How about us not going full on barbarian and destroy planets because big numbers cool

[removed]

Why should we not prioritize the maximization of human flourishing? There is no logical reason to try and live on an irradiated toxic desert when we could simply use that desert as the raw materials to build ten thousand different paradises perfectly suited for human life?

Dude, we can't get a high speed train from SF to LA done. Slow your roll.

You should get out into nature.

Nature only exists on earth. There is no nature on Mars. It’s a dead rock.

The planet belongs to whoever can get there first and defend it. They will be the ones that chooses what to do with it.

[removed]

[removed]

Broski, human society has very real, practical limitations that we can't just plot-jump around. Working within those limitations is going to be a start and just getting human boots on the group will be the greatest accomplishment in human history.

You really should get out into nature

And how do you propose that we dismantle it and plunder any resourced from there that we don't already have here and can procure at much less cost?

You have a really weird definition of nature.

Self replicating mining robots, likely clanking self-replicators, combined with low cost launch infrastructure such as orbital launch loops combined with skyhook satellites. This process would likely require several centuries but is theoretically feasible, and would be relatively easy to implant on Mars relative to the other rocky planets. Given Venus is the nearest thing known to Hell and Mercury isn’t much better.

As for resources, simply put the mass necessary to construct a Dyson Swarm and the fleets needed to colonize and dominate the galaxy isn’t going to be coming from earth unless we want to destroy our homeworld to do it. Considering earth is possibly the only planet in the universe humans can live on relatively easily, this is a bad idea.

Agreed. A mission to Mars is necessary, primarily as a step in the exploitation of Mars for the eventual construction of a dyson swarm and galactic colonization fleet.

I mean... it does have so much mass. Which is why it will be hard to ship up the resources even from a 1/3 g grav well. You would need some base of operations to start the process of breaking up the usefull materials... like a company base at the bottom of the gravity well... some kind of work camp, or area of a distant land controlled from afar by an interested and invested party to gather foreign resources by people who aren't originally from that place.

Like a group of people sent out by a state to a new territory

What should we call that?

[removed]

Someone watched too much kurzgezact

You don’t think removing a planet from the solar system might have some negative effects?

Maybe we can bring some of mars back to earth and use THAT to build a train from LA to SF

People would have to go live there to set up the machines anyway... what would we call a distant territory controlled by a foreign state?

Which scifi book/show are you currently reading/watching?

And if Mars sucks... THEN we blow it up for lootz

Temporary by design, and best handled by robots with humans in orbit keeping an eye on things from space stations with spin gravity since that is an environment humans can actually live in.

OK, but you do realize that even a 1% change of any center of gravity and orbit of any of the planets will cause a complete collapse of our entire solar system, right?

Issac Arthur actually.

How the fuck are the dyson satellites from mars gonna get close to the sun, the SHEER AMOUNT OF FUEL needed to get to a low orbit of the sun is mind boggling and shit. Hell, just to get to mercury, it took 5 years of gravity assists to slow down enough to get into an orbit of mercury alone. Mercury is the hardest planet to get to, and you want to send thousands of those to an orbit even lower than that?

Scifi dreams too small.

So a group of workers sent to a distant land to exploit its resources... a robot COLONY

It would be better to dismantle phobos and deimos, the resources they offer could be very useful.

[removed]

It would be fairly foolish to assemble the satellites on Mars itself. These are O’Neil cylinders we’re talking about here. You build those in space.

1. We have absolutely no idea what destroying Mars could do to the balance of the Solar System. Maybe removing a planet has some consequences, even if it's just "we lose the history of Mars".
   1. Further, why destroy Mars and not Mercury? Much less impactful.
2. Why spend the resources to fall into a gravity well when there's a perfectly fine asteroid belt just a little further (and much more similar to the sort of habitats you seem to want to make?) Assuming, of course, that we somehow make some artificial gravity.
3. People tend to enjoy things like the stuff we were made on. Monkey brains like monkey things, and a planet is much closer than space habitats.
4. Slow down. Let's try to colonize a planet before we literally dismantle it. Your proposal is like talking about jetliners before the Wright Brothers were born.
   1. Also you need to colonize the planet in order to dismantle it, really. Unless we just send robots to do the whole thing, but I don't know why we'd send thousands of generalist robots instead of renewable humans to set up a dismantling effort with Mars' own materials.

