Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-04 14:15:46

I resent that! NovaMarsollia was clearly a right-wing conservative!

Byron · 2002-11-04 15:29:07

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.)

Here's my pitch for the 'ethics' of whether Mars should be terraformed or not...

Terraforming should be left up to the people to whom it matters...the Martians themselves. What are we here on Earth having the right to tell people living on another world what they can and cannot do with their native environment?

Chances are they will vote to eventually terraform Mars...but they will likely do it in a way that will preserve as much as the primal Mars as possible...such as keeping the northern hemisphere wet and thick-aired (taking advantage of the lower altitude), but having the high-altitude areas in their 'natural state'...much as we do here on Earth with our National Parks, etc...

B

Auqakah · 2002-11-04 17:09:13

...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?

Here's a very quick question, and a similar quick point. Quick for me, at any rate.

I was reading through the posts, and I noticed two things. First, the quote above.

Do we have any right to interfere in the natural evolution of another planet? Is evolutionary acceleration inteference, or not? And if it is interference, is it correct to interfere in something which you do not entirely (or ever near-entirely) understand?

Second, ecrasez_|_infame said:

"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."

I'm afraid I don't understand this. If someone steals, they have stolen. Thats that. It doesn't matter how much, or how little; they are wrong. Obviously, occasionally there are circumstances which might be considered - and I stress might - extenuating. But - the bare fact remains, theft has occurred.

Does it matter if you kill one person? There are at least six billion more, after all.

Where do you draw the line? Such generalizations are dangerous; even if not immediatley such. And the times we live in may well set the trend for the next two thousand years, or more, as did the turn of that millenium which Western culture sets its clock by. And I hope maybe we could do a little better, this time round.

Aetius · 2002-11-04 19:45:33

That's the crux of the conflict between Greens and Reds, isn't it?

You believe terraforming is a crime against Nature, and we Greens (amazingly[!] of both Left- and Right-wing varieties) believe that terraforming is the FULFILLMENT of Nature.

It's impossible to reconcile such radically different views of nature and Humanity's role in it.

I believe the Martians themselves should be the ones who decide whether or not to terraform their world, and should be solely responsible for paying for it. Terraforming is just one more tax burden for the masses...in addition to maintaining life support and transportation infrastructures, the military-industrial complex, educating children, caring for the sick and the elderly, et cetera.

I agree with Byron. I think the whole terraforming thing will work out OK for the indigenous life-forms, because the process will necessarily be slow and probably haphazard in character. Areas like the upper mountain slopes of Tharsis will always be like the Mars of today, and I'm not totally against a compromise with Reds that leaves certain (otherwise useless) areas permanently free of development.

But to reiterate, I think it's truly for them to decide.

AltToWar · 2002-11-05 07:19:51

...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?
Here's a very quick question, and a similar quick point. Quick for me, at any rate.
I was reading through the posts, and I noticed two things. First, the quote above.
Do we have any right to interfere in the natural evolution of another planet? Is evolutionary acceleration inteference, or not? And if it is interference, is it correct to interfere in something which you do not entirely (or ever near-entirely) understand?

Second, ecrasez_|_infame said:
"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."

I'm afraid I don't understand this. If someone steals, they have stolen. Thats that. It doesn't matter how much, or how little; they are wrong. Obviously, occasionally there are circumstances which might be considered - and I stress might - extenuating. But - the bare fact remains, theft has occurred.
Does it matter if you kill one person? There are at least six billion more, after all.
Where do you draw the line? Such generalizations are dangerous; even if not immediatley such. And the times we live in may well set the trend for the next two thousand years, or more, as did the turn of that millenium which Western culture sets its clock by. And I hope maybe we could do a little better, this time round.

analogies are a funny thing, eh?

One tribe looks over across a river valley, and sees another tribe on the other side. The second tribe onced live on a lush paradice but now lives on a barren waisteland, and has has for generations. Soon all traces of life will end across the river.

The first tribe pulls together ist strongest and wisest, and decides to take an expedition to the other side.

The journey is long and dangeous.

When they reach the other side, they begin irrigating and planting trees. After many long years the desert on the other side has turned into an oasis. The last few members of the old tribe intermingle with the explorers to create somthing new. Part of the old tribe and part of explorer band.

Mars is a dieing world. It's core slowly drifts colder and colder.

Humans going to mars and terraforming will bring life to a dieing world.

Life is beautiful.

