Atmospheric Dito ... Excursion Possibilities.

[AviiPk]

I am not a scientist. I'm a drop out ... but a creative , musician and thinker. Recently I have been thinking of the damage caused to the planet since the start of the industrial revolution and have been pondering on why in this day and age governments have not put a stop to it. 

Parallel to this I have always been interested by the thought of space, and in particular the mars rovers and the possibility of man one day being able to "venture where no man has before". These coinciding thoughts have previosly never gelled until I started looking into Mars atmosphere and rad (radiation) levels. 

We of course cannot survive in the conditions of another planet in our current state. We would be unable to breath and survive. Take Mars for example, it has over twice the radiation that astronauts face on the international space station 5x what we experience, is over 96% carbon dioxide , some argon, a bit of nitrogen , hydrogen , oxygen and funnily enough water vapour.

Since the start of the industrial revolution our atmosphere has changed somewhat eg fumes from industry, cars , trains, airplanes, radiation from microwaves, mobile phone masts. And every year the become stronger and more potent. This undoubtedly isn't healthy unless we adapt and evolve. Which is something that humans as a species are very good at.

I'll tell you what I would do if I thought I'd have to leave one day .

I'd start upping the radiation levels every couple of years through progression in cellular technology. Cut down the trees so there is far less carbon dioxide converted, start burning copious amounts of fuel releasing carbon monoxide and raising the temperature of the planet melting ice and eventually causing higher levels of evaporation causing more water vapour in the atmosphere. We already have low levels of hydrogen, nitrogen and the argon levels here are just under half that on Mars.

If you can do all that and still be here ... your one step closer to being able to jump ship.

As I stated at the beginning I have never studied the chemistry, physics or biology relating to this topic or extensively looked into how possible this "theory" may be so please dont hate. I just  thought I would bring it to the people who know more than I do

[Endy0816]

 Don't sell yourself short. Anyone that is  thinking critically and applying the scientific method method is a scientist really.

One issue though is that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is very low. The air is even thinner than the top of Mount Everest. It would be extremely difficult to change that for Earth.

Most of the oxygen is merely bonded to other atoms that are more useful without it anyways, so extraction should prove very worthwhile.

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by Endy0816

[taeto]

10 hours ago, AviiPk said:

I'll tell you what I would do if I thought I'd have to leave one day .

Mars has a very low population density compared to Earth, and appears to have none or very little biomass. Logically another useful thing on your list might be to actively kill as many people and as many other living organisms as possible to get prepared for your venture.

[Ken Fabian]

@AviiPk

You are suggesting we wreck the biosphere, atmosphere and climate of planet Earth and increase exposure to radiation so you will be better adapted to live in places much less livable than Earth?

Please, NO! If your suggestions were being undertaken they would be serious crimes against humanity. Not to mention crimes against the environment - and I like trees and the life that lives in them as well as liking wood as a material to make things with.

The ability of biological organisms to adapt to extreme conditions is greatly exaggerated - no ordinary evolutionary adaptations are going to make the biology we are built of survive and thrive in the below freezing temperatures and near vacuum conditions of Mars. The adaptations needed are technological - making artificial environments that suit humans. Perhaps, if the technology is successfully developed, genetically engineered adaptations - but only for environments that are not too different to what we have.

Edited March 15, 2020 by Ken Fabian

[AviiPk]

On 3/15/2020 at 2:14 PM, taeto said:

Mars has a very low population density compared to Earth, and appears to have none or very little biomass. Logically another useful thing on your list might be to actively kill as many people and as many other living organisms as possible to get prepared for your venture.

Like the current covid 19 pandemic ?

On 3/15/2020 at 1:21 PM, Endy0816 said:

 Don't sell yourself short. Anyone that is  thinking critically and applying the scientific method method is a scientist really.

One issue though is that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is very low. The air is even thinner than the top of Mount Everest. It would be extremely difficult to change that for Earth.

