we could terraform the mediterranean ocean, the saharan desert, the outback, and the middle east if people would support it, hell, the middle east used to be greener
This is such an infuriating cliché.. "hOw cAn wE tErRafOrM oThEr pLanEtS WhEn wE cAn'T EveN tAke cAre oF OuR oWn" Why should we limit ourselves in our ambition just because there's still problems back on earth? We don't have to be some hyper utopian society to face the final frontier. These things can be done at the same time.
I'm pretty sure that Venus is in the habitable zone as well as Mars being close to it. So like other replies are saying, the problem isn't really position. But other factors such as atmospheric pressure, chemical composition, temperature, and even more aspects.
@@ReverseToad “Venus is in the habitable zone” - Nope, the Earth is close to the inner edge, and crossing it due to the Sun's evolution in 500-1000 My, depending on the definition.
I definitely disagree about not terraforming. The universe is insanely massive, literally beyond our comprehension. As what we can see, it’s pretty empty. If we do get to the point we make space habitats I think just by the virtue of having that technology level we would most likely be able to terraform
@@PlatinumAltaria the longer we exist as a species the more likely we’re going to live off this planet. Unless you’re totally down with ending humanity once the sun starts growing. It’s entirely possible as well we don’t get that far at all
@@michaelvelez902 I will be dead, my children will be dead, my entire civilisation will have been forgotten and buried. Moving to another planet is not a priority.
@@PlatinumAltaria By the time something like terraforming is a genuine possibility earth will have so much people that the only way you have "more than enough room" is if you cram everyone into pods so cramped it'd make soviet architects blush.
@@Kisel228-fp8iz That's not how population dynamics works, we're already starting to level off in population. The expected maximum is around 10-12 billion.
You can argue large scale terra forming is less efficient than asteroid and spaceship colonies, but nobody would really want to live on those, as opposed to a second planet.
Although currently I think those resources would be better spent to improve earth, in the far future people would much rather live on another earth like planet
@@gabrielsamaroo6691 After you mine all the valuables off an asteroid, there wouldn't be much point sticking around. You can argue that the people wouldn't want to leave their home, however what would they produce in order to earn some income, in order to be able ship in needed supplies?
I very much agree with the idea that terraforming is insanely unrealistic. All the people that say 'we should terraform mars/venus to make it more habitable' have no idea the amount of effort it would require. For goodness sake we can't even land crewed missions on the MOON anymore, let alone do something that would require a dyson swarm's worth of energy to complete 🤦♂️
In the absence of religion, society is degrading as rampant individualism destroys the consideration for the collective we once had. I think a grand goal such as terraforming a planet to give us a second, perhaps better home, or more broadly expanding humanity into space, can fill the void of purpose and meaning that was once filled by religion. Space can be our new religion, but instead of living as a devout person in order to go to heaven, we create our own heaven among the stars.
> For goodness sake we can't even land crewed missions on the MOON anymore Kyplanet has mentioned the Artemis missions several times when speaking about terraformation or colonization
The 24 hour Venus solar days with the reflection are gonna make a weird barcode planet, where walking to school would give you jetlag. Interesting to think about.
I disagree with the notion that terraforming is a waste of time and resources. Humanity needs life, it needs ecosystems, these are crucial for food production and the creation of complex chemicals that aren't found in lifeless planets. Not to mention the crucial role they play in the mental wellbeing and culture of human civilizations. This is something that super structures built from asteroids simply can't replicate and the creation/maintanence of ecosystems should be a high priority concern for a future space fairing humanity. Also want to add that concerns of Venus terraforming beings "profitable" are fairly laughable, it's insane to imagine a future where planet terraforming is possible and capitalism still existing, this would be so far in the future that the combination of an immense human population and automation taking over would render a job market completely unviable and our systems of government and economies would have to be overhauled to adapt.
The Gundam series actually goes pretty in depth about living on space habitats. They're likely to become second class citzens from earth after a while, which inevitably causes rebellion.
There are many construction projects that took centuries to complete. The Cologne cathedral took over 600 years, and the Great Wall of China took hundreds of years. We simply need to change our time horizons, as well as pur priorities, away from profit, and towards aspirational goals like our forefathers. We should not be chasing short term profit, we should be achieving greatness, for our posterity.
A problem with terraforming Venus is that if you need to set up a complex and delicate mirror system to keep the planet cool, all it takes is one terrorist blowing the mirror up, one asteroid hitting it, or one out-of-control space rocket hitting it to cause the planet to overheat back into a runaway greenhouse effect again.
thin mirrors are neither complex nor delicate. If something hits a mirror, it'll blow a relatively small hole in the one mirror hit, and leave all of the other orbital mirrors completely untouched.
Imagine a civilization that can do that worrying about "an out of control rocket" or and asteroid. The only thing that could screw that up would be interplanetary warfare specifically targeting the mirrors.
@@featel1 It's how the world works *now*. This far in the future, working with budgets and timelines inconceivable to us, I can't imagine such an undertaking occuring for any reason besides posterity.
@@featel1this is so absurdly far in the future that it's insane to think capitalism would even function the way it does now. For one thing human labor is obsolete a million times over because automation would've taken over like 10's of thousands of years ago and the direct input of human beings is likely insanely minimal at least when compared to an operation of this grand a scale. And for another the population would need to be immense to necessitate the terraforming of a planet in the first place, so the amount of jobs necessary to keep things stable would be insane. Like seriously what would the average person even be capable of doing as a full time job in a future where this sort of basically black magic is possible? The demand for human labor being non existent would absolutely murder capitalism's chances to function in this scenario.
9:01 I’ve heard that even settling the moon with habitats makes a lot more sense. It’s closer, easier to reach, and has economic purposes (launching and receiving satellites, probes etc)
@@brovid-19 yeah it’s not perfect or easy, but for a comparison - Mars’ soil is also highly toxic while also being very far away. The moon is at least a closer toxic desert.
@@brovid-19 If we manage to make an atmosphere on the moon, import oxygen, nitrogen, all that fun stuff. Then I believe the wind would round out the jagged lunar dust, and it would be rounded, like sand. Although please correct me if im wrong.
Who said we needed to freeze Venus's atmosphere to get rid of it? Why can't we just harvest the atmospheric gases over millenia to slowly inch towards terraforming Venus? Not like it'll take any longer, I'd wager
Alternatively, use all those mirrors to blast away it's atmosphere maybe? Haven't done the math on that, but just heating the upper atmosphere 'till it reaches escape velocity (even if only 1 point at a time like a giant magnifying glass) would theoretically work.
@@dynamicworlds1 you'd have to take into account that the additional heat on the surface would also increase the production of gases, sustaining even further the extreme runway greenhouse effect.