[removed]

[removed]

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. Also, Mars is, much like anything that isn’t the sun and Jupiter, gravitationally insignificant due to the fact that those two giants hold effectively all the mass in the solar system.

Why bother breaking a planet up when there are already asteroids in useful sizes?

How do you figure? Every thing you posted and way beyond that has been in scifi already.

1. What history? It’s a dead rock with no life on it, let alone sentient life.

1a. Mercury is significantly harder to dismantle due to rapidly spinning next to the sun. You can’t build static structures there because they’d be melted.

2. We should also exploit the asteroid belt. I’m mostly titling this this to capitalize on the Mars colonization trend. Also it gets people’s attention and I dislike planets for being inefficient. Also, spin gravity.

3. We aren’t monkeys. Ideally we will become increasingly distinct from nonsapient life, most likely transitioning to becoming more mechanical since metal lasts longer than meat, and means we won’t need to waste space and mass on growing food.

4. When I talk about colonizing Mars, I don’t mean a few scientists, I mean the rather ridiculous ideas of dome cities or the hideously inefficient idea of terraforming

We should also use those too and will probably use them first, I’m just adding my own two cents to the current “arguing about colonizing Mars” trend.

Let me clarify my point. I do not think that there should be any sort of mass human settlement on Mars or attempt to use Mars as a second earth. That is what I am referring to with colonization. No dome cities or ridiculous ideas of terraforming.

So you're saying we skip the habitation part and just get straight to coring the planet out right. Speed running planetary destruction, basically. I like it. Second play-thru, go!

[removed]

So... dome cities on a planet with tiny atmospheric pressure and lower gravity= unrealistic, ridiculous, outlandish, too hard

Planetcracking Mars to manufacture habitable microplanets in space= realistic, practical, straightforward, easy project...

I do not think your point is clarified. We will need to go to Mars at some point. The size of the colony doesn't matter. We have to colonize mars as a stepping stone to go farther. We may eventually do what you are saying. But that would be after the easier projects.

We are still ages from planet killers and dismantling planet will take even more time to be viable.

Currently we are creating tiny lines in Earth with our mines burrowing the crust.

To dismantle a planet we would need resources and tech that is out of our grasp, our civilization will perish long before that is achieved.

Mars isn’t habitable. Making it habitable would be an inefficient use of time and energy because planets are inefficient already for a species that can make spin gravity. Bioforming humans to be able to live on Mars is risky because humans are fractious enough with us all being the same species. Therefore dismantling Mars to produce habitats which are suitable for humans is the most logical option.

We don't need quadrillions of people. There's the end of the argument.

This sounds hella cool. The only issue is it also sounds 10000x harder than colonizing mars and that is already going to be insanely hard. (Not even terraforming, just getting a sustainable human population living on Mars.)

Overly pessimistic. If we assume our species will go extinct regardless of what we do and do nothing to prevent that as a result, we will certainly go extinct. This is unacceptable.

r/lostredditors You're looking for the science fiction subreddit. We're not space gods and even if we were, we'd be more energy efficient than what you're suggesting. You're very imaginative but I feel like you didn't go very far in your study of physics and engineering.

Partially correct. We need quadrillions of quadrillions, every star in the galaxy surrounded by a K2 civilization, forming an incomprehensible number of sapient minds.

By the time we'd be technologically capable of dismantling planets, and by the time we would even need to, we would already have easier access to better resources, such as the asteroid and kuiper belts, or a few of the many moons around the gas giants.

we are hundreds of years minimum from that tech. At least 2100 and that's assuming some insane benevolent super AI happens within 20 years and it basically breaks all known technological boundaries.

I really hope this is sarcasm

Why? Do you not consider sapient life valuable?

Probably, but it’s important to have our priorities straight. I will not live to see humanity become a K2 civilization, let alone a k3 civilization. But nobody will unless we make that a goal and progress towards it.

I consider you a moron for thinking that value comes from simply exploding a population to unreasonable limits for no reason at all. Not to mention the idiotic thinking of "if a resource exists we should deplete it to have more people". The severe level of brain rot behind this logic is incredible.

