
Red Mars is the first novel of the Mars trilogy, published in 1992. It follows the beginnings of the colonization of Mars, from the arrival of the First Hundred to the First Martian Revolution.
I used to share this view until I read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars. There is aesthetic value to preserving Mars in its pristine form, within reason, if only so future generations can enjoy it.
That doesn't mean full space NIMBY, as this article suggets. But it does argue against being cavalier about an alien landscape simply because it's lifeless.
Mars makes Antarctica look like a jungle.
"The Red Mars series initiated a shift in science fiction away from the stars and back to our real future in the solar system. Unless a technological miracle occurs, we are not building an interstellar civilization anytime soon..."
"Writing On The Terrifying Beauty Of The Human Future", Adam Frank, NPR 2017, https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/11/02/561577403/writi...
Substantively;
unless the processes of biological aging can be markedly slowed, radical human life extension is implausible in this century.
This paper is fantastic science, but the title/conclusion is just lazy rhetoric. “If we don’t get a breakthrough, we won’t have a breakthrough” is just tautological, and high-resolution recent trend analysis is not a meaningful tool for answering that question, anyway.> The Mondragon Corporation already appeared in Robinson's earlier Mars trilogy, as one of the Terran groups involved in the colonization and terraforming of Mars; the coop is also portrayed as the inspiration of both the bogdanovist movement [52] and the libertarian-leaning Praxis Corporation[53] two of the main forces leading the revolution for the independence of Mars.
Red Mars was one of the best sci-fi books I've ever read, but Green Mars starts pretty slow so I didn't get very far into it. I think I'll start the trilogy over.
