A Recap of the Mars Terraforming Debate
There&#x27;s a fantastic novel series that starts with <i>Red Mars</i>, by Kim Stanley Robinson. It follows a series of the first colonizers of Mars, and every time it shifts perspective it dives into a new science&#x2F;technology frame.<p>For a few chapters you are following an engineer, and it talks about the alloys and techniques she&#x27;s using to build housing. A little while later you follow a geologist and the  topic shifts a bit as this geologist goes out exploring.<p>You follow biologists, psychologists, economists, and each time it dives into the challenges they have in how they perceive Mars and what to do with it.<p>Inevitably, there&#x27;s a conflict between the &quot;Reds&quot; and the &quot;Greens&quot;. Given the series titles (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars), I&#x27;m sure you can figure out who wins. However, it seems to suggest a result that I find fairly likely -- it doesn&#x27;t matter what you <i>say</i> we should do with Mars, people are going to do what they want. We already don&#x27;t care about externalities here on Earth, there&#x27;s no way we can police them on Mars.<p>That said, while I used to be a huge fan of the idea of colonizing Mars, I&#x27;ve swung around to the idea that colonizing asteroids is far more interesting. Mars is relatively resource poor, and asteroids are incredibly resource rich. There are some kilometers wide balls of iron, nickel, and platinum group metals out there. Not to mention water and carbon. All the materials you&#x27;d need to undertake construction in space and none of the challenges of having to lift it into orbit.