RefBan

Referral Banners

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Clint Eastwood's RNC Speech: Hollywood Reacts


© 2011 The Hollywood Reporter, All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Clint Eastwood Addresses Republican Convention


© 2011 The Hollywood Reporter, All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

How Secure Are You Online: The Checklist

August 30th, 2012Top Story

How Secure Are You Online: The Checklist

By Thorin Klosowski

How Secure Are You Online: The ChecklistThink you do enough to secure your passwords, browsing, and networking? Prove it.

Not all computer security is about tin foil hats and anonymous browsing. Everyone who uses a computer has a horse in the security race. For the purpose of this post, we're breaking down online security into four essential parts: passwords, browsers, at-home Wi-Fi and networking, and browsing on public Wi-Fi. Within those categories we'll give you a checklist of everything you should do, from the bare minimum to the tin-foil-hat best.

Think you've done your due diligence with your security? Jump to any of the four sections below to see how you stack up (and boost your security where you may be lacking):

Password Security Checklist

How Secure Are You Online: The ChecklistPassword security has been popping up a lot in the news recently, but how much you should care is entirely dependent on what you do online.

The Bare Minimum of Password Security

Just because you don't use a lot of online services doesn't mean you can neglect basic password security. Sure, you don't need to take any complicated measures, but everyone should at least do a couple things.

  • Pick strong passwords: Regardless of what your password is for, it's always good to pick a strong, random password. Don't use your child's name, or a birthday.
  • Use unique passwords for every site: Don't ever reuse the same email and password combo on multiple services. It might seem like it doesn't matter, but if a hacker gets your account information on one site, that means they can use that login information on every other site you're registered at. Keep all your passwords different.
  • Use Should I Change My Password? to track security breaches: If you don't keep up with tech news you probably don't see most minor security breaches. To help out, the webapp Should I Change My Password? notifies you when a major service is hacked.

That's the minimum you should do if you want to play it safe and secure with your passwords. But you can do better than that. Let's step up your game.

Level Up: You're a Password Pro

If you're the type to conduct a lot of work online, then you need more complicated security measures. With that in mind, you should do the steps mentioned above, and a few other things.

  • Use two-factor authentication whenever possible: Two-factor authentication is a simple way to lock your computer to an account so you have to verify your identity when you log onto a different computer. Not all services have it, but Google, LastPass, Facebook, Dropbox, and more all do. Use it.
  • Use a password manager: We get it, you have a lot of passwords and you don't want to remember them all. Instead of reusing the same junky password, a password manager is a simple way to save them all securely. We like LastPass, but KeePass, and 1Password are equally solid solutions.
  • Shut down and unlink services you don't use: If you're the type to try out a lot of different webapps or mobile apps then you probably have a ton of passwords scattered around everywhere. When you decide you don't want to use a service anymore, remember to delete your account. This way, if the service is hacked you don't have to fumble around trying to remember your login information. For added protection, make sure you clean up your app permissions on Facebook and Twitter.
  • Use misleading password hints: Finally, don't answer password hints truthfully. Instead, you can use word association, or just pick a random response (that you'll remember).

If you're doing all of the above, your passwords are about as safe as they can get. Nice work, and stay vigilant!

Browser Security Checklist

How Secure Are You Online: The ChecklistWith all your passwords in check it's time to ensure your browsing is both secure and private. Of course, many people don't care about privacy, but security—even after your passwords are in order—is still important.

The Bare Minimum of Browser Security

Password security is just part of the battle. You also want to make sure your browser is secure. This is what everyone should be doing:

  • HTTPS Everywhere: You likely know by now that you should never hand over personal info unless you're doing so over a secure connection (HTTPS in the browser URL). The HTTPS Everywhere browser extension highlights secure sites, and ensures you're always on HTTPS whenever it's available (including on social networks, shopping sites, and more).
  • Log out of your accounts: If you're sharing a computer in a house full of people, or you do most of your browsing on a public computer, always remember to logout of any account you use. It's a simple, obvious step, but it's worth repeating to yourself until you remember. When you don't log out of an account, you're giving authorization to snoop.
  • Understand the basics of online fraud: Phishing scams, malware, and other nasty things are all easy to detect if you keep a cautious eye on what your browser is doing at all times. Be skeptical of odd emails, brush up on the FTC's guide to identity theft, and don't trust your personal information to any website that doesn't use HTTPS.