No matter who writes the law, when a law goes aginst beauty, it is an unjust law.

turbo · 2002-11-05 08:40:52

I'm not so sure Mars is dying. Earth has undergone ice ages, and Mars being further from the Sun maybe needs more time to complete the cycle.

Since this thread is most active, I want to ask something:

Does anyone on these forums no anything about experiments supposedly done at the Space Biology Laboratory of Moscow University in 1980? It seems terrestrial lifeforms were subjected to Mars-like environemt. The birds and mammals expired in seconds, turtles and frogs lasted hours, insects for weeks, "but fungi, lichens, algae, and mosses quickly adapted temselves to the new environment: oats, rye, and beans sprouted and grew but could not reproduce." The quote comes from "Genesis Revisited" so I am rather skeptical.

I am still trying to locate that old book with the British scheme for "bombarding" Mars with algae (or lichen) from Antarctica. So far no luck.

I can't classify myself as either Green or Red, but I'd like to keep the "techno-imperialist" if that's okay.

turbo

Palomar · 2002-11-05 09:18:37

Quoting Auqakah: "Second, ecrasez_|_infame said: '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.' I'm afraid I don't understand this. If someone steals, they have stolen. Thats that. It doesn't matter how much, or how little; they are wrong. Obviously, occasionally there are circumstances which might be considered - and I stress might - extenuating. But - the bare fact remains, theft has occurred."

*I admit my analogy has its limitations [i.e. Gates can be stolen from because he owns the money]. However, WHO are we supposedly "stealing" Mars from, Auqakah? Who does Mars belong to in the first place, for it to be "stolen" from?

Auqakah: Does it matter if you kill one person? There are at least six billion more, after all.

*So terraforming Mars can, ethically speaking, equate with
-homicide- ? :0 How so?

As for your question, "Where do you draw the line?" My response would be -WHO- draws the line as regards to terraforming or not terraforming Mars, and why? No one owns Mars so far I know [if you know who has rightful ownership of Mars, please enlighten me], so -whose- right is it to say Mars will or will not be terraformed?

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-11-05 14:29:24

I'm not so sure Mars is dying. Earth has undergone ice ages, and Mars being further from the Sun maybe needs more time to complete the cycle.

One of the many theories as to why mars once had liquid water and now does not has to do with it's Core.

Earth being quite larger has a lot more heat and more plasticity under it's surface.

The theory goes that Mars being smaller has a core that has been cooling much more rapidly then earths. As the core got cooler, liquid water started receding and ice was replacded above it.

Ice ages on earth have cycles of 10s of tousands of years, while mars' current trend seems to have gone on for millions.

Auqakah · 2002-11-07 17:01:37

My apology, ecrasez_l_infame, I was not precise in what I said. I did not mean it was permissable to kill one person because there are six billion others; I was referring to the fact that saying it is okay to terraform Mars because there are likely billions (probably more, considering the vastness of the universe) of other similar planets is not a good reason to do so - just like using the excuse that one persons life means nothing when there are six billion others around isn't. Sorry I wasn't clear.

But, actually, in a way, terraforming Mars could be considered homicide, or rather, perhaps, areocide.

It just depends on how you see the planet.

AltToWar said:
"Humans going to mars and terraforming will bring life to a dieing world."

If you see Mars as a ball of rock that needs life in order to be meaningful, then it isn't killing anything at all.

But if you value everything in the universe, and not just life, then you would see that everything is equally important. Without the other things, life wouldn't exist. But everything else would exist just the same, without life.

But what is life? Is our galaxy itself, alive? Isaac Asimov, through one of his many literary constructs, (Janov Pelorat, to be specific, in Foundation's Edge) noted how like a living, breathing organism the galaxy would be if viewed top-down, with time accelerated using a computer.

Even if Mars holds no life, it is still alive. For it exists. And who is to say that Mars might not hold life that we could not even recognise, much less understand? What if we destroyed life that we couldn't even see?

Is an empty space in a park less valuable than one containing a tree? Or do both have their merits, their advantages, and disadvantages? Admittedly, even the 'empty space' contains life, but thats besides the point. Just because life doesn't exist somewhere, it doesn't mean we should take it there. Why, I've heard people decrying the missionaries of years ago for that self-same thing! The only difference is, you wish to take life before death, as opposed to life after death. Why? What good will it do?