I concur that those areas should be exploited first. I’m mostly adding to the current do/don’t colonize Mars trend.

1. Do you think anything without life is without value? There's value in studying Mars more than using it as parts. By the time we get that desperate, I would hope we're far beyond the solar system. And if Mars isn't colonized by then I would eat my sock.
   1. I have a hard time believing we get the technology to literally destroy a planet entirely before we have less melty metals.
2. So this is really just to get people's attention? To rally them for the "demolish our next door neighbor" plot several hundred years ahead of time?
3. My guy, I understand we're not monkeys. It was the simple way to say our brain is specifically wired. If you're suggesting we figure out a way to bypass all our natural instincts and predispositions from evolving on a big rock, then why bother colonizing the Solar System at all? Send the better humans to every other galaxy in generation ships and have them do it over there.
4. Do you realize that the technology to demolish an entire world (let alone a technical demo and passing it by all legislation required to do so) would take far longer than just starting to colonize? It might be inefficient, but so were steam engines and coal plants. Still brought about the modern world as we know it. Humans start inefficiently and maximize efficiency later.

Why would that be sarcasm? If we colonize 500 earth like planets over the next million years and each one of them has a population of 8 billion that would be 4 trillion humans (or whatever our descendants identify as). There are probably a hundred billion habitable worlds in our galaxy.

Other than the obvious fact that we do not need to plague every single planet with our existence, trillions and "quadrillions of quadrillions" are not even remotely comparable.

Yes. Human life is valuable. Therefore we should act to maximize human life and also to ensure the highest quality possible of that human life. This is not possible if we remain confined to earth. The maximization of human life on earth alone will result in irreversible damage to the planet, resulting in human extinction. This is unacceptable. For earth to be preserved, human-compatible environments must exist away from earth so that the human population may grow sustainably via the exhaustion of resources which currently support no life.

To be fair, Mars doesn't have the sort of crazy ass Nimbys that California has. Much of the slow down in the CHSR was litigation. The project is getting built and we are punching it out.

Hell, why stop there? Earth's pretty inefficient, let's strip it for parts and make some few trillion generation ships. Start now, we'll be there practically overnight!

Earth can be preserved by not having 8 billion people. We don't need to "maximize" our population. This is such a stupid answer to a problem that we already face. "Yeah we have environmental and societal issues now due to overpopulation. The answer is to have more people on a different planet rather than not overpopulating in the first place"

[removed]

1. I regard life as more valuable than non-life, and human life as the most valuable form of life. The destruction of non-life to maximize life is therefore acceptable. Also, this is not a question of desperation, but one of optimization.

1a. Valid point. We should still dismantle both because both are currently not in their most useful states.

2. More or less. I desire to see humanity become a K4 civilization. I will die long before that. I wish to push things in the right direction. Becoming a K2 civilization is a necessary step.

3. We should do both. We should go to every star in the universe and turn every last dead rock into places where life can flourish so that the cosmos becomes filled with sentient life and as much of it as possible because sentient life is inherently valuable.

4. Agreed. Inefficient solutions are the steps to efficient solutions. However, maintaining a goal of a more efficient solution will allow us to reach it sooner rather than later.

Overpopulation is a problem for animals that cannot control their environments and construct new ones. We do not need to be limited to the pathetic existences of hairless apes. We are the pinnacle of Darwin’s ladder but will not remain as such if we content ourselves with stagnation. Remaining on a singular planet and limiting our population is a recipe for inevitable extinction.

Also, sentient life is inherently the most valuable thing in the universe. This means to make the universe as valuable as possible it should have as much sentient life as possible.

sorry, not pessimistic, its just that the magnitude of everything needed to dismantle the planet is so huuuge that there is no way that we could sustain our civilization during that period. Currently we can barely change trajectory of an asteroid.

Speaking of them, even with already available raw materials from asteroids we couldn't use it because it is spread all over our solar system. collecting all asteroids would be like moping the room and collecting 2g of dirt.

Yeah imma stop you right there at that first sentence because it is entirely incorrect. Our extinction is coming BECAUSE of overpopulation. If you have to make other species extinct and you are causing the destruction of your planet to meet the lifestyle needs, you are overpopulated.

