# Terraforming?



## Muad'Dib (Jun 30, 2004)

What do you think about our perspective?Where our future lies, here on Earth,or we must find a new home? Terraforming is a process of planetary engineering, specifically directed to enhancing the capacity of an extraterrestrial planetary environment to supprot life. Reality of 21st century or far future?


----------



## The Master™ (Jun 30, 2004)

I think terraforming is a great idea, to create an Earth-like planet..  

Only problem is, it would take a bloody long time... And which method do you use...

Drawing from Sci-Fi - you could use the huge structures of those seen in Aliens... Or, drawing from Science Fact - you could use plants!!!

I seem to remember something said about the terraforming of Mars, through bio-domes containing certain types of plants, then pumping the oxygen into the atmosphere... There was also mention of certain types of moses that could bio-engineered to grow in different atmospheres and produce huge amounts of oxyen... Then you'd need to "seed" any clouds to create rain... From that, hope that the planet is suitable for colonisation and it doesn't become unstable... Creating new natural disasters...

But all this would take a long, long time... And no guarantees that it would work...

So, the next thing is to find a semi-suitable almost-Earth-like planet that we can easily travel to...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 30, 2004)

We should possibly address some social issues here first. Otherwise it's more a case of Man spreading his problems around the universe, rather than breaking frontiers.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 1, 2004)

I think we should send criminal types to collonise other planets... (Similar to Earth2 and a story from 2000AD)...

If we transported criminal types (murderers, rapists, etc) to hostile planets, then they'll have something to keep them occupied; you get lots of data, some of this planets problems are solved, and you save a fortune in taxpayers money keeping these people in jail for the rest of their lives!!!

Man's problems will never be solved when this planet has 6.6billion people, not enough resources for all, and more leisure time on peoples hands!!!


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 1, 2004)

So you're saying I'd have to go crooked to wind up in space? Hey, cool! Whatever it takes...

On a more serious note, I doubt that our current social failings can be remedied any time soon enough to consider venturing into space within the next, oh, 5 or 6 billennia. And I doubt that will make a difference - just like the colonization of parts of the earth by various past and present civilizations, the push into space will be commercially motivated.

I see space tourism as the real kicker for the new space age. First, just ultra rich folk spending a while in earth orbit. Then, orbital luxury hotels, reosrts on the moon, an endless chain of Rivieras among the Stars...and in parallel, the discovery and exploitation of deposits of raw materials across the solar system, as well as techniques for superior manufacturing processes in factories located in orbit or on other planets.

And as it becomes profitable to have human beings on other planets, we will move the  heavens to find ways to transform them to be hospitable environments. I see this as happenign across likely candidates in the Solar System - starting with Mars and moving on to some of the Jovian sattelites - over the next 2000 years. 

Gregory Benford's Against Infinity posited an interesting approach to terraforming - creating genetically engineered organisms tat can fill certain niches in the environment and contribute towards the build up of conditions conducive to us. This makes sense if you conisder that 
the amount of available oxygen in our planet's atmosphere is only the side-product of the energy mechanisms of early organisms - later life had to evolve to survive and even utilise this highly damaging element.


----------



## Muad'Dib (Jul 1, 2004)

I think that the most "easiest" way for human race to colonize the other planets, in future,is to take reverse process.Like in novel by James Blish "The Seedling Stars".And that's the humanity will colonize other planets not by adapting the environment of those planets to men(terraforming),but by adapting men to alien environments.That is possible because of expansion in bio-chemistry knowledge.If we create a new form of human race,in that case that living form must keep human mind.Must think in the same way,must be able to learn,love... And for that kind of creature we are free to say -they represent a different us- Us in some other world.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 1, 2004)

Why not download the human mind into a computer??? Create robots suitable to survive in hostile conditions and upload the human mind into the robot...

Saves having to change the planet, but have the "person" amended to suit the surroundings...

Is a human being the body, rather than the mind???


----------



## Muad'Dib (Jul 1, 2004)

The monkeys are very similar to humans, if we look only the body.What makes us different from the other mammals?It's MIND.I agree with you Master,if you think that is the most important to save mankind in this present form, but man evolving all the time.Only thing what will remain is the mind. In the future,maybe, we will lose our bodies,and  transform  in to the pure energy-the beings without form,only with mind.But we will remain humans.


