Print

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

No Planets.

1 (0.7%)

Dead Planets Only.

11 (7.7%)

Dead Planets and planets that have the potential to support life.

22 (15.5%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, and planets that have microbial life/proto-life.

37 (26.1%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, planets that have microbial life/proto-life, and planets with pre-existing biospheres that lack any sapient species.

43 (30.3%)

Dead Planets, planets that have the potential to support life, planets that have microbial life/proto-life, planets with pre-existing biospheres that lack any sapient species, and planets that are inhabited by other sapient species.

21 (14.8%)

Other.

5 (3.5%)

No Opinion.

2 (1.4%)

Total Members Voted: 142

[Leafsnail]

How different can planets be? It is not like the laws of physics are just going to change just cause you moved a couple hundred light years away from home.

Sure, the universal laws of physics wouldn't change.  But there'd be a different atmosphere, different air resistance, different gravity, different minerals and so on.

Also... Although I agree to a certain point that we should not put in invasive critters, I challenge your point that the natives would have anything valuable for us.

Nature is already starting to run out of chemical wonders for us, and we have started making them for ourselves. Since this is going to be at least several hundred years in the future, I really do not think some alien bug with completely different life processes from us will be able to fix super cancer any better then a lab that is trying to do so.

"Nature is already starting to run out of chemical wonders for us"... is it?  A lot of new drugs are inspired from natural sources, and some of the tactics being researched to fight, for instance, cancer and AIDs are inspired by animals that do not suffer from those diseases.

Although if you really do think that, wouldn't a whole new world full of completely different "nature" be just what we need?  Maybe you'd be less likely to find drugs based innovations, but you could still find, say, propulsion based ideas from new animals, as well as possibly fuel crops.

[Sensei]

We're still finding lots of new things on Earth, and we know there's more we haven't found. Like microbes that eat rocks. We had no idea a few years ago that that was even remotely possible. I think it's unlikely that finding another planet with life wouldn't change the school of biology as we know it.

[Criptfeind]

Sure, the universal laws of physics wouldn't change.  But there'd be a different atmosphere, different air resistance, different gravity, different minerals and so on.

Yeah sure. But how would that make the world any different then billions of other worlds just like it? How would that even make it interesting? I am just saying I do not understand why each and every world needs to be thought of as special.

"Nature is already starting to run out of chemical wonders for us"... is it?  A lot of new drugs are inspired from natural sources, and some of the tactics being researched to fight, for instance, cancer and AIDs are inspired by animals that do not suffer from those diseases.

Yes yes. We still rely on nature for almost everything in some forum or another, but we are starting down the path of self reliance in making our own chemicals and life forms that are not pirated from nature. Of cource you also have a point with the designs and stuff, but will will keep inovating long after we have copied everything we can from nature. The thing is, nature has this huge lead on us, but she advances at a glaciers pace and will most likely be outdated soon.

Although if you really do think that, wouldn't a whole new world full of completely different "nature" be just what we need?  Maybe you'd be less likely to find drugs based innovations, but you could still find, say, propulsion based ideas from new animals, as well as possibly fuel crops.

I really do not see how. Nature has limitations that we simply do not. Once we get the basics down, then I seriously doubt anything not super drastic would make it so we find a improvement in alien worlds. Also, at this point we are straying from my point of view, because I never said I wanted to kill out multi-cellular organisms. Or even single celled buggers (Although flash freezing's them and storing them away forever would be okay with me.)

[Bohandas]

Has anybody read The Metamorphosis of Earth by Clark Ashton Smith

[Lagslayer]

If there aren't any intelligent species, I got nothing in particular against going in. If there are intelligent species, then the issue gets more complicated. How badly do we need the planet? Would that intelligent species try to kill us if given the chance?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, looks like we currently have no Earth Purists in the poll. Odd, but understandable. We can't make this Blue Marble last forever, no matter how efficent we are.

[JoshuaFH]

I really like the idea of terraformation. Just not those planets with intelligent/sapient species on them, or space dogs.

[Pnx]

If the planet does have a sentient species that isn't too established, I can see us moving in, setting up camp, and altering the atmosphere in slow degrees, all the while making excuses about how it's not all that lethal for them. Then we set up special relocation programs to move them all to some crappy planet somewhere.

[JoshuaFH]

If the planet does have a sentient species that isn't too established, I can see us moving in, setting up camp, and altering the atmosphere in slow degrees, all the while making excuses about how it's not all that lethal for them. Then we set up special relocation programs to move them all to some crappy planet somewhere.

And so begins Ghetto Planet.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And so begins Ghetto Planet Avatar 2: Cameron Makes The Nav'i Even Less Sympathetic.

[Pnx]

Come to think of it, it also reeks of district 9... probably just because it is exactly the kind of thing we'd do.

[Megaman]

Fucking everything.

[Pwnzerfaust]

When I play Aurora, I terraform every planet that a) has resources I need and b) would be relatively easy to terraform. I'd do the same to real planets.

[Nikov]

I'm of the glass-and-grass camp. If it is our planet we can do whatever we want to it. If some other species thinks its their planet and isn't politically useful, "Carthago delenda est".

[Fayrik]

If the planet does have a sentient species that isn't too established, I can see us moving in, setting up camp, and altering the atmosphere in slow degrees, all the while making excuses about how it's not all that lethal for them. Then we set up special relocation programs to move them all to some crappy planet somewhere.

Why would we do that though? If we can alter the planet's atmosphere, then we could surely just go setup home on another planet. It's not like there aren't enough goldilocks planets about anyway.
I mean, there's what... Four? Well, Three at least, in this system. Going to another solar system then saying "No, we want THIS planet." seems entirely illogical to me.