Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

dickbill · 2002-11-14 18:17:15

Einstein proved wrong ? I think the general relativity still stands even If I can assure you that I understand nothing of einstein's theories, I just read the papers in scientific journals. It seems that the speed of the light is still the ultimate barrier of the macroscospic world. At the microscopic scale, I am not so sure if the notion of speed has a sense since the notion of position itself is not very defined because of the undetermination principle.
I mean, what about a spacecraft behaving like a particle, escaping its fuzzy position coordinate by "tunnel effect" because of the undetermination principle, rather than really moving in the space time ? but that's completely out of topic of this thread.

In the thread's topic I wanted to say that the name "reds" fits very well because of the indians, I mean the red-skins, who wanted to stay ecologically integrated in their world and refused to evolve, for example they would promote the "warrior's strength" rather than the "geek's ability to use the machine strength". And so the geeks inherited America...

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-14 18:43:07

The cosmological constant is often called Einstein's Blunder. It was totally wrong and Einstein regreted making it up. Indeed Einstein fought quantum physics most of his later years, but he eventually lost that battle.

Regardless of that, I don't think that we'd forego colonizing Mars simply because we have a speedy method of transportation out of the solar system. We'd be colonizing Mars because we want to, not because we have to do it out of necessity.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-14 19:17:51

I think Einstein was a little hard on himself with this 'greatest blunder of my life' thing.
When Einstein introduced the Cosmological Constant, everyone thought the universe was stationary ... the big bang hadn't been thought of. With all those star systems out there exerting gravitational influence on one another, why hadn't the whole thing collapsed on itself?
Einstein, using the best information available to him at the time, introduced a kind of negative gravity into the list of properties of the space/time continuum which would account for the anomaly.

It was only when the expansion of the universe was discovered that the need for the Cosmological Constant evaporated. So what? Scientific hypotheses are there to be demolished ... everything in science is up for grabs, by definition. Anything that is not falsifiable (such as a religious belief) is not science.

Lately, of course, with the discovery that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing rather than decreasing, the concept of negative gravity in the fabric of space has re-emerged. I think they call it Quintessence, and they've decided it must have always been there but was probably swamped by normal gravity when the universe was more compact. As the universe expands and the gravitational influence between stars diminishes accordingly, this 'dark energy' is coming into its own and accelerating the expansion. (That's my understanding of the current state of play but I'm willing to be corrected on any of this.)
So, in a sense, Einstein's Cosmological Constant has had a renaissance! Even though he invoked it for all the wrong reasons, he still managed to get it right ... AGAIN!!!

AltToWar · 2002-11-14 19:24:47

Blah!

It was proposed that mankind would lose interest in Mars because other planets more desireable would turn up eventually.

My argument is:
Our current lack of a working propellantless propoltion system, the theoretic speed limit to newtonian phisics, The issue of deminishing returns as you get close to that speed limit, the lack of any experimental ability to test 'warp' 'space bending' or 'worm hole' theories, and the current estimates of the energy requirement to perform any sort of time-space bending Push the concept of interstellar travel out of any reasonable near term time frame.

I think if you wish to earnestly plan for exploration and colonization of another planet, you need to consider actual technology that has either been proven to work or is at the very least beyond the theoretical stage and well int ot experimental.

A warp drive and a transporter would be neat things to have, but if we wait till we have them before we go out of LEO, we'll be waiting for quite a long time.

el scorcho · 2002-11-16 00:14:37

When human colonies are established on Mars, Luna and anywhere else in the solar system, simple travel between the planets will necessitize the development of more efficient propulsion. Gradually, systems will become faster and cheaper, perhaps at speeds approaching 90% light speed.

At 10% light speed, it would take something on the order of 40 years just to reach the nearest star system. In that same time frame, Mars could be colonized and well on its way to terraformation.

Basically, what I'm saying is that we will never find a way past the speed of light, we will never experiment with wormholes, and we will never "bend space" until we have colonized the solar system. Only when we are forced to develop current technologies will we begin to tinker with such Star Wars-esque concepts...all the more reason to colonize Mars!

