Which planet in this solar system would be most appropriate to terraform?

[Ryan_m_b]

The other interesting thing were some public opinion polls that I've seen that showed that space exploration even in the 1960's was never particularly popular.

Hmm, interesting.

Blame Gene Roddenberry, George Lucas, and the writers of Doctor Who. Then there are the directors of Avatar, Aliens, and about a dozen other science fiction movies.

I think a lot of the blame lies with commentators and SF writers who baselessly extrapolated the huge advances in transport technology in the first half of the 20th century. When you go from first powered flight to landing on the Moon in 60 years it's easy but flawed to expect this trend to continue.

It's been argued that we are causing a mass extinction event without even trying that hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

One reason that I don't think that it may be such a good idea to even try to make another planet suitable for human life is that we will be lucky if we just don't totally mess up this one.

I don't think we have a hope in hell in making anywhere else suitable for life if we can't maintain and fix this planet to how we need and want. The technology and industry requirements are the same if not far easier for doing things on Earth.

 

[twofish-quant]

One citation for this is

“Evolving Public Perceptions of Human Spaceflight in American Culture” by Roger Launius

I think a lot of the blame lies with commentators and SF writers who baselessly extrapolated the huge advances in transport technology in the first half of the 20th century. When you go from first powered flight to landing on the Moon in 60 years it's easy but flawed to expect this trend to continue.

I have a book from the 1960's that explicitly puts in that claim.

There's also the fact that history is non-deterministic. There's little from a physics point of view that would have precluded us having the sorts of space stations that you see in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The space ships to Jupiter are a bit harder. But 2001 is an interesting movie because it was how people in 1968 saw 2001, which tells you a lot about 1968.

 

[H2Bro]

One reason that I don't think that it may be such a good idea to even try to make another planet suitable for human life is that we will be lucky if we just don't totally mess up this one.

Distinctions about 'bad' or 'good' come from living things. So, is it 'bad' to mess up a planet that does not have life?

In the process of messing up this planet we learn a great deal about how it works. It's a terrible way to go about learning something, but having done so, would you willingly for-go the benefits derived from research that, when initially proposed, seems abominable?

And by research I mean 'lets see what happens when we pump gigatons of toxic waste into a perfect garden of eden.'

regardless of the blame or fault that led us into the current situation we might be wise to take what knowledge results and turn it to our advantage. i.e. attempt to set up alternative ecosystems now that we know at least one way to totally screw them up.

Indeed, the potential payoffs of attempting to terraform another planet only go up as the condition of this planet gets worse. Whether the risks go up as well depends on whether you think lifeless planets are valuable as-is in a situation where our own planet is uninhabitable.