to be attained through agriculture. Martian atmosphere is relatively thin to offer protection against excess ultraviolet light (Collins 1990).
Advocates of a Mars colony do not just argue from the basis that it is cool to colonize Mars or evade the overcrowded Earth, but they see the need to have an off-world colony that would protect mankind from Earth’s calamities (Warmflash, n.d.). Just to mention a few, Martian carbon dioxide can be harnessed into fuel in top of being used by plants to support photosynthesis which in turn produce oxygen and plant food. Thus a self-sustaining system is practical on Mars (Warmflash, n.d.). The notion that Mars can serve as a safe haven for mankind upon the doom of extinction is far-fetched. Even though we are mandated to preserve our species from Earth’s catastrophe, the pragmatism of Mars is implausible. Notably, “a Mars colony would not insure against large-scale threats to the solar system, such as nearby supernovae, invading extraterrestrials, or an early expansion of the sun. Nor would it insure against threats we pose to ourselves, such as war and environmental destruction” (Stoner, 2017 p.11). Humans by nature carry such threats to every destination and these threats would be transferred to Mars (Stoner, 2017). Therefore, a Mars colony can only offer protection against enormous external threats particular to Earth and to seek Mars colony to evade Earth’s catastrophes is not the solution.
Even if humans land on Mars it would still be unsafe with regards to human health. It is worth noting that a wide range of genetic variability would be necessary among the Martian colonists in order to withstand infirmities that affects minor populations upon isolation from Earth. “A multi-generation starship carrying people whose descendants would colonize a planet orbiting a nearby star would need a population of at least 10,000 and possibly closer to 40,000” (Warmflash, n.d. p.18). Another issue would relate to distance in terms of time and fuel. Many crafts would be needed to carry the needed colony population. It would also consume too much time to transport such population. For instance, to transport the minimum requirement of 10,000, about five hundred voyages would be needed from Earth and relocating these 10,000 persons in a fleet of twenty five ships would take at least fifty years (Warmflash, n.d.).Even if the speed of transport is accelerated by sophisticated technology it would still take less time to try Earth’s moon colony (Warmflash, n.d.). The impact of variability on gravity on human health is another challenge facing Mars colonization (Warmflash, n.d.) not to mention the difficulty imposed on mobility where a pressure suit or a vehicle has to be used in traveling (Collins, 1990). Humans weigh 0.38 of their weight on Earth; this would adversely affect mineralization of their bones. To avoid demineralization of bones Martian colonists would have to exercise daily in huge centrifuge (Warmflash, n.d.). Other negative implication posed by Martian gravity include muscle atrophy, altered immunity and disruption of embryo development in utero given the weightlessness (Warmflash, n.d.).
One would argue that it is prudent to colonize Mars to seek answers to fundamental scientific queries. This is a valid point to colonize Mars owing to the fact that queries relating to Mars can only be addressed on Mars and not Earth. Irrespective of the discipline, questions relating to Mars can only be sought on its surface. Nevertheless, “ the same scientific value that gives us good reason to study Mars gives us moral reason not to colonize it” (Stoner, 2017 p.12). The principle of scientific conservation warn against mankind colonization of Mars. The aftermath of human settlement on Mars would entail investigations and experimentations marred with substantial destruction and invasiveness. However, some would argue that destruction would be averted through usage of moral constraints, the ethical principle that forbid destruction of some things in the name of answering empirical scientific questions about such things (Stoner, 2017 p.12-13), on the application invasive or destructive methods in the investigation. The reality is that a Mar colony would lead to planetary contamination since the principle of scientific conservation would not be feasible (Stoner, 2017). For instance, introduction of Earth’s organism would transform Mars from its abiotic state to biotic one not to mention that it is unethical to experiment with human life in a completely new extraterrestrial system (Stoner, 2017).
Proponents have asserted that Mars colony is not a futile mission after all. Numerous resources can be mined from Mars upon depletion of Earth’s resources. It would therefore be prudent to colonize Mars to tap its rich resources (Stoner, 2017). But, would it really be economical to mine Martian resources? Definitely not, a lot of fuel would be consumed to mine resources “stuck at the bottom of a gravity well” as opposed to mining asteroids on the “surface of Earth’s moon.” (Stoner, 2017 p.10). Therefore, the notion of pursuing Mars to tap its resources would be expensive and enormous losses would be incurred at the end of the day.