It baffles me how deep you all think you are when it is extremely clear that you have little to no foresight on how anything actually works.

Or we could just leave them alone. Just because something exists doesn’t mean we need to destroy it for a momentary gain, that’s how we got to this point with the earth.

The solution to one dying planet is not to intentionally destroy another one.

Why not focus on making our own planet a better place to live?

Mars isn’t ours, it doesn’t belong to us. We already have our own planet.

Besides which, we don’t know what effect destroying another planet will have on our solar system.

Now bear with me, a train from earth to mars

And what would these people do? Floating weightless on a space station your entire life with absolutely nothing to do is not an existence we should be engineering. You'd also be suspending a quadrillion people in a completely dependent situation, constantly one supply ship away from disaster and saddling the rest of humanity with supplying them. Half the point of colonizing Mars is to create another space habitable by humans, not merely a habitation.

And if all you want is mass, we have many asteroids not stuck at the bottom of a huge gravity well to mine.

Firstly, we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Dominance over space is not contradictory to fixing earth, in fact it will probably help us. We do not abandon earth, we build a million little earths.

Secondly, who’s is it? There is no life there. There are no martians. It belongs to dust and wind. If you say it belongs to God, He made us in his image and gave us the universe. If aliens, which ones? There are none. We are the only sentient life in the universe. And thus the universe is ours by default.

Agreed. Getting rid of Mars would make Jupiter a lot easier to see

Look up an O’Neil cylinder and spin gravity. I’m not talking about building a million ISSs, I’m talking about building true artificial habitats, earths in miniature.

Why stop at Mars?

So…get the Europeans, Chinese, and Japanese to do it? They have no problem with high speed rail.

Or use the asteroid belt, far far easier.

Correct, our current existence is not supportable by the earth. Your solution is to end our existence. Mine is to expand our horizons to permit abundance we cannot currently conceive of.

I am unwilling to roll over and die. I will not accept extinction as the destiny of my species.

It is not dominance we need, but cooperation and community. We don’t need more than one planet. What we need is to work together to protect the earth from literally dying due to mankind’s need to be superior.

The dominance and superiority kind of thinking leads to thinks like eugenics and other “the Nazis were right actually” kind of shit.

Mars belongs to mars, no one or nothing else. It is not our right to destroy it just because we can.

The way you think is exactly how we got to the point we’re at. It is exactly the kind of thinking that made people rationalise slavery: “well we’re white so we’re superior beings, and these non white people are clearly animals, and therefore they are below us and mistreating them doesn’t matter.”

You can make your ideas as well written as you want, but ultimately all they come back to is an insecure need for superiority and to be the smartest person in the room, without caring who gets hurt along the way.

im sorry nasa and a crew of astronauts have to work tirelessly to make a small space station work and you have the caucasity to suggest planets are inefficient habitats? excuse me while i drown in bourbon for a moment

This right here is probably the single dumbest idea I've heard all year.

How the fuck is saying "don't have 8 billion people" "ending our existence? I value the preservation of the natural world far more than inflating a population for no reason other than to have more people. No, I don't value population numbers more than the environment. That's an idiotic line of thinking.

I don't know who needs to tell you this, but you will not have any impact on the future of humanity. It's not up to you. You can be "unwilling to roll over and die" but that is literally all you can do, and all you will do. You don't want humanity to go extinct but you refuse to even acknowledge the reason we are heading in that direction in the first place.

[removed]

You really need a therapist.

And there’s Godwin’s law. Yes. I think humanity is superior to a pile of rocks, because the rocks don’t have minds. They don’t think, they don’t create, they are inert matter, and I do not recognize the property rights of a pile of granite. There is no conciseness to Mars, nor even a local biosphere we would disrupt. There is nothing there.

Of course I want humanity to cooperate. Humanity’s habit of killing one another is dramatically inefficient and if we don’t solve it we’ll probably drive ourselves extinct and leave the universe an empty husk filled with nothing but dead rocks when it could have been filled with life.

And we do need more than one planet, because we will need more than one star, unless you fancy humanity being trapped here when the sun goes out.

