Do we have an ethical right to terraform Mars?

[Rabrrrrrr]

I'm watching the Science Channel series "Mars" (or some fucking name like that) and the episode I'm watching now has a little segment about terraforming Mars - building factories that would create an atmosphere like earth, and giant Texas-sized mirrors reflecting sunlight onto the planet to increase the temperature, and etc., so that humans could live there.

Is that ethical?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Sure

why not?

Unless the Martians object, of course.

[pitohui]

2. why wouldn't it be?

is it ethical to sit on our hands and go "oh woe" instead of trying to do something to create some habitat for zillions of people coming up behind us? large parts of the earth are turning to desert, maybe we'd better learn something about this terraforming crap while we can -- and maybe it would be better to practice on another planet first, since when we do it here, we'll need to get it right the first time

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. What if Mars has life?

[baldguy]

35. Well, they can try their damnest to - areoform?- earth.

And may the best microbes win.

[pitohui]

119. what if it doesn't?

it clearly doesn't have macroscopic life so i say screw it and save ourselves, times a-wasting

[Oeditpus Rex]

12. Have you not read the Prime Directive?

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. Her Prime Directive is rather..... un Star Trek like

and self-absorbed.

[Oeditpus Rex]

3. 'We are not engaged in planet-building'

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Tee hee

:rofl:

[darkstar]

7. hahaha

Better dead than red....

[Solon]

5. Considering that Mars is, as far as we know, uninhabited....

there are no ethical concerns. Those would only be raised if we find evidence of indigenous life on the planet. Even then, if the most complex life forms are not any more complex than bacteria or simple multicellular lifeforms like on Earth, the ethical considerations are limited. Such life forms, if found, could be kept in environmentally isolated habitats on the planet itself, both for scientific research and conservation.

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. But even without life on the planet, does the planet itself have rights?

Is it not an entity unto itself, the right to interfere with perhaps we do not have?

[Solon]

15. A planet has no more rights than a rock...

Besides, its existence wouldn't be threatened by humans terraforming it, it has enough natural hazards that could destroy right now. The fact is that Mars, once fully terraformed, would have the same habitable land area as Earth does now, with a Northern Ocean and many lakes and rivers, though it would still be drier than Earth, on a global level. Simply put, its too big an opportunity to pass up once we can economically find a way to begin the terraforming process.

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. But how is "hazards that could destroy it right now" different from white supremecy?

It sounds like a "but without us, they'd actually be worse off!" kind of argument.

[Solon]

21. Uhm, OK, now you really diverged from...

logical reasoning. I'm done now.

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. Why is it a divergence?

How is saying that Mars is okay to terraform any different than those who said that cutting down every tree in northern US was okay? Or that coal mining mountain top removal in West Virginia is okay? Or that lead in our paint was okay?

How do we know there wouldn't be some kind of disastrous effect from terraforming Mars?

And that question, of course, is a very human-centered question.

Going beyond human-centered, how do we know that terraforming Mars wouldn't be, in an ethical sense, an imposition from colonialists (like the English colonials who utterly fucked up India or Native Americans or Hawaiians or Aborigines in Australia) on a totally innocent being? Do we have the right to utterly and irrevocably change the natural state of Mars? Does Mars, in and of itself, have a right to remain as it is?

[Solon]

25. Unless Mars is some type of sentient planetary computer...

None of your questions have any relevance to the discussion.

[Rabrrrrrr]

72. Why does it need to be sentient?

Could we ever be truly certain that any "dead" planet was truly dead, and that there isn't some kind of life somewhere that we would be screwing up if we terraformed?

And why does a "dead" planet have no rights, but a "living" planet has them?

[Solon]

87. Who said a "living" planet has rights?

I surely didn't. Besides that, we don't threaten the Earth itself, it'll be fine for billions of years after we are gone. The fact of the matter is that when we talk about "taking care" of the planet, we are talking about its biosphere, but in addition, its a form of SELF preservation. I frankly don't really give a shit about the spotted owl, when you get right down to it, but mindlessly eradicating species like them doesn't bode well for the long term health of the biosphere we rely on to survive. Environmentalism is about saving Humanity, first and foremost.

As I said in the earlier post, if Mars HAS a biosphere, then we should take steps to preserve it, however, if it doesn't, then there are no ethical problems with terraforming it.

[quip]

92. Great points. In the end, it is about saving our own asses.

The earth can handle anything we mere pawns could dish out, and come back in style as if we never were.

[Rabrrrrrr]

105. You brought up sentient, which implies life.

Though you did say "sentient planetary computer", I take "sentient" to mean that whatever it is that is sentient is, for all intents and purposes, a life form.

You may have a human-centric view, but I cannot share that view. ALL life is precious to me. Environmentalism is about preserving and respecting the environment - it's not just about saving or perpetuating our own asses.

In my opinion, of course. I take a much larger picture of things. Along with all life being precious, all that is non-living is also precious to me. In my opinion, we not only need to change our collective attitude that the earth is here to provide for our needs and is nothing but a resource to be raped, but we need to change it to an attitude of actually living in harmony with it so that the tenth generation from us has the same kind of place to live that we have, OR a better place.

[Oeditpus Rex]

28. ...

[quip]

38. Gort, Klaatu barada nikto

[quip]

29. You've found and smoked some really good weed, haven't you!

Really. You can't be serious.

[petronius]

61. You know how many Martian meteorites have hit Earth over the millenia?

Mars fucked with us first, man. It's time we gave that smirking blob of red dirt what it's got coming to it...

[Rabrrrrrr]

71. Oh, sure, terraforming as a form of vengeance and an act of pure hate I can deal with.

But doing it for our own needs seems immoral.

:P

[yawnmaster]

93. Nature acts because of needs

Is it ethical for a swarm of Army ants to leave their hive, kill and clear everything it their path, take over a new area and make it their own?
Why do they do this? For their own need.

When a falcon kills a pigeon or duck and eats it, why does it do it? For its own need.

When a male lion kills the young of a lioness that it did not sire...yep...its own need.

Is any of this immoral...or unethical?

Why do we plow land, grow crops, then kill the plants (or steers,pig, sheep, etc.) and eat it? For our own needs.

If we need to expand to another planet, then we should, especially if the planet is a lifeless rock.

[Fox Mulder]

20. Didn't you see this photo?

(Tiny)Bigfoot lives on Mars!

:silly:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

78. Forget about him..

What about this guy?



Granted, he has tried to blow up the Earth. Does the DHS know about him?

[ghostsofgiants]

86. Is he checking his watch?

Mars-bus running late?

[Frank Cannon]

9. Why not? We terraformed Earth...

the first time we destroyed our homeworld and had to emigrate.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. Xenu? Is that you?

[darkstar]

11. That's the crux right there

New. Improved. What used to take 10,000 yrs now done in a single human lifespan! No more drudgery! Living off-world is sexy.

[Solon]

19. We could actually terraform Venus as well...

It would require a more radical transformation than Mars, for example, knocking around comets to impact the planet to "import water" so to speak. One of the ways to begin the process is to create an extremely thin solar blocker that would decrease the solar radiation reaching Venus completely. In other words, creating a "sun screen" that's about twice the radius of the planet. We could have the technology to build such a device in as little as 20 years, perhaps less.

Oddly enough, after blocking out the sun's rays from Venus, just letting it cool down on its own, it would take centuries before it cools down enough for humans to even think about setting foot on the surface, and that's with space suits. The most radical way to transform it is to wait until the atmosphere freezes, and then send mobile factories to reprocess the ice to have roughly the same composition as Earth's atmosphere, with far less carbon dioxide.

In as little as 10,000 years, we would have yet a third habitable planet in the solar system.

[krispos42]

67. It might be faster to....

Make something like the space elevator, only it's a giant vacuum. Sucks up the atmosphere and pumps it up to the top of the orbit, spraying it away into the solar wind.

Like a 50-foot diameter pipe with a turbine at the bottom end of it, keeping pace with the ever-present windstorms at one end and always pointing radially outward.

