You are not logged in.
MARS EXISTS FOR ITSELF, NOT FOR SCIENCE!
I'm interested to learn that many of you appreciate the sense of not spoiling Mars before we learn more about it - but does not the planet (and more to the point, the potential lifeforms on the planet) possess more value than being just a great factory for scientific knowledge making? What's the use of learning about the secrets of Martian biology/geology if we have no recognition of the value of that biology and geology after it has supplied us with knowledge? What I mean to say is: Mars' value is more than just of an instrumental kind: its value is independent of the scientific use that humans can harvest from it. From this point of view we must consider that Mars - as a possessor of intrinsic, as well as instrumental value - might best be left alone, whether or not terraforming spoils its value for science.
Offline
Like button can go here
Og say: "Earth outside tropical Africa have value for self, not just tool-making."
Human: the other red meat.
Offline
Like button can go here
Mars isn't a living being. It couldn't careless what happens to it anymore than a rock cares whether you kick it or not. It's just an aggregate of materials that swirled together 4.5 billion years ago that may host a microbe or two.
Og say: "Earth outside tropical Africa have value for self, not just tool-making."
Guk say "aye, we stay here till we all dead"
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
Like button can go here
Mars has no value, but then again, neither do we. All that can be said is that there is an equality of value- all things that exsist are equal in value because they all share the same properties of exsistence.
"But, hey, I can think, so I'm worth more! Right?"
Wrong.
We exsist, just as a rock, a tree, or a planet. However, we differeniate all of these things by classfing them in accordance to their relation to us as individual perceptions. We value the properties of our exsistence as being intrinsincally worth more than the properties of exsistence that define a rock, a tree, or a planet.
"I can think, the rock cannot, therefore I am worth more, and the rock is worth less".
This is how we think- how we humans make sense of the world. But it is a false rationale that supports the logic of this simplistic system.
As soon as we say "I can think, therfore I am worth more" we have added an arbitray qualifier to seperate ourselves, and apply value.
"But how can the act of valuing thinking be arbitrary, isn't it intrinsincally worth more than a rock?"
No.
If we accept the PROCES wherby we value humans above rocks, we must neccessarily ask what are the qualifiers that establish this value- which is, being a human. But then what is a human? Thinking? Why is that special? Why is that more important or better than being a fly, a planet, or a tree?
There used to be a time when humans qualified when someone was a person, or when they were "sub-human"- based on arbitrary qualifiers like german, white, landowner, black, jew, etc.
Why is it that some feel eating meat is wrong, but other feel eating meat is okay? Different and arbitrary value systems. The same people who say they cannot eat meat support their view based on the idea that meat = murder of another living thing. Many (not all) hold that murder of life is wrong- however, these same people eat plants- which is just another form of life- but they do not hold that as murder- they qualify the act of eating meat as wrong becasue the animal can think or whatever- the plant however does not meet this qualifier...
But, back to the point: Mars does have a value, which is equal to the value of each of us individualy. However, there is no definitve value for anything.
But you know, this argument falls all apart if we just take one giant step back and look at the situation.
We exsist, and as far as we can tell, we can appreciate our own exsistence. Also, as far as we can tell, the planet Mars, a rock, a tree, or even a microbe cannot appreciate it's own exsistence. Neither can a baby, true, but a baby has the potential.
Since these objects cannot appreciate their own exsistence, any manipulation or use of them for our benefit, in any manner, is acceptable since nothing is being denied the objects- they exsist, and will continue to exsist- how they are perceived or utilized is changed- but their exsistence is assured.
If we terraform Mars, it will still exsist. It will look different, but then again, I doubt Mars really cares what it looks like.
As for the microbes, if we accept that we must protect them then we set a precednet whereby we must never alter the environment to such an extent as to violate the ability of any microbe, virus included, to exsist.
The end logic is that people with colds would have to take measures to support the flu's exsistence within it's environment- where does it stop?
Offline
Like button can go here