----------



## silvercloak (Jul 2, 2004)

_Why not download the human mind into a computer??? Create robots suitable to survive in hostile conditions and upload the human mind into the robot...
_

Did you not read that Star Wars book where they did that, and it just turned into a machine with human memories? Heheh


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 2, 2004)

Muad'Dib said:
			
		

> I agree with you Master,if you think that is the most important to save mankind in this present form, but man evolving all the time.Only thing what will remain is the mind. In the future,maybe, we will lose our bodies,and transform in to the pure energy-the beings without form,only with mind.But we will remain humans.


Man has stopped evolving... Man no longer adapts (evolves) to meet his surroundings, he alters the surroundings to suit him!!! About time there was an evolutionary change...  



			
				silvercloak said:
			
		

> Did you not read that Star Wars book where they did that, and it just turned into a machine with human memories? Heheh


Not read that one... Any good???


----------



## Muad'Dib (Jul 2, 2004)

Man has stopped evolving...(master)

 Today we use only about 6% of our brain, tomorrow that percentage will be higher.And that is some kind of envolving.Also we will lose physical strenght, becasue of superior technology.Our job will be only to think, all the hard work can leave to the machines or robots.Man is changing but that process is very slow.You must agree that we will in the future be much different-in mentally way?


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 2, 2004)

Muad'Dib said:
			
		

> Today we use only about 6% of our brain, tomorrow that percentage will be higher.And that is some kind of envolving.


I think you are talking about a single man (or woman) not the species...

I would think that as a species, the majority of westerners use way less than 5% because they watch only sport and soaps!!!  

A single person, or small group of people, will find a new way for the rest of us to not use our brains to their ultimate...  Therefore, as a species we are not evolving, but using some external means to keep from evolving!!!


----------



## Muad'Dib (Jul 3, 2004)

The Master™ said:
			
		

> the majority of westerners use way less than 5% because they watch only sport and soaps!!!


 You are in wrong if you think the soaps is popular only in west.In this moment,i belive, here is on the program about 6-7 soaps, and that situation is two times daily.All the older womens are watching, and that's scary to know.That kind of people use almoust 2-3% of brain.Maybe even less.


----------



## Hypes (Jul 3, 2004)

> Man has stopped evolving... Man no longer adapts (evolves) to meet his surroundings, he alters the surroundings to suit him!!! About time there was an evolutionary change...



Quite incorrect. You cannot say that we have not developed since the 15th century, or even the 19th, or the 20th!

Technological leaps have been huge, especially during the 20th, but our psychological and sociological evolution has been far greater, though perhaps more difficult to spot. 

Just look at trends - they are sure signs of evolution, though on a small scale.



> You are in wrong if you think the soaps is popular only in west.In this moment,i belive, here is on the program about 6-7 soaps, and that situation is two times daily.All the older womens are watching, and that's scary to know.That kind of people use almoust 2-3% of brain.Maybe even less.



I made a complex analogy to disprove this, but halfway through the sixth paragraph I realised it was all bunk. However, I don't think one becomes lesser by simply watching soaps, simply under-stimulated.

Something I wonder, however, if that those 6% include both the subconscious (muscle control, internal organs, and so forth) and the conscious (creative thought, and so forth), or if they only include the latter and relegate the remainder of menial bodily functions to the remaining 96%.


----------



## Muad'Dib (Jul 3, 2004)

I agree with Hypes, and will always belive that man kind is still envolving.And that thing with soaps is only a joke,  people can watch anything they want,but for me the soaps are extremely stupid.I think that in the some of 94% our brain is sixth sense,and with it some people can see into the future.Brain is,indeed, the biggest mystery of human body.


----------



## nemogbr (Jul 3, 2004)

Hey we do have the Dune series of books. 

The Bene Gesserit tried to breed a superior human. 

The Mentats became human computers, which I wouldn't mind being able to do. 

Anyway Terraforming would take a long time with our current population growth. 

So a few options put forward by Sci- Fi writers: 

colonising the Asteroid belt 
generation ships that can carry a million people at a time. Most would likely be in suspended animation.

In the Night's Dawn Trilogy, the Edenists have use bio-engineered colonies and set up home in Jupiter.

Genetically engineering plants and animals to create viable eco-systems in Venus and Mars.

If faster than light and wormholes in space exist that would certainly solve the distance problem.

 Unfortunately we haven't even reached Mars.


