If possible, would terraforming Mars be ethical?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I feel that it would be unethical to not terraform Mars.

Assuming there are simple organisms on Mars, these poor buggers have no future. The atmosphere of Mars is slowly being reduced by the sun. Without intervention, they will more than likely die out completely, or remain as simple organisms without the chance to evolve into higher forms.

In the (more likely) case that there is no life on Mars, what good is a prestine chunk of rock? Let life put it to use.

As intelligent life, it is our duty to spread life where we can. We have the knowledge and ability to start terraforming Mars, and we should.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[JohnT]

"I think he's lost control of the thread, Captain!"

[DanS]

I was just thinking about how this is analogous to opposition to drilling in ANWR. There are some who believe it would be unethical to drill, considering that it is something like the last refuge from human meddling.

Nobody here has cast it in terms of what we create on Mars. Would it matter if all we're going to do is pave Mars and build strip malls?

[JohnT]

Not to me it wouldn't. But ANWAR is a lush, tropical paradise just overfilled with life compared to Mars, so I'm not too sure the analogy holds.

[DanS]

What does it matter the amount of life? Would you fill in the Grand Canyon if it would benefit us economically?

[JohnT]

From terraforming Mars, to drilling in ANWAR, to filling the Grand Canyon... you're all over the place here, Dan.

ANWAR has value to some people, as does the Grand Canyon. The political cost needed to do as you suggest to the previous two is quite prohibitive, a cost that would not exist in regards to a plan to terraform Mars. Now the financial cost, otoh.... that's a pretty penny.

[monolith94]

The grand canyon is not devoid of life.
Now we're getting to the issue that I brought up earlier - aesthetic ethics, and the idea of leaing wilderness 'as is'. After all, without a wilderness, are we really Americans? The frontier-thesis and all that...

"Well yes, that's because they have much shorter life spans then humans. It still takes millions of generations (I really have no idea how many) for diseases to adapt, and that is the point I was making. Eco-systems evolve at the same sort of rate."
It takes many generations for adaptations to be acclimated in an entire species, but even within the space of a human lifetime, demographic changes in the populace can be seen. Notice, for example, how short people were 300 to 400 years ago. We consider Napoleon short, but in his time he wasn't all that much shorter than his peers.

[DanS]

It's the best I can do on a couple of beers.

Filling in the Grand Canyon is a good analogy. There is a value in the Canyon and it would seem unethical to me to fill it in, if it could be helped. And this is an inanimate object. Our first ethical objection wouldn't be about the life that resides there.

[monolith94]

There is a symbolic value to the grand canyon - that is why. The more we destroy our environment, the more we destroy the distinctiveness of our nation, and the regions of it.
Hell, the only reason the South is different from the North anymore is worse food and more igni'nce!
Similarly, there is symbolic value to Mars. If we paved it over, we would lose some of the power of our mythologies, our histories, etc.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
It would be a total mess even without abstract and self-made concepts.
System produced the "flaw" so the eco-system is flawed when it let's something like this (us) happen.

So you agree that we are "flawed" and not behaving naturaly. That is what I was saying, nothing more.

[Winston]

The only way it would be unethical is if there were whales living on Mars.

Hmm... radical environmentalists chaining themselves to the launchpad.

[CerberusIV]

Well, once we develop the technology to make terraforming Mars practicable (like being able to get there in a few days) humans will use it. And probably screw the place up bigtime in the process.

That's no bad thing because the next planet we try to terraform will probably be in somone else's solar system so it would be better to make the mistakes in our own back yard first and learn from them.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Not to mention the fact that above what you said is not true, atleast not here in Finland. We do take care of our forests, and animals too.

Aren't you guys up to your eyeballs in moose, cause you
killed off ALL the wolves? And then finland was planning
on getting rid of the moose as a traffic hazard and
"damaging to the forest"

The day we can terraform a planet is the day we'll
understand how one works. Don't hold yer breath
on that one.

[Dr Strangelove]

Sure, go ahead. But pray tell me this: How in god's name are you going to "create" carbon dioxide? There may be oxides in the soil, but I think that there is a deficit of carbon on Mars. This means that you're going to have to import carbon to Mars. Do we have that much to spare?
Has anyone given much thought as to whether mars is really able to hold a sufficient atmosphere? It is after all smaller than earth and has less gravity. How much carbon dioxide will it take to raise the atmospheric temperature to a habitable level? There is such a thing as too much carbon dioxide. If the level is too high your system can't efficiently excrete carbon dioxide from the lungs, which screws up your blood pH and reduces oxygen intake.

[Sava]

I think terraforming a planet (considering our current and near-future technologies) is either impossible, or would take a really really really long time. Either way, it would cost so much that I doubt we'd even try it.