I was going to comment on the 'when a law goes against beauty, it is an unjust law', but I think any opinion I have to give on that doesn't have to be said.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-07 17:05:50

I was going to comment on the 'when a law goes against beauty, it is an unjust law', but I think any opinion I have to give on that doesn't have to be said.

I agree. A prehistorical Mars adapted to humans would be beautiful. And laws preventing people from doing so is unjust!

Palomar · 2002-11-07 17:18:33

I was going to comment on the 'when a law goes against beauty, it is an unjust law', but I think any opinion I have to give on that doesn't have to be said.
I agree. A prehistorical Mars adapted to humans would be beautiful. And laws preventing people from doing so is unjust!

*Ah, but let's recall the old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

--Cindy

Auqakah · 2002-11-07 17:19:11

I was more referring to the fact that 'beauty' is irrelevant, really. Humanity's love affair with the aesthetic is the prime reason (IMEO) that we aren't already out among the stars. We're too damned caught up in things looking pretty, if you ask me.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-07 17:21:25

Actually, I'm going to have some renders soon of Mars. It's going to be cool, I'm going to do a rough calculation of Mars' current watershed, and render a terraformed Mars upon that calculation.

We'll have to compare it to current day, frozen Mars.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-07 17:24:40

Auqakah, then what rational reason is there to ?leave Mars alone??! The Reds, in KSR's Mars trilogy were stuck on Mars' ?beauty.? They had their ideal of how Mars should be. I admit that I have an ideal Mars, but it has nothing to do with ?beauty? to be perfectly honest. It just goes on the assumption that people ought to be free as possible. And it's hard to concieve of those people not terraforming in the distant future.

Auqakah · 2002-11-08 17:26:54

Despite the irritation that answering a question with a question might cause, I fear I must ask, what reason, then, is there to not leave Mars alone?

AltToWar · 2002-11-08 20:14:56

Despite the irritation that answering a question with a question might cause, I fear I must ask, what reason, then, is there to not leave Mars alone?

1: Mars as an escape pod

Most people would prefer human life to exist indefinately.

At present, should a cataclismic event take place on earth, human life will have ended.

Should we have 2 planets that can comfortably house humans, we can safely assume that human life can survive a cataclisim on either planet.

2: Mars as a new role for humans.

On earth humans are currently in the process of removeing life from the planet to make room for human life and human food.

To terraform mars will mean that humans will take on a new role. Of creating life.

Or failure to perserve biodiversity on earth could be, in some peoples eyes, made up for by creating biodiversity on a planet barren of life.

3: Mars as a bed for further tecnological growth.

The colonization of the americans spurred the greatest technological revolution in human history. Life expectancy, medical care, social equality, and raw human ability all were signifigantly increased.

Colonization of mars could promote a new renissance in human technology and culture.

4: Mars a Gift to the Future.

Instead of leaving a legacy of more hostile cultures with more destructive weapons with grater intent on using on eachother, we could give our childen and grand children a new world full of life for them to create a future of theor own choosing.

Culture on mars will have the benifit of learning from human history, with the ability of not being constrained by it.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-09 01:01:10

All very good points, AltToWar!

I think the most critical points you make are two and four, but it goes a lot further than humans simply propagating DNA-based species or being peace-loving individuals. Indeed, it's possible going to Mars could lead to a solar war and mass extinction to some unfortunate species that can't adapt to the Martian environment. The real driving force is that there could be no other experience like going and living on Mars, to put it bluntly!

But Auqakah's question goes further than that, I believe. Auqakah is specifically asking why we should terraform, or why we should colonize enmasse. I think answer would be that Mars ought not be an exclusive club; an exclusive protected park where no one but a few people can visit. Mars should be freely open to anyone who can get there. Under that assumption, it really is a matter of time before change begins to dominate. You can't keep people out forever.

But my vision of a far distant future Mars has nothing to do with terraforming. I've said it before, but it would be more like turning Mars into a previous version of itself. I think this is a good compromise. Mars' population could reach billions. Many many people could even live underground, keeping the surface as pristine as possible. Indeed, the possiblities are endless. I just think that keeping people from doing things which are not harmful, is a very bad idea.

Auqakah · 2002-11-09 12:38:40

My vision for Mars is as a scientific outpost, and as our first stop to the stars. But no more. Its just not useful enough, really. I mean, we could live in orbital stations if we as a species must be secure in our continued existance. Mars isnt needed for the whole of humanity; 'we need breathing room' wasn't excuse enough in 1939, and its not now.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-09 13:02:19

I think you dumb down Mars' usefulness. Indeed, Mars is very Earth-like from a resource perspective. If it had higher quantities of nitrogen and a magnetic field, it would probably have life similar to the life on Earth!

