it might be. in thousands of years time, future humans might be asking "how many probes did they send to mars before they started terraforming it ?" and they might be shocked that we did it so soon or even tried at all. we are surprised today at what our ancestors did, but we do not live in the era they lived, and have hindsight and centuries of technological development to inform our opinions today.

Well so far there really havent proven to be many siginificant resources on Mars. I think there will be some colonization charter or something by the UN.

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

Sure it is, both are to lands that are not fully known to us, and both had trips that took months to complete each way. Also, for both, the trips were extremely dangerous.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Well, here's the thing--which would be easier to accomplish, Faster than Light (FTL) travel, or terraforming? I would say that FTL travel is easier to accomplish, because the Moon does not have enough mass to have an atmosphere. It simply does not have the gravity required to hold in gases. Same thing with Mars--it doesn't have a liquid core, so there is no magnetic field. The atmosphere has long since been blown away by solar wind and the planet is mercilessly bombarded by solar radiation.

Terraforming would only be theoretically possible on Venus, which is probably too close to the sun to be habitable in any case.

So, FTL travel and extrasolar colonization would be our best option--and that probably won't happen until humans unify under one political banner. The nation-state system will have to collapse before we are able to engineer any sort of extrasolar colony. The reason? One nation alone will not be able to amass the resources required for a project on that scale. Gaining the ability to travel faster than light--and there are numerous theories on how this could be done--is not going to be easy, and one nation--even the giant United States--is not going to be able to figure it out alone.

__________________
Corporation, noun: an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
~Ambrose Bierce

When I feed the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.

~Dom Helder Camara

Businessmen have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public.

~Adam Smith

But the Europeans knew that the "new world" could, and did, support human life.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

thats true, and we do not know the reality or possibility of terraforming or colonising other planets. but i don't think this invalidates the analogy for the reasons oregon elephant expressed.

it is not a perfect analogy, no analogy is. but the situations are, i think, similar enough to draw parallels.

certainly, the political situation of the colonists is very similar to the new world colonies, and that was one of the initial points of this thread.

Zephyr

terraforming is something we can reasonably predict with our current level of scientific and technological knowledge (we cannot realistically DO it, but we can make realistic plans about HOW to do it). FTL travel is theoretical, likely not possible regardless of our technological achievements. at best it is so far into the future we are not able to make realistic predictions about what human needs might be at that time. so terraforming looks like the more realistic option at this point in time.

good points. it might be possible to make the martian atmosphere more habitable although it would be a challenge and may not be possible. venus is hot, but terraforming might work and there may be polar regions that stayed cool enough to support life even if the equator was too hot.

it was technologically possible for the united states to get to the moon and back, 12 times, 30 years ago. it is concieveable that one nation could achieve it, but the options would be USA, china, european union or possibly india if they develop economically fast enough. it is even concieveable that a large company could do it, or a consortium of companies. it will probably not happen until the planet is more united anyway as the resources required would be huge and only available once they were not being used for their current needs like war, border protection, rigging elections, etc.

Actually the prime bets are Venus or one of the moons on Jupiter or Saturn, which do have atmosheres.

Actually, that is not that great of a concern. The main concern is it's extremely slow rotation, thus making it's days and nights drastically different (or they would be after the terraforming).

Even in scientific law this is not possible (sure there are theories on how it might be possible, but that is a far cry for being based in reality), we can't even get a single electron to go that fast. Really the only option would be to learn to control the governing ether of the quantum world (which we would first have to discover before we can control) and they do tunneling.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I think our best bet is not to f up this planet that we have right here to where other planets are a necessary option. Maybe making the other planets nearly impossible to reach or live on was part of the design. Kinda like how two species can't create rabbit-lizards or dog-birds. Some thing need to be left the frack alone. The energy required for a mass colonization of an inhospitable planet would be a drain on our already depleting energy resources here. Living in a bubble on another inhospitable planet would be hell on the human psyche.

In my opinion, before we attempt to live on another planet, why don't we prove it can be done by colonizing the ocean floor? If we can successfully do that, live in that environment where humans are totally foreign and can't survive without failproof technology, THEN and only then, should we attempt to colonize another world where there would be no chance of rescue should a catastrophic equipment failure occur.

Because from what I have read, everything currently living on this planet is evolved based on the many unique aspects of this planet. From the elements in the air, to the temperature, gravity, tidal forces of the moon, layers of the atmosphere, and even the magnetic field all serve a purpose in protecting or nourishing us.

__________________
I'm very politically correct, handsome, intelligent and modest.

True. The nice thing is that any colonization can be done without the massacre of the natives.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch