Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 17:30:39

Terraforming is ethically corrupt. But so is landing humans on Mars since the bugs that humans carry with them could hurt the local indigenous bugs leading to Martian ecocide! We should leave Mars alone, ENTIRELY!!!

If one accepts that an environment and a non-human lifeform are of value, then one would do what one can to protect them. On Earth, this means not blowing up nuclear devices in such environments, not polluting such environments, not unnessarily killing the organisms in such environments. The same applies to Mars. IT IS JUST THAT TO DO THIS, WE MUST NOT GO TO MARS IN THE FIRST PLACE SINCE TO DO SO WOULD ENDANGER SUCH VALUED ENVIRONMENTS AND THE LIFEFORMS THEY CONTAIN!

Landing humans on Mars is the same ecological action as going to Yellowstone and spreading Agent Orange all over it, or going to the Lakes District and blowing it up with a nuclear device!

REALISE THIS: There's no special moral treatment I'm giving Mars, except that which the Martian environment requires for its own protection.

Now, my own intrinisic value means that I might undertake means to defend my own well-being to the detriment of the intrinsic value of other organisms. As I need to eat and clean and wash and defacate to survive, I can only apologise to those beings whose lives I destroy in these acts. I do not-- however--need to go to Mars to maintain my well-being--therefore it is unethical for me to endanger the intrinsic life of lifeforms that may exist there! And neither should you!

KCC · 2002-09-21 18:51:10

Terraforming is ethically corrupt. But so is landing humans on Mars since the bugs that humans carry with them could hurt the local indigenous bugs leading to Martian ecocide! We should leave Mars alone, ENTIRELY!!!

If one accepts that an environment and a non-human lifeform are of value, then one would do what one can to protect them. On Earth, this means not blowing up nuclear devices in such environments, not polluting such environments, not unnessarily killing the organisms in such environments. The same applies to Mars. IT IS JUST THAT TO DO THIS, WE MUST NOT GO TO MARS IN THE FIRST PLACE SINCE TO DO SO WOULD ENDANGER SUCH VALUED ENVIRONMENTS AND THE LIFEFORMS THEY CONTAIN!

Landing humans on Mars is the same ecological action as going to Yellowstone and spreading Agent Orange all over it, or going to the Lakes District and blowing it up with a nuclear device!

REALISE THIS: There's no special moral treatment I'm giving Mars, except that which the Martian environment requires for its own protection.

Now, my own intrinisic value means that I might undertake means to defend my own well-being to the detriment of the intrinsic value of other organisms. As I need to eat and clean and wash and defacate to survive, I can only apologise to those beings whose lives I destroy in these acts. I do not-- however--need to go to Mars to maintain my well-being--therefore it is unethical for me to endanger the intrinsic life of lifeforms that may exist there! And neither should you!

Terraforming is ethically corrupt. But so is landing humans on Mars since the bugs that humans carry with them could hurt the local indigenous bugs leading to Martian ecocide! We should leave Mars alone, ENTIRELY!!!

We still have no conclusive proof of life on Mars. That is one reason for going there.

Landing humans on Mars is the same ecological action as going to Yellowstone and spreading Agent Orange all over it, or going to the Lakes District and blowing it up with a nuclear device!

Okay, you should stay as far away from the topic of CALDERAS as you can especially regarding Yellowstone. This topic makes your whole statement moot. Life is very resiliant.

Now, my own intrinisic value means that I might undertake means to defend my own well-being to the detriment of the intrinsic value of other organisms. As I need to eat and clean and wash and defacate to survive, I can only apologise to those beings whose lives I destroy in these acts. I do not-- however--need to go to Mars to maintain my well-being--therefore it is unethical for me to endanger the intrinsic life of lifeforms that may exist there! And neither should you!

I agree that everyone should try to live in a manner that does not bring about unnecessary destruction to other lifeforms; however, should the itroduction of a new lifeform inadvertantly eliminate another that doesn't mean that lifefrom is evile. It comes down to survival of the fittest. Are we, as humans who absolutely depend on photosynthetic/ O2 producing lifeforms, nothing but co-conspirtitors with these organisms in an effort to have eradicated Earth's original reducing atmosphere and it's ecosystem? Hmmmm

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 19:12:11

It comes down to survival of the fittest. Are we, as humans who absolutely depend on photosynthetic/ O2 producing lifeforms, nothing but co-conspirtitors with these organisms in an effort to have eradicated Earth's original reducing atmosphere and it's ecosystem?

It is nothing to do with survival of the fittest. That is a biological process of no import in the politics/economics of Martian development where going to Mars is done by humans as a SOCIO-POLITICAL process.

