For me the biggest issue with terraforming is that we have no idea what would happen. It's not like we have hundreds, or thousands of habitable planets or Moons to experiment with. And anything that involves introducing life to a planet that either doesn't have life yet or has different lifeforms is likely to be irreversible - how could you remove a microbe from Mars or Ganymede or Europa if it had an effect you don't like?
So - not so much a matter a question of whether there is life there or not. Just if it is habitable - I think we still need to take great care.
As for scientific interest, you sometimes get the impression that Mars, or Europa are only of interest for biology if they have native life. But they are also of great interest, to start with anyway, if they don't have life. What happens to a planet or an ocean with organics and all the ingredients of life, left for billions of years, without life? In our experiments in laboratories you get complex chemicals and things that resemble life in some ways even from short experiments in a small flask. So there would be bound to be lots of interesting chemistry. And that could help tell us about the enormous gap in our knowledge between pre-biotic chemistry and biology.
Do we get things that "almost reproduce" but not quite life? Do we get a metabolism, but without biology in the usual sense? Do we get chemicals like RNA or TNA that reproduce, but imperfectly, without any metabolism? What happens to a planet scale ocean, full of organics, left for a few billion years?
We can't duplicate that in a laboratory or simulate it. And if we seed it with life, then we might never have a clear picture of how it worked before we introduced life to it.
And - terraforming is such a long term thing. On Earth it took many millions of years. Maybe we could speed it up enough so that it takes thousands of years? But then there is also much that can go wrong - if we can speed it up as much as that - then presumably it can also unterraform quickly also - and head off in unexpected directions.
And in any case - what chance do we have of sustaining a high technology project, with space mirrors, greenhouse factories etc, for thousands of years at our current levels of technology and social development? We do well to keep a single space project on track for a few decades at present.
So, I wouldn't say it is irresponsible, but rather, premature. Right now, we know so little, and can learn so much also from studying the solar system as it is now.
If we want to build habitats in space - then build them in places which are not habitable. E.g. using materials from the asteroid belt, or on the Moon. And most obvious place to start is close to Earth.
But terraforming I think is intellectually interesting, and fun to think about and write science fiction about. And who knows, maybe some day in the future we may know enough to be able to do it responsibly.
So - not so much a matter a question of whether there is life there or not. Just if it is habitable - I think we still need to take great care.
As for scientific interest, you sometimes get the impression that Mars, or Europa are only of interest for biology if they have native life. But they are also of great interest, to start with anyway, if they don't have life. What happens to a planet or an ocean with organics and all the ingredients of life, left for billions of years, without life? In our experiments in laboratories you get complex chemicals and things that resemble life in some ways even from short experiments in a small flask. So there would be bound to be lots of interesting chemistry. And that could help tell us about the enormous gap in our knowledge between pre-biotic chemistry and biology.
Do we get things that "almost reproduce" but not quite life? Do we get a metabolism, but without biology in the usual sense? Do we get chemicals like RNA or TNA that reproduce, but imperfectly, without any metabolism? What happens to a planet scale ocean, full of organics, left for a few billion years?
We can't duplicate that in a laboratory or simulate it. And if we seed it with life, then we might never have a clear picture of how it worked before we introduced life to it.
And - terraforming is such a long term thing. On Earth it took many millions of years. Maybe we could speed it up enough so that it takes thousands of years? But then there is also much that can go wrong - if we can speed it up as much as that - then presumably it can also unterraform quickly also - and head off in unexpected directions.
And in any case - what chance do we have of sustaining a high technology project, with space mirrors, greenhouse factories etc, for thousands of years at our current levels of technology and social development? We do well to keep a single space project on track for a few decades at present.
So, I wouldn't say it is irresponsible, but rather, premature. Right now, we know so little, and can learn so much also from studying the solar system as it is now.
If we want to build habitats in space - then build them in places which are not habitable. E.g. using materials from the asteroid belt, or on the Moon. And most obvious place to start is close to Earth.
But terraforming I think is intellectually interesting, and fun to think about and write science fiction about. And who knows, maybe some day in the future we may know enough to be able to do it responsibly.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0