Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WillowLuman]

And again, bear in mind that life on other planets might make due with other volatiles without water. We only know about our own biochemistry, it's a rather poor sample size.

[KittyTac]

Mars is definitely lifeless. The surface is coated with extremely potent carcinogens, not to mention our probes did not see anything suggestive of life. Also, very little volatiles. And even if there are some sort of bacteria, they are nonsentient, so we can terraform without worries. While all sentient beings should have rights, bacteria should not. If you really think it's bad to kill bacteria, go join the Jains, who do not drink yogurt because it would hurt the bacteria inside.

[WillowLuman]

Mars is definitely lifeless. The surface is coated with extremely potent carcinogens, not to mention our probes did not see anything suggestive of life. Also, very little volatiles. And even if there are some sort of bacteria, they are nonsentient, so we can terraform without worries. While all sentient beings should have rights, bacteria should not. If you really think it's bad to kill bacteria, go join the Jains, who do not drink yogurt because it would hurt the bacteria inside.

Any kind of extraterrestrial life would be priceless for science. Besides, why terraform when it's much more economical to set up sealed environments?

Furthermore, you clearly haven't been keeping up with the news.

[LordBaal]

It's worth study yes, but forbidding terraforming a suitable planet for some microbes wouldn't happen once you are sufficiently advanced. On the other hand sufficiently advanced civs could simply choose to live in artificial habitats in space which can have more controlled environments. However the word is choice. In history there have been better ways of doing stuff promptly ignored thanks to idiosyncrasy or economics.

[Egan_BW]

I'd imagine that more highly advanced cultures would place more value on preserving and documenting novel organisms. Having a very diverse library of life becomes a lot more useful if you own a printer that can make living things, no?
If aliens ever come along, the first thing they're going to vaporize us for is how many species we drive extinct before even cataloging them. Life takes some very specific conditions to grow, and a long time to differentiate, and we're losing potentially useful things every single day, never to be retrieved?

[LordBaal]

What if they don't appreciate life beyond theirs? What if they don't recognize us as life by other kind of values or even by methodology? What if they don't care? Technological progression doesn't mean they can be "mean spirited" or simply don't care. Or worst what if they consider carbon based life/bipeds/creatures with only two eyes/whatever an affront to their Gods? Alien motivations probably could be really alien to us. They could come and kill off exactly half planet and then expect us to be grateful and join them in doing so to the next planet and bolt in horror when they see us trying to nuke their ships or something.

[WillowLuman]

What's so wrong about preserving native life forms, especially when one has the technology to live in controlled, sealed environments? What prerogative is there to wipe out native ecosystems, however simple, to replace with our own?

And due to the monumental engineering challenges of terraforming, the sheer time and effort involved, sustainable artificial habitats will surely come along first. In fact, they'd likely be a prerequisite for any terraforming efforts.

[LordBaal]

There's nothing wrong according to you and me, we should strive for it. However if some of us, from the same planet, same species and heck, same hemisphere disagree over it, imagine the wildcard it would be another completely different train of thought. They could come "in peace", or "in war", or in "I don't really care but you are in my way", or "ughh look at those gross things, squash them before they get out!", or "Non electronic lifeforms found, hence no life forms present at all, begin converting all mass into more replicants"....

On the other hand terraforming could be attractive if you can get to the point it sustains itself for as long as you want/need (thousands or millions of years) as I.E. no one has to make sure Earth AC keeps running or the sewage pumps don't burn out. Of course that kind of tech and energy required would mean you probably have the means to make huge space habitats too.

But what if their religion prohibits such habitats? Or they see a low hanging fruit as xenoforming this planet won't be that hard and it will be suitable to harbor billions of our kind in just X amount of time?

[Trekkin]

What's so wrong about preserving native life forms, especially when one has the technology to live in controlled, sealed environments? What prerogative is there to wipe out native ecosystems, however simple, to replace with our own?

And due to the monumental engineering challenges of terraforming, the sheer time and effort involved, sustainable artificial habitats will surely come along first. In fact, they'd likely be a prerequisite for any terraforming efforts.

The Three Generation Rule, mostly; I'm sure "sustainable artificial habitats" sound great as a pipe dream, but as an engineering problem they're any number of interconnected systems just waiting for a cascade failure -- or, more accurately, always being in a state of repair one step away from cascade failure. Being able to go outside significantly helps mitigate what happens when someone keys in a command incorrectly and the magical robots everyone assumes will be doing all the maintenance use the wrong size of replacement gasket or something.

[WillowLuman]

And how do you even accomplish terraforming without a place for the terraformers to live meanwhile? It'd take a lot more than 3 generations to terraform a planet.

[Trekkin]

And how do you even accomplish terraforming without a place for the terraformers to live meanwhile? It'd take a lot more than 3 generations to terraform a planet.

You don't. I'm not saying terraforming is a viable alternative to habitats; I'm saying that, even if there were a willingness to attempt either, both would inevitably be more elaborate ways to die in space.

[LordBaal]

And how do you even accomplish terraforming without a place for the terraformers to live meanwhile? It'd take a lot more than 3 generations to terraform a planet.

You don't. I'm not saying terraforming is a viable alternative to habitats; I'm saying that, even if there were a willingness to attempt either, both would inevitably be more elaborate ways to die in space.

Everything it's just an elaborated way to day if we look at it from that perspective.

EDIT: Don't die on me now, keep me company I'm hunting for the last papers appointment I need for the time being.

[Trekkin]

Well, sure, but it is worth remembering that all our moralizing over what we should do in space is only relevant if we can do anything in space, including live in the long term.

Ironically, the same things the amateur crowd does when "envisioning" life in space (mostly assuming that everything that doesn't interest them is easy) are what would kill a space habitat run by humans.

[KittyTac]

The internet cut off before I finished my post. Of course we should catalogue the hypothetical Martian bacteria before destroying their habitat. After that it's fair game, they're not sentient. We could set up a little preserve for them, bacteria don't need much space to live.

[WillowLuman]

I don't think sentience should be the cutoff. There's just too much to learn from studying bona-fide alien life.

Also, just a minor point of terminology, they wouldn't be bacteria, per se. Microbes yes, but bacteria are a specific kind of microbe.

There's nothing wrong according to you and me, we should strive for it. However if some of us, from the same planet, same species and heck, same hemisphere disagree over it, imagine the wildcard it would be another completely different train of thought. They could come "in peace", or "in war", or in "I don't really care but you are in my way", or "ughh look at those gross things, squash them before they get out!", or "Non electronic lifeforms found, hence no life forms present at all, begin converting all mass into more replicants"....

On the other hand terraforming could be attractive if you can get to the point it sustains itself for as long as you want/need (thousands or millions of years) as I.E. no one has to make sure Earth AC keeps running or the sewage pumps don't burn out. Of course that kind of tech and energy required would mean you probably have the means to make huge space habitats too.

But what if their religion prohibits such habitats? Or they see a low hanging fruit as xenoforming this planet won't be that hard and it will be suitable to harbor billions of our kind in just X amount of time?

I think there's some confusion here: I'm not talking about hypothetical sentient aliens, I'm talking about us and how we might live in space. Though it should be noted that sustainable habitats are an absolute must for any species wishing to cross interstellar distances. If their religion prohibits them, then they're not going to be able to make the trip in the first place.