The carbon dioxide can be process to make carbon for carbon nanotubes... to make more pipes!


Call me strange... :-)

[DarkTirade]

27. That's just silly.

We didn't do that, the velociraptors did that. Then when they started screwing up this one they summoned the comet and left for another planet.

We're just a happy accident that resulted from that sequence of events.

[LostInAnomie]

14. Ethical, schmethical!

I want some three boobed Total Recall aliens! NOW!

[darkstar]

16. tri-boobage rocks

:hi:

[LostInAnomie]

18. No joke.

In fact, the genetic engineering that would make a chick grow a third boob would probably be much easier than terra-forming Mars. Maybe that is where we should invest our resources. It's definitely a higher priority for me.

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Only if we also develop the gene for "And I want to let any guy touch them who wants to".

Otherwise, it's just a waste of resources.

[Book Lover]

42. Sadly for you folks, I have a strong suspicion the

"get-the-fuck-away-from-me"-followed-by-a-healthy-right-cross gene is dominant against the gene you propose. :-)

[yawnmaster]

94. What are you going to do with the third boob??

Will males have a third hand? (I assume you aren't implying being able to supply more food for babies).

Oh wait...I just imagined how it would work...

nevermind.

[pokerfan]

99. It's a beautiful thing ain't it?

[yawnmaster]

101. and strangely stimulating

why is that?

[puerco-bellies]

24. It is within our biological imperative to alter our environment to suit our needs.

If we can reach and establish a presence on mars we have an intrinsic right to terraform. There is nothing unethical about following our nature. The only question would be if doing so would destroy a preexisting biome. If it is terraform or die, a species survival is purely ethical. If our existence is not threatened, and if it destroys another biological system then I personally believe that terraforming would be unethical.

[Lethe]

39. ridiculous!

biological imperative?

following our nature....? you mean as hunter-gatherers for 99% of human's evolutionary past compared to the recent 10,000 years as agriculturists?

humans evolved as hunter-gatherers in a loose tribal association......they lived within their environment and thrived by existing within nature....not as a controller of nature.

[Kali]

40. interesting fantasy

[Lethe]

41. please explain

please :)

what was fantasy?

[Kali]

43. I dont' buy it

"..they lived within their environment and thrived by existing within nature....not as a controller of nature."

Wishful thinking. The only thing limiting impact was low population, not lifestyle.

[Lethe]

44. exactly

low population was because of their lifestyle....hunter-gatherer

agriculture brings about massive blooms in human population, which gives rise to civilization and all its ills. Why would a hunter-gather society try to artificially limit its population? It's population is limited based on ecological factors, just like any other species.

edit: and even agriculture only has its limits....which is dependent on petro-chemicals to produce fertilizers and seeds

[Kali]

45. where do you get the idea H/G's have naturally limited populations?

I'm saying populations were low because they hadn't built up yet. As in a whole new species filling the planet. In fact they did fill in and begin to alter other species populations and local environments dramatically prior to the advent of agriculture.

[Lethe]

46. it's based on the Theory of Evolution by Darwin

we are animals.

Hunter-gatherer societies cannot support large numbers of people compared to agriculture. In Hunter-gatherer societies, the population was limited based on things you could kill and berries you could gather. (and small scale horticulture) They had a 50% or greater infant mortality rate.

Populations exploded because of the invention of agriculture, which is the story of Genesis. Populations cannot explode without sufficient food to fuel them, which is what agriculture did.

[Kali]

49. I'm not saying agriculture wasn't a huge change or arguing

the effects of ag - I'm saying pre-ag hunter/gatherers altered environments too.

[Lethe]

52. they did

-especially with small scale horticulture

If they hunted their prey to extinction, then they would soon follow.

but agriculture introduces another whole vocabulary and way of thought. Agriculture requires land, and land ownership...a concept previously unknown.

[Kali]

57. territorialism was not invented with agriculture

not even with homo sapiens, get real

This started because you asserted the fantasy that hunter/gatherer societies were benign in their environments. I disagree. There is plenty of evidence, especially on this continent, that there was much impact and manipulation of the environment prior to settled agriculture. Again I am not denying the impacts of agriculture, just disagreeing that hunter/gatherers were inherently benign.