And the 'original' microbial ecosystem of Earth wasn't destroyed by careless space developers either (well, maybe it was if you think the Earth was seeded by some cosmic gardener eons ago) so your Hmmmming analogy is not analogous.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 19:12:40

Pathfinder was not sterilized enough to prevent microbial contamination, so we have already, in all likelihood, punctured the Martian ecosystem.

But as KCC pointed out, we don't know if life is there or not. And one way to find out conclusively is to visit. I hope, NovaMarsollia, with all the rationality you purport, you have evidence of life on Mars. Otherwise the crux of your argument is flawed.

It's like a blind person arguing that there is no sunlight.

And welcome to NewMars, KCC, I love your analogy about the original atmosphere of Earth. Very wise.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 19:20:26

Pathfinder was not sterilized enough to prevent microbial contamination, so we have already, in all likelihood, punctured the Martian ecosystem.
But as KCC pointed out, we don't know if life is there or not. And one way to find out conclusively is to visit. I hope, NovaMarsollia, with all the rationality you purport, you have evidence of life on Mars. Otherwise the crux of your argument is flawed.
It's like a blind person arguing that there is no sunlight.
And welcome to NewMars, KCC, I love your analogy about the original atmosphere of Earth. Very wise.

Just cos NASA endangered the lifes of yet-to-be-found native Mars bugs once doesn't make it okay to do it again. The Austrian empire killed and deported gypsy's by the millions in the 19th Century...does that make it not so bad that the NAZI's debauchered Gyspy culture in the 20th?

And if we can't visit Mars without endangering Martian life...THEN DON'T VISIT! Mars bugs have no duty to sacrifice themselves in the name of our scientific curiosity (sending highly dcontaminated probes may be a acceptable alternative though).

Have you proof that life is dead? No. So leave it alone. I know it is not your life you are endangering, but stop being so callously by risking the lives of other species on unprooved human theories which say we can go to Mars and spread our muck with impunity. (This is not rationality I'm professing by the way, just interplanetary courtesy).

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 19:26:25

Your whole argument is inherently religious. If you won't accept that we must prove that life exists there, but rather require someone else to prove that life does not, your whole approach is largely faith.

So, how am I to be persuaded by your belief? Surely you don't expect me to sit down and forget about my passions in life, simply because some guy on some forum believes there is life on Mars, do you?

And I was hardly saying that we ?go back and do it again,? I was just suggesting that considering Mars' environment, those microbial lifeforms could, as of this minute, be thriving and propagating quite well.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 19:38:05

Your whole argument is inherently religious. If you won't accept that we must prove that life exists there, but rather require someone else to prove that life does not, your whole approach is largely faith.
So, how am I to be persuaded by your belief? Surely you don't expect me to sit down and forget about my passions in life, simply because some guy on some forum believes there is life on Mars, do you?
And I was hardly saying that we ?go back and do it again,? I was just suggesting that considering Mars' environment, those microbial lifeforms could, as of this minute, be thriving and propagating quite well.

I find it amusing that someone who is a member of a society which raises technology to the status of a religeon (so that space rockets stand like cathedrals, pointing to the heavens as they promise Earthlings salvation from their terrestrial toils if they just follow the scriptures of Zubrin!) has the gaul to label my careful eco-friendly exploration ideas as religious. let's face it--you Mars freaks are the zealots, I'm just a sensible voice.

I'm not out to pursuade you to believe there IS life on Mars. Plenty of models for subterranean life, volcanic life and polar life are produced by NASA biologists and geologists each year. I'm just out to convince you that humans going to Mars is an act of careless disregard for other species--an act which we should, having acknowledged all the other ecological stuff-ups we've made--NOT allow.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 19:47:53

I find it amusing that someone would dare come to a board, and make baseless statements about people they don't even know. For instance, if you knew me, you would know that I am actually not a member of the Mars Society. (Surprise, they allow non-members to post to their boards, lucky for you, huh?)

No one is seeking ?salvation? in Mars. I admit, myself, I find Mars to be appealing politically, but this hardly changes my sincere love for Mars. A love that existed long before I even considered the political consequences of colonization.

How can humans going to Mars be an act of disregard for a species we do not know exist? This is just silly. It's almost like saying we can't sail the seas because we don't know if the earth is round or not.

Humans can certainly go to Mars without contaminating the environment. I think you're afraid that once they do, and once they send back pretty pictures, more people will be appealed to go to Mars.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 20:04:03

I am actually not a member of the Mars Society
my sincere love for Mars. .

well since it's your declared aim to travel to NEW MARS and be with 'like minded' techno-imperialists, then you had better join up, they need to pay for the rocket somehow.

And you love Mars so much you want to put your dirty American footprints all over it and set up Pizza Hutt all over it.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 20:09:30

Actually, a lot of the people here are pessimistic about technological advances. I'm actually one of the more optimistic posters here. So to call everyone here a like-minded ?techno-imperialists? is a farce. You can, of course call me that, although the legitimacy of it is highly suspect.

