Of Things That Matter

Colonizing Mars: Why we can’t

Mars is a dying planet

What is living, what is dead? A definition that I find useful for “life” in a non-biological sense is that which tends toward order; non-living things tend toward disorder. Another way of putting it is that changes in non-living things occur only by outside influences. Living things can change and form orderly structures.

In Biology, a living organism grows and forms an ordered structure. When it dies, it decays; other organisms or inorganic processes take it apart. Now, take that definition to non-biological things or systems.

The Moon

The Moon is a dead planetoid. The only changes that occur result from outside influences. The most obvious are meteor impacts. In addition, there is some minor breakdown by the intense heat and cold cycles on a monthly basis. Large meteor impacts may heat up the surrounding rock enough to melt it. That is the source of the lunar maria (so-named because early astronomers thought they were seas). The majority of the lunar surface is primarily made up of anorthosite. The many samples of anorthosite brought back from the Apollo lunar missions crystalized about 4 billion years ago. The Moon has been dead for 4 billion years.

Earth

Earth’s heat sources

The Earth is a living planet – not just because it harbors biological life. The Earth has an internal heat source – the inner and outer core and the mantle have latent heat, leftover from the formation of the planet. Much of that heat was produced by the energy of meteoric impacts and from gravitational compression as the planet grew. There is also heating from radioactive elements, thought to be primarily in crustal rocks, though it is likely that some radioactive elements also exist in the core. In addition, some amount of heating is generated from Earth tides – the change of Earth’s shape due to gravitational interaction with the Sun and Moon. Eventual heat loss and solidification of the core, through convection, conduction, and radiation, is estimated to take tens of billions of years. That is, unless the Earth is totally destroyed when the Sun burns out in an estimated 5 billion years. So, why is this internal heat source important?

The heat within the Earth, along with gravity, is what drives convection in the mantle of the Earth. The rocks of the mantle undergo differentiation with the lighter minerals rising to the top and forming the crust. The lithosphere (crust and uppermost mantle) is broken up into plates that move about atop the mantle. Their interaction with each other, with the mantle below, and the ocean above (plate tectonics) is what keeps mountain building going. If the mantle became totally solid, plate tectonics would cease, and eventually the continents would erode down to sea level. That would make life difficult for land plants and animals. But that alone would not make Earth a dead planet.

Earth’s Magnetic Field

The molten outer core is believed to be responsible for Earth’s magnetic field. The magnetic field protects the Earth from the effects of the solar wind. If the outer core became solid the magnetic field would be no more, and the solar wind would eventually strip away the Earth’s atmosphere. That would be catastrophic for biologic life on Earth, as the oceans would also evaporate.

What happens when the magnetic field decreases during a reversal (swapping of north and magnetic poles, as happens occasionally – on the order of thousands to tens of millions of years)? Fortunately, it is estimated that it would take several billion years to remove most of the atmosphere. There is the question of genetic damage from increased cosmic radiation during a reversal. Maybe that has caused an increase in the rate of evolution, but life has survived many such reversals.

Mars

The loss of its magnetic field is exactly the predicament in which we find Mars. The magnetism that has been measured is a weak remanent magnetism of crustal rocks. That remanent magnetism was acquired from a past global magnetic field by certain metallic minerals when they were hot, and remained as they cooled.

There is evidence that Mars at one time had oceans, and therefore a much thicker atmosphere. Mars is only about 1/8 the volume of Earth and 1/10 the mass. Its small core would have cooled much more rapidly than Earth’s. Recent measurements of Mars tides¹ suggest its core is not completely solid, but it no longer has the internal circulation needed to generate a magnetic field. Because of this, Mars now has little or no global magnetic field, and that has apparently been the case for about 4 billion years.

So, Mars has lost most of its atmosphere, and with the low atmospheric pressure, surface water has evaporated and been lost as well. There is still evidence of moisture seasonally at the polar regions, and there may still be some groundwater. Mars is not dead, but it is dying. When it dies, there is little prospect for sustaining life, certainly not Earthly life.