[Lethe]

58. when did i say that?

no.

Nowhere did I say that hunter-gatherer societies were "benign" in their environments. They survived anyway that they could. I am asserting the fact that we are animals, nothing more nothing less. Any creature is "benign" in it's own environment, because thats the environnment it evolved in.

What I did say is that hunter-gatherer societies are what we evolved from.

Nonetheless...land ownership concepts only came about with agriculture.

[puerco-bellies]

60. Subsitute ownership to territorality.

When homo sapien man radiated to Neanderthal areas, one ceased to be. Hunter gatherer societies fiercely defended their range from all other bands. Early man hunted megafauna in the Pleistocene, and the mega fauna died out. Man did not become extinct, he shifted his behavior and hunted different creatures, and horticulture soon if not immediately followed.

[Lethe]

62. But hunter-gatherers never claimed to "own" the land

this is a distinct difference. Only with agriculture do you see people trying to "own" the land.

[puerco-bellies]

63. The primary difference is ownership is a legal concept.

The effect is the same. A band of hunter/gatherers lay claim to certain areas at certain time/seasons. Even without the help of lawyers, the concept of ownership/right to resources of specific lands predated agriculture. I come from nomadic stalk, and to this day the Zuni, Navajo, Hopi, and many other nations knew exactly where Apache lands were. We believe that we are a part of the world and it of us, but god help you if you tried to take, or even intrude upon our lands.

[Lethe]

64. Human conflict is always certain

Native americans might have thought they had a right to the land (because they had lived there a long time), but that is different concept from ownership.

Also - native americans are not necesarily hunter-gatherers.

[puerco-bellies]

65. The Chiricahua were.

Very rarely did we plant corn and squash. We mostly were hunters/gatherers, nomads within a defined area.

[Kali]

75. they sure as hell were for thousands of years

and many still were at contact

[Connonym]

47. one word for you -- corn

I can't tell people this often enough, read The Omnivore's Dilemma and it'll change the way you look at agriculture and how much we as a species have fucked shit up in the name of corn

[Kali]

50. see post above (#49)

[puerco-bellies]

51. Not so.

We learned to alter our environ by using plant, and animal material to shod our feet, and warm our bodies. We alter our environment by creating tools. The use of tools, fashioning forms of shelter, fire are innate to modern, and early forms of mankind. Terraforming would just be an extension of the manipulation of our environment. The macro equivalent of a deerskin blanket. To manipulate our environment is in fact innate, and a defining characteristic of mankind.

[Lethe]

55. Tis Folly

So you are equating wearing a deerskin blanket with completely terraforming another planet?

JESUS CHRIST!

[puerco-bellies]

56. Do you not agree that they are a minipulation of our enviornment?

As my sweety is fond of saying, "it's a continuum". The scale is vastly different, and of course the latter is yet to be achievable. Would you not agree that they are both forms of manipulation of the environment?

[Rabrrrrrr]

70. I've thought about since reading your earlier post a while ago

And at first I agreed - terraforming and wearing deerskin boots are the same thing, just with a difference in scale.

But as I thought about it, I don't think that it's a natural analogy - terraforming requires the fullscale destruction of one environment to create from it another one. It's not just mere manipulation, such as cutting down trees to make a field to plant corn, or cutting up a deer to make meat, shoes, and coats.

Granted, Mars has no "environment" as we would consider it, but even a dead planet has an environment: the environment of "dead planet".

[puerco-bellies]

114. To clear trees is full scale destruction of that environment, if you were one of the trees.

All environmental issues are local, and scalable. If you were the deer providing the deerskin your perception would be different as well. Mars, if our engineering skills were capable would be the equivalent of a deerskin. One last thought. At one time mars had oceans and atmosphere, so we would in fact be restoring it to original conditions.
Peace,
P-b

[krispos42]

66. We began "thriving" when we began planting stuff

Dramatically increasing our available food supply.