Auqakah · 2002-11-17 15:27:30

I rather think that it will be a hundred years, maybe a little more, tops, before the speed of light is breached in one way or another.

We will reach out for the stars.

And when we do, Mars will be all-but forgotten. Which...

Will be great. More space left for us and our descendants there, right?

AltToWar · 2002-11-17 15:47:34

I rather think that it will be a hundred years, maybe a little more, tops, before the speed of light is breached in one way or another.
We will reach out for the stars.
And when we do, Mars will be all-but forgotten. Which...
Will be great. More space left for us and our descendants there, right?

I'll be happy if we get a human out of LEO.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-17 15:53:43

Fermi's Paradox would seem to suggest that travel outside of solar systems is either too costly, or impossible. But I'm with AltToWar, anything past LEO is good enough for me.

HeloTeacher · 2002-11-21 09:20:40

Auqakah, to say that a colonized Mars would be abandoned as soon as better worlds are available stands in spite of history. Throughout the expansion of man new territories have been discovered and colonized. Theses settlers did not all abandon their new homes when something better came along, many of them stayed on. Some examples that come to mind are the Canadian Arctic, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia. A colonized Mars would simply become over time one of the stepping stones that led the way out to new worlds.

soph · 2002-11-24 19:39:40

i was thinking the same thing as i read the posts. then theres the issue of practicality. if we could just pick up and leave, wouldnt we all live in multi million dollar mansions? the fact is that people will continue to live on mars (if we get there and settle it) because they will become tied to their homes, families, jobs, and money.

As for terraforming, I didnt read all the pages, but we've been terraforming earth for thousands of years. why stop here?

malfunkshun · 2003-04-14 17:23:46

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!

Its people like this that really 'tick' me off. How dare you put yourself in a position to presume what is or isn't 'morally' correct for human beings, a naturally occuring species, to do? Your personal moral and aesthetic preferences are steeped in a self-gratifying quagmire of self righteous, self gratyfying moral judgements which you presume to spray upon all those you survery. Screw you, says I. The human race will do what comes natural, for good or for ill... which is a TOTALLY objective observation. To PRESUME that we, as a species, will somehow cause an even which isn't NATURAL is presumptuous in the extreme.

Phobos · 2003-04-14 21:37:12

I second all of the above. :laugh:

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-15 00:09:36

I assume Malfunkshun knows that NovaMarsollia, an unpleasant troll, has been excommunicated and is no longer available for comment?

malfunkshun · 2003-04-15 11:17:42

didn't know that, thanks for the info

HeloTeacher · 2003-04-16 07:04:45

Auqakah talks about the immoral damage that would be inflicted on the planet Mars as a result of teraformation. I have to wonder if he is out there opposing every new tract of farmland or hydroelectric dam or any planet altering project on earth?

There is also a question of what exactly terraformation means. In my mind the terraformation that is likely to take place will be undertaken by the new colonists of Mars who are trying to make their home easier for their children and crops to survive in. Simply by being there, man will alter the nature of Mars as the myriad of lifeforms that live on our bodies escape our closed environments and attempt to colonize the empty landscape. If it is proven that extant Martian life exists then they will have to compete with each other to survive.

Environments have changed for millenia on Earth and while lately man has been the culprit, continental shift and tenacious individuals have done it as well. Life seeks to create life. We can either pursue this or choose to end all attempts at exploration outside of our own planet to prevent us from ever impinging on the pristine universe. A dismal choice to my eye.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-16 20:36:28

Hear hear!!

Undiluted common sense from HeloTeacher, as usual.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-16 23:43:53

Um, simple humans changes to the Earth's ecosystem doesn't change the ecosystem as a whole. Terraforming Mars would be changing the ecosystem as a whole. A hydroelectric dam here or there doesn't destory Earth as we know it. Terraforming Mars would destory Mars as we'd know it, however (even my ideas about a minimial plan would still create a large ocean).