A lot of the issue is trying to terraform fast, though. If you're willing to use local resources and take millennia to do it, the situation improves somewhat. The only thing you'd really need to import is hydrogen in the Venus case, and the Bosch reaction creates energy as well as water, so it'd probably pay for itself. From there you just wait until the whole atmosphere is processed.
i mean it’s a good channel but depends how you scale underrated. There’s channels that are also quite good that have literally 100 or less subscribers, so more underrated
Imagine spending krillions of dollars to change an entire planet to have a new place to live, instead of spending a fraction of that money on just cleaning up your damn planet and making cleaner energy. It’s the equivalent of building a Mansion in the middle of the desert because your current house is dirty and needs some repairs.
The technology that could turn Venus into an Earth like planet could restore our own atmosphere. Space mirrors in particular. We could build them on the moon from the moon.
@@TastyyOnRUclips yeah, and some biomes depend on nutrients from deserts, like the nutrients that flow and float from the sahara all the way to the amazon
The Sahara is actually a necessity for say, South America for example. That being said, I wonder how much my country would benefit if our coastal regions were less desert and more plains
Hey! There is a lot of good points made in this video. But I will make an argument that while Venus may be the more easier one to terraform than Mars. Mars does have the advantage of being near the outer solar system. So it could act as some sort of bridge incase we’re interested in doing operations such as mining the asteroid or Kuiper Belt or beyond. Also you forgot to mention gravity on a terraformed Venus will be the biggest advantage compared to a terraformed mars as it’s somewhat close to that of the Earth and Zero G effects on humans is one of the most concerning things that are never talked about if it comes to sending humans in places outside of earth. It would be interesting video idea if we get something like centrifugal forces and how we can adapt our bodies better for space environments
You gotta remember that with gravity slingshots around the sun, and with the fact that the outer planet destination is gonna be on the far side of the system from Mars about half the time, Venus is probably "closer" to the outer system in an orbital mechanics, delta vee rocket equations sense.
When you speak of profit I take you to be referring to utility as I don't think any profit-seeking institution would ever engage in terraforming. Also, it is hasty to assume the economic system of the future. The "profits" from any such enterprise will be so far in the future that few humans would choose to terraform for "personal" gain. As for the proposed solar panels, why waste money trying to keep them in a specific place for hundreds of years when one could build them closer to the sun and not worry about such things? There is still much utility in terraforming (even if I agree with you on the point that there are better options out there), but any effort to gain it will have to be made by non-profit institutions like governments. Ultimately, governments may be even less likely to terraform as they must provide goods to their voting public within their lifetimes. But that's assuming democracy, an autocratic technocracy could muster the will to do it given it lasts hundreds of years. In the end, I agree with you.
And the fact that the sun’s luminosity is increasing by 10% every billion years makes it even worse for Venus because Venus is closer to the sun than Mars, so if we can’t terraform either of them, then we’ll have to seek refuge on a planet orbiting in the habitable zone of another star, potentially even an orange dwarf, considering orange dwarves are better candidates for habitable planets than white, red & brown dwarves.
Argument: terraforming if you dont have acces to ludicrous amounts of power & energy is a bad idea. If you have a dyson swarm or some other method for producing massive amounts of power then it becomes viable especially when an entire planet can be home to trillions or quadrilions with the right conditions/engineering. Edit: paraterraforming is valid too
I really like your content so could I make a suggestion? I think some music for ambience could really be the icing on top of your videos. But hey I'm gonna keep watching either way 🤷
The profit motive is a terribly defective and inefficient reason/way to go about terraforming(or for really anything else for that matter) in any responsible manner. I mean just at look how we treat our own planet for profit already. Terraforming for profit gain would be far too expensive for anyone to seriously really consider and if we did, the process would likely be undermined by things like cut-cornering, wastefulness, and whatever other bad business practices you can think of which could have great consequences for whatever planet we go with. We shouldn’t be doing anything that involves human expansion outside our own planet until we’ve moved past our money-first system and into something better.
Your talk about dollar amounts intrigues me. I generally agree with your ideas about profitability when it comes to the resource need vs resource extraction, but the idea of putting a dollar amount to these things is interesting imo. Do you use dollars as a reference point for the viewers? Do you beleive our global labor economy will or won't have to fundamentally change in order to acheive stellar colonization? I am interested in what you think about this.
Terraforming should only be done once we have a proper understanding of how the core produces the magnetosphere. If we can figure out to stimulate and outer core via the crust/mantel, we can then proceed with the other crazy shit.
i never understood the idea of terraforming. shouldn't we put those resources into taking care of the damn planet we're already on? after all it's hard to get more terraformed than Earth itself. i think people are so interested in terraforming because of the cool sci-fi angle to it. it's fun and romantic.
No, it's a simple numbers game. We have one planet as of now, all our eggs are in one basket. If big space rock hits us, it's over. Now if we had two planets...
@@Kyplanet893 Good point, however I have two objections: 1. Living on a moon colony or even an artificial space habitat doesn't come close to living on a terraformed planet. Of course, perhaps future humans have adapted physically to a low-g environment, but the mental impact of living off planet for an entire human lifecycle are simply not known. 2. A moon or artificial space habitat is not nearly a good enough starting point from which to rebuild after a human-life-on-planet ending impact. It's more fragile and there's less resources.. not least of which, most likely way less humans than would've lived on the planet that was hit. There's not a lot of strategic depth in such a scenario, not a lot of wiggle room if things go wrong a second time.
difference with the moon is if some apocalypse happened on earth, they’re right there and the moon is a perfect place to set up huge industries so will have all they need to build ships and stuff so they are in a perfect position to rebuild after a disaster in a scenario where earth is in post-apocalypse isn’t about surviving long term, it’s about being able to get back to earth (and rebuilding it) as fast as possible and otherwise, low-g actually isn’t that big of a problem on the moon again because of how close it is to earth. The moon doesn’t need permanent populations because of how close it is. (a permanent population would obviously be great, but we don’t *need* one) Crews can be switched out every few months, which negates all the health problems and social problems entirely
@@Natogoon I've heard this silly claim. First of all your plan is still to leave billions to die, you're just gonna have a backup. That seems a lot worse than trying to redirect any impactor. Second and more importantly, there are no rocks that could wipe us out in our vicinity. It's not a realistic issue, it's something that only happened one time.
It would be easier to figure out a way to move a dwarf planet like ceres into Mars’ orbit than to terraform Venus since mars needs something to influence its magnetic field although that could be resulted from a more composition and size issue more than likely.