As proponents of Mars colony puts it, the solution to impediments of such colonization is terraforming. Terraforming entails modification of a planet’s environment by altering its material configuration and energy. In the case of Mars it involves provision of “a thicker, breathable air, at temperatures high enough for lightly protected human beings to venture forth on its surface.” ( Golley, 1986 p.5). Terraforming would solve the problem of excess ultra violet light penetration into the atmosphere. Polar ice caps can be blackened from their white state so as to absorb more sunlight. Vapor released following melting of the ice and carbon dioxide would make the atmosphere thicker to limit such penetration (Collins, 1990). Nonetheless, Mars would still be poisonous to human life even after such intervention owing to the levels of ultraviolet light that would still penetrate (Collins, 1990). Proponents of Mars colony have argued that water can be extracted from the atmosphere through compression and cooling using electric power of which solar power may be used (Collins, 1990) so as to solve the problem of lack of water. However, storms of dust will disturb the operation of solar panel in addition to the fact that enormous systems of panels will be needed given the distance of 140 million miles of Mars from the Sun (Collins, 1990). It is worth noting that the space colony lacks the living nature found on Earth. Designers of space colony have attempted to recreate life in such colony with minimal success since life in space is constricted and narrow (Golley, 1986). Nonetheless, proponents of space colony support the idea of building life in such environment in order to directly experience and evolve in it. In essence, space adventure empower humans to recreate life using their terms (Golley, 1986).
Robert Zubrin assert that (as cited by Stoner, 2017. p.10 ) “colonizing Mars is therefore a question of reaffirming the pioneering character of our society and failing to colonize Mars constitutes failure to live up to our human nature and a betrayal of our responsibility as members of the community of life.” From this perspective it is believed that humans are innately motivated to advance which is a sign of nobility. It is rather dubious to affirm that humans are innately motivated to make discovery and overcome wilderness from such pioneer squabble (Stoner, 2017). Other perspectives have championed the notion that space colony is the solution to the current sociopolitical predicaments since a realistic, isolated and creative civilization is impossible on Earth. Moreover, Mars offer remedy to such problems by establishing novel generation with new history, thus breaking the norm (Stoner, 2017). This argument is rather implausible. Foremost, there are numerous places on Earth that are isolated ranging from deserts to Arctic tundra. Furthermore, isolated areas on Earth are much pleasanter than Mars to human life. Secondly, “why think that there is a moral or prudential obligation to settle new wilderness so as to rejuvenate the culture via wilderness-mediated experiments in living ?” (Stoner, 2017 p.11). Notably, Robert Zubrin and other pioneers were reacting to the immediate socioeconomic pressure and to such overbearing.
Conclusion
Living being in an ecosystem cannot be put asunder from their environment. Designing an extraterrestrial ecosystem is rather difficult given the fact that comprehensive understanding is lacking with regards to terrestrial system and present environment. Experimental approach has be fronted as the way forward. Terraforming has been applied in such attempts to design an ecosystem which resemble that of Earth through reformation of a planet’s environment so as to accommodate human colony. T he idea of exploring an extraterrestrial ecosystem is noble. A Mars colony probably would offer solutions to the predicaments highlighted in this paper. However, a lot is at stake as far as human safety and health is concerned upon colonizing Mars. Even after terraforming, Mars still remain an unsafe ground for the survival of mankind and would depend on Earth for energy and other supplies that are essential for human existence. Pursuing Mars as a space colony is marred with a lot of ethical issues not to mention the practicality of it as illustrated herein. Therefore, it is an unworthy goal to pursue Mars as a colony. Some perspectives which may or may not be pleasant depending on varied perspectives are put forward herein; the person who reads may decide to agree or disagree with the proposed ideas. Nevertheless to contend that one value cannot be intrinsically superior to a different one and consequently just letting the mission to Mars to carry the day, is an unpleasant option. The duty therefore, in the post-modernist era is to adopt the finest approach, even while acknowledging that our choices are at best contingent, and certainly subject to rigorous debate and constant revision.
References
Collins, M. (1990). Mission to Mars: An astronaut’s vision of our future in space. New York: Grove Weidenfeld .
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. Forget Mars. Here's Where We Should Build Our First Off-World Colonies. Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/09/08/where-build-off-world-colonies/
