Ethics of terraforming

[Richy teh space man]

I think humanity would place the same kind of ethical orientation towards life on other planets as we do towards life on our own planet.

Personally, I think if we're just dealing with microbial life then there's no ethical issues. If there was intelligent life then we should try and be civilized and make peaceful contact (unlike most of humanitys contact with technologically inferior cultures). If it was more advanced then us, then how we deal with them would depend on their ethical reasoning (if they even have such a thing).

[Winter Man]

So lemme get this straight. Lets say tomorrow (as in now) you got a ship, that can take you to a new planet full of alien forms. Lets make them humanoids, but with not much intelligence other than their survival instincts.

So you go there, grab your M50, and slaughter a thousand, then you come back to earth, kiss your wife and kids goodnight, and fall asleep?

Or does that other sole planet included in your idea of "society" so its a no go ?

Or does your off world actions, affect you in some way, that in turn have an impact in your beloved inner society, so no M50 dance either way?

Or maybe you prefer to nuke them out of orbit, that way you dont do the trip, you just push a button so you sleep better right?

Oh and btw, how does someone "make" ethics ? They either exist based on your consciousness existence if present, or they dont. (This leads to different idea of what is ethical or not, but thats another story)

Now that we moved from ethics, lets go about the UGE (uni-good-evil).

Some God may exist. God as in the God of the many forms of religion here on earth, God as in some higher cosmic alien entity-unity, or God like some star trek federation that utilizes those UGE laws. And yes there could be a "Devil" in similar forms like above, out there included as well. You dont know this, and i surelly dont.

Only real reason you say theres no "Universal good or evil", i think its because you're either sure that we are the only species around the kosmos, or that all the rest are inferior to our own. Or perhaps that all of the other intelligent species if they do exist, are just plain "eat-sleep-do the smooth moves-and go to the toilet" beings.

And tbh "activities outside society" ? I trully believe that once you start fiddling about with something, either a celestial body, an off world civilization and all the rest of the things we probably wont see in our life time, then you make that something a part of our society.

And yeah i could keep going on, in a more plain fashion, explaining that Mars, as in the OP's case, is just next door. I mean it should be already a part of our society, imagine in the future with terraforming tech and whatnot, it could take a few days/hrs (at worse) to get there.

Yup. Especially if they taste good.

Through societal benefit. A child will take what it wants and cry when it has to share until its brain develops empathy. Once this happens, social morals and ethics arise because our survival chances are better as a group than as an individual, so we care for our own.

Whether or not there's a god is wholly irrelevant.

I don't believe any species is inferior or superior, there's no ingrained rank to anything. There's no ingrained meaning in anything at all so we can do what we want, while still applying our social ethics so we don't go mad. And no, we're certainly not alone in the universe.

Things become our society when we want them to, not when we interact with them. Sure, butterfly effect, observe and you change and all that, but as society is purely a construct in our minds we get to choose what to include. Society isn't based on proximity.

[Wahgineer]

Mars is a dead, barren rock.

So far, no bacteria have been discovered on its surface/in the atmosphere.

We are certain that no intelligent life lived, is living, or will live on Mars in its present state.

Letting ethics get in the way of terraformation would be idiotic, especially if there is nothing to get ethical about.

[lajoswinkler]

Ethics are just something we've made up to stop our society falling apart, they're irrelevant for activities outside society. There's no universal good or evil, so as a species we can do whatever we damn well please.

Ah, the classical false argument sociopaths are so familiar with, using it to rationalize destruction. In fact, such reasoning is behind the human's ways that look like the behaviour of a malignant tumor or a virus.

The fact that morality (ethics is the study of morality) is really relative does not mean morality has a null value. It exists in certain space and time and circumstances. It is fluid, but we're part of the mechanism that uses it, so while we can claim it is relative, we can not abandon it.

We can not do whatever we please. "Whatever" is an absolute. It's an extremely powerful word.

The universally acknowledged limits are sentience and suffering. If we find a planet inhabited by sentient beings and we do whatever we want with them, we're no different from the worst scum such as war criminals and alike.

If the life forms are on the level of lichen, insects, and typical low development we know, the only thing we need to be careful about is not to destroy the ecosystem as a whole because of scientific value. It would be an incredible loss.

The higher the lifeforms, the more care we must put into this.

Yup. Especially if they taste good.

Through societal benefit. A child will take what it wants and cry when it has to share until its brain develops empathy. Once this happens, social morals and ethics arise because our survival chances are better as a group than as an individual, so we care for our own.

Whether or not there's a god is wholly irrelevant.

I don't believe any species is inferior or superior, there's no ingrained rank to anything. There's no ingrained meaning in anything at all so we can do what we want, while still applying our social ethics so we don't go mad. And no, we're certainly not alone in the universe.

Things become our society when we want them to, not when we interact with them. Sure, butterfly effect, observe and you change and all that, but as society is purely a construct in our minds we get to choose what to include. Society isn't based on proximity.

If you really approve slaughter of sentient beings, you're a classical medical example of a sociopath. Oh, don't be insulted by this diagnosis. I'm just stating the obvious and I don't really care about your opinion, just trying to instruct others.

Edited November 6, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Simon Ross]

Ah, the classical false argument sociopaths are so familiar with, using it to rationalize destruction. In fact, such reasoning is behind the human's ways that look like the behaviour of a malignant tumor or a virus.

The fact that morality (ethics is the study of morality) is really relative does not mean morality has a null value. It exists in certain space and time and circumstances. It is fluid, but we're part of the mechanism that uses it, so while we can claim it is relative, we can not abandon it.

We can not do whatever we please. "Whatever" is an absolute. It's an extremely powerful word.

The universally acknowledged limits are sentience and suffering. If we find a planet inhabited by sentient beings and we do whatever we want with them, we're no different from the worst scum such as war criminals and alike.

If the life forms are on the level of lichen, insects, and typical low development we know, the only thing we need to be careful about is not to destroy the ecosystem as a whole because of scientific value. It would be an incredible loss.

The higher the lifeforms, the more care we must put into this.

If you really approve slaughter of sentient beings, you're a classical medical example of a sociopath. Oh, don't be insulted by this diagnosis. I'm just stating the obvious and I don't really care about your opinion, just trying to instruct others.

I do not believe that labelling a fellow thread poster a 'sociopath' is either helpful or desired when having a debate. You may or may not agree with the poster's opinion, but counter it with intelligent debate and not insults.

[Winter Man]

I do not believe that labelling a fellow thread poster a 'sociopath' is either helpful or desired when having a debate. You may or may not agree with the poster's opinion, but counter it with intelligent debate and not insults.

Somewhat accurate though, even if he does fail a little on the delivery. I do lack empathy, although I can switch it on if needs be. To address the non-namecalling bit:

The fact that morality (ethics is the study of morality) is really relative does not mean morality has a null value. It exists in certain space and time and circumstances. It is fluid, but we're part of the mechanism that uses it, so while we can claim it is relative, we can not abandon it.

We can not do whatever we please. "Whatever" is an absolute. It's an extremely powerful word.

The universally acknowledged limits are sentience and suffering. If we find a planet inhabited by sentient beings and we do whatever we want with them, we're no different from the worst scum such as war criminals and alike.

If the life forms are on the level of lichen, insects, and typical low development we know, the only thing we need to be careful about is not to destroy the ecosystem as a whole because of scientific value. It would be an incredible loss.

The higher the lifeforms, the more care we must put into this.

Morality is purely a human (or arguably primate) construct, so when you are looking at something outside of humans and what directly affects us it really can be cancelled out. 'Whatever' is exactly the right word, as the fact remains that war criminals have committed atrocities. It's purely down to what is considered an atrocity. We commit mass genocide on cows, pigs, chickens, etc. but christ are they tasty. By all means keep isolated areas of a terraformed planet for study (see: Olympus Mons caldera in the Mars trilogy), but 'loss' is subjective.

Also, sentience isn't something you can measure with notches on a stick. A crow wouldn't consider a dolphin sentient, but they are both arguably similarly intelligent.

[lajoswinkler]

I do not believe that labelling a fellow thread poster a 'sociopath' is either helpful or desired when having a debate. You may or may not agree with the poster's opinion, but counter it with intelligent debate and not insults.

I've actually tried to keep a level of decency here. What is wrong with putting a label on something? If someone says he murdered someone, I'll say he's a murderer. If someone advocated for mass slaughter regardless of anything, he's a sociopath.

Did I started with insults? No. If you think that word is an insult, you're uninformed.

Your reasoning is what's behind something called euphemism treadmill. During the 20th century perfectly scientific terms moron, imbecile and idiot were used for low IQ patients, but today you won't hear it in the official medical language simply because they aren't very popular anymore. General public has taken those names as insults.

Sociopath is certainly not in the same category. It is a perfectly normal term for people without empathy, so please, spare me of the political correctness. It leads nowhere and it's the source of thread derailment.

Somewhat accurate though, even if he does fail a little on the delivery. I do lack empathy, although I can switch it on if needs be. To address the non-namecalling bit:

Ok, so we have an acknowledgement. You lack empathy. I was right.

If you lack empathy, you lack it. That makes you a sociopath. It's an "antisocial personality disorder". You don't turn it on, you emulate it to gain something.

Not all sociopaths are evildoers because they can learn to behave so they can constantly emulate empathy. They don't understand it, but they agree to emulate it to be able to cooperate with people.

Morality is purely a human (or arguably primate) construct, so when you are looking at something outside of humans and what directly affects us it really can be cancelled out. 'Whatever' is exactly the right word, as the fact remains that war criminals have committed atrocities. It's purely down to what is considered an atrocity. We commit mass genocide on cows, pigs, chickens, etc. but christ are they tasty. By all means keep isolated areas of a terraformed planet for study (see: Olympus Mons caldera in the Mars trilogy), but 'loss' is subjective.

Also, sentience isn't something you can measure with notches on a stick. A crow wouldn't consider a dolphin sentient, but they are both arguably similarly intelligent.

Ignoring the fact that your diagnosis makes you unable to make a proper judgment on this matter (legally, you'd never be able to be become a judge or carry a gun, etc.), yes, morality is a human construct.

When I look at ants eating a live beetle, I see no evil. Lions and zebras, the same thing. Those species did not develop abstract thoughts connected to empathy. They are hungry, they hunt, kill and eat.

Healthy people are different. We are social animals with vastly greater neocortical and social development than any other animal on Earth.

By sentience I mean the feeling of "I". Self consciousness. It's one of the pinnacles of information processing development of Earth.

[drakesdoom]

Your last 3 posts

You seem to be confused on the medical diagnosis. It requires not only a lack of empathy but also that this makes you unable to operate in society. As long as one can get about ones day without stabbing people because why not then it is not a medical issue.

Also you seemed highly uninformed on what it takes to achieve an elected office. Here in my state we have a judge for the next 5 years who as a prosecutor talked to some people in jail to get them to finger some guys on a murder and got them convicted with no other evidence, and lied about having talked to them before their testimony. Sounds like that guy has lots of empathy right?

[Winter Man]

Ok, so we have an acknowledgement. You lack empathy. I was right.

If you lack empathy, you lack it. That makes you a sociopath. It's an "antisocial personality disorder". You don't turn it on, you emulate it to gain something.

Not all sociopaths are evildoers because they can learn to behave so they can constantly emulate empathy. They don't understand it, but they agree to emulate it to be able to cooperate with people.

Now now, don't act like it's some kind of victory, you're still wrong about the sociopathy. I said somewhat. My mental health is an unusual condition which is really beyond the scope of this thread. Closer to dissociative personality disorder.

gnoring the fact that your diagnosis makes you unable to make a proper judgment on this matter

From your perspective, at least. From a more neutral, un-emotionally charged perspective, it makes much more sense.

Unless you can communicate with an animal, you cannot sufficiently determine whether it has a concept of 'I'. It may have an entirely different or even parallel concept that it sees you lacking in. Doesn't make it non-sentient.

[mdatspace]

It depends. If it is just some bacteria, I see no serious breach of ethics. If it is intelligent life we are talking about, I don't think terraforming would be very ethical.

[FellipeC]

I'll just say that in James Cameron's Avatar I wished the blue guys die.

[qeveren]

Sure is sociopathic in here (omg there's that word again!). I guess if we turn it around, someone out there comes here and decides to terraform all this irritating muck off of this planet so they can use it, you'll all have no ethical objections?

[Winter Man]

Sure is sociopathic in here (omg there's that word again!). I guess if we turn it around, someone out there comes here and decides to terraform all this irritating muck off of this planet so they can use it, you'll all have no ethical objections?

Didn't say I wouldn't expect a fight

[Drunkrobot]

Reading through a few of the posts, I've noticed the idea of "us vs. them" come up often. What would you define as "us"? If you asked that question to humans that lived a few centuries or millennia ago, their answer would likely disgust you.

Imagine two members of a tribe, coming across the ruined remains of another village. One asks the other "Who lived here?" "Another group." "What happened to them?" "Our warriors came and killed them all." "Why did they do that?" "Because they're not us, and they posed a threat to us."

This basic excuse has come up countless times in our history. The excuse that "we" are the top priority, and "we" can do whatever we want to "them", if it gives "us" a better chance of survival. The thing is, though, that the boundaries of this Special Club of Who Gets to Live Longer is expanding all the time. If I lived 200 years ago, and you asked me the question "Who is us?", I would've probably said "White British Protestants". Today, I would say "Humans". Expanding the idea of "us" to all the life forms that have a right to exist, I would say all life. No species deserves total extinction, even the pathogens that have killed us by the billions over our history should be kept alive, albeit in sealed environments, to keep Humans safe. Which brings us to the hypothetical alien life forms in the question.

Say we are colonising Mars. We do a total sweep of the planet, and all we find is fossils, at most. It would be our duty to terraform Mars to suit Earth life, to make a dead world alive agian. If we find alive microbial life, at least in hibernation, then it gets very sketchy. It defiantly deserves to exist, if only for the fact that it is life that was created completely independently of our biosphere, and is scientifically priceless. The dilemma is to what extent it exists, between "Total freedom from Earth life" to "Existing only in the lab". Surrendering the vast stockpile of resources that is Mars to the microbes would probably never happen, although by the time we could seriously be thinking of permanently changing the climate of Mars for our needs, the practises of mining asteroids and the Moon, as well as building habitats in space from those materials, would take away much of the practical allure of Mars anyway. The preferable choice would be to make Mars suitable for both the Microbes and us, and live in-and I hate to use the word-harmony.

If we ever come across complex life, say in the underground oceans of Europa, then we don't do anything that would endanger their survival. We would be playing God to deny the Europeans the right to their own world, we made that mistake far too many times in our history. We can observe, learn as much as we can, maybe even try to coexist, but not do anything that would drive them to extinction.

So, to summarise:

Sterile world: RAPE AND PILLAGE!

World with simple life: Try to make the world more suitable for the both of us.

World with complex life: Preserve them, even if it means not getting to live there.

Given the strict requirements needed to support life (as we know it, at least), there is an awful lot of dead worlds out there for us to spread Earth life to, anyway. If there was an ultimate good, it would be "Make the rarest and most amazing structure of matter in the Universe-life-as abundant as possible, with as many different forms of life as possible".