While I think terraforming is a bad idea, I do use it in my alternative universe. Some worlds terraformed in the universe include: Mars, Venus, Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Luna (Moon), Proxima Centauri b (Onera in my universe), some planets in the Trappist-1 system, and Scuoca (Moon of a fictional planet I made, Objecia) The terraforming is done quickly though. In just a few years, the intelligent species native to Objecia quickly terraformed objects like those I mentioned. But honestly, I don't think terraforming irl will be that quick. It would take hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years to terraform an entire planet. It's just the native species of Objecia has technology fast enough to quickly terraform entire planets, and they live in a galaxy where most star systems have at least one habitable planet. So, terraforming could work well in a fictional setting. But, let's get back to the real universe. So, is terraforming possible? Yes, but it will take a PAINFUL amount of time and resources, as well as other problems. Honestly before we even build the first space habitats, we should save Earth first.
A job well done is usually via the difficult and challenging route. Ask yourselves which terraformation project would demand the most and would propel us forward at an incredible rate
Titan would be surprisingly habitable if it was just warmer. How many nuclear bombs do you guys think it would take to heat up titan and create a greenhouse effect?
6:12 sulfuric acid is the rssult of sulfor dioxide and water mixing, if you are able to split the silphur dioxide and water from eachother, you may not have to import water from the outer solar system.
I don't think we actually need mirrors in Venus orbit for a 24 hr day. It takes Venus 243 days to rotate, but that's the _sidereal_ day. The actual *solar* day on Venus is 116 days long with the daytime and nighttime each being 58 days. If we terraformed Venus, the water would evaporate faster during the day and turn into clouds which would raise the albedo of Venus. Some people did the math and they found out that the day temperature would reach only 35°C max (I beileve that's 95°F).
If its anyone's dream to make terrafirming possible one day, then think about reversing climate change here on Earth. Thats level 1 in the terraforming game, and we're not even sure how to manage that.
It seems impossible to cool down Venus surface to freeze CO₂ in a reasonable time, not in the “hundreds of years” indeed, unless I've made a serious error. A very rough BOE gives me a rather surprising estimate on the order of 10⁷ years without sunlight of cool-down time to the triple point of CO₂ at surface level. I have no idea about the internal structure of the planet; perhaps no one has. I just slap in the heat conducted by a 50km‒thick shell of granite from an infinite reservoir of heat at tepid 1500K, and only account for the CO₂ phase transition heat (cooling it down won't likely affect the order of mag, and its phase diagram is messy). Venus' albedo is so high (0.8; Bullock M et al., 2017 gives a=0.81) that it absorbs less insolation per m² than the Earth; accordingly, it doesn't radiate heat efficiently. I can't account for convective heat transfer; I'm using the current T and P at 2 altitudes to estimate gradients. Bullock et al. have a thermodynamic model of the atmosphere and codes.
I think that people overlook Venus’s high surface temperature as a disadvantage when it can be used as a resource. Floating power plants that hover about the cloud layer could suck atmosphere from the surface and use it to power turbines and transmit the power through microwaves or lasers to an orbital station. A version of humanity with much more advanced technology than us could use this energy to then create antimatter or power laser propulsion systems to explore other stars.
if humans can pull it off, take some of venus's atmosphere to mars. not to mention the extra gases can be used for dome cities on the moon. its better to use asteroids for materils, it suck to destroy the moon by mistake. referring to mirrors
I wanna ask, from absolute ignorance, if we could theoretically terraform planets such as Mars and Venus by sending over some kind of bacteria who could do chemosynthesis or photosynthesis until the planet has enough oxygen
they would have no way of making the atmosphere denser or adding enough water to the environment adding photosynthesizing bacteria is a part of the terraformation process, but can’t be the whole process
Carl Sagan himself actually suggested this for Venus way back in the day when we thought it had maybe 3 or 4 atmospheres worth of CO2. Once we sent the first probes and it turned out to be more like 90 atmospheres, we had to give up; basically, if you turn that much CO2 into O2, everything's going to be so insanely flammable that eventually it'll catch fire and everything will just turn into CO2 again. Also not enough water for microbes.
I'm kind of interested in the idea that we could throw some of Venus's frozen atmosphere over to Mars (e.g. if we didn't focus on one planet at a time we could terraform several planets at once)
@@Kyplanet893Terraformed Jupiter would need nearly all it's gas and supercritical fluid gone, and some of the core removed to lower the gravity of the rocky centre. I'll leave it to my buddy Greg, he's good at that sort of thing
I disagree with the point that Venus will be better. That rotation. The surface dynamics. Nah. But I agree that thinking terraforming is ridiculous. Another thing could be to dome Valles Marineris with some type of self healing thick aerogel.
Technically we should be for terraforming, just on our own planet because of our industrial society having caused the problem. There is no planet B. Nor will there be one for thousands of years or even ever. The climate is getting worse over time as corpos keep burning fossil fuels to fatten their own pockets while the effects disproportionately effect poor and undeveloped communities. I'm serious when I say oil companies have not just committed environmental crimes and tried to mask/justify it, they're even responsible for warcrimes and tyranny around the world. It's objectively the most evil industry in the world.
I'm sorry, but that isn't really the case. The oil industry is already dying thanks to the climate effort and even if it was the case that they fatten their pockets with that shit and they have the intention to destroy the planet, their days are clearly numbered as I do see predictions that by 2050s, the oil supply of the planet would be pretty much depleted, and plus, oil is becoming too unprofitable anyway as solar and wind becomes more and more profitable. These companies are evil, sure, but they crave profit above satisfying any schadenfreude they may have. There is really nothing worse for the climate than Oil, aside from nuclear weapons I guess, so by the time oil becomes too rare, then it is going to fix itself.
My first idea was inducing a chemical reaction to turn all the CO2 into oxygen, but that comes with 3 major problems 1. Where would I get that much reactant 2. The intense pressure still remains 3. The atmosphere would now be incredibly oxidising I like your idea better
This has been suggested, sort of. In the presence of iron, CO2 reacts with hydrogen to form water and carbon and emits energy. You'd import hydrogen from mining it out of the gas giants (Uranus probably, has the least steep gravity well), react it with the atmosphere, and you get water and energy and potential construction material in the form of carbon. This both gets rid of your atmosphere and gets you some shallow oceans. The main problem is you'd need this to be happening at a vast scale for a very, very long time, like millennia. Given the energy produced, though, it's probably cost-effective in the short term sense, so it might be viable. Towards the end, when the CO2 is low enough, you turn most of the last bit of CO2 into O2 the way we do on Earth, with plants.
Good video my only personal criticism is the focus on "profit and cost" when thinking about it. Like any space-related things, the focus likely wouldn't be for profit it would likely be a publicly funded effort by the state or a global human effort, not a private corporation or something expecting returns idk. While I do completely understand the reasons you have for being against terraforming, there is a deep part of me that just thinks it's cool even if entirely impractical. I'm curious what your thoughts on bioforming is then in the case of being against terraforming, while there would still have to be some terraforming done to an extent some significant parts of it might be avoided by bioforming as well.