I don't think the breathing room argument is very good, since I think that if humanity was more efficient, our planetary capacity would be much much higher. We could have a planet covered in skyscrapers, as dull as that sounds. So in my mind, going to Mars wouldn't be expressly for a population growth. It would be because people want to go.

Although it's noble that Mars ought to be a scientific outpost, I don't think it's very realistic in the long term. People will eventually colonize. Think about it; every member of the Mars Society would probably like to live on Mars, if only for a little while!

One thing that makes Mars appealing, from a utilitarian perspective, is that we literally know more about it than any other planet in the solar system. Although that's no real reason to colonize (I think that imagination- basic desire- a feeling for an adventure; will be the main push for colonization), it certainly does help!

Auqakah · 2002-11-09 13:59:49

But other, more interesting planets will be discovered. Its just a matter of time. And then we'll see just how interesting people find Mars.

Although, I'm sure lots of people will want to live there... but will they stay? Towns and cities have often been established with high hopes, but have never grown to their full potential, because a better place to live arrived. With Mars, things might prove to be the same.

AltToWar · 2002-11-12 01:50:21

But other, more interesting planets will be discovered. Its just a matter of time. And then we'll see just how interesting people find Mars.
Although, I'm sure lots of people will want to live there... but will they stay? Towns and cities have often been established with high hopes, but have never grown to their full potential, because a better place to live arrived. With Mars, things might prove to be the same.

the closest star is what, 2.5 light years away?

As I recall Voyager is currently the fastest man made device created, and it will take 80,000 years to go 2.5 light years out from where it is now.

Unless you got a warp-coil in your pocket, Mars will remain the most viable location form surface colonization and resource explotation for centuries.

Auqakah · 2002-11-12 16:03:25

Yeah, and the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth, which is flat. And we'll never go to the moon; and recorded sound? Why, thats ridiculous.

Your point is?

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-12 22:19:56

I actually feel very bad for Reds, because I feel deep down, realistically, that terraformation will happen, eventually (if no unforeseen problems occur, like the extinction of mankind). If Reds take over Mars, and keep it from being terraformed, I don't know how long that can last. One would hope that it could last forever, but a Red populated Mars would have a very small population (in contrast to Earth), and the rest of mankind wouldn't think that was very fair. There would be really nothing Reds could do to stop terraformation from occuring.

AltToWar · 2002-11-12 22:43:55

Yeah, and the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth, which is flat. And we'll never go to the moon; and recorded sound? Why, thats ridiculous.
Your point is?

the point is, until Einstein is proven wrong, it will not be fiesable to travel to even the closest star within a couple human generations.

This leaves the contents of our solar system to be the single source of viable human expansions within any realitic near future context.

Auqakah · 2002-11-14 16:20:53

Einstein has already been proved wrong on a number of points. Therefore, it is feasible that he will be proved wrong on yet more points. And therefore, it is feasible that he will be proved wrong on the critical point, or someone will find a way around the whole problem. I think the latter is more likely, personally. But anyway; that means that it is already feasible - through a line of if's, I grant you - for humanity to visit other star systems. And... read your own signature:

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. -Henry David Thoreau

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-11-04 14:15:46

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#27 2002-11-04 15:29:07

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#28 2002-11-04 17:09:13

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#29 2002-11-04 19:45:33

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#30 2002-11-05 07:19:51

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#31 2002-11-05 08:40:52

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#32 2002-11-05 09:18:37

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#33 2002-11-05 14:29:24

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#34 2002-11-07 17:01:37

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#35 2002-11-07 17:05:50

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#36 2002-11-07 17:18:33

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#37 2002-11-07 17:19:11

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#38 2002-11-07 17:21:25

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#39 2002-11-07 17:24:40

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#40 2002-11-08 17:26:54

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#41 2002-11-08 20:14:56

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#42 2002-11-09 01:01:10

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#43 2002-11-09 12:38:40

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#44 2002-11-09 13:02:19

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#45 2002-11-09 13:59:49

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#46 2002-11-12 01:50:21

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#47 2002-11-12 16:03:25

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#48 2002-11-12 22:19:56

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#49 2002-11-12 22:43:55

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#50 2002-11-14 16:20:53

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

Board footer