The basics of browser security are great for most people, but if you want to keep advertisers and The Man off your back, you need to take a few more measures.

Level Up: Keep Everyone from Tracking You

We know that pretty much everyone is tracking your every move on the web. The data collected from your browsing is used for ads, targeted coupons, and plenty more. Let's put a stop to that.

  • Adblock Plus: Adblock Plus isn't just an ad blocking extension, it also helps keep the likes of Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ from transmitting data about you.
  • Ghostery: Ghostery is an extension that's all about eliminating tracking cookies and plug-ins used by ad networks. With Ghostery installed, no advertiser can snoop on what you're doing online.
  • Do Not Track Plus: Do Not Track is an extension that eliminates sites with Facebook and Google+ buttons from tracking you. By default, a data exchange happens when you visit a site with one of these buttons, even if you don't click on them. Do Not Track stops that from happening.

The above extensions and measures can ensure you have a private and secure browsing experience. But if you really want to keep your browsing away from prying eyes, you have to go anonymous.

Next Level: Go Anonymous

Completely anonymous browsing isn't for everyone, nor is it for every situation. However, it can come in handy when you're torrenting, when you don't want to give away your location, and if you just plain don't like somebody watching over your shoulder. Here's what you'll need.

  • Tor Browser: Tor is the easiest to use anonymous browser. When you use Tor for browsing, you don't get plugins, your traffic is automatically encrypted, and your browsing is always anonymous.
  • Use VPN services to secure everything you do: VPN services are a great way to create secure connections across the internet. Using a VPN means you're encrypting all the data transferred online. We like Hamachi because it's incredibly easy to use, but any of these five will do the trick.
  • Use BTGuard for anonymous torrenting: Peer-to-peer file sharing is great, but since it's often used for piracy you might want to keep your downloads private. BTGuard does just that through a proxy server (which helps keep you anonymous). The service is $59.95 a year, but it's worth it to avoid throttling from your Internet Service Provider.

Home Network Security Checklist

How Secure Are You Online: The ChecklistOnce your internet data is secure it's time to secure your data on your home computer. This means backing everything up, and keeping your network safe from prying eyes.

The Bare Minimum of Network Security

If you don't use your computer for much more than browsing the web, creating a couple documents, and storing family photos, then you don't need to do much to keep everything safe.

  • Keep your software up to date: Software updates aren't just about adding new features, they're often about patching security holes. Thankfully, the update process is very simple. On Windows, click the Start Menu > All Programs > Windows Update. On Mac, click the Apple menu, and choose Software Update. Both update programs run periodically on their own, but it's always good to check for a new update if you hear about a security issue.
  • Change your router's security settings: If you're still running your router's default settings, then pretty much anyone can get into your home network and peek in on your computers. It's not hard to crack WEP passwords or WPA passwords, but you should at least enable a non-default password and network name on your router.
  • Backup your photos and documents: Perhaps you're not all that worried about what would happen if your $200 computer dies because you don't do that much with it. Still, chances are you have a resume or some vacation photos on the hard drive. Backing up those few important files is easy. Cloud storage like Dropbox, Box, and Skydrive take very little time to set up. Once you do, your few important documents will be saved online.
  • Prevent downloaded software from installing automatically: Malware often comes in the form of a download you don't notice happening, but it's easy to stop. On Windows, disabling AutoRun can stop around 50% of Malware threats, and all you need is the free software Disable Autorun. On Mac, downloads shouldn't run automatically, but if you're using OS X Mountain Lion you can set up GateKeeper (System Preferences > Security & Privacy > General) to only allow applications from the Mac App Store for added security.

These are just the basics. If your computer is your livelihood, you need to do a few more things to keep your data secure.

Level Up: You're a Network Security Pro

Whether you work from home, or you're simply on a work computer all day long, keeping your data secure and safe is important. On top of everything above, you also want to add a few more security measures.