Well there is another way they the standard cool Venus off. We could design a stalaser, using the suns atmosphere and power to generate powerful lasers, these laser could be used primarily to produce solar sail highways to move ships across the solar system. A portion of this energy could be used at specific wavelength to blow off atmosphere from Venus. Given the energy out out by the sun this could be a very repid process yeas it would heat up Venus, but with Venus having a much thinner atmosphere, the heat could not be retained for an extended period of time like it would with a thick atmosphere. Then you can cool Venus off at a much faster pace.
Don't you think people would much rather float above water than float above actual Hell? How would living on other planet or asteroid effect your mind that evolved to live on Earth? Many people only talk about the pysical and material aspects of space and lunar colonisation. I see far to few talk about the mental and spiritual aspects of it.
well it would affect every person differently, so it’s impossible to make any definitive conclusions of how that will affect space colonization you can definitely say things like “people don’t like living in holes in the ground” and “travel times are long” and people do bring that up a lot, but other than basic things we know humans don’t like there just isn’t any experimental proof of what humans will do in those situations
Pure fantasy. Money is simply a medium of exchange. It's not inherently bad. It really represents the value of one's time. That's what Star Trek the Next Generation never understood. The ONLY way any other planet will be colonized is with profit motive.
As a sort of devil’s advocate. What’s one good (reasonably serious) reason you can think for terraforming any body in the Solar System you can think of? No real reason I think it’s just a fun question to pose. I know one is already mentioned in this video but are there others you can think of?
3:34 I imagine when somebody builds a city on mars, it will, at least for a while, look like Dubai taken to the extreme. At least to a greater extreme than dubai already is. A cultureless garish playground for the ultra wealthy built in a desolate wasteland for no other reason than 'just because' where poverty stricken workers from developing nations are carted to without any other choice only to get payed pennies on the dollar for backbreaking labor under a system of infastructure that is so insanely incompetent and lopsided that basic social services such as waste management and running water barely exist, but deluxe billion dollar suites and exclusive VIP vacation and tourist spots will be everywhere.
low gravity, extremely cold, far away, and has the most unique environment in the solar system titan’s a cool place to colonize but i don’t see it being terraformed
We can’t even terraform Terra 🤷🏻♂️
Fr, everyone's talking about terraforming other planets but if we can't do it to our own what makes them think that we can do it with mars or Venus
But we don’t need to terraform our own planet because it terraformed itself over billions of years.
we could terraform the mediterranean ocean, the saharan desert, the outback, and the middle east if people would support it, hell, the middle east used to be greener
@@CultReport terraforming the Sahara would have drastic effects on Earth’s climate. It would most likely be a bad idea.
This is such an infuriating cliché.. "hOw cAn wE tErRafOrM oThEr pLanEtS WhEn wE cAn'T EveN tAke cAre oF OuR oWn"
Why should we limit ourselves in our ambition just because there's still problems back on earth? We don't have to be some hyper utopian society to face the final frontier. These things can be done at the same time.
Venus is just all the problems on earth we are trying to escape just scaled up by 100 .
* ...all the climate problems...
and mars is essentially the antarctic but with a hundred times less air lmao
@@toreq1127 Mars is sometimes warm, not sure to call it the antarctic but at some points a dry antarctic yes.
And yet it’s still more practical than Mars
@@SamiulHaque-dz8mi martian average temperature is -50 C so "sometimes" is a good word
We build a giant robot maid to vacuum the atmosphere.
A man of culture, I see.
Got out selves a xenoblade 2 fan
@@OrionNite-gr9cb Spaceballs...
@@NoobTamer weeb
@@OrionNite-gr9cb do you know what spaceballs is?
We should take Venus and push it somewhere else.
It'd be great if Venus and Mars traded places in the solar system.
@@Arizona-ex5ytnot really the problem isn’t it’s location but it’s atmosphere.
I'm pretty sure that Venus is in the habitable zone as well as Mars being close to it. So like other replies are saying, the problem isn't really position. But other factors such as atmospheric pressure, chemical composition, temperature, and even more aspects.
@@ReverseToad “Venus is in the habitable zone” - Nope, the Earth is close to the inner edge, and crossing it due to the Sun's evolution in 500-1000 My, depending on the definition.
@@cykkmSo, earth is nearly outside the habitable zone?
I could definitely imagine a terraformed Venus becoming a "resort planet"!
I can only imagine the entire climate will be just southern texas and Florida
Hot as hell and very humid
@@Joseph_InTheDarkexcept for the poles which would be rather southern Australia like
Aaaaah a man of culture
With days longer than a polar summer? No thanks
@@Joseph_InTheDarkI live in Florida. It's not that bad
Ok but who's gonna attempt to cool down actual hell
not till hell freezes over heh
management says air conditioning costs too much
Ill do it if i was rich enough
nah it would just become the ninth circle instead of the sixth
whoever is gonna be born there i guess
Martian colonists finding out their city is about to be underwater:
"Let's take the city AND PUSH IT SOMEWHERE ELSE"
I definitely disagree about not terraforming. The universe is insanely massive, literally beyond our comprehension. As what we can see, it’s pretty empty.
If we do get to the point we make space habitats I think just by the virtue of having that technology level we would most likely be able to terraform
Just because it is empty does not mean we need to fill it with our garbage. There's more than enough room on Earth for anything we could need to do.
@@PlatinumAltaria the longer we exist as a species the more likely we’re going to live off this planet. Unless you’re totally down with ending humanity once the sun starts growing. It’s entirely possible as well we don’t get that far at all
@@michaelvelez902 I will be dead, my children will be dead, my entire civilisation will have been forgotten and buried. Moving to another planet is not a priority.
@@PlatinumAltaria By the time something like terraforming is a genuine possibility earth will have so much people that the only way you have "more than enough room" is if you cram everyone into pods so cramped it'd make soviet architects blush.
@@Kisel228-fp8iz That's not how population dynamics works, we're already starting to level off in population. The expected maximum is around 10-12 billion.
You can argue large scale terra forming is less efficient than asteroid and spaceship colonies, but nobody would really want to live on those, as opposed to a second planet.
Although currently I think those resources would be better spent to improve earth, in the far future people would much rather live on another earth like planet
you can’t say for certain what people would want
@@Kyplanet893 true, but I feel like asteroids won't have permanent settlements but rather be used for industrial purposes
@@gabrielsamaroo6691 After you mine all the valuables off an asteroid, there wouldn't be much point sticking around. You can argue that the people wouldn't want to leave their home, however what would they produce in order to earn some income, in order to be able ship in needed supplies?
