If possible, would terraforming Mars be ethical?

[Az]

Osweld: I agree with you very much about the responsibility, but the only ones that we are responsible to are our children, noone else.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, Boris. It's not a dodge.
You don't believe in God, I do.
You don't think that life is possible, I do.
That's all I'm saying.

I don't see why belief in God would effect your opinion. In fact, I'd think it would bolster it. Christian doctrine stipulates that God created mankind as his "chosen" and that the natural world(s) were man's to do with as he pleased. Why would moving to Mars to colonize it be any different than founding a new city up the river? Why would God object to such a thing?

I never said life was impossible, just highly improbable. And if there is any life, it is going to be of the kind that we don't have a problem with disposing of as we see fit for our own ends (microbes).

Not neccisarily. But I'd agree with that, too.

Yeah, that gets a big ol' too. It's pretty hard to take the "we should never have come down from the trees!" set seriously.

The universe is constantly changing, in ways far beyond human perception or comprehension. Earth once had no life, it now has life, and it will eventually have no life again. It will eventually deteriorate, and it's matter will form new stars, galaxies, planets, and new life. Terraforming and colonizing planets interferes with the workings of the universe. It is the galactic equivelant of cutting down rainforests and paving over swamps.

We are a part of that universe, so whatever we do is also a part of the way the universe changes. I don't see why the fact that the universe changes should preclude our taking steps to better mankind and perhaps even save it. And just because Mars may have potential for new evolving it's own advanced form of life is meaningless. Bubonic plague may have been able to develop into an advanced form of life. Should we then not try to rid ourselves of it, out of sympathy for it's potential to be something more advanced in, oh, 2 billion years?

Boris: You're being a little strident in your posts. Again, this is meant to be an opinion survey thread, not a debating thread. That's why it's a poll.

Sloww started it. At any rate, you can't expect to bring up an ethical question and then not have debate over it. Voicing opinions on ethics will always lead to debate over it.

[Shi Huangdi]

Very strongly in favor of making Mars a place for human settlement if possible. Nobody would be harmed by colonizing Mars because there is no sentient life there, and the potential to better mankind by doing it is great.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
We are a part of that universe, so whatever we do is also a part of the way the universe changes. I don't see why the fact that the universe changes should preclude our taking steps to better mankind and perhaps even save it.

That is true, it can be said that whatever we do is natural because we come from nature... but the very fact that we have that word in our vocabulary is evidence we are not a part of the natural working of things, since we have to coin a term to distinguish our selves from it. Humans no longer play by nature's rules, we try to change and control them. And we're not very good at it, either.

But still, I agree with you that ultimately what we do is insignifigant and nature will always have it's way no matter what. I just don't think it's ethical to fight nature.

And just because Mars may have potential for new evolving it's own advanced form of life is meaningless. Bubonic plague may have been able to develop into an advanced form of life. Should we then not try to rid ourselves of it, out of sympathy for it's potential to be something more advanced in, oh, 2 billion years?

It's not the potential of life that bothers me, it's just the interfering of the process, especially when we are not capable of understanding it.

[monkspider]

Why not just terraform the moon? That could be a reasonable compromise between the pro and anti Martians.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
Why not just terraform the moon? That could be a reasonable compromise between the pro and anti Martians.

Doing so could have some bad ramifications for Earth, considering the moon's proximity. Plus, as I read it, it would actually be easier to terraform Mars, as the conditions are already better.

Osweld:

Just because we've developed a linguistic term for nature does not make us independent of it. Countless things "in nature" manipulate the natural world around them for their own benefit, such as beavers building a dam. Changing the world in which we exist isn't in anyway removing us from a "natural" state.

But still, I agree with you that ultimately what we do is insignifigant and nature will always have it's way no matter what. I just don't think it's ethical to fight nature.

So I take it you won't take any medications? That would be fighting nature, after all. No antibiotics should you get an infection? No surgery for a ruptured appendix?

Come on...your definition of "fighting nature" is pretty extreme. Adaptation and survival would be impossible under such terms. Every living thing manipulates its environment to suit it!

It's not the potential of life that bothers me, it's just the interfering of the process, especially when we are not capable of understanding it.

The same could be said for almost anything. But in this instance, I think we could have pretty reasonable assurances of what the outcome would be.

[SlowwHand]

Humans kill humans. Natural. Acceptable?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by monkspider
Why not just terraform the moon? That could be a reasonable compromise between the pro and anti Martians.

The moon is just a sphere of rock with no atmosphere on it.

[monolith94]

One celled organisms don't have rights. Think about the next time you chew your steaks!
I'm not particularly concerned about the rights of organisms living on mars right now - the only argument over terraforming mars that I could forsee would be one of the ethics of aesthetics. If we do terraform mars, what will people of the future think of us? "Oh, you should have seen Mars as it used to be - beautiful untouched red rock, stretching for miles all 'round!". People lament the loss of beautiful American wildlife to farms, cities and suburbs - imagine how they would lament the loss of a planet!

[SlowwHand]

Already lamenting Earth. Go for the exacta.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Osweld:

Just because we've developed a linguistic term for nature does not make us independent of it. Countless things "in nature" manipulate the natural world around them for their own benefit, such as beavers building a dam. Changing the world in which we exist isn't in anyway removing us from a "natural" state.

Beavers slowly evolved along with their environment, and their dams are a neccisary part of the eco-system. They do not adapt nature to their needs, they evolved alongside nature, adapting to nature aswell as adapting it to them.

Humans change things far too much and far too quickly, often in ways that are not natural, and without a thought to their surroundings.

So I take it you won't take any medications? That would be fighting nature, after all. No antibiotics should you get an infection? No surgery for a ruptured appendix?

Only in very severe circumstances. But you seem to be forgeting that I'm a part of the "we should never have come down from the trees!" set.

The same could be said for almost anything. But in this instance, I think we could have pretty reasonable assurances of what the outcome would be.

I don't think so. The human species could be extinct before the ramifications even begin to take place.

[tinyp3nis]

How is this different from moving to let's say deserted island and making it your own? And the island has more life too. Taming horses or having pet dogs is much more unethical than terraforming some planet that has some microbes.

[tinyp3nis]

They do not adapt nature to their needs, they evolved alongside nature, adapting to nature aswell as adapting it to them.

Exactly same with humans. Edit: To make this clear, if what you say is right, it's right for humans and beavers, or it's wrong for both of us.

[Nubclear]

Lets terraform Iraq for the Martians by making the land radioactive.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Exactly same with humans.

Yes, except for the last 50 thousand years or so. Evolution does not - can not - happen in the span of a human life. The world has probably changed more in the past thousand years then in a hundred thousand (or more) before it because of human activity. There is no way that eco-systems can keep up with that rate of change and adapt... unless you call dying off adapting.

Also, humans have not been adapting to nature at all in the past few thousand years, quite the opposite - we have been trying to adapt nature to us at all costs.


But we're geting off-topic here.