Can we terraform Mars?

Some have posited the idea that we can terraform and colonize Mars. Mars’ atmosphere is about 95 percent carbon dioxide, with very little oxygen or nitrogen. The Mars Rover Perseverance successfully made breathable oxygen from carbon dioxide. That would allow astronauts to manufacture oxygen for whatever habitats they build to live in on Mars. If there is subsurface water or ice, that could perhaps be filtered to provide for the needs for those limited habitats.

But that doesn’t make Mars habitable on any large scale. To make Mars truly habitable, we would need to create an atmosphere that is comparable to that on Earth. That means keep the existing carbon dioxide, which is at an abundance close to that on Earth (considering that Mars’ total atmosphere is about as much as the Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide), and add enough nitrogen and oxygen to get the atmospheric pressure to at least that on high mountains on Earth (~10,000 feet elevation). You cannot manufacture that from Mars’ current atmosphere. If there is a way to create these gases from something in Mars’ crustal rocks (oxygen is abundant in the rocks), it would take thousands (more likely, millions) of years. Meanwhile, the solar wind would be removing them as fast as you make them. In other words, it can’t be done.

Ray Bradbury had it right in 1950 ² – Mars is a dying planet. And there is nothing we can do to change that.

Featured image: Mars Earth composite image from Getty images

References

1. Callaghan JO. InSight Lander Makes Best-Yet Maps of Martian Depths. Scientific American. 2021 July 22 [accessed 2022 June 14]. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insight-lander-makes-best-yet-maps-of-martian-depths/

2. Bradbury R. The Martian Chronicles. Simon & Schuster; 1950. As of 2022 Jun 14, available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Martian-Chronicles-Ray-Bradbury/dp/1451678193

Additional reading

Brann T, Steigerwald B, Jones N. MAVEN Maps Electric Currents around Mars that are Fundamental to Atmospheric Loss. NASA RELEASE 20-011. 2020 May 25 [accessed 2022 Jun 14]. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2020/mars-electric-currents

Goldsmith D, Rees M. Why should we ever send humans to Mars? Slate; Technology. 2022 Apr 19 [accessed 2022 Jun 14]. https://slate.com/technology/2022/04/end-of-astronauts-excerpt-mars-robots-humans.html

Gramling C. Earth’s core may have hardened just in time to save planet’s magnetic field. Science News for Students, 2019 Mar 1 [accessed 2022 Jun 15] https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/earths-core-hardened-just-time-save-magnetic-field

Gough E. We Might Know Why Mars Lost its Magnetic Field: Universe Today, Space and astronomy news. 2022 Feb 11 [accessed 2022 Jun 14]. https://www.universetoday.com/154461/we-might-know-why-mars-lost-its-magnetic-field/

Hand E. Oldest rock crystals point to ancient magnetic shield for Earth. News from Science (AAAS). 2015 Jul 30 [accessed 2022 June 15] https://www.science.org/content/article/oldest-rock-crystals-point-ancient-magnetic-shield-earth

McFadden. How much longe until the core of the earth runs out of fuel? Interesting Engineering. 2021 Jan 03 [accessed 2022 Jun 16] https://interestingengineering.com/how-much-longer-until-the-core-of-the-earth-runs-out-of-fuel

O’Callaghan J. InSight Lander Makes Best-Yet Maps of Martian Depths. Scientific American. 2021 Jul 22 [accessed 2022 Jun 16] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insight-lander-makes-best-yet-maps-of-martian-depths/

Pappas S. Earth’s core is a billion years old. LiveScience. 2020 Aug 26. [accessed 2022 Jun 16] https://www.livescience.com/earth-core-billion-years-old.html

Shekhtman L. With Mars Methane Mystery Unsolved, Curiosity Serves Scientists a New One: Oxygen. NASA 2019 Nov 13 [accessed 2022 Jun 16] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/with-mars-methane-mystery-unsolved-curiosity-serves-scientists-a-new-one-oxygen

Are we hardwired for violence?