@@Kyplanet893 And Utilitarism alone doesnt fuel humanity.
The sulphur imps might have something to say about that one.
I very much agree with the idea that terraforming is insanely unrealistic. All the people that say 'we should terraform mars/venus to make it more habitable' have no idea the amount of effort it would require. For goodness sake we can't even land crewed missions on the MOON anymore, let alone do something that would require a dyson swarm's worth of energy to complete 🤦♂️
In the absence of religion, society is degrading as rampant individualism destroys the consideration for the collective we once had.
I think a grand goal such as terraforming a planet to give us a second, perhaps better home, or more broadly expanding humanity into space, can fill the void of purpose and meaning that was once filled by religion.
Space can be our new religion, but instead of living as a devout person in order to go to heaven, we create our own heaven among the stars.
> For goodness sake we can't even land crewed missions on the MOON anymore
Kyplanet has mentioned the Artemis missions several times when speaking about terraformation or colonization
@@Natogoon If you make a space religion let me know. I'm down.
Impeccable logic, you have at least 85 iq
@@Natogoon the thing is, space is real
The 24 hour Venus solar days with the reflection are gonna make a weird barcode planet, where walking to school would give you jetlag. Interesting to think about.
I disagree with the notion that terraforming is a waste of time and resources. Humanity needs life, it needs ecosystems, these are crucial for food production and the creation of complex chemicals that aren't found in lifeless planets. Not to mention the crucial role they play in the mental wellbeing and culture of human civilizations. This is something that super structures built from asteroids simply can't replicate and the creation/maintanence of ecosystems should be a high priority concern for a future space fairing humanity. Also want to add that concerns of Venus terraforming beings "profitable" are fairly laughable, it's insane to imagine a future where planet terraforming is possible and capitalism still existing, this would be so far in the future that the combination of an immense human population and automation taking over would render a job market completely unviable and our systems of government and economies would have to be overhauled to adapt.
You're underestimating what you can fit into an O'Neal cylinder.
The Gundam series actually goes pretty in depth about living on space habitats. They're likely to become second class citzens from earth after a while, which inevitably causes rebellion.
And the worst case scenario.... someone crazy enough to dropped O'Neill Cylinder to earth and wipe out cities from map permanently 😅
Principality of Zeon be like:
There are many construction projects that took centuries to complete. The Cologne cathedral took over 600 years, and the Great Wall of China took hundreds of years.
We simply need to change our time horizons, as well as pur priorities, away from profit, and towards aspirational goals like our forefathers. We should not be chasing short term profit, we should be achieving greatness, for our posterity.
Not gonna happen as long as the world is ruled by money-grubbing goblins.
Ah. I completely disagree. We should Terraform everything, no matter the cost. My favorite solar candidate is Ganymede.
A problem with terraforming Venus is that if you need to set up a complex and delicate mirror system to keep the planet cool, all it takes is one terrorist blowing the mirror up, one asteroid hitting it, or one out-of-control space rocket hitting it to cause the planet to overheat back into a runaway greenhouse effect again.
thin mirrors are neither complex nor delicate. If something hits a mirror, it'll blow a relatively small hole in the one mirror hit, and leave all of the other orbital mirrors completely untouched.
It won't heat up overnight. Especially if we remove all of that co2
@QuantumSeanyGlass it could lead to a sort of Kessler Syndrome though
Damned Space terrorist!!!
Imagine a civilization that can do that worrying about "an out of control rocket" or and asteroid. The only thing that could screw that up would be interplanetary warfare specifically targeting the mirrors.
The idea of profitability when it comes to terraforming doesn't make any sense.
It makes all the sense
It is literally all the of the sense
Literally how the world works. How else would we incentivise large scale projects like this?
@@featel1 It's how the world works *now*. This far in the future, working with budgets and timelines inconceivable to us, I can't imagine such an undertaking occuring for any reason besides posterity.
@@featel1this is so absurdly far in the future that it's insane to think capitalism would even function the way it does now. For one thing human labor is obsolete a million times over because automation would've taken over like 10's of thousands of years ago and the direct input of human beings is likely insanely minimal at least when compared to an operation of this grand a scale. And for another the population would need to be immense to necessitate the terraforming of a planet in the first place, so the amount of jobs necessary to keep things stable would be insane. Like seriously what would the average person even be capable of doing as a full time job in a future where this sort of basically black magic is possible? The demand for human labor being non existent would absolutely murder capitalism's chances to function in this scenario.
@@featel1 many things are done without profit. usps, bridges, schools, etc…
9:01 I’ve heard that even settling the moon with habitats makes a lot more sense. It’s closer, easier to reach, and has economic purposes (launching and receiving satellites, probes etc)
It's literally made of powdered glass.
@@brovid-19 yeah it’s not perfect or easy, but for a comparison -
Mars’ soil is also highly toxic while also being very far away. The moon is at least a closer toxic desert.
@@brovid-19 If we manage to make an atmosphere on the moon, import oxygen, nitrogen, all that fun stuff. Then I believe the wind would round out the jagged lunar dust, and it would be rounded, like sand. Although please correct me if im wrong.
completely correct
the moon is the best place we have to colonize right now
@@Tee954 you can’t really terraform the moon. You’d just build space habitats instead - big domes in which people live.
The ridiculous scale of resources needed to terraform anything really shows why orbital habitats would be the future of humanity in space
Who said we needed to freeze Venus's atmosphere to get rid of it? Why can't we just harvest the atmospheric gases over millenia to slowly inch towards terraforming Venus? Not like it'll take any longer, I'd wager
Alternatively, use all those mirrors to blast away it's atmosphere maybe?
Haven't done the math on that, but just heating the upper atmosphere 'till it reaches escape velocity (even if only 1 point at a time like a giant magnifying glass) would theoretically work.
@@dynamicworlds1 you'd have to take into account that the additional heat on the surface would also increase the production of gases, sustaining even further the extreme runway greenhouse effect.
A lot of the issue is trying to terraform fast, though. If you're willing to use local resources and take millennia to do it, the situation improves somewhat. The only thing you'd really need to import is hydrogen in the Venus case, and the Bosch reaction creates energy as well as water, so it'd probably pay for itself. From there you just wait until the whole atmosphere is processed.
This right here, might just be _the_ most underrated channel on RUclips.
i mean it’s a good channel but depends how you scale underrated. There’s channels that are also quite good that have literally 100 or less subscribers, so more underrated
saying something is underrated, is one of the most overrated comments on youtube
Hell yeah, venus finally getting some attention
Imagine spending krillions of dollars to change an entire planet to have a new place to live, instead of spending a fraction of that money on just cleaning up your damn planet and making cleaner energy. It’s the equivalent of building a Mansion in the middle of the desert because your current house is dirty and needs some repairs.
