[Dr David Thork]

I think you have to decide what is natural, what is a place of beauty, what constitutes looking after things.

Example.
Uranium 235 is a natural thing we find on earth. Using it to start a nuclear war, most would regard as a bad thing. But all you are doing is moving one natural substance from one place to another. From deep in the ground to out in the atmosphere. Should we just nuke earth?
What about drilling oil and let it spill out into the sea? Its another natural substance ... why not add it to streams and coastlines?

So the answer to both those things is ... it makes those places hard to inhabit.

So is that the answer? Making a place good to live is always good?

Then why don't we just put a million houses on Yellowstone park? Make it so more people can live there?

Example 2
Some places are preserved because of their historical importance. You can't build a motorway through the pyramids. It might be useful, but we tend to protect those things. We don't dump old cars by the pyramids or dig an enormous refuse tip there. But we don't live there either. So we preserve some things just the way they are. Could mars be something we might like to preserve just the way it is, rather than option one where we make it habitable?

Example 3
If NASA are to be believed, they made a right mess of the moon. They left old landers there, a buggy, footprints, a flag and a bunch of other technical junk. Its no longer pristine. Now I would argue that in 2000 years, the moon landing site will be a tourist hotspot. People will love going there and seeing that ancient technology perfectly preserved on the moon. To think of people 2000 years earlier getting all the way to the moon for the first time and you can see that stuff exactly as they left it. So does creating landmarks (like the pyramids) similar to option 2, outweigh leaving the moon the way it was as set out by option one?

Do you
1) make everywhere somewhere you can live
2) preserve everything as you find it
3) change some things but only if the reason for changing them, is that change in itself adds value to the place concerned? This allows a landing site which will become historical, it does not allow mining Mars for resources.

[Round Eyes]

I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.

the difference is that we evolved on this planet and are uniquely suited to live here (food source, gravity, breathable air, water, temperatures, etc).  yes, i am sure they could possibly build something on Mars that could allow people to live there for a short time, but our bodies are not built for that environment.  how would humans be able to live long term in that much reduced gravity?  one step outside and they are dead.  its no different than the ability to build an underwater city, which would be more feasable and cheaper by the way.  that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.

[AATW]

I don't think that there is any principle that because we are from earth we should stay here.

Again, I don't necessarily completely disagree with what you're trying to argue. But blimey, the reasons you're presenting are way off.

I'm not really presenting reasons, more examples where we as humans live in environments which are hostile to us.
Yes, we don't need high tech to survive in places like Dubai or...that Russian town which I already forgot the name of. We just need shade in the former case and a means of keeping warm in the latter. To survive in space you need a bit more of a leap in technology but we've already done that. Mars would be another leap. One which right now I think may be beyond us but "we are from 'x' so we should stay in 'x'" is a poor argument, whether 'x' is a town, country or even planet.

[AATW]

the difference is that we evolved on this planet and are uniquely suited to live here (food source, gravity, breathable air, water, temperatures, etc).  yes, i am sure they could possibly build something on Mars that could allow people to live there for a short time, but our bodies are not built for that environment.  how would humans be able to live long term in that much reduced gravity?  one step outside and they are dead.  its no different than the ability to build an underwater city, which would be more feasable and cheaper by the way.

That's a fair point. I don't think gravity would be an issue, Mars' gravity is about a third of earth's, if anything that would be quite nice and allow people to move more freely. But the rest, yes, there is a difference that while places on Earth can prove challenging for humans because of the climate the air is breathable, the fact it isn't on Mars presents a whole new level of challenges. But as a species our technology is evolving, we've solved the problem of surviving in space, I think in time we could solve the problems involved on living on Mars. Whether we should is another debate.

that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.

Still pretending to be a Flat Earther, eh?

[Dr David Thork]

that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.

Still pretending to be a Flat Earther, eh?

You can take that to AR.

I don't think gravity would be an issue, Mars' gravity is about a third of earth's, if anything that would be quite nice and allow people to move more freely.

If Osteoporosis and birth defects are 'quite nice' then I guess you are right. The human body relies on gravity for all kinds of things. We are adapted to this environment.

