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

[Africa]

With proper distribution of the earth's resources, proper distribution of birth control (and probably some enforced limits on childbearing) enough investment into sustainable energy sources, and of course drastic change in the first world's consumption habits, Earth can sustain billions of people, probably billions more than already exist. If the reason we think we need to colonize the other planet is to solve one of those problems, we should fix things here first before forever destroying something that may well be completely unique in the reachable universe.

Do you really think mankind still only lives on earth when it has discovered
1, life on other planets
2, the technology to terraform a planet
3, the ability to travel to other solar systems
?

True - all the more reason not to colonize the new planet.

As for colonizing a planet being easier than changing how people think - really? Also, you don't necessarily have to change the way people think, just legislate some degree of sustainability (also assuming one-world government here). The change in thinking may even follow. For example, you could never change people's minds to accept integrated schools in Alabama in the 50s, but you could force them to integrate, and a couple generations later, people will for the most part be used to it and accept it.

Also, most of the thigns you listed sounds pretty horrible to me.

Wait, the stuff about using energy sources that won't run out, being responsible with resources, not having too many children and thus causing overcrowding and resource strain, and not drastically overconsuming and wasting huge amounts of resources? How are those horrible?

[Criptfeind]

As for colonizing a planet being easier than changing how people think - really?

Um. Yes. That is pretty much the point of this thread.

Also, you don't necessarily have to change the way people think, just legislate some degree of sustainability (also assuming one-world government here).

Right. But then that would be the government forcing people to do things they do not have to do and that they do not want to do. Which is not cool. And the thing is, alien critters are all nice and good, but they do not have the same moral rights as a human.

How are those horrible?

The forcing part.

[PTTG??]

We force people not to kill other people. Making people do what they don't want to do for the collective benefit is the basic definition of society.

[Criptfeind]

Some how I knew that was going to come up.

That is not the same. Because people have things called rights. One of these rights is to live. That right is more important then the right to do what you want, thus we stop murder.

Animals also have rights. They have a right to live. But that right is not more important then a persons right to do what they want. Thus we have hamburgers.

Now, obviously it is not as clear cut as that. There are gray areas. But that at least should get my basic point across.

[Dutchling]

We force people not to kill other people. Making people do what they don't want to do for the collective benefit is the basic definition of society.

The base definition of society is making people not do what is not for the collective benefit. Not the other way around.

[Leafsnail]

Animals also have rights. They have a right to live. But that right is not more important then a persons right to do what they want. Thus we have hamburgers.

...Let's imagine these aliens are sapient to some degree.  What then?

I dunno, it's just I'm imagining the "Africans don't really deserve human rights" potentially playing out once again.

[Criptfeind]

Well you guys long ago shifted my position from single celled organisms to include defending the removal of multi-celled critters.

But I am not going to take the next step. I never said we should kill sapients.

I said animals and people. Not humans and everyone else.

[Nikov]

I wonder how much money it would cost to put a man on Mars for seven years to claim squatter's rights for the whole planet, then recoup the loan by selling sprawling estates with mansions when the Earth's rich people don't want to be castrated apartment dwellers.

Anyone know a loan officer?

[Bohandas]

"Mars day is much better than Earth Day. Throw your garbage wherever you want, its a big empty planet." -Mister Wong, Futurama

[Criptfeind]

I wonder how much money it would cost to put a man on Mars for seven years to claim squatter's rights for the whole planet, then recoup the loan by selling sprawling estates with mansions when the Earth's rich people don't want to be castrated apartment dwellers.

Anyone know a loan officer?

That idea is so good I almost wish it was possible.

[PTTG??]

First: Run for president as an unabashed corporate whore, then come out as athiest midway through. You'll have no chance of winning and will be dropped by your party.

Redirect your billions of dollars of new campaign funds into the mars mission.

Mission Accomplished.

[Nikov]

No politics/religion in an utterly unrelated thread, PTTG. This is how derails happen.

[FuzzyZergling]

I don't think they'd let you keep that money anyway.

[Africa]

Some how I knew that was going to come up.

That is not the same. Because people have things called rights. One of these rights is to live. That right is more important then the right to do what you want, thus we stop murder.

My point exactly. If we don't deprive people of their right to consume vastly disproportionate amounts of the world's resources, then we'd be depriving a far greater number of people of the right to have enough food to eat, enough water to drink, and enough income in their societies to prevent them from collapsing.

So how is it more horrible to enforce one or two child limits, prevent overconsumption and overexploitation of resources through taxation or laws, and so on, than to allow billions of people to starve and be killed in the huge wars that WILL result when, for example, oil runs out and no other energy source can replace it, or when water becomes too expensive for most people in the Middle East to afford?

Anyway, if it were the case that we absolutely needed to colonize and terraform another planet in order to supply everyone on earth, of course it would be justified. I just refuse to believe we would ever absolutely need to. If we all live within our means and don't reproduce too much, the planet can supply all of us our needs, even if it has to be enforced top down.

[Duke 2.0]

No politics/religion in an utterly unrelated thread, PTTG. This is how derails happen.

I think it was more of a joke about separating yourself from all morals and obligations to get something done.

 And we are gonna be colonizing planets if our governments want us to or not. Space travel is gonna become cheaper and easier as we advance the field. Eventually you'll have rich people building moon bases because who's gonna stop you? You're in space and it would be bad PR for any country to spend the exorbitant amounts of money it would take to take a military up there and start the first space conflict.

 Space hicks are not gonna care if the microbes on some other stars planet may or may not eventually evolve into multicellular life, they are gonna do what they do.

 Basically we should only focus on conserving developed biospheres because it'll be easy to see any human impact violators will have and it'll be much easier to manage than making sure every planet with microbes stays unmolested.