  • Create automated backups with Crashplan: If your computer contains everything you need to work, then you need a solid full system backup solution. We like Crashplan because it's cheap, automated, and works on every operating system.
  • Set folder specific permissions: If you're sharing your computer with a household of people, but need to ensure your work documents are safe, then setting up permissions is the easiest way to do it. In Windows, right-click the folder, go to Properties, and open the Security settings. Then click the edit setting and select your user name to lock the folder to you. On Mac, right-click a folder, click Get Info, and change the settings under Sharing & Permissions. For extra security, you can easily set up encryption with Truecrypt.
  • Know how someone would break into your computer (and keep it from happening to you): It's surprisingly easy to a Mac. Once you know how someone could get into your system, it's relatively easy to prevent. On Windows, you can usually get away with a long password, and on Mac you can set up FireVault to secure your
    data (System Preferences > Security).
  • Upgrade your router's security: As we mentioned above, hacking into a wireless network is incredibly easy. One way to secure your router is to upgrade its firmware with DD-WRT or Tomato. Upgrading your router can keep you safe from at least one type of hack.

The above is more than enough for most people on their home network, but what about when you need to leave the house?

Public Wi-Fi Security Checklist

How Secure Are You Online: The ChecklistUsing public Wi-Fi exposes everything you do online (and your computer itself) to anyone else on the network. We've shown you how people sniff out your passwords on public Wi-Fi before, and it's suprisingly simple. Let's stop that from happening to you.

Bare Minimum of Public Wi-Fi Security

Let's say you occasionally check email on public Wi-Fi when your internet is down or you're on vacation. You're always tempting fate when you don't completely lock down your computer, but here's the minimum amount of effort you should always do.

  • Always use HTTPS: We mentioned HTTPS Everywhere above, but it's worth repeating here. If you're checking your email, or doing anything else with a password on a public network, always use HTTPS.
  • Turn off sharing: When you're at home you might share your files with other people on your network. That's great, but you don't want that on public Wi-Fi. Disable it before you even connect. In Windows, open Control Panel, then head to Network and Internet > Network and Sharing Center. Then click Choose Homegroup and Sharing Options > Change Advanced Settings. Turn off file sharing, print sharing, network discovery, and the public folder. On Mac, open System Preferences > Sharing, and make sure all the boxes are unchecked.
  • Don't connect to Wi-Fi unless you need it: This might seem like common sense, but if you're not actually using the internet connection, turn it off. In Windows, right-click the wireless icon in the taskbar and turn it off. On a Mac, click the Wi-Fi button in the menu bar, and turn off Wi-Fi.

Doing these three things will keep most of your data secure when you're just popping in to quickly check your email. If you're using free Wi-Fi in a dorm or apartment building, you need a stronger solution.

Level Up: You're a Public Wi-Fi Pro

If you're on public Wi-Fi a lot, it's best to really lock down and encrypt your data. In addition to the steps above (particularly turning off file sharing and HTTPS), you can lock out anyone pretty easily.

  • Encrypt everything with Hamachi and Privoxy: The easiest way to cut off outsiders from peeking into your private data when you're on a public network is with the free VPN Hamachi, and the web proxy Privoxy. Setup isn't much more complicated than a few clicks, and the end result is secure connections for all your browsing.
  • Encypt it further with an SSH SOCKS proxy: If you don't want to use a VPN, another option is to roll your own SSH SOCKS proxy. This encrypts all your web browsing and redirects it through a trusted computer.

That's all you really need to do when you're on public Wi-Fi to keep your browsing encrypted and safe. However, you can take it another step and go completely anonymous.

Next Level: Grab Your Tin Foil Hat, We're Going Untraceable

Perhaps you really don't want anyone tracking what you're doing on a public Wi-Fi network or worse, public computer. This sounds nefarious, but it's handy for things like checking your bank account on a public computer.