Terraforming Mars would be the same as Martiforming Earth. Understand?

People on this forum ought to stop making gross generalizations about people to make themselves feel better about their view.

Terraforming, as I've always maintained, would occur for practical reasons, and then, we have social variables to consider. If Mars becomes a sovereign, totally independent planet, and large majority of those on Mars don't want anything to do with Earth, what right do we have to terraform? Anyone attempting such actions could rightly be called terrorists.

If we're going to let the Martians decide (and we damn well better), then obviously it could go in any direction. The future is unpredictable.

soph · 2003-04-17 08:43:49

Terraforming Mars would be changing the ecosystem as a whole. A hydroelectric dam here or there doesn't destory Earth as we know it. Terraforming Mars would destory Mars as we'd know it, however (even my ideas about a minimial plan would still create a large ocean).

And if Mars had existed as a wet, warm planet at one point? Or, if "destroying Mars" would bring life to it?

But humans have destroyed Earth as a whole. Desertification of the Sahara, erosion, that destroys a planet. We are planning to do the very opposite on Mars. We would not be destroying a planet, we would be returning it to a more bio-friendly state.

Terraforming Mars would be the same as Martiforming Earth. Understand?

No, it would not. Complex life exists on Earth. Mars, at this point, is a rock, maybe inhabited by microbes, which probably would not be hurt by terraformation. Sucking life dry from Earth is not the same as making Mars suitable for life!

If Mars becomes a sovereign, totally independent planet, and large majority of those on Mars don't want anything to do with Earth, what right do we have to terraform? Anyone attempting such actions could rightly be called terrorists.

If the people do not want it, then I agree, it should not go on. However, at the point that Mars is a totally independent planet, terraforming would most likely be well underway-large water resources would have been needed to get to that point.

And I can't see why people would choose to live in a desert, when they could bring life to the planet.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-17 08:46:28

I'm with you all the way Josh.

Let the Martians decide. The people of Earth should just focus on building the infrastructure and transportation systems to get there.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-17 16:17:14

And if Mars had existed as a wet, warm planet at one point? Or, if "destroying Mars" would bring life to it?

That doesn't change the fact that we'd be changing Mars to something that it isn't currently. This silly argument could then be used to change Earth back to it's pre-life days, when the place was a hell-hole except for the simplist organisms.

But humans have destroyed Earth as a whole. Desertification of the Sahara, erosion, that destroys a planet.

Um, Earth is very robust. It can handle a lot of human crap. So will Mars, probably. You're just grasping at straws here, really. Even if we wind up causing another ice age or something drastic, we'd still manage to come out of it.

We are planning to do the very opposite on Mars. We would not be destroying a planet, we would be returning it to a more bio-friendly state.

...

You just missed the whole point, soph, my friend. I can't even see how you jumped to your conclusion. Perhaps because you fail to see that turning Earth into a Mars-like planet doesn't necessarily mean destroying life.

No, it would not. Complex life exists on Earth. [...] Sucking life dry from Earth is not the same as making Mars suitable for life!

Um. Who said we would have to? A Martiformed Earth would just be the same as a dome covered Mars. Understand? Life would still exist. Probably in better conditions than it exists now (the ecosystem could be much purer since we'd understand it and have control over everything- and we'd have moved past the whole wastefullness of our society).

We're not sucking life dry from Earth. Get past your simple preconceptions.

If the people do not want it, then I agree, it should not go on.

And if it does, without the peoples consent, before a world governmental structure is created (like say, by some big megacorp who thinks they can do what they want), I suggest that we may have a future event wherein pissed off Martians Martiform Earth.

And I can't see why people would choose to live in a desert, when they could bring life to the planet.

To each his own.

I can't see why people would chose to live in a skyscraper invested city.

I can't see why people would live in a really cold place.

I can't see why people would live in a really hot place.

Blah blah.

soph · 2003-04-17 18:29:23

That doesn't change the fact that we'd be changing Mars to something that it isn't currently. This silly argument could then be used to change Earth back to it's pre-life days, when the place was a hell-hole except for the simplist organisms.