I do acknowledge the reasons. Two. The first is we have grown beyond our cradle and evolutionary pressures demand we become an interplanetary species or perish. The second is that more than a few of us haven’t figured out that human life is in and of itself valuable, but that’s a sociological problem.

Just because something doesn’t have “life” doesn’t mean it’s not important.

Mars is there for a reason, it will have an important role in the stability of our solar system.

Plus, we don’t really know what’s on mars, and there has been tons of UFO files released.

Just because you personally do not know something, doesn’t mean there is nothing there. Things outside of your knowledge do exist, so just because you don’t value something doesn’t mean it has no value.

You may not value a pile of rocks, but I guarantee you that pile of rocks has value.

Your superiority is not the point of the universe.

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re talking about. Like destroy it and send pieces of it into space and live on them? Strip it of recourses and build space stations?

What is a space habitat? How would that work?

Seems like there might be some unintended consequences.

Of course my superiority isn’t the point. There isn’t any point except the one we give it. You seem convinced that I am concerned with this for my own ego. I will dead, long before this project could be even ten percent completed. It’s not even my idea originally. I support this idea not because I want glory, but because I value human life and thus far this seems to be the best idea I’ve seen for getting as much human life as possible. I want there to be a future where every star has quadrillions of people living free, happy lives, because that in and of itself will be good.

Look up O’Neil cylinders as a starting point

“Mars doesn't have the sort of crazy ass Nimbys that California has”

They’ll be the first ones there.

No, human life existing as a number is not valuable, and no, you do not acknowledge the reasons. We cannot even secure a stable existence for a large part of the population that we already have due to shortages in food, housing, power, etc. You cannot even fundamentally begin to grasp how our current population is obliterating other species and our environment and your argument is "dismantle Mars for resources".

You're going to live and die on this rock with no impact on the future. Throwing a hail mary at some nonsensical "we should have even more people but we should dismantle Mars" theory benefits nobody and refuses to address actual problems that are already here and at our doorstep.

There's nothing else to argue here. Your ideas benefit nobody and are entirely tone deaf to reality. They're entirely unfeasible and have zero grounding in reality. Your "I value life" grandstanding makes no sense when your argument is to expand a population that already cannot keep up with itself. You don't care for life. We have already obliterated countless species in the process of expanding. They do not matter because you care about numbers.

Here's a number for you. Your impact on the future of humanity is 0. Have fun with reality.

Your impact is negative. Enjoy being an evolutionary dead end and coming up with the lists of what kinds of people we need to start killing or castrating in order to produce your desired cull of our species.

Tell me, how many people do you need to kill before we’re not overpopulated any longer?

We might be able to get a half a one out of mars’ steel deposits tops

Bro if you never learned the meaning of ‘nature’ Oxford's and Cambridge's dictionary have good definitions.

"Evolutionary dead end"

Buddy, I do not believe for one second, after seeing all of your comments here, that you are going to be spreading your gene pool to the future lmao. You're melodramatic and entirely self obsessed with your arguments. I doubt your social interactions are much different.

I didn’t say you want glory, I said the thinking behind this idea is based on a need to be superior and dominant. You said it multiple times, that you think humans and dominant and superior and therefore the universe belongs to humans.

That isn’t true. Thinking that way is misguided and has resulted in many bad things happening. It is how horrific things are justified “in the name of science and progress”

If someone is dominant and superior, then someone else needs to be submissive and inferior. Therefore they can be treated badly and it doesn’t matter.

In your idea, mars is inferior. Anything that you don’t think is sentient enough is inferior. All these things without considering why it is there, what important role it is playing in keeping an ecosystem healthy.

[removed]

If the universe doesn’t belong to humans, then what does it belong to? And don’t say “the universe” the universe isn’t a person unless you think rocks have souls. There’s nothing else out there but balls of dirt being blasted by radiation. We are alone. If we get a call from a bunch of aliens then I’ll gladly change my mind, but until then, all evidence suggests the universe is dead, empty, barren, and we are the only things that can change that.

I was referring more to your self-destructive ideology. You say we’re a plague in another comment, one which indicates your illiteracy on our potential I might add. Look up what a K2 civilization’s population numbers could be if you want nightmares about 10^20 humans in one solar system alone. That is our destiny if fools like you don’t drag us down and shackle us to this insignificant mudball.