[markjo]

This started when Thork suggested that as humans are from earth we should stay on earth.
I merely suggested that that is silly, it's like suggesting that New Yorkers born in New York should stay there.

But these are completely incomparable. I can stop being in New York simply by walking to Jersey, and I'll be completely fine. Well, mostly fine. I'll be in Jersey.

But you'll still be a New Yorker, and Thork says that you should stay in New York because he doesn't want you to ruin New Jersey.

[AATW]

If Osteoporosis and birth defects are 'quite nice' then I guess you are right. The human body relies on gravity for all kinds of things. We are adapted to this environment.

I don't know what data we can possibly have about the effect on humans of being conceived, born and living their lives on a planet with a different gravity because it's never happened. My gut feeling is we'd adapt OK but I can't imagine there's much data. We know about the effects of people who have lived in space for a year and then come back to earth but those are because of the sudden change from 0g to 1g, what the effects are of living an entire life in a 3rd of earth gravity would be can't possibly be known for sure.

[Round Eyes]

the difference is that we evolved on this planet and are uniquely suited to live here (food source, gravity, breathable air, water, temperatures, etc).  yes, i am sure they could possibly build something on Mars that could allow people to live there for a short time, but our bodies are not built for that environment.  how would humans be able to live long term in that much reduced gravity?  one step outside and they are dead.  its no different than the ability to build an underwater city, which would be more feasable and cheaper by the way.

That's a fair point. I don't think gravity would be an issue, Mars' gravity is about a third of earth's, if anything that would be quite nice and allow people to move more freely. But the rest, yes, there is a difference that while places on Earth can prove challenging for humans because of the climate the air is breathable, the fact it isn't on Mars presents a whole new level of challenges. But as a species our technology is evolving, we've solved the problem of surviving in space, I think in time we could solve the problems involved on living on Mars. Whether we should is another debate.

that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.

Still pretending to be a Flat Earther, eh?

Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue.  Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly.  I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.

Pretending?  The earth is flat if you believe it or not

[AATW]

Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue.  Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly.  I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.

Yes. it would lead to those things but if you're living in a lower gravity you don't need those things, those things ARE you adapting to the lower gravity.
The problem for people who spend a long time on the ISS is when they return to earth. It's the CHANGE in gravity which is the issue. But if people are living their whole lives on Mars then that wouldn't be a problem. No-one really knows what would happen if a woman went through a pregnancy in 0g or a reduced gravity and for pretty obvious reasons it would be unethical to test, although they could do so with other species I guess.
Gut feel is we'd adapt and it would be OK, but I'm pretty much guessing, as is anyone who says the reverse.

Pretending?  The earth is flat if you believe it or not

I'll just leave this here...

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9906.msg155633#msg155633

[Dr David Thork]

Pretending?  The earth is flat if you believe it or not

I'll just leave this here...

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9906.msg155633#msg155633

I'm going to give you one last warning about 'unmasking' FErs in a thread that has nothing to do with that, before I request that a mod strikes you down like a deity discovering a homosexual. Take it to AR! 

Yes. it would lead to those things but if you're living in a lower gravity you don't need those things, those things ARE you adapting to the lower gravity.
The problem for people who spend a long time on the ISS is when they return to earth. It's the CHANGE in gravity which is the issue. But if people are living their whole lives on Mars then that wouldn't be a problem. No-one really knows what would happen if a woman went through a pregnancy in 0g or a reduced gravity and for pretty obvious reasons it would be unethical to test, although they could do so with other species I guess.
Gut feel is we'd adapt and it would be OK, but I'm pretty much guessing, as is anyone who says the reverse.

https://www.wired.com/2009/08/spacebabies/

Plenty of experiments have been done on all kinds of other animals. It does not end well for those specimens.

[AATW]

Plenty of experiments have been done on all kinds of other animals. It does not end well for those specimens.

Interesting. Although I would point out that these were experiments which seemed to be simulating zero gravity rather than reduced gravity.
And some of the mice embryos did survive.

[Dr David Thork]

You'd end up with weak bones. And this is going to give you spinal defects and curly bones.

[AATW]

You'd end up with weak bones. And this is going to give you spinal defects and curly bones.