You must be absolutely fun at parties
@@PeruvianPotato yeah I clear the dance floor more than Jon Arbuckle dancing to disco.
All your videos are so interesting and insightful. I'll keep watching, commenting and recommending you as much as I can! Keep up the good work
petition to paint all the planets green and blue to make any carbon based intelligence think they found the perfect solar system
The technology that could turn Venus into an Earth like planet could restore our own atmosphere. Space mirrors in particular. We could build them on the moon from the moon.
You assume capitalism will continue forever.
I seriously love this channel. Learning more every day and there's something so soothing about those visuals. Thanks!
We should focus on terraforming Earth first. Like maybe turn Patagonia green or something.
too many laws and living ppl and stuff stopping you
@@galaxian23 I don't think turning a pampa biome into some lush green paradise is a good idea, the same for doing it to any desert on the planet.
@@luulasmene7786the earrh needs deserts. Without them it would just cause other places to become deserts
@@TastyyOnRUclips yeah, and some biomes depend on nutrients from deserts, like the nutrients that flow and float from the sahara all the way to the amazon
The Sahara is actually a necessity for say, South America for example. That being said, I wonder how much my country would benefit if our coastal regions were less desert and more plains
Hey! There is a lot of good points made in this video. But I will make an argument that while Venus may be the more easier one to terraform than Mars. Mars does have the advantage of being near the outer solar system. So it could act as some sort of bridge incase we’re interested in doing operations such as mining the asteroid or Kuiper Belt or beyond. Also you forgot to mention gravity on a terraformed Venus will be the biggest advantage compared to a terraformed mars as it’s somewhat close to that of the Earth and Zero G effects on humans is one of the most concerning things that are never talked about if it comes to sending humans in places outside of earth. It would be interesting video idea if we get something like centrifugal forces and how we can adapt our bodies better for space environments
You gotta remember that with gravity slingshots around the sun, and with the fact that the outer planet destination is gonna be on the far side of the system from Mars about half the time, Venus is probably "closer" to the outer system in an orbital mechanics, delta vee rocket equations sense.
When you speak of profit I take you to be referring to utility as I don't think any profit-seeking institution would ever engage in terraforming. Also, it is hasty to assume the economic system of the future. The "profits" from any such enterprise will be so far in the future that few humans would choose to terraform for "personal" gain. As for the proposed solar panels, why waste money trying to keep them in a specific place for hundreds of years when one could build them closer to the sun and not worry about such things? There is still much utility in terraforming (even if I agree with you on the point that there are better options out there), but any effort to gain it will have to be made by non-profit institutions like governments. Ultimately, governments may be even less likely to terraform as they must provide goods to their voting public within their lifetimes. But that's assuming democracy, an autocratic technocracy could muster the will to do it given it lasts hundreds of years. In the end, I agree with you.
Would love to see videos about Europa and Enceladus ❤
And the fact that the sun’s luminosity is increasing by 10% every billion years makes it even worse for Venus because Venus is closer to the sun than Mars, so if we can’t terraform either of them, then we’ll have to seek refuge on a planet orbiting in the habitable zone of another star, potentially even an orange dwarf, considering orange dwarves are better candidates for habitable planets than white, red & brown dwarves.
Argument: terraforming if you dont have acces to ludicrous amounts of power & energy is a bad idea. If you have a dyson swarm or some other method for producing massive amounts of power then it becomes viable especially when an entire planet can be home to trillions or quadrilions with the right conditions/engineering.
Edit: paraterraforming is valid too
I really like your content so could I make a suggestion? I think some music for ambience could really be the icing on top of your videos. But hey I'm gonna keep watching either way 🤷
Before we start terraforming venus, we should stop venusforming terra.
We can't even change our planet into a better place
I mean, we COULD. We're just choosing to do the opposite.
Guys...why terraform? Let's just nuke the sun
Based and uranium pilled
The profit motive is a terribly defective and inefficient reason/way to go about terraforming(or for really anything else for that matter) in any responsible manner. I mean just at look how we treat our own planet for profit already.
Terraforming for profit gain would be far too expensive for anyone to seriously really consider and if we did, the process would likely be undermined by things like cut-cornering, wastefulness, and whatever other bad business practices you can think of which could have great consequences for whatever planet we go with.
We shouldn’t be doing anything that involves human expansion outside our own planet until we’ve moved past our money-first system and into something better.
I love your videos, keep it up man and you’ll make it.❤❤❤
Venus is literally hell made as a solar system planet
Your talk about dollar amounts intrigues me. I generally agree with your ideas about profitability when it comes to the resource need vs resource extraction, but the idea of putting a dollar amount to these things is interesting imo. Do you use dollars as a reference point for the viewers? Do you beleive our global labor economy will or won't have to fundamentally change in order to acheive stellar colonization? I am interested in what you think about this.
i’m american so i just automatically think in dollars lol
Terraforming should only be done once we have a proper understanding of how the core produces the magnetosphere. If we can figure out to stimulate and outer core via the crust/mantel, we can then proceed with the other crazy shit.
i never understood the idea of terraforming. shouldn't we put those resources into taking care of the damn planet we're already on? after all it's hard to get more terraformed than Earth itself.
i think people are so interested in terraforming because of the cool sci-fi angle to it. it's fun and romantic.
No, it's a simple numbers game.
We have one planet as of now, all our eggs are in one basket. If big space rock hits us, it's over.
Now if we had two planets...
@Natogoon we don’t need terraforming to do that
even a moon colony will protect us from extinction just as well as a mars one would
@@Kyplanet893 Good point, however I have two objections:
1. Living on a moon colony or even an artificial space habitat doesn't come close to living on a terraformed planet. Of course, perhaps future humans have adapted physically to a low-g environment, but the mental impact of living off planet for an entire human lifecycle are simply not known.
2. A moon or artificial space habitat is not nearly a good enough starting point from which to rebuild after a human-life-on-planet ending impact. It's more fragile and there's less resources.. not least of which, most likely way less humans than would've lived on the planet that was hit. There's not a lot of strategic depth in such a scenario, not a lot of wiggle room if things go wrong a second time.
difference with the moon is if some apocalypse happened on earth, they’re right there
and the moon is a perfect place to set up huge industries so will have all they need to build ships and stuff
so they are in a perfect position to rebuild after a disaster
in a scenario where earth is in post-apocalypse isn’t about surviving long term, it’s about being able to get back to earth (and rebuilding it) as fast as possible
and otherwise, low-g actually isn’t that big of a problem on the moon again because of how close it is to earth. The moon doesn’t need permanent populations because of how close it is. (a permanent population would obviously be great, but we don’t *need* one) Crews can be switched out every few months, which negates all the health problems and social problems entirely
@@Natogoon I've heard this silly claim. First of all your plan is still to leave billions to die, you're just gonna have a backup. That seems a lot worse than trying to redirect any impactor. Second and more importantly, there are no rocks that could wipe us out in our vicinity. It's not a realistic issue, it's something that only happened one time.
It would be easier to figure out a way to move a dwarf planet like ceres into Mars’ orbit than to terraform Venus since mars needs something to influence its magnetic field although that could be resulted from a more composition and size issue more than likely.
Love ur channel keep it up mate
We need to find a better energy source before we terraform. Once we do that, the cost of terraforming will probably decrease
Are we un-terraforming Earth?
not really
we’re making life a lot harder for a lot of species (including ourselves) but earth is still gonna be habitable
@@Kyplanet893 the local climates of some places are getting too unstable and going towards constant extreme climate events tho.
@@nahoj.2569 yes and it is very bad and we need to fix it
but it won’t make all life extinct everywhere
@@Kyplanet893 I was just joking
While I think terraforming is a bad idea, I do use it in my alternative universe. Some worlds terraformed in the universe include: Mars, Venus, Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Luna (Moon), Proxima Centauri b (Onera in my universe), some planets in the Trappist-1 system, and Scuoca (Moon of a fictional planet I made, Objecia) The terraforming is done quickly though. In just a few years, the intelligent species native to Objecia quickly terraformed objects like those I mentioned. But honestly, I don't think terraforming irl will be that quick. It would take hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years to terraform an entire planet. It's just the native species of Objecia has technology fast enough to quickly terraform entire planets, and they live in a galaxy where most star systems have at least one habitable planet. So, terraforming could work well in a fictional setting. But, let's get back to the real universe. So, is terraforming possible? Yes, but it will take a PAINFUL amount of time and resources, as well as other problems. Honestly before we even build the first space habitats, we should save Earth first.
A job well done is usually via the difficult and challenging route. Ask yourselves which terraformation project would demand the most and would propel us forward at an incredible rate
I think if we could alter a few water asteroids orbits to crash into Mars or Venus. The mirror for Venus sounds like a good idea
Are we not gonna talk about the gravity on venus being much closer to Earth compared to Mars?
Have you considered making a video on "Planet 9"?
Wicked content, you are tickling my brain!
Titan would be surprisingly habitable if it was just warmer. How many nuclear bombs do you guys think it would take to heat up titan and create a greenhouse effect?
6:12 sulfuric acid is the rssult of sulfor dioxide and water mixing, if you are able to split the silphur dioxide and water from eachother, you may not have to import water from the outer solar system.
I don't think we actually need mirrors in Venus orbit for a 24 hr day. It takes Venus 243 days to rotate, but that's the _sidereal_ day. The actual *solar* day on Venus is 116 days long with the daytime and nighttime each being 58 days.
If we terraformed Venus, the water would evaporate faster during the day and turn into clouds which would raise the albedo of Venus. Some people did the math and they found out that the day temperature would reach only 35°C max (I beileve that's 95°F).
If its anyone's dream to make terrafirming possible one day, then think about reversing climate change here on Earth. Thats level 1 in the terraforming game, and we're not even sure how to manage that.
1:30
...Ok? Why not both?
It seems impossible to cool down Venus surface to freeze CO₂ in a reasonable time, not in the “hundreds of years” indeed, unless I've made a serious error. A very rough BOE gives me a rather surprising estimate on the order of 10⁷ years without sunlight of cool-down time to the triple point of CO₂ at surface level. I have no idea about the internal structure of the planet; perhaps no one has. I just slap in the heat conducted by a 50km‒thick shell of granite from an infinite reservoir of heat at tepid 1500K, and only account for the CO₂ phase transition heat (cooling it down won't likely affect the order of mag, and its phase diagram is messy). Venus' albedo is so high (0.8; Bullock M et al., 2017 gives a=0.81) that it absorbs less insolation per m² than the Earth; accordingly, it doesn't radiate heat efficiently. I can't account for convective heat transfer; I'm using the current T and P at 2 altitudes to estimate gradients. Bullock et al. have a thermodynamic model of the atmosphere and codes.
To sum up the video:
Put millions of solar panels in front of it so that it cools down.
I think that people overlook Venus’s high surface temperature as a disadvantage when it can be used as a resource. Floating power plants that hover about the cloud layer could suck atmosphere from the surface and use it to power turbines and transmit the power through microwaves or lasers to an orbital station. A version of humanity with much more advanced technology than us could use this energy to then create antimatter or power laser propulsion systems to explore other stars.
Extract the excess co2 from Venus, and transport it frozen in the vacuum of space to Mars
I hope someday we move beyond whether it's "profitable" or not.
Makes no sense. Space habitats rule.
if humans can pull it off, take some of venus's atmosphere to mars. not to mention the extra gases can be used for dome cities on the moon.
its better to use asteroids for materils, it suck to destroy the moon by mistake. referring to mirrors
I sincerely hope you've read the Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars SF books? They are fanciful but a lot of fun.
I read all tomorrows
Everything is going to be fine as long as we don't tax the martians!
Ive been saying Venus was superior for a while and when i bring up martian gravity and osteoporosis that usually makes people think twice.
You're a pretty smart kid. If you keep this up 20 more years, you've got a bright future ahead of you.
thank you nate the rake
Hoy shiteroonies john fallout from fallout 4
Maybe we should question the assumptions that lead to "we must expand across the solar system"? Because the don't make sense.
Can you make video about Titan? I think it is better to colonize there
here before this channel blows up
I wanna ask, from absolute ignorance, if we could theoretically terraform planets such as Mars and Venus by sending over some kind of bacteria who could do chemosynthesis or photosynthesis until the planet has enough oxygen
they would have no way of making the atmosphere denser or adding enough water to the environment
adding photosynthesizing bacteria is a part of the terraformation process, but can’t be the whole process
@@Kyplanet893 thanks for the answer!
Venus is 3 time hotter than bacteria temperature limit.
Mars has not magnetic field to protect primitive life ...
Carl Sagan himself actually suggested this for Venus way back in the day when we thought it had maybe 3 or 4 atmospheres worth of CO2. Once we sent the first probes and it turned out to be more like 90 atmospheres, we had to give up; basically, if you turn that much CO2 into O2, everything's going to be so insanely flammable that eventually it'll catch fire and everything will just turn into CO2 again. Also not enough water for microbes.
I'm kind of interested in the idea that we could throw some of Venus's frozen atmosphere over to Mars (e.g. if we didn't focus on one planet at a time we could terraform several planets at once)
An inhospitable hellish world: exists
The indomitable human spirit: go go gadget make it blue🫵
Screw planets live in giant spinning Coke Cans in space.