The simplest way to go completely anonymous is with a custom build of Linux called Tails installed on a USB or CD. We've walked you through the setup process before and it's very easy. With Tails you get a custom operating system with built-in anonymous browsing, encryption for email and chat, file encryption, and a ton of software. You can load Tails up on your own computer, or a public one. With Tails, you not only browse without leaving a trace, you also secure everything you do.


Security is important to everyone from the tech illiterate to the tech savvy. The precautions you decide to make are your own choice, but always keep in mind that you security online is just as important (if not more) than the security in your own home.

Number of comments

'Honey Boo Boo' Ratings Top the Republican National Convention


© 2011 The Hollywood Reporter, All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Gold Vs. Plus: How Sony Is Making a Mockery Of Xbox Live

August 30th, 2012Top Story

Gold Vs. Plus: How Sony Is Making a Mockery Of Xbox Live

By Stephen Totilo

Gold Vs. Plus: How Sony Is Making a Mockery Of Xbox LiveYou can pick your preference between PlayStation and Xbox. You can argue that Halo is better than KillZone or that Uncharted tops Gears of War.

But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that the Xbox 360's online subscription service is superior to the PlayStation 3's. This is what competition does, and, today, the long-running $60-a-year Xbox Live Gold just doesn't seem to offer as much value as the newer, upstart, the $50 PlayStation Plus.

Let's break this down.

Xbox Live Gold costs about $5 a month for individual plan. The paid plan gives Xbox 360 gamers an extra suite of features atop basic gamer-to-gamer text-messaging, cross-game-chat and access to an online marketplace, all of which are free as part of
Xbox Live Silver .

Gold members also get the following features:

Xbox Live Gold Features

  • Multiplayer Gaming
  • Early Access to Some Demos
  • Beta Access
  • Game Discounts (40-50% off, often)
  • Hulu Plus*
  • Netflix*
  • Amazon Instant Video*
  • Party Chat
  • Video Kinect
  • Zune Music Streaming
  • Halo Waypoint
  • Avatar Kinect
  • Internet Explorer
  • Cloud Storage
  • Facebook
  • Skype
  • Twitter
  • YouTube*
  • last.fm
  • MLB.tv
  • HBO Go
  • ESPN
  • Forthcoming: Free-to-Play Gaming

Those are the major perks and features available in the U.S. There are several more entertainment services available in other regions. (Wikipedia has a good chart for this; Microsoft offers their own less-detailed chart.) Some of the services here, including HBO Go and Netflix require their own paid memberships with those services. And some, such as YouTube and Twitter, are free on just about any device other than an Xbox 360.

Originally, Xbox Live Gold's main advertised feature was access to multiplayer gaming. With the launch of the PlayStation 3, Sony countered that by refusing to charge for online gaming. Sony's PlayStation Network was, initially, free to anyone who bought the console. There was no paid service, no PSN Gold. The PS3 couldn't do cross-game chat. That was the biggest knock. But it also didn't charge gamers.

To this day, Xbox 360 owners pay for things on their console that PlayStation owners don't. Let's strike through all of the services on Gold that PlayStation 3 owners get at no extra charge from Sony.

Xbox Live Gold minus Free PSN Features

  • Multiplayer Gaming
  • Early Access to Some Demos
  • Beta Access
  • Game Discounts (40-50% off, often)
  • Hulu Plus
  • Netflix
  • Amazon Instant Video
  • Party Chat
  • Video Kinect
  • Zune Music Store Access
  • Halo Waypoint
  • Avatar Kinect
  • Internet Explorer
  • Cloud Storage
  • Facebook
  • Skype
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • last.fm
  • MLB.tv
  • HBO Go
  • ESPN
  • Forthcoming: Free-to-Play Gaming

There's one cheat there. Sony owners don't actually get Internet Explorer, but they can browse the web for free. It also does offer free-to-play games in its free PlayStation Home avatar hangout/whatever-it-is as well as with games such as Free Realms and DC Universe Online.

Several of Gold's features aren't available on PlayStation. There's no Halo Waypoint access, no ESPN, no HBO Go. But Netflix is there, Hulu Plus is there, still requiring outside subscriptions but no added payment to Sony.