When we began increasing our food supply, we were able to support a class of people that didn't have to work all year making food. Intellectuals.

[Kali]

76. of course the downside is we also gave control of food to others

and now we have Monsanto.

[krispos42]

80. Well, that's an extremely recent development

Learning curve, I guess!

[Kali]

81. sure monsanto and seed patents are recent, but we gave up the control

as soon as we stepped away from producing our own food and allowed others (farmers) to produce it and even "worse" were/are the keepers and distributors (ruling classes/priests etc)

[krispos42]

83. That's why we need more family farms...

...and less agricultural monopolies.

Yeah, the family farm is a sophisticated business nowaday, but keeping the suppliers numerous and diverse instead of concentrated would be good.

Unfortunately, if we're going to have specialization in other fields, like medicine and science and technology, it's going to occur in business as well, including agriculture.

And overall I think we're better for it. Nearly all of us are interdependent. Bad if there's a disaster, but good otherwise.

Besides, I'm not cut out to be a farmer. I like steelworking instead! :-)

[pokerfan]

85. Damn sodbusters

Always suspected that they were the cause of our problems. How dare they sell us food! Who do they think they are?

[yawnmaster]

95. HG to agro...because it is our nature

changing from hunter gatherers to agriculturists is our nature.
The change was not artificial. If we become a controller of nature, then that is our nature.
Because our species was HG for 99% of the time its been on Earth does not mean that is what we are now.
It became our nature to control the environment.

Thats what man does (and one can argue that HG's do it also).

[DarkTirade]

26. Unless there's life there that we'd be disrupting, I don't see why not.

[Lethe]

30. no

and we dont have a right to practice agriculture on Earth either

[yawnmaster]

96. nor does any other species

What right do leaf cutter ants have to harvest leaves and grow their own fungus??
And do you know how much greenhouse gas termites create with their ugly skyscrapers?

[Swede]

31. Sure. Drop a couple big comets,instant heat and water.

No problemo.

[pokerfan]

32. Read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy

beginning with "Red Mars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy

[Beetwasher]

123. Just Posted The Exact Same Thing

How awesome were those books? Loved 'em.

[Rabrrrrrr]

124. Yeah - posted it 45.43 hours later.

:P

Now that it's been recommended twice, I'll buy it and read it! I absolutely LOVED Icehenge! Fucking awesome novel. But I've read nothing else by Robinson.

Thanks to both of you!

[Beetwasher]

126. Heh

Leave it to you to nitpick, asshole. :evilgrin: :hi:

[pokerfan]

125. KSR borrowed a lot of concepts from Zubrin's Mars Direct

and I thought that he handled the ethical arguments in a fair manner.

Fantastic series.

[Beetwasher]

127. Not Familiar W/ Zubrin

Might have to check it out.

As to KSR's handling of the ethics, not only did he handle it fairly (and pretty damn comprehensively and realistically) as you put it, but I would be surprised if he's not prophetic should we ever colonize and attempt to terraform Mars.

[pokerfan]

129. Zubrin

Former rocket engineer and founder of the Mars Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin

Got to meet him at one of the first Mars Conventions along with Buzz Aldrin, the late Bob Forward (I got about an hour alone with Bob outside on of the seminars) and even James Cameron.

Mars Direct is a method of flying to Mars directly without having to first assemble a ship in Earth orbit. Same way we went to the moon and with a booster not much larger than the Saturn V, perhaps shuttle derived. It makes use of in situ production of propellant. Turns out that it's a fraction of the cost of the origianl NASA plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

[Beetwasher]

131. Cool!

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[Book Lover]

33. Well...

who's gonna stop us?

[Inchworm]

34. Hells yea!

We should start off with smallpox clammered blankets to get rid of any Martians.

hmm..

make them travel to Pluto?

:shrug:

[Inchworm]

59. I love Mars!!

Weeeee!

:rofl:

[bridgit]

36. Yup! And I say the sooner the better or there'll be trouble plenty!!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/terraforming.htm">

[Fire Walk With Me]

37. Look what we've done to this little gem. We should fix it completely before being worthy

to move in anywhere else, after having truly and completely learned the lessons of not damaging what you find, and to live along with it, not to force it to be what you want.

