owlice wrote:Ann wrote:Earth wasn't supposed to stand out that much from Mars and Venus.
Ann, on what do you base that statement, please?
Ann wrote:The few golden age sci-fi books about trips to Mars and Venus that I read all promised me that Mars and Venus were going to be full of life, just like the Earth. Why aren't they? Are they te ones that are strange, or is it the Earth that is exceptional? I have come to believe quite strongly in the "rarity" of the Earth.
Science
fiction promised nothing. It's, by definition,
fiction.
I base my statement on being "promised" that Mars and Venus would not be too different from the Earth on reading about space and the solar system from the very early 1960s onwards.
Around 1962, my parents bought a book which was probably called Reader's Digest Golden Book about Nature. This book contained a chapter about Mars. The author told us that in the year 2000, people would travel as tourists in spaceships to Mars. I was incredibly impressed. The text was a mixture of fantastically optimistic prospects and cautionary warnings. For example, the writer told us that those who wanted to go to Mars as tourists had better have their wisdom teeth and apendixes out first, and I pictured shiploads of people going to Mars, all with holes in their gums and scars on their bellies. (Not to mention the fact that even trying to picture the year 2000 and myself as a 45-year-old woman made me dizzy.)
The author also described Mars in some detail. There will be no intelligent aliens on Mars, he explained, because the atmosphere on Mars is too thin to support such life forms. There will be no animals either, at least no animals large enough for us to see them. But, he went on, there
will be and there
is vegetation. We can see from the Earth how Mars changes color with the seasons, he explained, which is a sure sign of vegetation (he wrote). And if there is vegetation on Mars, as indeed there is (he said), then there must necessarily be water there as well. So the Martian canals that most of us have heard about are really there, except they are natural rivers and not waterways built by a technological civilization.
There was an illustration in the book of a Martian landscape. The landscape was quite flat, but softened by some kind of vegetation that looked a bit like algae or moss. A river meandered through the landscape. As I pictured shiploads of human tourists milling about near the river, this Martian scene really seemed quite Earthlike to me.
So in around 1962, I became convinced that Mars was a planet relatively similar to the Earth, with water and vegetation. You could argue that I should have known better than to believe in that kind of nonsense. However, I had no access to any kind of information that contradicted the text in my parents' Reader's Digest book. Back then I didn't speak a word of English, and would have been totally unable to read any of the prestigious English-language astronomy journals or any of their articles based on Mariner 4's flyby in 1965, which showed a cratered, barren and dry Mars. There were one or two Swedish-language journals that I could theoretically have read, but I didn't know they existed, and my parents didn't either, I'm sure.
In around 1970, I read a shocking piece of news in my local newspaper - well, it was shocking to me, because it was obviously shocking to the reporter who had written the text. The reporter wrote that Venus had been found to be hellishly hot and completely unsuitable for life as we know it. He confessed to us that he had believed for years that Venus might be a possible abode for life. Based solely on the distance between Venus and the Sun, the average temperature of the Venusian surface should be just below the boiling point of water, or just below 100C. There should be microorganisms which should be able to stand that heat, or so the reporter had believed anyway. Now Venus had changed from a planet with microorganisms into a dead, schorching 400C desert from the reporter's point of view, and he felt bereft.
To me, the reporter's optimistic belief and his subsequent disappointment were enormously significant. When the Viking landers sent back pictures of Mars, I remembered the text in my parents' Reader's Digest book which had promised vegetation and water-filled rivers. When I started buying Sky&Telescope Magazine and Astronomy Magazine in the 1980s, I came across several articles which claimed that the habitable zone of the solar system included Venus and Mars. So Venus and Mars
should have been possible abodes for life. Why weren't they? Isn't it because many people have been defining the expression "habitable zone" too optimistically, as if any planet in a star's habitable zone would automatically be actually inhabited?
I'm very well aware that Mars and even Venus may still turn out to have microbial life. But the vegetation and the plentiful liquid surface water that I was made to believe in when I was seven just aren't there at all. The "just below the boiling point of water" Venus that the reporter believed in isn't there, either.
So I think that it is no exaggeration to say that the belief in an Earthlike Mars (and even a moderately Earthlike Venus) has been really widespread.
Most certainly there have been various scientists and astronomers who have disputed the Earthlike qualities of Mars, ever since 1894, when U.S. astronomer William Wallace Campbell showed that there was neither oxygen nor water in the Martian atmosphere.
But all in all, I think it is correct to say that "the western mindset" has been promoting the idea that there is life on Mars. And this "promoting" has been going on from more than a century.
By the way, I googled the word "
Martians". I got 5,200,000 hits.
Ann