This is how it's been for a while, but, last year in 2010, Sony introduced PlayStation Plus and started giving its customers the chance to pay for more services. Players got discounts in the PSN store, beta access, but nothing amazing. Then, this past June, Sony added one more key perk, the perk that makes a mockery out of Xbox Live Gold: free games.

Here's what PlayStation 3 owners get for Plus:

PlayStation Plus Features

  • Instant Game Collection (Free Games)
  • Game Discounts (40-50% off, often)
  • Early Access to Some Demos
  • Beta Access
  • Cloud Storage
  • Automatic Patching/Firmware-Updates
  • 1-Hour Free Access to Full Games

Note the length of that list. It's short. Microsoft's Gold list is longer. But Sony's has a bullet point that it's hard for Xbox Live to top, the Instant Game Collection. That's a bundle of games that a Plus subscriber can download and that remain accessible for as long as the subscriber's account lasts. In the few months the service has been live, Sony has removed some games from the offer and added new ones. The removed games are still available to legacy subscribers; they're just not available for free to new ones. For this to be a good deal, the games better be good, right?

Here's what you'd have in your Instant Game Collection through early September, if you were a Plus subscriber since the free game offers started in June (games no longer offered to new subscribers have an asterisk):

Free Games Available Through PlayStation Plus

  • The Walking Dead Episodes 1 & 2
  • Bloodrayne Betrayal
  • Outland
  • Infamous 2
  • Little Big Planet 2
  • Ratchet & Clank All 4 One
  • Space Marine
  • Saints Row 2
  • Renegade Ops
  • Pac-Man Championship Edition DX
  • Choplifter
  • Sideway
  • Just Cause 2*
  • Lara Croft & The Guardian of Light*
  • Gotham City Impostors*
  • Hard Corps Uprising*
  • Zombie Apocalypse*
  • Virtua Fighter 5: Final Showdown*
  • (Borderlands will be added in September)

Pretty good list, no? Well, some people don't like it: specifically, U.S. Plus subscribers have started complaining that Europe gets an even better batch, which includes Dead Space 2 and will soon include Red Dead Redemption . The grass is indeed always greener somewhere else.

Xbox Live is much more widely-discussed than PlayStation Network. Microsoft has been noisier about their online service. They've been more aggressive, standardizing online console multiplayer gaming, striking first with Netflix streaming and just boasting more about their pay service. The company reports that it has 40 million Xbox Live subscribers, though it won't say how many are paying Gold members (one Microsoft estimate from two years ago put it at about half that count). Competition, however, causes the other party to do amazing things and that appears to be what's happening with PlayStation Plus, a service which—surprise—Sony doesn't share subscriber stats for either.

It's a safe bet that Sony has fewer Plus people than Microsoft has Golds. It's also a safe bet that Sony reacts awfully well to competition, as they've been showing throughout the summer.

Our colleagues at Gizmodo recently argued that Xbox Live Gold should be free. (Microsoft might counter that their services cost money to maintain; we might counter that that's why they're running ads on Xbox Live.) Let's pile on a new argument: Gold should be as impressive as PlayStation Plus. For consumers, it sure looks like Sony is offering the better deal.


CORRECTION: This story originally didn't list the discounts on games and DLC that Xbox Live Gold members are also offered. I've added them. That matches the discounts feature offered in PlayStation Plus.

Number of comments

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction

August 30th, 2012Top Story

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction

By George Dvorsky

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction This planet can't protect us forever. Sooner or later, there'll be a catastrophe that renders this world uninhabitable for humans. And when that day comes, we'll need to know already how to live in space.

Yesterday, we explained why we should reboot the Biosphere 2 projects of the 1990s. There are a lot of scientific and technological benefits from learning to create self-sustaining habitats — but the biggest reason is because we need to know how to live in space, before we have noplace else to live.

There's little question that this is an important area of inquiry. We clearly want to venture out into space, but if we're going to do so, we'll eventually have to lose our dependence on Mother Earth. Colonists won't always be able to rely on a steady stream of supplies from Earth, which means they're eventually going to have to figure it on their own.

