“Even a terra-formed planetoid, such as Obania, had no safe hundreds of kilometers of insulating atmosphere, but only a thin gaseous envelope.” At first glance, this may seem like just a complex sentence – merely a line from a science fiction story. However, it has left its mark on history, believed to be the first recorded use of the term “terraform,” penned by none other than the ‘Dean of Science Fiction’, renowned American author Jack Williamson.
To the thousands of readers of the July 1942 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, flipping through the pages of Collision Orbit, this unfamiliar word existed solely within that fictional world – their fascination and acceptance a product of the ideology of suspension of disbelief. Fast forward 83 years, and that is no longer the case.
Terraforming, sometimes termed as planetary ecosynthesis, literally means “Earth-shaping”, derived from the Latin “terra” (meaning Earth) and “formare” (to form or shape). In scientific terms, it refers to the hypothetical and highly advanced process of deliberately altering the atmosphere, climate, topography, or ecology of another celestial body – such as a planet, moon, or even an asteroid – with the goal of creating an environment that can sustain life without external support and equipment. This process would involve changing the physical and environmental conditions of these extraterrestrial worlds to closely resemble those of Earth, like the name suggests, particularly in terms of breathable air, suitable temperatures, liquid water availability, and the presence of a stable atmosphere.
Now the question arises: despite the concept born in the world of science fiction, what sets terraforming apart from other technologies introduced in these novels? Why has it caught the eye – and minds – of so many, so early on? And why are planets like Mars seen as candidates for becoming a second Earth?
Christopher Throckmorton, a Quoran, puts this into words perfectly, “Planting that seed takes nothing away from tending to the tree, but it increases the odds that we can save the trees from total extinction. That’s worth holding onto, I think.” Scientists are exploring options to colonize other planets because it holds promise; it seems to assure the survival of humanity in the event of an environmental catastrophe.
With the accelerating effects of climate change, resource depletion, and population growth, many see terraforming as more than a distant dream – it is becoming a potential contingency plan. As Joseph Dewey, PhD, notes in his published overview of the topic, “Serious interest in it revived in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as dire predictions concerning the long-term impacts of global warming came to be measured not in centuries but decades.” Some people suggest making humans a multi-planetary species, just in case the humans on Earth get wiped out by war, disease, or again, our biggest enemy, climate change. But no matter the motive, the drive to terraform is fueled by a desire to push the boundaries of human potential, to challenge the impossible, and to discover new frontiers that could expand our perspective and understanding of the world.
Still, the pursuit of terraforming is not without controversy. Those who oppose the idea argue that rather than diverting enormous resources and energy to make other planets habitable, we should prioritize healing and preserving our own. The pursuit is often seen not as a necessity for survival, but as a reflection of human ambition – an “escape plan” for the privileged and have nothing to lose, while global inequalities and ecological destruction on Earth remain unaddressed. Critics have pointed out the financial costs of terraforming, requiring trillions of dollars and decades, if not centuries of sustained effort, which is watered down to a budget scientists can barely work with. Moreover, the technological and ethical challenges – such as altering alien ecosystems or introducing life where it never existed – raise serious concerns. And if driven by greed rather than genuine necessity, this hunger for expansion may prove to be just another form of exploitation.
Moreover, is terraforming realistically even possible? As of today, it is true that humanity has not yet invented the highly advanced technology required to terraform other planets, nor are we even close to witnessing such a feat. This is supported by the words of James M. Graham, quoting his paper ‘Planetary Ecosynthesis As Ecological Succession’, “Each stage is part of a process that may extend over 1,000 years or more. The entire process of ecosynthesis can be compared to the terrestrial process of ecological succession.” Nevertheless, with each passing day, new research brings unexpected discoveries, and though progress may be gradual, it continues to move us closer to understanding how terraforming might one day become a reality.
A study published as recently as on August 7th 2024 by researchers from the prestigious universities Chicago, Northwestern, and Central Florida, proposed a new method – cleverly using artificially engineered dust particles released into Mars’ atmosphere at the rate of 30 liters per second. By doing so, it lays the much needed foundation for making the Red Planet habitable for humans, raising its temperature by more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature range between 40 and 140 degrees is where bacteria multiply most rapidly, allowing them to thrive, benefiting the environment in multiple ways, notably photosynthetic ones converting the planet’s carbon dioxide rich atmosphere into oxygen and biomass.
Keeping the spotlight on Mars, a new paper led by Erika Alden DeBenedictis found 3 breakthroughs reviving terraforming research, leading to the proposal of a three-phase approach. It begins with localized warming through artificial greenhouse environments, transitions to large scale manipulation of the Martian climate, and ultimately aims to stabilize a self-sustaining biosphere. This is surely life-changing, but at what cost?
At the end of the day, it comes down to one fundamental question: is there anything wrong with humanity reshaping Mars – or any other celestial body, for that matter? Yes, it is seen as an act of courage, vision, and scientific brilliance, but others see something more complicated. Robert Sparrow, a professor of philosophy at Monash University, shares in an article, “Enthusiasts often advertise space exploration as an opportunity to be virtuous. “To boldly go” – as they say in Star Trek – is valuable mostly because courage is a virtue. But one can’t have the opportunity to develop virtues without the possibility of demonstrating vices, and terraforming Mars would exhibit two major vicious character traits.” Sparrow further goes on to define these vices as the destruction of Mars’ natural beauty and the careless spread of human made debris across an untouched world. In other words, our efforts to reshape Mars could end up reflecting the same flaws we are struggling with on Earth: a tendency to dominate, to litter, and to value benefit over preservation.
In short, whether we ultimately reshape other worlds or focus our energy on restoring our own, it is crucial that we take a step back and ask ourselves – is Earth not enough? The answer already lies between the lines of science fiction. After all, even Jack Williamson, the very author who first put together the word terraforming, came to question it decades later. In an interview which appeared in the January 1999 issue of Interzone, he admitted, “We human beings are part of a very complicated biological system that we don’t entirely understand. I’m not sure how successfully all of it can be translated to other environments, so I’m not as enthusiastic about terraforming as I was in 1942.”
By: Smritee Manish
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