As an old girlfriend said, "If we went into space, we wouldn't behave."

[yawnmaster]

97. At what point to we define it to be fixed?

What is the base point for "fixed"?
How do we know when we've fixed it?

[Connonym]

48. It's not only ethical, it's the RIGHT thing to do...

if we can send all the fundies and freepers to live there

[lligrd]

53. Forget Mars, Saturnian Moon Has Oil Reserves

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080213/ts_afp/spaceastronomysaturntitanenergy_080213220003;_ylt=AnuNKjJ.hfzamjDjG2kQhBqs0NUE

I bet Cheney is foaming at the mouth. Wasted his time in Iraq when he should have been pushing NASA to invade the Saturnian Moon.

[amitten]

54. If we trashed Earth, we will trash throughout the galaxy like a

growing cancer until stopped.

If Earth becomes unlivable, I say we get what we deserve and should have to stay.

PS--Ever read "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury? You should.

[Xithras]

68. If there is no life, then there is no reason not to.

The rights enjoyed by living things on Earth (and presumably other planets when we discover them) aren't there for no reason. We afford rights to other creatures and plants because they either suffer a direct loss when they're killed (their right to exist) or they adversely impact the ability of others to survive (important for living things like forests). A sterile, dead planet has no "rights" because it isn't a living thing. An alteration to that planet has no adverse effect on any living thing, and there is nothing on the planet that would be impacted or harmed by the move.

Unless you're one of those creepy crystal lovers who believe that all planets have souls and that our destinies are guided by the completely predictable motions of the cosmos, you must understand that planets are just really big lumps of rock hurtling through dead space. Rocks don't have rights. We, on the other hand, have an ethical right to spread life throughout the universe. Not at the expense of EXISTING life, but there are no issues with spreading it to otherwise dead planets.

And there is no evidence that Mars has contained life in the past few billion years. There's a decent chance that it may have in the distant past when great seas covered the planet and a hotter, younger sun held the surface at a higher temperature, but those days ended eons ago.

[Kali]

79. RIGHTS are a legal construct that should only be applicable to

humans. PROTECTIONS can be given to non-human organisms or environments, but rights should be reserved to humans.

[Rabrrrrrr]

82. I disagree.

I do agree that, in American law, rights are a legal construct that apply only to humans.

But I think that is a wrong philosophy - I think ALL of the universe has rights, life and non-life, atoms and the objects those atoms come together to form, and that we humans do not have some kind of inherent universal privilege above everything else. As part of the universe, humanity is on an equal value plane with everything else.

And who knows - the universe could have some other life form that is so far superior to us that our capabilities beyond that of a rock are laughably trivial.

Humans do not hold the place of honor in this universe, in my opinion.

[Kali]

88. could you elucidate the philosophical rights you are talking about

and also discuss the interface of humans and those rights (ie consequences or other for "violations")

I agree: "who knows - the universe could have some other life form that is so far superior to us that our capabilities beyond that of a rock are laughably trivial."

But until such time we kind of do the major thinking.

[yawnmaster]

98. Who endows these inalienable rights?

God? Man?
Who defines them?

If they are inherent, independent of God or Man, then the universe isn't doing a very good job of respecting rights of other objects.
What right does one galaxy have of sucking up another?
Or what right does a black whole have of sucking up all matter around it and thereby violating that matters rights!

Look at the moon and how many times it has been violated by rogue, unethical, lawless, meteors(R).

[Rabrrrrrr]

107. Why must those rights be endowed? Why can't they just be?

If one galaxy is made to suck up another galaxy, then that is its nature - just as the nature of the tiger and the wolf and the polar bear and people is to derive life force from other beings. Just as it is the nature of volcanoes to spew lava, sulfur, ash, and other stuff all over the place. Just as it is the nature of stars to provide energy for long periods of time, and then, for some, to undergo incredible physical changes and explode a wide selection of elements across the universe.