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from ExtinctionPhysicist Stephen Hawking suggests that our ongoing efforts to colonize space could ultimately save humanity from extinction. As it stands, Earth is our only biosphere — all our eggs are currently in one basket. If something were to happen to either our planet or our civilization, it would be vital to know that we could sustain a colony somewhere else.

And the threats are real. The possibility of an asteroid impact, nuclear war, a nanotechnological disaster, or severe environmental degradation make the need for off-planet habitation extremely urgent. And given our ambitious future prospects, including the potential for ongoing population growth, we may very well have no choice but to leave the cradle.

We're obviously not going to get there overnight — but here's how we could do it.

Baby steps

As already noted, the first thing we need to do is develop a fully functional biosphere for long-term human occupation. We still haven't figured out how to do this yet, so it should be at the top of our priority list. We especially need to figure out ways to keep CO2 levels in check, maintain a steady internal temperature, avoid water acidification, and find a way to keep our sanity in check given the close confines.

Once this has been done, we can start to think about going into space. The initial structure or set of building materials could be brought up from Earth (either by rocket or space elevator), or we could make it difficult for the astro-biospherians, by making them pull together all their materials from local sources such as asteroids (call it the 'teach a man to fish approach').

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction But life in an orbital biosphere will present unique challenges. Growing plants in a zero gravity environment is possible, but difficult (they tend to sprout in bizarre orientations). There's also the problem of prolonged exposure to zero gravity on humans, and the long-term effects of solar radiation.

That said, there are potential solutions to these issues. Back in 1974, physicist Gerard O'Neill outlined a freestanding orbital habitat consisting of large cylinders that would spin along an axis at a rate of one rotation per minute. This would result in a simulation of gravity along its inner surfaces.

Initially, these self-sufficient space stations should be kept simple — pilot projects to prove that humans can live off-planet and independent of Earth — an important precedent for any subsequent missions to space, or for colonization efforts to other terrestrial bodies.

And indeed, as time passes, these projects will have to assess the viability of more complex and long-term missions. As Ben Austen has warned, we could run into problems such as inbreeding. His solution, however, is to stock our habitats with DNA to expand upon the existing gene pool. More radically, colonists could take advantage of cybernetics, advanced genetic engineering practices, and life extension technologies to overcome these issues as they arise.

What's not known, however, is how long a human offshoot could live in Earth's orbit alone. It's conceivable that a self-sustaining base could function for generations, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable long-term solution for the future of human civilization — particularly if the home planet is inaccessible for whatever reason.

But this is why we should also focus our efforts on building closed-loop systems on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Extraterrestrial but planetary biospheres

Back in 2000, NASA completed a $200 million study called the "Roadmap to Settlement" in which they described the potential for a moon-based colony in which habitats could be constructed several feet beneath the lunar surface (or covered within an existing crater) to protect colonists from high-energy cosmic radiation. They also outlined the construction of an onsite nuclear power plant, solar panel arrays, and a number of methods for extracting carbon, silicon, aluminium and other materials from the surface.

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction More recently, NASA has also confirmed the presence of water ice on the Moon — a critical ingredient for any self-sustaining colony. Most of it resides at the Moon's north pole, but it's a fair amount — about 600 million tons worth.

Assuming that the radiation problem could be addressed, it might also be possible to set up solar-powered farming enclosures. If we could start farming at the lunar North Pole, experts estimate that a 0.5 hectare space farm could feed upwards of 100 people.

At the same time, however, there will be some considerable challenges. The Moon features a long lunar night, which could limit solar power and require a colony to withstand temperature extremes. The Moon is also low in light elements, namely carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Low gravity (at ⅙ of Earth's) could prove to be a long-term problem. The Moon is also completely devoid of an atmosphere, and it has virtually no potential as a future terraforming project. At best, the Moon could serve as a good proof-of-concept station for future projects, or for a short-term stay in the event of a catastrophe on Earth.

As NASA's roadmap suggests, a colony on the Moon could help us prepare for a mission to Mars. It would probably be wise to set up, test, and train a self-sustaining colony a little closer to home before we take that massive leap to Mars.

