Although Mars is still a terrible candidate for terraforming. It's at the outer edge of the goldilocks zone, and even if you can solve the temperature, radiation, and atmosphere issues to create a viable ecosystem, it's still going to cause problems for humans thanks to the low gravity.

Venus on the other hand could realistically function as a second earth if we clean up the atmosphere.

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Venus on the other hand could realistically function as a second earth if we clean up the atmosphere

The cost would thousand of trillions at least, in fact it may cost more money to do something like that than currently exists. We can barely fund NASA.

Frankly if humanity ever could get together politically to allocate enough resources to do anything like this, Im fairly sure a few greedy billionaires would stick most of those public funds in their pockets, and we'd end up with nothing at the end.

Im sorry to say Im pretty pessimistic about us as a species getting anywhere. Hell we're 80 year out from WW2 and still struggling to control fascism.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No one's trying to put terraforming Venus into next year's budget. This is all theoretical talk about what would be possible to do some day.

The cost of terraforming Venus would be large, but the benefits of having a second habitable planet are also quite large. Even ignoring the benefits of having more land and resources, there's also the just the fact that being on two planets means we can potentially survive as a species if something happens to one of them.

It would also have to be heavily automated, and only really becomes realistic once you have machines that are essentially self-sufficient at which point the concept of "cost" becomes a lot fuzzier. It would mean dedicating resources, but you aren't paying an army of self-replicating robots.

However, the sheer scale of the task means that the benefits would only be seen many generations later. It would require extreme efficiency and long term planning with little tolerance for error. The kind of people who would make such an investment are unlikely to just hand the money over to the shadiest billionaire they can find. And it would be difficult to keep a scam going if they need to show continual progress decade after decade.

Maybe we'll never see enough progress to overcome the kind of greed and short term thinking that would doom a huge, world-altering endeavor like this. But if that's the case, it's more likely that we'd just never try. All the more reason to keep pointing out what could be instead of just accepting the shittiness that we see today.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Just out of curiosity are you writing this from the Fertile Crescent?