Most of the oxygen is merely bonded to other atoms that are more useful without it anyways, so extraction should prove very worthwhile.

 

Thank you for the kind words 

On 3/15/2020 at 11:33 PM, Ken Fabian said:

@AviiPk

You are suggesting we wreck the biosphere, atmosphere and climate of planet Earth and increase exposure to radiation so you will be better adapted to live in places much less livable than Earth?

Please, NO! If your suggestions were being undertaken they would be serious crimes against humanity. Not to mention crimes against the environment - and I like trees and the life that lives in them as well as liking wood as a material to make things with.

The ability of biological organisms to adapt to extreme conditions is greatly exaggerated - no ordinary evolutionary adaptations are going to make the biology we are built of survive and thrive in the below freezing temperatures and near vacuum conditions of Mars. The adaptations needed are technological - making artificial environments that suit humans. Perhaps, if the technology is successfully developed, genetically engineered adaptations - but only for environments that are not too different to what we have.

No I'm pointing out that the governments ate currently doing so

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, AviiPk said:

No I'm pointing out that the governments ate currently doing so

!

Moderator Note

I am not sure what to do with this thread. It doesn't belong in Modern and Theoretical Physics. It might belong in Earth Science or Speculations.

@AviiPk Can you clarify what you are suggesting? If not that we should do these things, are you suggesting that governments are involved in some sort of global plan to pollute the planet to make it easier to leave?

 

[AviiPk]

On 4/17/2020 at 9:30 AM, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

I am not sure what to do with this thread. It doesn't belong in Modern and Theoretical Physics. It might belong in Earth Science or Speculations.

@AviiPk Can you clarify what you are suggesting? If not that we should do these things, are you suggesting that governments are involved in some sort of global plan to pollute the planet to make it easier to leave?

 

 

No I'm saying that the government have two options , one is that they pull together and decrease pollution , the other is as I stated in the thread.

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, AviiPk said:

the other is as I stated in the thread.

Your opening post was longish and rambling.

Most readers have expressed the same opinion (in different ways) that they couldn't readily determine your actual point.

So can you please sum this point up for us in a short paragraph so we all know what we are talking about?

[AviiPk]

I'm basically trying to say that we are at the tipping point as to whether the governments save the planet we live on or prepare for Excursion, such as Donald trumps space force. 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, AviiPk said:

I'm basically trying to say that we are at the tipping point as to whether the governments save the planet we live on or prepare for Excursion, such as Donald trumps space force. 

I hope no governments consider your reverse-terraforming proposal. If possible, it's even more short-sighted than most governments are these days. 

Even if we give up on maintaining Earth's ecosystem, space colonization isn't going to be solely about changing humans to adapt to other systems. That's not what humans do. We can change systems to better suit life as we know it. 

Your argument seems like a false dilemma fallacy. We have more than the two choices you've laid out, to decrease pollution or recolonize. We're currently using a third option, which is to keep industrial contamination at levels that balance economic and health concerns. Many folks aren't happy with the proportions (for various reasons), but to reduce our solutions to two seems unnecessarily confining. 

Also, with outer space policy what it is, I think we have a MUCH better chance of revitalizing our environment than we do getting the world to agree on what to do with the rest of the wealth of the solar system. I'm excited about the prospects of colonizing other planets, but it's something we definitely need to understand and regulate unless we want all those villainous sci-fi plot lines to play out. If we aren't smart, compassionate, and united in our efforts, the first big group to leave the planet could own the rest of us in a fairly short time. 

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

the first big group to leave the planet could own the rest of us in a fairly short time. 

So the solution is not packing D Trump off in a spacecraft.  +1

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

So the solution is not packing D Trump off in a spacecraft.  +1

Well, it's an option but it seems rather costly...

[joigus]

Wow! You must be really good at music.

Let's burn the ship and jump on a piece of flotsam. Good idea.