Should We Colonize Mars Analysis

Ethics of Colonizing Mars

The question of colonizing Mars has become not a matter of ability, but one of ethics. Mars’s climate is much weaker than Earth’s. We should colonize mars but only in the right way – a way that does not alter the natural climate of Mars. While different people argue the different effects humans have had on Earth, there is no denying that we have made an impact on the environment that we live in. Many believe that if we set foot on another planet, we will affect its environment negatively. However, there is a fine line between disrupting the environment of a foreign planet and utilizing it. We should colonize Mars but going in with the knowledge we have of Earth and take measures to ensure that Mars can’t be deteriorated as easily and if

there is life, measures should be taken to ensure it survives.
As Earth grows weaker due to pollution and overpopulation, humans have begun to look toward outer space as a way to continue the race. Earth is rapidly reaching a state of pollution that could render it inhabitable. Scientists have searched the skies for a suitable planet and none have been significantly close enough to meet the needs of humanity. Mars is the therefore the closest candidate for human success on a foreign body. We have ever improving technology: more efficient rockets, less fuel consumption, and safety techniques, which makes the idea that the human race could just get up and move more and more realistic. The question then, becomes one of ethics. Should we go to Mars with the possibility of disrupting its natural environment? The human race has been known to repeat history and not learn from their mistakes. Yet, there are ways to protect the natural habitat of Mars while still allowing humans to function on the surface of Mars.
Those against colonization, including Mark Lupisella, author of the article "The Rights of Martians", state the human race would destroy the planet and “Indeed, a lack of planning now may result, inadvertently or otherwise, in doing harm in the future. An immediate question requiring attention is whether our intrusive missions like a human base will result in global contamination, or whether the contamination will, or can be localized” and “some go further and suggest the fatalist view that our unyielding desire to learn and explore will inevitably result in exploitation and destruction”. However, this can be fixed.
One main reason Earth is polluted is because of the lack of education on the effects industrialization would have on the environment. Many oil companies believed there would be an endless supply of oil and consumers freely used products such as oil, or mercury, or tobacco without any knowledge of their harmful effects. Today there are many environmental laws and regulations that limit the amount of pollution a company can create. Global awareness is becoming more prominent. Earth is shifting to become greener but we still have a long way to go. With our knowledge of Earth, we can learn from our mistakes and begin our lives on Mars with these environmental concerns in place. We can come up with ways of creating a way of life that does not hurt the environment of Mars, in other words, make Mars a self-sustaining green planet. Humans should not be able to alter the natural state of the planet.
Scientists know relatively little about Mars and colonization would play a key role in advancing our knowledge of the red planet.

Many rovers have been sent to the surface to see if it is in fact capable of supporting life, either unknown to us or us. Scientists have turned toward Mars to search for any life forms to prove humans could actually survive on its surface. While it is possible for us to survive with current technology, if we were to travel to Mars, it wouldn’t be a life of luxury. Michael Gainer in his article “Should We Colonize Mars?” discusses the downfalls of the climate. Mars’s climate is much more hazardous than Earth’s with many long lasting hurricanes, high levels of radiation, and poor, if any, farming soil. Colonists would be living in pressurized bubbles and would need special suits to step outside. It would be difficult to get around and medical supplies may not always be readily available. Outside there would be no trees whispering in the wind, no singing birds, no skin burning summer days. No deep blue oceans, no rapid running rivers, cold refreshing lakes or streams. Looking out the window one would see miles upon miles of reddish-beige sand blowing in the