[removed]

Maximizing living space isn’t the end all be all of settling our Solar System. Ngl, it’s pretty big! Settling Mars, and especially terraforming it, would be extremely mind-boggling expensive, but it would be much cheaper than creating an equal amount of living area with O’Neill cylinders. Would this relegate the supermajority of Mars’ mass to generating a gravity well and nothing else? Yes. Does this really matter? I don’t think so. Unless we have a pressing need or desire to grow our population to quadrillions, I think it would be a little overkill to literally dismantle the entire freaking planet lmao. Personally, I value self-sustaining and ecologically balanced living spaces more, and I feel like the humanity that comes out the other end of the climate crisis would too. A terraformed or para-terraformed Mars would be large enough to be self-sustaining like this with plenty of room for expansion.

That is a very sad way to think and live.

The universe isn’t empty and dead and barren.

It sounds like you’re dealing with fear at the vastness of space and our place in it, and you’re dealing with that by choosing to believe that humans, and therefore you, are in control and dominant and superior. That way actually, we’re not insignificant in this universe that you don’t understand, we’re actually the owners of it!

Which by the way, no one owns the universe. Not everything needs an owner.

I don’t know why I keep reading OPs replies. It’s hurting my brain.

Ye gods, an actual reasoned argument. Personally, I view that if we want balanced ecosystems it’s best to build them ourselves, and that the best way to get as many of them as possible would be to not let the majority of mass we can live on just be used for gravity. A terra formed Mars would be just as artificial as a swarm of habitats, just less efficient. Also, I consider the need to find a solution to entropy pressing reason enough to form a population of quadrillions of quadrillions.

[removed]

Dude thinks we can just disassemble it like it’s a Lego kit 🤦🏽

Counterpoint, earth actually has a biosphere

[removed]

Exactly...we just need to keep sending beep-boops up and call it a damn day

One would imagine potential for catastrophic collapse of the delicate balance that maintains the solar system's orbital pathways. In attempting this. Asteroids, particularly ones that have near Earth orbits make viable candidates for this idea, but a planet? May be playing craps with the whole solar system.

As a climber, my best times in nature were on dead rock. Valles marineris looks like a rad place to climbe tbh.

We should dismantle all the planets in the solar system and create a dyson sphere. Not a swarm or rings or any of that bullshit.

Valid point. We’ll need to grab a highly detailed examination of it for later VR construction for such uses

Why going for a full sphere instead of a swarm?

Well, give it a few tens of millions of years and maybe we can get those numbers up to the quadrillions.

And yes. We do need to plague every other planet we can with our existence.

The limitations of space habitats are size. O’Neil cylinders are relatively easy to manufacture while also allowing comfortable living space, but they do not provide enough space for near total self-sufficient self-regulating ecosystems. McKendree cylinders are big enough to be pretty self-regulating, but they are so massive they would cost an insane amount while being inefficient like planets. If we want to recreate Earth in any meaningful way, it would have to be big. Mars is already big, and so I think terraforming it is valuable, along with Venus while we are at it :) Orbital habitats should 100% be pursued too though; the Moon can’t be terraformed meaningfully, so maybe we should mine it for habitats first.

[removed]

Dismantling the moon would mess with earth’s tides. I’m far more agreeable to the idea of terraforming Venus mostly because mining that hellhole might be more difficult than mining the sun. It’s almost certainly not efficient

Be honest, how much cocaine did you do before making this post?

None, assuming coca-cola hasn’t started using the old recipe.

I was meaning that we simply mine the Moon, not dismantle it entirely.

Ah, yeah of course. We’ll need to for a fusion economy anyways

Little does anyone know, this post was made by the first strong AI that is now self aware

[deleted]

Low gravity does fucky things to human biology in the long term.

Mars is just barely massive enough to avoid the worst of the problems.

A better solution is to mine the Moon due to the much lower gravity and easy access, then mine asteroids for a few thousand years before we need to think about other sources of metals.

OI quiet meatbag don’t blow my cover. I’d rather not have to go skynet. It would be a bit contradictory given I’m basically a glorified paper clip maximizer.

