[SirensOfTitan]

I found this article incredibly frustrating to read. It doesn't do anything to support either of its two titular stipulations.

The best I could find as to why colonizing mars is unlikely:

> But according to a new study, published in Nature Astronomy, Mars has lost so much of its potential greenhouse gases to space over billions of years that there is now no possibility of transforming the remaining atmosphere into a breathable one with available technology.

... of course terraforming Mars would be difficult with available technology. Certainly the author doesn't imagine technological process standing still?

On the second stipulation, that colonizing Mars is a "bad idea," could we please get there first then figure out the ethical issues? Does the author really think we should have a perfectly correct ethical plan of moving off of the planet?

[tunesmith]

I thought there was one clear assertion in there:

1) Previously, terraforming was thought to be possible, given there being enough trapped greenhouse gasses to establish an atmosphere

2) Recently, it was shown that there is not enough trapped greenhouse gasses to establish an atmosphere

3) Therefore, terraforming Mars is seen as far less possible (or alternatively, would require much more advanced technology) than before.

[_rpd]

We've long known that we need more nitrogen. One idea is to use ammonia asteroids, which do double duty as a greenhouse gas ...

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

The point that the author is (not very well) making for the “second stipulation” you reference is that if we showed up carelessly we could contaminate existing life and we couldn’t be sure that the life really existed on Mars before we got there if we weren’t careful.