Mars didn't make a conscious choice to become a hell-hole. The biosphere has changed Mars consciously for the past few billion years. You almost make it seem as if Mars is some sentient being, capable of choosing its fate.

Um, Earth is very robust. It can handle a lot of human crap. So will Mars, probably. You're just grasping at straws here, really. Even if we wind up causing another ice age or something drastic, we'd still manage to come out of it.

The only reason we would, is because life has changed Earth to be more suitable for the survival of life. Mars is dead. You're trying to make a point here that really means nothing in terms of terraformation.

You just missed the whole point, soph, my friend. I can't even see how you jumped to your conclusion. Perhaps because you fail to see that turning Earth into a Mars-like planet doesn't necessarily mean destroying life.
Um. Who said we would have to? A Martiformed Earth would just be the same as a dome covered Mars. Understand? Life would still exist. Probably in better conditions than it exists now (the ecosystem could be much purer since we'd understand it and have control over everything- and we'd have moved past the whole wastefullness of our society).
We're not sucking life dry from Earth. Get past your simple preconceptions.

Simple preconceptions? We can't even maintain a tiny ecosystem, how are we going to recreate the biosphere in domes? How are you going to simulate all the Earth climates? You would wipe out all the major biomes and any aquatic life in existence. Of course "Martiforming" Earth would wipe out most of the life on Earth.

I can't see why people would chose to live in a skyscraper invested city.

They obviously had a reason for building it that way. You are trying to come up with some strawman argument here, once again irrelevant. People built skyscraper cities because they wanted them, the same way as people build homes because they want to live in them. I don't remember anyone giving up prime real estate in New York City to live in the Sahara Desert.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-17 20:36:58

You almost make it seem as if Mars is some sentient being, capable of choosing its fate.

Bullcrap, you know well and good that I'm talking about the Martians. They will chose Mars' fate, if they're allowed to and terrformation isn't done without their consent.

The only reason we would, is because life has changed Earth to be more suitable for the survival of life.

Um, just to clarify for you, an ice age wouldn't necessarily cause mass extinction. I was just saying that if there was an ice age we'd still be ?Earth-like.?

Mars is dead. You're trying to make a point here that really means nothing in terms of terraformation.

Sure, Mars is ?dead.? It doesn't rain on Mars and trees don't grow there. There are no animals roaming the plains and there are no birds in the sky.

But this does not make Mars any ?less better? than Earth, because of that simple, contrived, variable. In fact, it just shows that Mars holds potentially more to those who will live there.

For us on Earth, we might enjoy seeing animals run along a plain and flocks of birds sway back and forth in the wind. For a Martian, they may enjoy seeing dust devils and sunsets with Phobos streaking across the sky.

This, again, is an asthetic argument. Neither argument is better or more right than another. Problem is, you're missing the point completely because you think that, somehow magically, because Earth is teaming with life, it makes it better than Mars as it currently is.

We can't even maintain a tiny ecosystem, how are we going to recreate the biosphere in domes?

Um, who said we'd need to recreate the biosphere in domes? have you ever been to a zoo? Life in a zoo is hardly a recreation of life outside of a zoo. A bird which lives in a zoo tends to, you know, live in a cage. A lion doesn't roam plains and hunt gazelle, they live in a pretty enclosed space and eat meat already cut up for them. Of course, it's not the same as Earth, but again, we're changing Earth to Mars, we don't need the environment of Earth, We just need enough to keep whatever alive.

Don't you find it funny how you attach the environment of Earth to whether something is ?living? or not? You go off on silly tangents about biospheres and simulating Earth climates without even realizing that we don't need a perfect simulation to keep something alive. You seem to be falling into the same trap everyone accuses the Reds of being in.

Of course "Martiforming" Earth would wipe out most of the life on Earth.