We like to think that we are civilized, and that being civilized means that we are peaceful by nature. Only bad people are violent. Are we all really violent by nature?

Are we hardwired for violence? That is, is it in our nature to be violent? We like to think that we are civilized, and that being civilized means that we are peaceful by nature. Only bad people are violent. Are we all really violent by nature?

Years ago, I was seeing a psychologist to understand why I was not in touch with my feelings. He said I had very strong emotions, but would keep them under control with my intellect. When I get extremely frustrated over something, I feel an urge to be violent, to destroy something. But I abhor destruction, so I quash that urge and replace it with yelling and cursing. I keep it under control. So, my question might instead be, “Are we all really violent by nature and just keep it under control?”

Our government of laws may serve as the way we, as a society, try to keep our violent nature under control. But it is like locking our car; it keeps the “honest” people out. The violence bubbling just under the surface comes out all too often.

All over the news are stories of violence being perpetrated by people upon others, often innocent victims unrelated to those doing them harm. Gangs murder members of rival gangs. Some gangs murder innocent victims, seemingly at random, in order to instill fear among the populace. It seems there are more and more incidences of mass murder, sometimes with no apparent reason.

People who like to fancy themselves as shining examples of civility are doing or suggesting that others do harm to people they disagree with – intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Why are we always going to war? It has been well said, “war is hell.” People are constantly being sent into war, not of their own volition. But many volunteer to join the military, knowing that they may get sent off to kill, or be maimed or killed themselves. What is the drive behind that?

Maybe you are a pacifist, and abhor all wars. But what do you enjoy to do or be entertained by? Two thousand years ago people were watching gladiators fight to the death or lions killing Christians. Have we improved?

Are you into kickboxing or karate? Or maybe you like to watch boxing. OK, so maybe you don’t like either of those. Do you like football, or hockey, or maybe soccer or rugby? Many sports can be pretty violent, or at least cause serious injuries.

Maybe you’re not into sports at all. I don’t really follow sports. But I do go to movies. I don’t like horror movies, but I do like action movies, and they can be full of violent stuff. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Marvel and DC superhero movies, war, cop or spy movies, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park/World and disaster movies all involve people (or aliens) killing off others or being killed off by some natural disaster or monster. There is often a good versus bad theme that makes the violence seem justified, at least for the “good side.”

What about news programs? Why is there such a focus on death and destruction? It is because that is what we tune in to see, and that gets viewers, ratings, and paid advertisements. Some say that we have a fascination with death and violence. Is it a fascination, or are we trying to satisfy a primordial need?

What do our children see? When I was young, Wile E Coyote, was continually running into cliff faces with painted tunnels or being smashed by an anvil dropped off a cliff by Road Runner. Elmer Fudd was shooting at bugs Bunny. Even Mickey Mouse was being terrorized by Pete.

In more recent years many people have decided that such TV shows are inappropriate for their children. But they happily send them off to the movies. Children’s movies, including virtually all the G-rated Disney fantasies, and the Land Before Time, are chock-full of violence too. It may be evil witches or monsters. It may be carnivorous dinosaurs trying to eat the herbivorous “heroes” or volcanic lava flows threatening them.

So, are we training our children to be violent? Or is it an intrinsic part of our makeup?

As I was thinking about all this, I came across an old copy of U.S. Catholic magazine with the cover story entitled “Of two minds: Is the brain hardwired for faith?”¹ The similarity in the title peaked my interest, so I read it. Apparently, some scientists claim to have found a genetic link to a person’s tendency toward spirituality. What they will do with this information if it is confirmed is anyone’s guess. But the question that comes to my mind is “Does a tendency toward violence have a genetic basis?”

Clearly, I’m not the only one asking that question. According to an article in sapiens.org², anthropologists are arguing whether humans are biologically designed for violence, or whether violence and war are cultural phenomena. Apparently, biological anthropologists tend to favor the former whereas cultural anthropologists favor the latter. Biologist David Carrier of the University of Utah believes that humans have evolved for violence. On the other hand, the article quotes Alisse Waterston, a cultural anthropologist at the City University of New York: “A major takeaway from the anthropological literature is that humans have the potential, which is different from the tendency to be violent.” So, is it cultural? Is it genetic? Or, is it more basic than either?