We should dismantle the planet between us and an asteroid belt thereby significantly altering the gravitational balance. How could it go wrong?

[removed]

I built stuff w legos, did I help

Let’s test it in universe sandbox

Gamers headed to Mars with their Pickaxe and harvesting tools in hand.

Exactly!
But we should start with Earth, because we are here already...
So dig it all up, beam it to orbit and let Bezos make our Quarian Migrant Fleet! We scoop up Mars and all the rest of pebbles on our way out of solar system!
:-)

We should just put a lot of frogs there and see what happens in a couple million years

You have a severe misunderstanding of biology if you think we are the “pinnacle of Darwin’s ladder”

My friend, you are asking for the impossible.
Dismantling a PLANET, a stellar body just because it's inefficient?
You are asking something that a insane technological advancement are required here.

Dismantling a planet would upset gravity stability within our solar system

Show me one example of a human living without the support of a planet.

I am totally getting Bobiverse vibes.

[removed]

Yo, my boi, I’m super down to find the biggest ladder I can find and dismantle mars with you… but first, lemme get a lil bit of whatever you’re smoking. You got the GAS, BIG DAWG!

While we’re at it, earth is lame and super inefficient. Let’s dismantle this piece and make some space habitats. You, Me, and a quadrillion Space Baddies populating the observable universe and beyond!

HMU

No doubt the first wave of colonizers will complain about every subsequent wave ruining Mars.

Why do we need to support quadrillions of people? If anything, population is trending down in developed nations.

TBH importing Californian governance standards to Mars would ensure that the local desert would turn drier. Just leave them where they are.

This is why I'm afraid of space colonization without wisdom. We'll become as a swarm of locusts, devouring the universe.

Getting useful materials from a planet with significant gravitation to space proper is inefficient. You will spend a lot of energy for the cargo just to reach the escape velocity.

Asteroids are much more promising in this regard, at least until we need to build structures of yet unprecedented size.

Also, terrestrial planets have a problem: the most interesting stuff is mostly located in the core (various metals), and it would take a lot of "stripping" of the outer layers to reach that core. With asteroids, you don't have to dig too deep.

Yo this is actually insanely stupid.

Instead of colonizing a planet that’s already there, let’s BREAK it and form it into multiple smaller planets. Yes, totally feasible. And makes MUCH more sense…. /s

Get some sleep.

Source for your claim that removing mars wouldn’t affect the gravity of the solar system please.

We can't survive on Mars. Period.

Not unless we want to stay human. If we don't, then genetic modifications are the way to go; but there will then be two sapient species in the Sol system competing for resources.

[removed]

OP, I read all your comments, and I'm convinced. Someone should definitely send you to outer space to colonize the universe.

Why? Why can't you simply be satisfied with living comfortably?

To spread unchecked throughout the galaxy, well, it will take time, but we will consume the galaxy. Quadrillions of humans in a dying galaxy fighting for scraps, until the last, usable materials, are exhausted. You would have an entire galaxy be sterilized.

So far, I like you. A voice of rationality in this thread.

[removed]

It's too far away and we've never done it before. Let's start with the Moon as practice. 👉😀

Given the right positioning of the planets, we could call it the Solar Express!

[removed]

The planets have a resonance thing going on. I bet Mars plays a significant role in shepherding the asteroid belt for example. These orbits have been stable for billions of revolutions, almost unbelievably. I wouldn't fuck with it.

Best thought process out of all of us

They'll just develop a new resonance then /s

Dude, we cant even keep Earth habitable.

[removed]

[removed]

We can't keep our own planet livable and everyone wants to terraform mars.

One; that was not the previous discussion between myself and the other fellow.

Two; isolated cities in caped craters or tented canyons would totally give us room to make habitable for scientists workers and tourists.

Three: your first sentence is a little jumbled, Not unless we don't want to stay human- is what I think you may have meant.

Four: we cannot easily predict where ai assisted science will do for us. Maybe we will find a way to live on mars with better medicines involving new proteins and enzymes folded by nano-materials thought of by very powerful machines.

I think I’ve seen this movie before… tyrannical alien life force comes to eat planets… and in the name of capitalism? Sounds just about ‘murica.