----------



## Stalker (May 31, 2005)

Read Kim Stanley Robinson's Martian trilogy. He describes terraforming very thoroghly.

The other way for humans to colonize the other planets is not adopting planets to ourselves but adopting our organisms to the life on different planets.


----------



## Quokka (Jul 27, 2005)

Just on the human evolution, there seemed to be alot of agreement that the mind was what makes us human  as much as the physical body. As others have said, isn't our cultural, scientific, computerised development that is driven by the collective human intellect as much evolution as walking up right, taking into consideratoin how brief a period it is occuring over, we began flight just over 100 years ago, now a trip to Mars is possible (though maybe not practical).

Mind you we will evolve physically as well, how? who knows but smaller, less muscular, less hair/pigment are all likely. Some of the research around developing traits like dropping sperm counts etc is worrying is it only environmental or evolutionary pressure as well?

As far as Terra forming goes I'd guess we'll atleast attempt it in some form. There are forms of life that can exist in some fairly extreme conditions on earth, so maybe we wont go straight for a replica earth and just try to introduce life to a 'dead' planet and let it develop as we continue to try speeding up the proccess of making it habitable for us along side of it.

And Stalker I'd love to know if Red verses Green factions do develop, it sounded all to plausible.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 28, 2005)

Quokka said:
			
		

> And Stalker I'd love to know if Red verses Green factions do develop, it sounded all to plausible.


What particular factions do you mean, Quokka? If you refer to Red-Green-Blue Mars by Kim S. Robinson, I still haven't yet read it. I know what it's about, I know much of the book but it still remains yet to be read by me. I don't have neither original copy, nor has it been translated to Russian or Ukrainian. Sorry.


----------



## Quokka (Jul 28, 2005)

Ok then, I don't think Id be giving to much about the series away by explaining that there develops a political/ethical struggle concerning the planets future. The 'greens' are all for developing and terra forming whilst a 'red' faction wish to respect and conserve the planet as it is, allowing it to follow its own path with minimal interference. I really enjoyed the series, oftern more for the science than the character plotlines.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 28, 2005)

I put the series into my reading queue long ago. So, I've been looking forward to read it for about 8 years.  Unfortunately, don't have an e-card supporting payment transactions with Amazon or E-Bay. On the other hand, the series is not available among free internet-resources. 

Copyrighted and closed.


----------



## asdar (Oct 14, 2005)

I honestly think we're Devolving, if that's even a word. If you believe in natural selection that is.

I'm American so maybe my numbers are skewed but I think in every developed country the Poor and least educated people have a higher average birth rate. I realize that poor and undeducated doesn't mean less intelligent necessarily but I also believe that it does statistically mean that.

If you're dumb you're more likely to earn less and have more kids. I don't have statistics in front of me and who knows if the one's I've seen were even correct but that's the way I see it.

What that means is that dumb genes are being passed on at a higher rate than the population growth, and that means that the trait of dumbness is more likely to survive than the trait of intelligence.

 I know I'm an idiot, that's why I'm having a lot of kids. We'll get rid of the rest of you soon.

Back to colonization, I love that topic, and think we can colonize Mars, the moon, or possible create a colony from the asteroid belt. The rest of the planets seem too hostile. Mars would be the first try I think.

Mars has a lot of problems now. 

There's no ozone so the radiation from the sun would kill animals and plants without shielding. 

The temperature, even at the equator is freezing so that every water system of life that we know would currently not work. 

We don't know that Mars has enough water left to become a stable water world like we would need to survive. There is oxygen but it's all tied up in CO2.

The air pressure on Mars is so low that any water created instantly evaporates into the void. What that means is that we can't just dump or create any molecule until we figure out a way to contain it on the planet. 

Just for instance if we went about heating up Mars by dumping in green house gasses we might warm it up enough to melt some water ice. That could be the worst possible scenario because we'd need that water badly. The only thing holding that water from evaporating into the void of space is the fact that it's in ice form.

Nitrogen is the majority element in our atmosphere, and necessary to many of our plants. Mars atmosphere has a low ratio of Nitrogen.

I think it can be done, and I'm all for trying. We're never going to solve all the people problems, there's no country or area that has, waiting for that is futile.

I think the first step is to get people there so we can test things out.