The difference with humans is that we have the capacity for self-critique - we are NOT creatures that act solely on instinct; our curse and our blessing is that we have decided that we have the capacity for moral or immoral action, and thus are stuck always with the question "Is this ethical?" before we act. The tiger cares not for the pain and suffering of its prey; the galaxy cares not for the galaxy it is absorbing, nor for the life forms that might have been in it. We, however, DO care, and so we (or at least, most humans) have rules for treatment and disposition of animals, and of prisoners, and the sick and infirm, and, slowly, for the treatment of our environment, the elderly, the poor and hungry, and so forth.

Just because something doesn't have life or sentience doesn't - in my opinion - mean that we have utter carte blanche to do what we will with it. That's just arrogant.

[yawnmaster]

113. So humans are special?

Or is it arrogant to thing we are special because we have the capacity for self-critique?

[Rabrrrrrr]

115. No, that's exactly NOT what I said.

Though I guess it depends on how you want to define special. Special as in "different", sure. Special as in "having superior value", no.

:boring:

[yawnmaster]

117. "The difference with humans ..."

"The difference with humans is that we have the capacity for self-critique ".
That is special. That is hugely special.
What else in the universe do we know that has that quality?

[Rabrrrrrr]

121. But how do you define special?

As something superior - something that includes higher intrinsic value?

Or merely as something different?

Truly, yes, our ability for self-critique is special in the sense that it is, as far we know, a singular ability in this universe. But it does not ipso facto give us a higher value than anything else. It is merely different.

I have a feeling that you are meaning "special" in another way.

[YankeyMCC]

69. I believe we do...at least to a point

The spreading of life and the opportunity for humans (and maybe other intelligences, evolved Earth species, others, created intelligences whatever the future brings) to make productive and meaningful lives for themselves is important and valuable.

But it should not completely overwhelm the natural beauty the universe created there for practical, ascetics and just the fact that many humans would get joy and meaning from that natural beauty and existing creation.

And it should only be done after a long period of study and only when we can act confidently. And we should not exclude the possibility of meeting new environments part-way by changing ourselves to suit the environment too when that is a feasible option.

And I'll second the recommendation to read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars series where this exact issue is explored in depth.

[JVS]

73. yup

[ConcernedCanuk]

74. Depends who "we" entails. If it was an Earth coalition formed under the United Nations

.
.
.

Maybe. Just a maybe.

USA don't listen to the United Nations when the USA wants to make war on a country.

IF the USA managed to TERRAform Mars,

it would indeed be a form of TERRA

as long range weapons not yet invented(or are they?) would rain down on Earth to any country that pissed off the USA(and I'm referring to the PNAC gang)

Seeing as how we can't manage this wonderful planet with resources well beyond our needs - which a very small percentage feel entitled to while the rest of us pick up the leftovers,

I'd say we leave other planets alone until we know how to get along on this one . .

And that looks like, sorta, a long time away??

[SOteric]

77. They're going to complain a little bit,

but personally I think we should send all the poopyheads there without terraforming it first.

And no, it's probably not ethical.

[Rabrrrrrr]

84. Well, you see, that's just totally reasonable.

I see no problem with that.

We have way too many poopyheads.

Maybe instead of zero population growth we should be pushing zero poopyhead growth.



Happy Valentine's Day!! :hi:

[pokerfan]

89. Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids

http://www.youtube.com/v/MVbv6r_tKnE&rel=1

[darkstar]

100. Niiiiiiiiiice..........

:yourock:

[slutticus]

90. Not if it's Weyland-Yutani doing the terraforming

They're the Halliburton of tomorrow.



"Weyland-Yutani, Building Better Worlds (TM)"



Edited for Spelling

[Rabrrrrrr]

91. Funny you should mention them. They had me go check out a "distress signal" once.

That, uh... man, that just did not go well.

[slutticus]

103. "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"

"Ma'am, I already told you it was non-indigenous. There was a derelict spacecraft. An alien ship. It wasn't from there. Do you get it?"


Best movie ever.