Tsk! No! Because you're living in lower gravity, your bones don't need to be as strong*. It's only if you returned to earth you'd be in trouble.
(* - not a doctor, but I doubt you are either)

[Dr David Thork]

I don't need to be a Dr. I'm very smart.

We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time. An entire life like that and you'd never build strong bones. And those bones wouldn't form normally. When I look at other diseases that cause this same lack of healthy bones and deficiencies in chemical structure, you get deformity.



This guy's dreams of being a goalkeeper at the world cup were cut short at an early age.

[edby]

We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.

How's that? The lower gravity I mean.

[Dr David Thork]

We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.

How's that? The lower gravity I mean.

I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html

[edby]

We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.

How's that? The lower gravity I mean.

I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html

So what you meant was 'we have been told that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time'. Fair enough.

I was confused by 'we already see'.

[AATW]

We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.

How's that? The lower gravity I mean.

I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html

And all that data is based on people living in MICRO-GRAVITY. So virtually 0g. That is NOT the same as someone living in a third of earth's gravity about which there is virtually no data. And, again, for the hard of thinking, if you live in a lower gravity environment you don't need your bones to be as strong. It's only if you returned to earth that you'd be in trouble.

[Dr David Thork]

We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.

How's that? The lower gravity I mean.

I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html

So what you meant was 'we have been told that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time'. Fair enough.

I was confused by 'we already see'.

We ... as in mankind
already ... as in it has happened
see ... as in observe or have scientifically documented.

I don't know how you could have interpreted that any differently?

We already see that lower gravity can cause astronauts to lose calcium in their bones from a short period of time.

How's that? The lower gravity I mean.

I don't make this stuff up. NASA makes this stuff up.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_Bones_in_Space.html

And all that data is based on people living in MICRO-GRAVITY. So virtually 0g. That is NOT the same as someone living in a third of earth's gravity about which there is virtually no data. And, again, for the hard of thinking, if you live in a lower gravity environment you don't need your bones to be as strong. It's only if you returned to earth that you'd be in trouble.

Sorry, I'll go back to explaining as though you are 10 years old.

Zero gravity means none.
We'll take earths gravity to be 100%
Therefore we can say Mars gravity is 38% of earth's gravity. Source

So, if in 3 months your bones start losing all their calcium in zero gravity, at 38% they are going to lose a huge amount of it. Especially over a life time.

Now that means it won't be as extreme as zero gravity ... but there will be a notable difference. And that will effect you whther you are on earth or Mars because your bones will not grow to regular length and grow straight because you removed a lot of the material that is necessary for normal bone growth.

Imagine if you will, a deep sea fish. When we bring them to the surface, they die. It isn't that there is no pressure up at the surface ... it isn't zero pressure ... but it isn't the same as 4 miles deep either.

People have not evolved to live on Mars. Now, you could genetically engineer them to do so ... but by the time you changed their bones, respiratory system, CNS, etc ... they would be so different to a human that they would be another species ... one I will go ahead and call Martians. And they won't be able to breed with us. They won't be able to live with us. They will see us as an alien species and likely declare independence for Mars just as America did to the British ... and like the Americans will say it doesn't matter you are more powerful right now ... you are too far away so bring the war to us and see how you get on. And we'd lose. And now we have a hostile race of intelligent aliens living on the very next planet and all because you want more science. 

[Round Eyes]

Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue.  Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly.  I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.

Yes. it would lead to those things but if you're living in a lower gravity you don't need those things, those things ARE you adapting to the lower gravity.
The problem for people who spend a long time on the ISS is when they return to earth. It's the CHANGE in gravity which is the issue. But if people are living their whole lives on Mars then that wouldn't be a problem. No-one really knows what would happen if a woman went through a pregnancy in 0g or a reduced gravity and for pretty obvious reasons it would be unethical to test, although they could do so with other species I guess.
Gut feel is we'd adapt and it would be OK, but I'm pretty much guessing, as is anyone who says the reverse.

Pretending?  The earth is flat if you believe it or not

I'll just leave this here...

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9906.msg155633#msg155633

Ever consider I was always flat earth and that is just feeling out the site?  Called investigation