----------



## dreamwalker (Oct 17, 2005)

I never really liked the idea of collonising mars using **terraforming**

For one marsian gravity is probably too low to substain a useful atmosphere at earth like tempretures - gas just has too much energy so it escapes - thats the reason why it is as thin as it is. 

The likely Iron cycle and the like of silica and nitrogen in the ground would make porting earth plants and wildlife extremely difficult...

Mars could be fully collonised though, within a thousand years.
Probably through the extensive use of genetic engineering of the human species, and any plants or wildlife ported from earth . Thus creating marsians out of those of us willing...

Venus is technically easier to terraform. 


The main issuses or problems with venus is that it has 5-8 times as much astmosphere as earth. It has 25% more solar energy falling on it as compared to earth. And it's days are half a year long. It doesn't have a magnetic field.
Blocking the sun out using a perminant obiting solar shield, which after a few decades would cool down the atmosphere enough for the temperatures fall enough for work to to be possible on the surface. Cyphoning/harvesting the atmosphere may also occur. 

The bottom line being venus is the closest thing where going to get to earth for a very long time


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 16, 2005)

If I were going to try ang terraform Mars (which I’m not) I’d start by collecting all the convenient comets, loose bits of Saturns rings, loose bits of ice and debris hanging around in the sytem and crash them onto the surface- adding volatiles and energy at the same time. Historians, Aerologists (best I can do for offworld geologists) and hopers for marshian fossiles would burn me in effigy down the ages.
More seriously, do we need to terraform ? Oh. I know sci-fi abounds with Earth-type planets that the new settlers can set out across in their covered wagons, breathing the fresh air and interreacting with exotic natives- but that’s possibly an excuse to adopt plots from other genres. This world was made by life- every morning as I walk to work I see the Jura mountain chain (if it’s not raining) stretching down to Basel, a three hour drive away, and frequently think « that’s a heck of a pile of sea shells » If they cooked the carbon dioxide out of that, we’d have serious global warming. But even on Earth, life accepts a wide range of conditions- and an alien biochemistry which added a bit of chlorine with the oxygen could make life difficult, even for modified humans- and that’s only one of a near infinity of inconveniences. Terraforming that would involve anihilating all local life, with all it’s potential, and replacing it with terrestrial. Personally, I hope it never comes to that.
The first off-earth colonies will either be at L5, or on the moon (that way we can actually send them things if it turns out they’ve forgotten the tin opener), and neither is suitable for terraforming. Like we inhabitants of the caves of steel, they’ll live in an entirely synthetic environment- which needn’t be that bad, You can grow plants, raise animals and small children and avoid mosquitos. If you go for a walk, you need to wear protective clothing (as in Antarctica or Bagdad) Underground gives radiation protection, thermal stability, and lack of draughts. Some of the earlier pioneers will be in the front line for further expansion- Mars, asteroids, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, They’ll be accustomed to the equation « nice solid stone roof = security, wind blowing = pressure loss, catastrophe, adrenaline rush » so the fact they still have to wrap up to go out will be no hardship. 
However good space telescopes get, conditions on extra solar planets won’t be accurately known till someone gets there, so the first colony ships will bring everything with them, or at least the means to make it. These tin can dwellers are perfectly happy to stay in orbit, and when they are forced down to the surface not the least bit disturbed at digging in. and putting farms under domes. If their new home has a reducing atmosphere, for example, they might well launch a biosphere to introduce oxygen, modify surface characteristics and start the process which will render the place habitable in a few millenia- it’s sort of expected of them- but would any of their umpteen grand children (yes, I’m ignoring life extension technologies- we’ve got enough layers of complexity) have any desire to go there ? And would anyone want to allow a load of scruffy oiks from Earth to come and settle, causing conflicts and divisions everyone had thought centuries buried ?


----------



## Alexa (Nov 16, 2005)

I believe we have to wait for the day when humans will be able to "launch a biosphere to introduce oxygen, modify surface characteristics and start the process which will render the place habitable in a few millenia",chrispenycate. And there'll always be some among us ready to conquer new places, no matter what.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 16, 2005)

Alexa said:
			
		

> I believe we have to wait for the day when humans will be able to "launch a biosphere to introduce oxygen, modify surface characteristics and start the process which will render the place habitable in a few millenia",chrispenycate. And there'll always be some among us ready to conquer new places, no matter what.