What other planets in the solar system could possibly be terraformed?
all of them
with enough brute force you can do anything
if you *should* terraform them is the problem
@@Kyplanet893Terraformed Jupiter would need nearly all it's gas and supercritical fluid gone, and some of the core removed to lower the gravity of the rocky centre. I'll leave it to my buddy Greg, he's good at that sort of thing
@@Flesh_Wizard jupiter terragorm is possible but for typ5 zivillation
Titan seems to be the only somewhat doable idea on par with Mars and Venus when it comes to planetary objects
I disagree with the point that Venus will be better. That rotation. The surface dynamics. Nah. But I agree that thinking terraforming is ridiculous. Another thing could be to dome Valles Marineris with some type of self healing thick aerogel.
I think that if we're going to terraform anything it should probably be our own moon.
I think we should terraform the sahara then think about other planets
Issac Arthur mentioned? massive W
What sort of unintended consequences might there be?
Regardless, we're a long, long way off.
Technically we should be for terraforming, just on our own planet because of our industrial society having caused the problem. There is no planet B. Nor will there be one for thousands of years or even ever. The climate is getting worse over time as corpos keep burning fossil fuels to fatten their own pockets while the effects disproportionately effect poor and undeveloped communities.
I'm serious when I say oil companies have not just committed environmental crimes and tried to mask/justify it, they're even responsible for warcrimes and tyranny around the world.
It's objectively the most evil industry in the world.
I'm sorry, but that isn't really the case. The oil industry is already dying thanks to the climate effort and even if it was the case that they fatten their pockets with that shit and they have the intention to destroy the planet, their days are clearly numbered as I do see predictions that by 2050s, the oil supply of the planet would be pretty much depleted, and plus, oil is becoming too unprofitable anyway as solar and wind becomes more and more profitable. These companies are evil, sure, but they crave profit above satisfying any schadenfreude they may have. There is really nothing worse for the climate than Oil, aside from nuclear weapons I guess, so by the time oil becomes too rare, then it is going to fix itself.
My first idea was inducing a chemical reaction to turn all the CO2 into oxygen, but that comes with 3 major problems
1. Where would I get that much reactant
2. The intense pressure still remains
3. The atmosphere would now be incredibly oxidising
I like your idea better
This has been suggested, sort of. In the presence of iron, CO2 reacts with hydrogen to form water and carbon and emits energy. You'd import hydrogen from mining it out of the gas giants (Uranus probably, has the least steep gravity well), react it with the atmosphere, and you get water and energy and potential construction material in the form of carbon. This both gets rid of your atmosphere and gets you some shallow oceans. The main problem is you'd need this to be happening at a vast scale for a very, very long time, like millennia. Given the energy produced, though, it's probably cost-effective in the short term sense, so it might be viable. Towards the end, when the CO2 is low enough, you turn most of the last bit of CO2 into O2 the way we do on Earth, with plants.
Good video my only personal criticism is the focus on "profit and cost" when thinking about it. Like any space-related things, the focus likely wouldn't be for profit it would likely be a publicly funded effort by the state or a global human effort, not a private corporation or something expecting returns idk. While I do completely understand the reasons you have for being against terraforming, there is a deep part of me that just thinks it's cool even if entirely impractical.
I'm curious what your thoughts on bioforming is then in the case of being against terraforming, while there would still have to be some terraforming done to an extent some significant parts of it might be avoided by bioforming as well.
On the very long term Venus is not great because the sun is slowly increasing in luminosity and Venus will become uninhabitable faster than Mars.
Well there is another way they the standard cool Venus off. We could design a stalaser, using the suns atmosphere and power to generate powerful lasers, these laser could be used primarily to produce solar sail highways to move ships across the solar system. A portion of this energy could be used at specific wavelength to blow off atmosphere from Venus. Given the energy out out by the sun this could be a very repid process yeas it would heat up Venus, but with Venus having a much thinner atmosphere, the heat could not be retained for an extended period of time like it would with a thick atmosphere. Then you can cool Venus off at a much faster pace.
Don't you think people would much rather float above water than float above actual Hell?
How would living on other planet or asteroid effect your mind that evolved to live on Earth? Many people only talk about the pysical and material aspects of space and lunar colonisation. I see far to few talk about the mental and spiritual aspects of it.
well it would affect every person differently, so it’s impossible to make any definitive conclusions of how that will affect space colonization
you can definitely say things like “people don’t like living in holes in the ground” and “travel times are long” and people do bring that up a lot, but other than basic things we know humans don’t like there just isn’t any experimental proof of what humans will do in those situations
@@Kyplanet893 Could you address how we could deal with that in one of your videos?
Only found ur videos yesterday and i love em
But dawg, ur microphone picks up the clicking of ur mouse in the background, its a bit distracting
Profit would be irrelevant if the future is a post-monetary economy.
Pure fantasy. Money is simply a medium of exchange. It's not inherently bad. It really represents the value of one's time. That's what Star Trek the Next Generation never understood. The ONLY way any other planet will be colonized is with profit motive.
lmao
@@delfinenteddyson9865 what is the meaning of money when you can print spaceships and have limitless resources due to automation?
This is why we should terraform the moon
oh god please no the moon is literally the worst place in the solar system to terraform
@@Kyplanet893 fine, what about Pluto?
As a sort of devil’s advocate. What’s one good (reasonably serious) reason you can think for terraforming any body in the Solar System you can think of? No real reason I think it’s just a fun question to pose. I know one is already mentioned in this video but are there others you can think of?
3:34 I imagine when somebody builds a city on mars, it will, at least for a while, look like Dubai taken to the extreme. At least to a greater extreme than dubai already is. A cultureless garish playground for the ultra wealthy built in a desolate wasteland for no other reason than 'just because' where poverty stricken workers from developing nations are carted to without any other choice only to get payed pennies on the dollar for backbreaking labor under a system of infastructure that is so insanely incompetent and lopsided that basic social services such as waste management and running water barely exist, but deluxe billion dollar suites and exclusive VIP vacation and tourist spots will be everywhere.
“Out of all the objects in the solar system, I think the one most likely to be terraformed is Venus”
Titan: Excuse me, what the fuck?
low gravity, extremely cold, far away, and has the most unique environment in the solar system
titan’s a cool place to colonize but i don’t see it being terraformed
We need to figure out to expand our sun’s lifecycle so we can build better technology to get to the next solar system assuming it has good planets.
very informative but very underrated, hope this subscribe helps
Honestly I’m all for terraforming and space habitats.
"I can fix her."
-Elon Musk probably
I don’t care whether you think we should, I just want to know how we could.
well then that would just be a 2 second video of me saying “yes”
We are already venusforming Earth