From The Space Review by way of Tales from the Heliosphere and UFO Updates.
by Michael Huang
Monday, September 11, 2006
The potential discovery of Martian life and the potential settlement of Mars by humans and other Earth life have produced a wide range of reactions. On one side, there is the belief that we should do nothing on Mars except to observe it from a safe distance. Even robots such as the Viking lander and the Mars rovers are considered non-natural and biologically risky. The Space Review has covered a controversial plan to pick up all the spacecraft on Mars that space agencies have left there over the decades (see “Cleaning up after Martian explorationâ€Â, August 25, 2003). On the other side, there is the belief that we should use large numbers of robots and humans to explore, settl,e and perhaps terraform Mars. If life exists on Mars, it would have to live among the new arrivals. The science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson portrayed these disparate sides as Reds (leave Mars as it is) and Greens (settle, terraform Mars) in his Mars trilogy.
| The debate over which areas should be reserved for natural (i.e. non-human) things, and which should be left for humans, extends from Earth to the solar system and beyond. |
Somewhere between the two sides, there is the belief that robots and humans should explore Mars, but that sterilization procedures be followed to protect any local species. Another centrist idea is the establishment of protected areas on Mars, similar to national parks on Earth. Humans would be free to settle Mars, but some areas would be off-limits. From this perspective, the Mars debate extends from establishing a national park over the entire planet of Mars, to creating no national parks at all.