We haven't got the ship to take us there yet, either (and with the delivery delays CERN's quoting me on antimatter, I'm not hanging around waiting for it)

But why should the new places be conceptually equivalent to the wide open plains of terrestrial exploration? We're adaptable organisms, and there's a lot of universe out there, most of which isn't terraformable within any timescale.


----------



## Alexa (Nov 16, 2005)

As long as no aliens show up on Earth, we can talk only of a possible futuere terrestrial exploration.

We are not quite so adaptable. We depend on oxigen. 

Sorry, I have to go, but I'll be back later.


----------



## Alexa (Nov 17, 2005)

Back to our human organisms. We are not able to live underwater for the moment and the oceans are right under our nose, on Earth and not on a distant planet. Why ? Because our organisms needs air with a specifical composition. Plus, we like or not, we have preferences for the food and the comfort of life. You can say, we have food underwater, too. Right. So, why nobody tries to build underwater habitates ? Instead, NASA talks about the conquer of the Moon as a prior for Mars. Hmm. Maybe it's easier for them to get financial support if they ask the Moon.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 17, 2005)

Alexa said:
			
		

> Back to our human organisms. We are not able to live underwater for the moment and the oceans are right under our nose, on Earth and not on a distant planet. Why ? Because our organisms needs air with a specifical composition. Plus, we like or not, we have preferences for the food and the comfort of life. You can say, we have food underwater, too. Right. So, why nobody tries to build underwater habitates ? Instead, NASA talks about the conquer of the Moon as a prior for Mars. Hmm. Maybe it's easier for them to get financial support if they ask the Moon.



In ther very beginning of the seventies I was part of the « Kraken » seahouse project. The seahouse, a sort of large diving bell, with an opering at the bottom for access, and three floors above for living, working and doing experiments, the idea being that three people could live down there indefinitely, without depressurising. We were a long way from that goal (the main problem being energy. The combined wave power/tide power generator was an unqualified failure, even in the relatively shallow waters we were working in. This left us shuttling charged batteries from the surface every day, and bringing back the empties, leaving the maximum reserve below in case a storm prevented access) The greenhouse worked- oh. nowhere near enough to produce breathable air for three people, but enough to make a measurable difference, the rest is just a question of scale. Some of the extremely important experiments demonstrated you can’t swing a sledgehammer under water, surface beer has no fizz at three atmospheres and you can’t make beer down there, either, so you might as well drink wine. Oh, and you make tea with a thermometer- water boils at too high a temperature.
Fish came to watch their airaquium- and profit from scraps, our recycling wasn’t all that good. And all of this was done for peanuts- at least half the financing came from the pockets of those there- the oceans are a benign environment, and all the elements we need are already available- some in considerable excess.So we don’t need a NASA to convert our continental shelves to slums- any reasonably large corporation could handle it.
Still, a closed circuit system like this (but SOO much better) is the basis for any habitat we’re considering- there are relatively few places in the solar system where I can survive in a loin cloth (and this doesn’t include numerous points on the earths surface) so technology is a given, Give me a few tonnes of comet and energy and I’ll get you your oxygen, and, with my lifestyle, living in a big tin can isn’t all that scary.
And if anyone should come across sites featuring project Kraken. Plymouth Ocean Projects (yes, when you release the tethers it leaps to the surface revealing the sign P,O.P.) post it- might find a photo of me at eight stone- I know I’ve not got one.


----------



## Alexa (Nov 17, 2005)

That's a really interesting experience. I didn't know about the Kraken project. Do you know if the project developed since ?


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 17, 2005)

Alexa said:
			
		

> That's a really interesting experience. I didn't know about the Kraken project. Do you know if the project developed since ?


I moved to Switzerland in 1972, and lost contact with everyone. However. it was sort of university based, without being an official umiversity project, so I suspect enthusiasm just waned as people moved off into real life.
But aren't we (OK me) diverting this thread from its original subject? (sorry, I get diverted)


----------



## Alexa (Nov 18, 2005)

I believe we still talk about the original question. Terraforming is the other option if nothing else is to be added for Earth. And I really believe you had a wonderful chance to participate in that experience. As long as we are not able to apprehend and master Earth's environment, we have no chances to conquer another planet or moon. Let's face it. In your experiment, you could get back on the ground and look for more supplies of energy. If a team is on the Moon or Mars or any other planet and they badly need something, the astronautes cound not get as easily what they need. So they can die meanwhile. 

Terraforming on another planet is for the moment an utopia.


----------



## asdar (Nov 18, 2005)

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to terraform Mars someday. 

The difference between controlling the atmosphere of Earth and trying to create one on Mars is that if we screw up Mars we don't kill anyone. (that we know of) 

I don't think that we'll have people walking around on the surface in my grand children's lifetime, but by then we could see changes starting.

If it's possible, at least in my opinion, we should try it. I think we'd create some useful technology even if it failed and learn some more about how things work on a global scale.


----------



## Alexa (Nov 19, 2005)

Unfortunately we are not able to do a terraforming with the nowadays technology. I won't say it's impossible. Some day, the next generations may even assist "on line" somewhere in our galaxy. And like for the land on the Moon, there'll be among us some ready to grab the flag of " theory of conspiracy". And the team charged to do it for the first time will be made known on all the planet. Something like this you cannot ignore as a reporter.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 20, 2005)

Alexa said:
			
		

> Unfortunately we are not able to do a terraforming with the nowadays technology. I won't say it's impossible. Some day, the next generations may even assist "on line" somewhere in our galaxy. And like for the land on the Moon, there'll be among us some ready to grab the flag of " theory of conspiracy". And the team charged to do it for the first time will be made known on all the planet. Something like this you cannot ignore as a reporter.


Despite my negative reactions earlier in the thead I do believe terraforming possible with present day technology- it would be extremely long term (at least several millenia) and incredibly expensive, in real wealth (manpower and waterials, rather than cash)  to the point that the space race up to now wouldn't even be visible as percentage points. Indeed, the only planet I could see being worth that much effort would be our Earth if we inadvertently damaged it enough to make that nescessary. However, technologies do advance, and by the time we are in a position to terraform it's possible that the price will fall, or that there will be enough disposable wealth to make it possible (Maybe self reproducing robots flexible enough to do the job with minimal human intervention?) The question remains- will those for whom the planet is being transformed require or even desire a whole world job?


----------



## edott (Jan 3, 2006)

Most likely it will be terraforming with some genetic adaptations of the human colonists. that would seem to be the quickest way to me.


----------



## dreamwalker (Jan 10, 2006)

edott said:
			
		

> Most likely it will be terraforming with some genetic adaptations of the human colonists. that would seem to be the quickest way to me.


 
>)

You just opened a whole bag of warms i've been trying for months clean up.

For example

"Maybe humans are the result of another species attempt of collonisation by using dna as there information carrier"

"maybe we should create a species of articifical intelligence to collonise mars in our name"

 - point being, where does collonisation end and something else that could be quite different, begin?


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 10, 2006)

dreamwalker said:
			
		

> >)
> 
> You just opened a whole bag of warms i've been trying for months clean up.
> 
> ...


I trust those are genetically optimised worms, associated with their tailored bacteria? After all, the aim of terraforming is to provide an environment in which human beings can survive indefinitely (comfort is optional)

Would you be considerin a Brin type uplift, a "chariots of the gods" type cross breeding with existing species, or more a Niven "ringed in black" descended from pond scum put in place to develope a breathable atmosphere , then forgotten? None of those are really colonisation. Or maybe descended from the two survivors of a spaceship crash, coincidentally calle Adam and Eve (oh, you've already read it). 

Artificial intelligences could explore the cosmos for us - but they could only colonise it for themselves (unless you consider memes to be more important than genes) However, seriously modified lifeforms based on humans could be said to be colonising, though I suspect that unless standard humans pushed forward in close contact with the expanding wave (domed cities for the "normies", tents for the "modded"?) the colonies would soon discover they didn't have much in common with their ancestors and seek independance, probably forcefully.

And, if we ignore the birthing pains of independant nations, is that really such a bad thing?


----------



## dreamwalker (Jan 10, 2006)

_Oh my worms, my poor genetically optimised worms..._


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 13, 2006)

I may have missed this in one of the earlier posts, but if so -- delete.

Just ran across this: "Great Terraforming Debate"

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1017.html 

Several articles long -- may answer quite a few questions.

Oh, and Chris: I couldn't find anything on the Kraken project; do you know where I might get more information on this, as I, too, had never heard anything about it. For that matter, in another thread I mentioned an experiment (imitation space colony) they ran over here in the '80s in Arizona(?) if I remember correctly. I haven't been able to dig anything up about that, either; do you recall hearing about this?


----------

