Terraforming lifeless Mars takes billions of dollars and decades. How do you like that, Elon Musk? The head of SpaceX is still convinced that humanity needs a spare planet in case of unforeseen disasters. But scientists unanimously repeat: the exploration of Mars is an exciting task, but even with the onset of a nuclear winter, the Earth would still be much warmer than the red planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is warning us that climate change could become even more catastrophic than what we fear. Too many states in the world still possess nuclear weapons, which they almost accidentally used under certain circumstances. We are not ready for pandemics, and as a result of technological progress, new threats to our world are possible.
So do we need a backup plan? Or a backup planet? Apparently, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk think so.
As everyone is well aware, Elon Musk created his own company, SpaceX, because he lamented that NASA would not send us to Mars for a long time, and worried that humanity did not have a second chance. Bezos, too, worries that the Earth will become uninhabitable and that by the time we realize we need infrastructure to leave this planet, it will be too late to build it. He invested a personal fortune in the creation of the private aerospace company BlueOrigin, which plans to launch a commercial space flight next year.
These proposals are heavily criticized for their perceived elitism and inaccessibility, as they are aimed at creating a life raft for a few while most people will be left to die. (Musk refutes these claims and argues that Mars will be populated not by representatives of the elite, but by enterprising people). I was interested in something else: will it work at all? If you have several billion dollars that you want to spend on solving the problem of preserving the life of humanity for several more centuries, is it wise to spend this money on creating a colony on Mars?
Cosmologist Martin Rees of the University of Cambridge has just published a book on the existential threats facing our world. When Sean Illing of Vox, during an interview with him, asked if humanity needed to leave Earth in order to survive. Reese immediately dismissed the idea: "I think this is a dangerous misconception, since Mars will be a more hostile environment than the summit of Everest or the South Pole, and instead of terraforming Mars, it is much more important to combat climate change here on Earth."
In my conversations with experts, I touched on this topic constantly. The Earth is in a difficult situation, but Mars is extremely inhospitable for people. And even in the event of the most terrible disasters, our world is unlikely to become as hostile to humanity as a lifeless planet without an atmosphere, with limited gravity and a small amount of water. And Mars in the event of a catastrophe is unlikely to be our salvation. If we want to keep humanity alive, then there is better use for the money of Bezos, Musk and anyone else who fears for the future of our species.
Promotional video:
Attempting to identify a scenario in which a colony on Mars might come in handy
Nick Beckstead is Program Director of the Open Philanthropy Project, which explores threats to the survival of human civilization. His task is to analyze worst-case scenarios - finding ways to prevent them and how to save a future for the human race, if these scenarios come true.
I asked him if he thought we could be saved by a colony on Mars. At first he was more optimistic than Reese. “If we had a prosperous civilization on another planet, it would be a big plus for the future of humanity,” he replied. It analyzes risks such as climate change, nuclear war, pandemics and other potential sources of environmental disaster. And a healthy, independent colony on Mars that does not require any supplies from Earth could shield us from these dangers. "If you could give me a functioning colony adapted to life on Mars, I would be very happy about it."
But, assessing the possibilities of achieving this, he is no longer so optimistic. “It will be very difficult, very expensive and likely to take a long time,” he says. We are not talking about several tens of years, which can hardly be enough to get to Mars at all, but about centuries.
Beckstead noted that he would be much more optimistic if a colony on Mars could indeed be established within a few decades, Musk said. But, as Musk himself admits, the time frame is a weak point of his project: even when his futuristic technology becomes one, it will likely take longer than expected to implement. And even Musk does not expect that his colony will be self-sufficient any time soon.
In order for the colony on Mars to be useful, humanity must hold out for several more centuries. Beckstead's work is dedicated to finding opportunities for this, so I asked him if he believed that in the event of a worst-case scenario, there are ways to protect humanity, allowing you to do this in a shorter time and at a lower cost.
Let's say we agree with Elon Musk that we, "to recreate human civilization, need a sufficient number of individuals-representatives of human civilization." It looks like we could achieve this either with the help of a Martian colony, … or a bunker in New Zealand (New Zealand is sometimes called the place that in the event of a global nuclear war is unlikely to be destroyed by a nuclear strike - or is unlikely to become uninhabitable as a result of a nuclear winter). Are there threats that a bunker in New Zealand won't protect us from, but a colony on Mars will protect us?
There are few such threats. Climate change could be far more devastating than even the worst-case scenarios we have modeled, but will it be catastrophic enough to make Earth less habitable than Mars as a result? According to the most pessimistic forecasts, as a result of a full-scale exchange of nuclear strikes, the Earth's temperature may drop to -4o … -7o Celsius, which would be completely catastrophic for life as we know it … but it would still be much warmer Mars.
Even if a bioengineering disaster were able to destroy literally all life, the Earth would still be more habitable for humans than Mars. Beckstead, who is seriously involved with many very strange ideas, called the ideas that we discussed with him, "a little out of touch with reality."
There are other dangers that a colony on Mars won't save you from. Beckstead mentioned the threat posed by advanced artificial intelligence, about which Elon Musk also publicly expressed his concerns. So I turned to the Artificial Intelligence Research Institute and asked if the Martian colony could protect us from the AI-related dangers they are studying.
According to Rob Bensinger, head of the Institute's scientific communications department, a colony on Mars is not able to somehow reduce the threats that cause its fears (like the bunker in New Zealand). He wanted to shake me off the illusion and dissuade me that the AI threat stems from computers hijacking our drones to target the human race - which on another planet might actually matter.
The danger of AI, which worries scientists, is not connected with the possibility of starting a real war, but with the fact that artificial intelligence will surpass human. I know, he says, that I will lose if I try to negotiate a deal with a team of experienced corporate lawyers (although I do not know what specific mistake I will make). Likewise, we will lose if we try to negotiate the future of humanity with powerful computer systems that we do not understand. And the development of new planets will not help here.
“Escape to Mars is a genre of trying to beat the Deep Blue supercomputer at chess,” says Bensinger. That is, it helps in managing risk only as long as humanity is more resourceful than AI.
Flying to Mars is probably an exciting task. But for humanity to survive, you need to focus on Earth
All my interlocutors said that while the colonization of space is truly an exciting undertaking, it is necessary to invest additional funds in projects aimed at reducing risks here on Earth.
Becksted, program director of the Open Philanthropy project, is focused on this task. “Given the many threats that a relocation to Mars cannot protect us from, and even though it is expensive and time-consuming,… I see easier options,” Beckstead says. True, he would like me to know that he considers space exploration a worthy human endeavor - and not just the main way to preserve our species.
I got acquainted with the projects for which Backted provided grants. Scientists at Rutgers University are studying the climatic effects of nuclear war, hoping to produce results that will provide a compelling case for safer nuclear policies and help build a better understanding of the devastation that war can cause. Scientists at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law are exploring the role of international governance and collaboration in geoengineering. The Center for Global Development is studying the Ebola crisis to understand how to deal with the pandemic. And scientists at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University are studying international coordination in solving artificial intelligence problems.
None of these scientists will be subject to harsh criticism or special attention from the world press. But their work may help bring closer the day when BlueOrigin, SpaceX or other similar companies created by our grandchildren can send us to the stars.
Kelsey Piper