And yet, again soph fails to show this. We might wipe out some life (I would find it hard to categorize all of it), but to say that it would wipe out most life on Earth is a stretch. We'd just have lots of zoos, that's all. Of course, I'm sure soph here will respond, and attach the Terran environment to whether something is ?living? or not.

We'll get him confessing his fringe environmentalist beliefs yet!

They obviously had a reason for building it that way. You are trying to come up with some strawman argument here, once again irrelevant.

You totally missed the point soph, yet again. I am a country boy. When I first moved to the city, I thought everything was amazing, but after awhile I was totally annoyed by the environment.

Just like someone who is used to cold weather will probably not enjoy warm weather. This had absolutely nothing to do with ?why? the city exists (I have no idea where you got that silly notion from). This has everything to do with whether or not I enjoy that lifestyle.

A.J. certainly has a point about the lowlands being covered in water after terraformation. And I certainly agree with the majority on these forums who believe in terraformation. But I don't delude myself and pretend that there's not a legitimate argument for not terraforming.

I don't remember anyone giving up prime real estate in New York City to live in the Sahara Desert.

Heh, people don't mind the middle east, though, as long as they have air conditioning and access to food and water and so on. A good test would be to build a CELSS in the middle of the Sahara Desert (The Biosphere III project should attempt to build three biospheres. One in a really cold place, one in a really hot place, and one in a really cloudy place.) Then you would have people living there, and in style, might I add.

Living on Mars would be ten times more amazing than living on prime NYC real estate.

Phobos · 2003-04-17 20:44:06

Mars didn't make a conscious choice to become a hell-hole. The biosphere has changed Mars consciously for the past few billion years. You almost make it seem as if Mars is some sentient being, capable of choosing its fate.

Good points, gotta love misanthropic, half-baked eco-spirituality. If if the meme that humanity is nothing but a cancer on the planet and that our progress only leads to its destruction becomes universal we will never be colonizing space. We will choose to keep ourselves quarantined on this planet until the next natural ice age in the next 10,000 years or so wipes us and most higher life out, an ice age that has nothing to do with meddling from humans. All life on this planet will eventually go extinct whether there are humans here or not, and in the very far future, terraforming Mars or some other place may be the only option for saving a lot of it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-17 20:48:17

Oh please, if we can terraform Mars we can Terraform Earth. It's that simple. Where do people come up with these silly arguments?

Palomar · 2003-04-18 06:16:08

Bullcrap, you know well and good that I'm talking about the Martians. They will chose Mars' fate, if they're allowed to and terrformation isn't done without their consent.

*I see your point, Josh...and just our luck, the future Marsians will complain amongst themselves: "They [the planners and first settlers] had all that time to begin the terraforming process, but they didn't. All that time lost; they could have gotten a jump-start on the process for us. But did they? No. It makes you wonder just how sincere they were about wanting to colonize this planet. They left it all up to us, all those years wasted: Thanks alot!"

Yep...I can just hear it. :laugh:

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-11-14 18:17:15

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#52 2002-11-14 18:43:07

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#53 2002-11-14 19:17:51

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#54 2002-11-14 19:24:47

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#55 2002-11-16 00:14:37

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#56 2002-11-17 15:27:30

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#57 2002-11-17 15:47:34

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#58 2002-11-17 15:53:43

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#59 2002-11-21 09:20:40

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#60 2002-11-24 19:39:40

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#61 2003-04-14 17:23:46

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#62 2003-04-14 21:37:12

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#63 2003-04-15 00:09:36

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#64 2003-04-15 11:17:42

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#65 2003-04-16 07:04:45

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#66 2003-04-16 20:36:28

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#67 2003-04-16 23:43:53

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#68 2003-04-17 08:43:49

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#69 2003-04-17 08:46:28

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#70 2003-04-17 16:17:14

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#71 2003-04-17 18:29:23

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#72 2003-04-17 20:36:58

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#73 2003-04-17 20:44:06

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#74 2003-04-17 20:48:17

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

#75 2003-04-18 06:16:08

Re: Your Ethical Questions Addressed - Ecoethics and terraformation

Board footer