Also, I don't think we should be setting up Pizza huts on Mars. You already read my other post where I said that I think a Martian civilization would be highly disjunct, so try to keep up.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 20:18:29

Also, I don't think we should be setting up Pizza huts on Mars. You already read my other post where I said that I think a Martian civilization would be highly disjunct, so try to keep up.

Just because you say Mars is going to be disjunct from Earth society don't make it so. Mars is going to be set up, industrialised, settled, colonised, polluted upon, explored by the same geo-petroleum that search for minerals here in Siberia, Alaska and the rest of the world and by aeronautics companies that make warplanes, landmines, 767s and missiles. Mars aint going to be Mars--it's going to be a hellish Earth--and to keep costs down---yep Pizza Hut will be advertisng all over the rockets. It's gonna be gross man...do something else!

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-21 20:28:05

Heh, what are you talking about, geo-petroleum? There are no fossil fuels on Mars...

I don't want to get into an economic discussion, again, like I always do, but your vision of Mars is ridiculous. The only people going to Mars will be the rich, and collectives with the technology to go there. Mars offers nothing from an economical perspective to Earth, since getting there requires independence. And independence is not profitable.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-22 05:08:42

I too would like to welcome KCC to New Mars.

Arriving towards the beginning of what's turning out to be such a vigorous and heated debate between Josh and NovaMarsollia was a baptism of fire, I suppose!
Nice response, though. Look forward to hearing more from you, KCC!

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 05:16:34

I too would like to welcome KCC to New Mars.

Awwwwwwwww I never got a welcome. Or does New Mars not welcome those who disagree with the majority? New Mars political correctness, I guess!

el scorcho · 2002-11-01 16:40:42

First, allow me to say greetings. I am a new member who has combed through these boards quite frequently over the past few months. Hello all!

Second, Nova,
Have you ever taken the time to consider that any life existing on Mars would have to be extraordinarily resilient in order to survive in the harsh conditions of that world? More than likely, said life would exist only in the underground aquifers or frozen in Martian permafrost. Also, said life would have had to survive millions of years of climatalogical and possible geologic upheaval, bitter cold, cosmic radiation and many other obstacles. I highly doubt that a few Earthers landing on the surface will be enough to wipe out life that has endured all these hardships over millions of years.

In fact, Martian terraforming would quite possibly revitalize subterranean strongholds of microbial or multi-cellular life. How would warming the planet so that oceans could swell be at all detrimental to life that survives in water? How could thickening the atmosphere so that some radiation is blocked put an end to all hopes for the evolution of the previously mentioned lifeforms into complex, thriving ecosystems?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-01 19:29:23

Greetings right back at ya, el scorcho!!

Nice to have your company. And a thoughtful first post, too.
But just to bring you up to speed, NovaMarsollia is currently 'persona non grata' at this site. S/he broke too many rules of social interaction and fell foul of Adrian, our site creator, adjudicator, and moderator.
And that takes some doing, too, because our Adrian is slow to anger and quick to forgive!
We think he's pretty cool .... take a bow, Adrian!
And thanks again for all you do for us.

Aetius · 2002-11-02 18:41:05

My most compelling reason to support the colonization of Mars is that people like NovaMarsollia seem to have an almost religious belief in the unworthiness of human civilization to exist on Mars...or anywhere else. "Apologize" to the non-human living things which perish to sustain your own life? You're nuts.

Repeat after me. Life on Mars, IF IT EXISTS, is simply life. Like the bacteria in your feces, or the fleas that bite you. Mars is not Heaven, nor is it the Garden Of Eden. It is simply a place.

I want to see humanity establish a new branch of civilization there, like my ancestors who landed in New England centuries ago from Germany and Britain. The motto of my home state of Connecticut is, "Qui Transtulit Sustinet"...That Which Is Transplanted, Is Sustained.

My "dirty American footprints", indeed.

Here's a news flash, NovaMarsollia. The "techno-imperialists" who share my dream will someday leave you and your Luddite confederates behind. Then you'll be free to force the Terrans to adopt your "Eco-friendly" proposals at gunpoint. It's what you people secretly want, anyway...even if you don't have the guts to say it.

Aetius · 2002-11-02 18:49:04

Oh! I was so mad at NovaMarsollia's posts that I didn't read the stuff that followed.

Thanks, Adrian...good riddance to bad rubbish. (Of course, my question about the old saying is, what constitutes "good" rubbish? :lol)

I haven't been here in awhile. Good to see the usual crew of thoughtful brainiacs are still here.