And indeed, Mars holds considerably more potential than the Moon. It features a solar day of 24 hours and 39 minutes, and a surface area 28.4% less than Earth's. The Red Planet also has an axial tilt of 25 degrees (compared to the Earth's 29%) resulting in similar seasonal shifts (though they're twice as long given that Mars's year is 1.88 Earth years). And most importantly, Mars has an existing atmosphere, significant mineral diversity (such as ore and nickel-iron), and water. Actually, it has a lot of water. Recent analysis shows that Mars could have as much water underground as Earth.

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction So Mars could provide an excellent place for humanity to test a closed-loop habitat — or to reboot its civilization, in the event of a catastrophe on Earth. Given all that Mars has to offer, it could conceivably support a colony living in enclosed habitats for an indefinitely long period of time. And depending on the technological sophistication of the society in question, it could also go about the long and arduous process of terraforming the planet. Assuming a no-Earth scenario, the colonists would have little choice but to plug away and be patient.

Looker deeper into this scenario, the colonists would eventually have to weigh the pros and cons of their efforts. It might make more sense for them to return to Earth in hopes of salvaging things there — terraforming a broken Earth could prove considerably easier than terraforming Mars. Ultimately, it would depend on the condition of Earth, which could meet a grim fate in any number of ways, including a runaway greenhouse gas effect that could turn it into a Venus-like planet (which could make it much worse than Mars), nanotechnological ecophagy (a grey goo scenario in which self-replicating nanobots have converted virtually everything into useless mush), or an asteroid impact (which would only be a temporary problem).

That said, Mars may not be the only terrestrial body in our solar system worth colonizing. Saturn and Jupiter feature a number of moons that could also be considered, though their proximity from the Sun could pose some problems.

Finally, there's also the possibility that colonists will want to venture into deep space and find entirely new planets to inhabit — including Earth-like planets that are ready for immediate occupancy. Self-sustainability would have to be a key feature of the expedition, as the colonists would not be able to depend on the Earth for any resources.

And as for knowing where to go, it would be akin to the Pacific Islander colonization campaigns of the past; just pick a direction and hope for the best.

Timelines

How Self-Sustaining Space Habitats Could Save Humanity from Extinction Predicting timelines for sustainable and permanent off-planet habitability is not easy — mostly because no one is really working on the problem. Most of our efforts assume that Earth will always be there, ready to jump in and support any colony that needs help.

But assuming that we could focus our efforts, it's not unreasonable to assume that we could develop our first self-sufficient biosphere right here on Earth by the end of the 2020s — if not a lot sooner. It's been nearly 20 years since the last Biosphere 2 project, and there's a good chance that today's science and technology can solve many of the problems we experienced during those missions.

Once that has (finally) been done, it's entirely possible that self-reliant orbital habitats could be constructed during the 2030s. By that point, our technologies will be advanced enough that any unsolved problem could be addressed by A.I. or sophisticated modeling techniques. At the same time, advanced 3D printers and molecular assemblers (aka "fabs") will make life appreciably easier for colonists working in space.

After this stage, the technologies required for setting up closed-loop colonies on the Moon, Mars, or elsewhere would largely be in place. So, assuming no social upheavals or other unpredictable events, we could be capable of living permanently and independently off-planet any time after 2030 or so, and certainly no later than the 2050s.

There is another, albeit more radical, way for us to ensure our ongoing existence in the event of civilizational catastrophe. Assuming that uploads will someday be possible, it would be wise to "backup" human civilization off-planet. This idea was initially proposed by author Vernor Vinge, who suggested that we bury a supercomputer on the moon (or elsewhere) that could house an entire civilization. Alternately, this uploaded civilization could be sent on a mission into deep space in hopes of reviving a new society elsewhere. But given the highly speculative nature of this possibility — and knowing that a disaster can strike at any time — we should continue to work on viable solutions for purely biological humans.

All this said, these timelines and predictions assume, of course, that we actually care about building self-sustaining habitats. As history has repeatedly shown, our ability to do something doesn't necessarily mean that we will. But given what's at stake, it's a prospect that needs to be taken a bit more seriously.

Images via here, here, here, here, here.

Number of comments