[Rabrrrrrr]

104. Alien and Aliens were both *@(%^# fantastic.

That whole scene from which you quoted is hilarious - totally redolent of the way the Shrubbie administration works. "No, that's okay - we'll manufacture our own truth, thank you".

[x-g.o.p.er]

102. As long as we have US Colonial Marines...

to kill the Aliens when we stumble upon their lair.

[WinkyDink]

106. I'm sure this is Bush's Plan A.

[Xipe Totec]

108. God said, 'Mars is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.

:hide:

[Yavin4]

109. Maybe Terraforming Is How Earth Got Started

Think about it.

[MrScorpio]

110. Without a viable magnetic field, I don't even think it's possible

Despite the proximity, it's a bad choice unless one can be generated artificially with the sufficient strength to protect a newly created Martian environment.

[yawnmaster]

116. a number of options...

We could remelt the iron core and get it a rotating.
We combine terraforming with some creative genetics to strengthen the organisms from dna damage.
Create an underground network.

combinations of the above.

[MrScorpio]

130. You, my friend, are a genius

Thanks for those ideas

[Solon]

136. Hmm...on your first point...

Probably the easiest way to "melt" the core of Mars is to create a major moon orbiting it, to create significant tidal action deep within the planet. There are a couple of ways to go about this, take a dwarf planet, like Ceres, and change its orbit, gradually, so that it is orbiting Mars, or we could construct a moon out of asteroids. Such an idea has two benefits, one is the strengthening of Mars magnetic field(it exists, just doesn't extend beyond the surface). And we would have a good taking off point for expanding further out in the solar system, by having another low-gravity body that is stable in orbit around a habitable planet.

Of course, the fact is that Mars isn't completely geologically dead, and doesn't need a magnetic field as large as Earth's to be habitable by Earth based life. It geology is slowed down, but it apparently hasn't stopped yet, so it may be possible to "speed up" its core by using a tidal body nearby. Similar to the tidal effects Jupiter has on Io and Europa.

The only negative side effect is that Mars would become geologically much more active, most likely not as active as Earth, and thankfully, most of its volcanoes are shield volcanoes, not known, at least on Earth, for their violent eruptions. But we would probably suffer some Mars quakes, etc. in the future on a Geologically active Mars. We could live with that, and it may help the atmosphere stay stable.

[RushIsRot]

111. IF and until we get there, this is a rather rhetorical question.

[defendandprotect]

112. No --- but it may be necessary since the idiots have pretty much destroyed

this planet --- !!!

We can just keep going from one planet to another destroying them ---

nuclear war will speed things up --- !!!

[Perry Logan]

118. Guys...chill. They're gonna say we're soft on aliens.

[leeroysphitz]

120. Yes, BUT... To paraphrase one famous teraformer: "There can't be so much as a microbe...

or the shows off."

[Beetwasher]

122. You Should Read Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy"

This question is an essential element to the story and it's a FANTASTIC read.

[leftofthedial]

128. gawdjeezis wants us to stip mine the whole planet and make it ours

[IDemo]

132. The idea that this is even going to be viable soon is incorrect

The presumption under such scenarios is that our industrialized society is going to continue to expand, unimpeded by minor irritations like climate change and energy depletion. It will take an enormous amount of energy and time to undertake the terraforming of Mars or any other planet, both of which we likely will not have. Much better idea: re-invent and re-discover lifestyles here on Earth that do not demand ridiculous amounts of energy, water and other resources to sustain.

[datasuspect]

133. if G-d created it, he made it to give us dominion over it

so yes, it is ethical, holy, and in keeping with His Plan.

[Tektonik]

134. We have the right, yes

But we have the obligation to not be jackasses and pollute our solar system in such a way to cause future harm to the earth or mars (in case we do terraform it).

[hunter]

135. By the time we can do that we won't need to.

Teleportation and the capability to survive in very harsh environments will be built into the human genome.

Your skin will be your spacesuit, and if you want to visit Mars you'll just have to blink twice like "I Dream of Jeannie."

31st Century Humans vacationing on Mars:

[ChazII]

137. Nope

What right do we have to what is not ours?