Ad Ares!

turbo · 2002-11-02 19:22:29

Aetius, "good" rubbish are those wonderful treasures left for the trashmen that can be salvaged for useful parts (usually electronic parts). Ah yes, the horribly ugly couch that finds a new home with the younger generation ("Look Dude, I got us a real couch!").

Dumpster-diving is an art!

turbo

Aetius · 2002-11-02 19:40:43

I should know. I always pick through the building at the local dump where people leave things they don't want, but are still in decent condition. I've found several perfectly good bookcases that way!

They don't match, but I'm a man...so those things don't matter to me, anyway. My wife says that I sometimes leave the landfill with more trash than I entered with. LOL

Phobos · 2002-11-02 20:25:43

They don't match, but I'm a man...so those things don't matter to me, anyway. My wife says that I sometimes leave the landfill with more trash than I entered with. LOL

Yep, brings truth to the phrase that one person's junk is another's treasure. I have to admit myself that on those rare occassions when I visit a landfill I have to resist the temptation to go digging around for stuff.

Here's a news flash, NovaMarsollia. The "techno-imperialists" who share my dream will someday leave you and your Luddite confederates behind. Then you'll be free to force the Terrans to adopt your "Eco-friendly" proposals at gunpoint. It's what you people secretly want, anyway...even if you don't have the guts to say it.

Even though I believe we should actively work to preserve the environment I've dissociated myself from most mainstream environmental groups because it seem they're merely using their environmental agenda to drive their political visions which are often anti-human and totalitarian. It's a natural function for life to find new niches in which to thrive, and humanity moving out into space to increase its chances of survival and acquistion of resources is no exception. Hell, the universe is going to die anyway so we might as well get out there and see what's going on. Anyway, I better say that I don't advocate colonizing planets that show an abundance of life, but I just don't buy the argument that a dead rock orbiting an old star should recieve the same "don't touch" status.

Aetius · 2002-11-02 20:53:32

I have to qualify my often hostile comments about environmentalism. I support clean air and water legislation, and favor harsh punishments for corporate executives and their underlings who seek to illegally dispose of their companies' hazardous waste. I guess for the reasons you've just stated, I have felt alienated from the mainstream environmental movement for a while.

Palomar · 2002-11-03 14:26:42

Anyway, I better say that I don't advocate colonizing planets that show an abundance of life, but I just don't buy the argument that a dead rock orbiting an old star should recieve the same "don't touch" status.

*Well, I've been doing more thinking regarding the morality of terraforming Mars or not, and here's what I keep coming back to: There's zillions of galaxies out there with kazillion more stars, and billions of planets no doubt. So "Earthlings" want to try and make some changes on [to date] just -one- of billions of worlds. Is that such a crime? If someone took a penny from Bill Gates, wouldn't he look like the supreme jackass to have a conniption fit about it, running screaming to the press that someone took ONE PENNY from all his billions? Yeah, I'd say so.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-11-03 15:09:11

*Well, I've been doing more thinking regarding the morality of terraforming Mars or not, and here's what I keep coming back to: There's zillions of galaxies out there with kazillion more stars, and billions of planets no doubt. So "Earthlings" want to try and make some changes on [to date] just -one- of billions of worlds. Is that such a crime?

If the world is barren I personally see no crime to terraforming it. It's not like your destroying any kind of thriving ecosystem that has a chance of evolving. I would actually consider such an act as beneficial to helping life survive in the universe.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-04 02:41:36

Ahhh! Aetius, Cindy, Phobos, and Turbo!

Such a pleasure to experience the cool fresh air of simple, intelligent, common sense you people provide.
Especially after having to endure the wretched stench of closed-minded, aggressive, left-wing bile emanating from NovaMarsollia!

Well done, Adrian!
"May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows you're dead!" (Old Irish blessing.)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-21 17:30:39

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#2 2002-09-21 18:51:10

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#3 2002-09-21 19:12:11

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#4 2002-09-21 19:12:40

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#5 2002-09-21 19:20:26

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#6 2002-09-21 19:26:25

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#7 2002-09-21 19:38:05

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#8 2002-09-21 19:47:53

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#9 2002-09-21 20:04:03

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#10 2002-09-21 20:09:30

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#11 2002-09-21 20:18:29

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#12 2002-09-21 20:28:05

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#13 2002-09-22 05:08:42

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#14 2002-09-22 05:16:34

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#15 2002-11-01 16:40:42

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#16 2002-11-01 19:29:23

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#17 2002-11-02 18:41:05

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#18 2002-11-02 18:49:04

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#19 2002-11-02 19:22:29

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#20 2002-11-02 19:40:43

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#21 2002-11-02 20:25:43

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#22 2002-11-02 20:53:32

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#23 2002-11-03 14:26:42

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#24 2002-11-03 15:09:11

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#25 2002-11-04 02:41:36

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

Board footer