Edited November 6, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[jwenting]

Everyday (hopefully) you wash your hands eradicating countless bacteria. In the 20th century we eradicated small pox and polio with no remorse. Placing Martian bacteria above continued human exploration and continuity, while eradicating forms found on earth is the real ethical dilemma.

and sadly, were that to be at issue today, PETA, the EPA, WWF, ALF, ELF, Greenpeace, and dozens of other groups of "green" nutters would argue that indeed we should not eradicate those diseases because those microbes have as much (and many of them will at heart claim more) right to live as we do.

Of course those same groups are all in favour of human extinction, or at least letting all humans except themselves die a horrible death.

They're the kind of people who think spraying concentrated Ebola from the airconditioning of a baseball stadium is a pretty neat idea.

[Drunkrobot]

and sadly, were that to be at issue today, PETA, the EPA, WWF, ALF, ELF, Greenpeace, and dozens of other groups of "green" nutters would argue that indeed we should not eradicate those diseases because those microbes have as much (and many of them will at heart claim more) right to live as we do.

Of course those same groups are all in favour of human extinction, or at least letting all humans except themselves die a horrible death.

They're the kind of people who think spraying concentrated Ebola from the airconditioning of a baseball stadium is a pretty neat idea.

With all due respect, jwenting, it is my personal opinion that "The entire population of the planet that actively supports the biosphere remaining as varied as possible is in on a massive conspiracy that plots to totally destroy the human race." is one of those things that is *not* happening in reality.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[Winter Man]

With all due respect, jwenting, it is my personal opinion that "The entire population of the planet that actively supports the biosphere remaining as varied as possible is in on a massive conspiracy that plots to totally destroy the human race." is one of those things that is *not* happening in reality.

Although you could count PETA, ALF, ELF and Greenpeace among terrorist groups in light of actions perpetrated by their members.

[OrtwinS]

You could be interested in Mars Trilogy by Robinson, there are whole chapters where the colonists argue about this issue - Green Mars faction (terraforming) vs Red Mars faction (preserving the true Mars).

Well Frak you Czok! You did it again. I'm supposed to study! Now I have to read...

(thank you though)

[sal_vager]

This thread is devolving into conspiracy theories, politics and personal attacks, and unfortunately the subject matter of the thread may be far beyond the scope of the forums of a computer game.

Please keep all discussion civil, on topic and free from bias, otherwise this thread will have to be closed.

[shoveycat]

Assuming we aren't talking about intelligent life, I'd be all for terraforming, really, its just not practical without it. However, I think We'd need to try our damnedest to preserve any life forms for research.

[Holo]

People of the opinion that non-humans don't deserve to live really need to have the tables turned on them. I'm sure if their entire biosphere was being wiped out, they might have a temporary change of heart.

EDIT:

But, in the case of lichens vs. humans, I think that the three Canons of Xenology are a good start.

(source: http://www.xenology.info/Xeno/25.1.3.htm)

Canon I. Destroy not. (Avoid harming, if it is at all possible.)

Canon II. Preserve, if in preserving you do not destroy.

Canon III. Create, if without harm and the creation may be preserved.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Holo

[drakesdoom]

No one is claiming we would lay down and be wiped out because there is no ethical problem with terraforming. I don't need an ethical objection to defend myself, my family, my home, or my planet.

[shoveycat]

You guys've got to understand, at least from our point of view, theres a WORLD of difference between a few single cell organisms and sentient, thinking life.

[Holo]

No one is claiming we would lay down and be wiped out because there is no ethical problem with terraforming. I don't need an ethical objection to defend myself, my family, my home, or my planet.

What if the people attacking have weapons that you can't hope to defend against? You're just a mere conscious being, more advanced races shouldn't have to be trapped in their own solar system just so that some brain-sentients can be preserved.

Divide both sides by humans, and you have the classic primitive ecosystem vs. humans scenario.

[Dispatcher]

It can be argued (but I won't do so) that via panspermia, life or life precursors from various objects in space is spread to other objects. If that has or does (or will) occur, such is a rudimentary form of "terraforming" and requires vast amounts of time. Human efforts to terraform other objects (such as Mars) would presume an expectation of much shorter time scales. As for ethics, may the superior sentience win.