wind.
So why move when Earth is still functioning? Brandon C. Gruner discusses in his article “A New Hope for International Space Law: Incorporating Nineteenth Century Fist Possession Principles into the 1967 Space Treaty for the Colonization of Outer Space in the Twenty-First century” alternatives to colonizing Mars. Earth may have a limited amount of useable resources but “Space has an infinite number of resources. Through exploration of the Solar System and application of soon-to-be-developed technologies, it is likely that Earth can be relieved of its energy problems, huge numbers of raw materials can be made available, and the world’s living standard can be raised” (308). Then we would not have to worry about moving, we can just fix the place we have now.
However, Mars should be colonized with the primary motive of scientific study, not socialization. These views will be a candy land for scientists to indulge in. Eventually, one can learn to enjoy the view and eventually, as colonies grow, these conditions will be integrated as a part of daily life. Humans are great at adapting to their surroundings. As for Earth, parts of it are too far beyond the reach of humans to fix. Also, mining resources from outer space is costly – a cost the economic system of Earth cannot withhold. We know nothing about what kinds of minerals we would be introducing into Earth’s ecosystem. It is also impractical as it would use up a lot of resources just to retrieve it. The idea that we can use outside minerals to support Earth is infeasible.
So what makes Mars so appealing? Scientifically, our knowledge of the planet will be exceptionally great. Robots can only do so much to advance scientific knowledge. Economically, “Practically all components important to manufacturing and commerce exist on Mars, which gives the Red Planet an incredible advantage over the Moon” as well as “Mars has been devoid of humans scavenging every plentiful surface-mineral deposit for the past five millennia” (Gruner 312). Because “Today, we have the opportunity to be the founders, the parents and shapers of a new and dynamic branch of the human family, and by so doing, put our stamp upon the future” (Zubrin). We’re not giving up on Earth; we are looking to the future and, in doing so, may help the Earth as well as humans in the long run. The time to explore is now, before it is too late. We are ready.
There is no doubt that we should pass up this opportunity to travel to Mars. Our technology can get us there and “any inventions or innovations in the areas of energy, automation, robotics, and biotechnology, which would all be created to harvest resources and sustain life on Mars” (Gruner 313). In her article “Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization”, Lynda Williams believes colonizing Mars would help “to preserve the species, in the face of Earth’s inevitable doom from either warfare, plague, or environmental destruction”. Earth will take a vacation and cool down a bit while we gain immense knowledge from our neighbor. Some studies may even find life.
And if there is life on Mars, what do we do about it? Carl Sagan, a well known science fiction writer, wrote in his book Cosmos, that he disagrees with colonizing Mars: “If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if they are only microbes” (130). Many viewpoints discuss how humans can affect Mars’s possible life as well as its environment. Mark Lupisella and John Logsdon explain in their article “Do We Need a Cosmocentric Ethic?” different viewpoints on human effects to the life and environment of another planet. To begin with, Homocentrist’s value human needs or desires over everything else. This view does not take into account the ideas or values of any other life form, including any possible life on mars. For example, if microbes were to be found on Mars, yet they would inhibit man’s will to build a community on the land, the microbes would be extinguished. This viewpoint does not consider any long term effects. Another viewpoint, Utilitarianism, categorizes life forms as they feel pleasure or pain. Its belief is that we should only value a life form if it is capable of feeling. Therefore, a life form, even one as small as a microbe, would be inconsiderable.
However, the weak anthropocentrism viewpoint is the most suitable to apply to Mars. This viewpoint focuses on science and values life and natural selection. It appeals to protecting any life forms or nature found on Mars over human values. Coexistence is valued. Christopher McKay states in his essay "Does Mars Have Rights?" that if there were life on Mars, it is our duty “to continue their existence even if their extinction would benefit the biota of Earth” (194). However, “the existence of extraterrestrial organism should not prevent humans from manifesting their destiny of colonizing Mars” (Lupisella). Human kind and anything else we may bring over should learn to coexist with the environment and any possible life forms on Mars.
Colonizing Mars has become a topic of ethics but in the end, the scientific discoveries are worth the trip. Humankind can learn from their mistakes and start over a new life on a new planet. But this will be a life of discovery and history. Our generation has a chance to make a positive mark on history and we can’t pass it up. Entertaining the possibility of life opens up many doors to both scientific discoveries as well as cohabitation. As long as we understand how our actions will affect the planet, Mars is a feasible choice for colonization.