Let us back up a step. Consider other non-human animals. Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees have battles with rival chimpanzee communities. This includes killing them, male, female and juveniles! This is not an aberration. Many animals fight for territorial or reproductive advantage, often to the death.

In fact, it is common for many or most animals to have a violent death. Mostly, they become a meal for something else (the young, old, and infirm are particularly targeted). This follows all the way down the food chain. Even the herbivores are doing violence to the plants they eat. And plants kill other plants. I am not saying they are evil, just violent, and it is certainly not pleasant for the victims.

So, I guess you could argue for a genetic basis. But violence predates genes, so can it be so basic to our nature that it needs no genetic push?

Natural phenomena like weather, volcanic activity, earthquakes, landslides, and meteor impacts destroy life without regard. But volcanic activity is necessary for the creation and constant renewal of dry land that allows us to be here. Even life in the ocean is dependent upon that aspect of what I call a “living planet.”

Violence is pervasive, not only in our world, but in the universe. From the beginning in an unimaginably colossal explosion (if indeed there was a big-bang beginning) to the ending in one or many black holes, and all the star formations in between, there is violence. This is not the neighborhood where you might choose to bring up your children!

But stars give energy and life through their violent fusion reactions.

If we evolved (God directed or not) through all this, it’s no wonder that we are involved. In order to survive in such surroundings you have to be tough. Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. The lion does not lie down with the lamb!

Without our tendency towards violence there would be no murder, no rape, no assaults, no crimes of passion even. So, we are, indeed “of two minds” (as the title of the article in U.S. Catholic implies). On the one hand, we have this inborn tendency toward violence. On the other hand, we long for peace.

Where does that leave us? Can we rid ourselves of the violence that plagues us? I suppose someone will suggest genetic modification.

I remember an old Superman comic book where under the influence of red kryptonite Superman divides into two individuals. One dressed in the usual red on blue outfit and the other in blue on red. Together they had such immense intellectual ability that they figured out a way to stop all the evil in the world. They installed a ring of satellites around the world that emitted some chemical or radiation that affected people to stop their evil ways. I guess for a kid that might sound pretty good. But to me it is mass medicating or irradiating people without their permission. In the same way, genetic manipulation can be something akin to a fascist plan to control people. No, genetic modification is not the way to go.

Some see the answer in religion. But we can’t even agree on what is true and right. Religion is used as a tool by those who lust for power. There is much violence and mayhem perpetrated in the name of religion, and fighting between those with different religious beliefs.

I often think of the song “Universal Soldier” (1964, by Buffy Sainte Marie³, made popular by Donovan, 1965⁴). He’s the one who must decide, who’s to live and who’s to die, and he never sees the writing on the wall.

Those in power would have no power without soldiers to do their dirty work. Without those willing to do violence to others, whether in the name of good or greed, there would be no war.

Pacifism does not solve the problem either. Half a century ago, Hindu monks burned themselves to promote peace. Are we any further toward that end?

I don’t have any answers, just questions. I don’t expect others to have answers either. Yes, this all sounds rather pessimistic. After writing this article, I had second thoughts – more on those in a follow-up posting.

Featured image from Refuge (refuge.org), What is domestic Violence?, artist unnamed.

Ruth Graham, 2014, Of two minds: Is the brain hardwired for faith? U.S. Catholic, vol. 79, no. 6, pg. 12-17.
Josh Gabbatiss, 2017, Is Violence Embedded in Our DNA? SAPIENS: Anthropology/Everything Human/Human Nature, https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/human-violence-evolution/.
Buffy Sainte Marie, 1964, (songwriter) Universal Soldier, see, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWsGyNsw00.
Donovan, 1965, (singer) Universal Soldier, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9pc4U40sI.