Terraforming
 

For those unfamiliar, the act of Terraforming is defined as:
(Further reading can be done at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming)

The question I have is this: Do you feel that attempting to (or perhaps successfully) changing another planet's ecology into a form that would be capable of sustaining human life would be ethical or immoral?

I figure this might get some activity. :D

Immoral to whom? The other planet? Do inanimate objects beget personified ethics?

I can't see how someone could argue that being unethical seeing as we wouldn't be artificially creating life or destroying it. We would just simply be moving life to a new location to allow it to grow. As grav said if we change the landscape its not like we would be hurting anything on biological dead planet. Pretty sure rocks don't have feelings.

Perhaps I should phrase it as, "Do you believe that changing the very characteristics of an entire planet's ecosystem into a form capable of sustaining Terran life is acceptable or not?"

Basically looking for any arguments advocating or criticizing this behavior, and why you feel this way.

Edit: The main argument I see against it would be the possibility of exterminating undiscovered life forms or disrupting the natural progression of the environment.

So does the planet have any organisms currently on it or is it just a dead planet with abunch of rocks or is it unknown at the current time. If it has life on it, it should be left alone unless the extinction of the human race inevitable if we dont migrate there. If there is no life on it there shouldn't be a problem introducing something to it and molding the planet.

Let's take an example: Venus.

Do you feel there would be anything inherently wrong if we were to somehow change Venus into a habitable environment?

Nope but we'd all be fucked up by gravity fo sure!

If this were asked of a planet in a Sci-Fi novel, with it's own non-Terran life and ecosystem, then I think you'd get a better response.

In reply to Venus - I don't think it would be wrong, but it'd be a completely daft thing to do, and the cost involved would be ludicrous.

If it was done to every single discovered planet out there, then it could start to border on wrong. Sure, even if it were done to every single planet that has been discovered up to this present day, it wouldn't even begin to start to scratch the surface of what's in the Universe, but I'd still consider it as damaging the natural beauty of the Universe. For all we know, no two bodies are the same, and by terraforming one we just happen to come across, we'd be destroying something unique.

I don't think there would be many people who would disagree that eradicating another lifeform simply to make their planet livable for ours without some extreme circumstance would be wrong, I'm talking mostly about if you feel it would be wrong to change the nature of a planet to suit it to our own needs, after seeing what changes we've made to Earth.

Well, the population generally continues to grow, and we will eventually run out of living space. Also, in the VERY long term, our sun will collapse into a Red Giant, which will swallow most of the Inner Planets, either completely destroying them or rendering them all barren in a manner somewhat similar to Mercury. This won't happen for billions of years, but if civilization lasts that long, we'll be forced to find a new living locale by then.

In the case of Venus, it'd be for exploration purposes as well as living space and resources to fuel industry. By the time we'd hypothetically be considering terraforming Venus, the cost wouldn't be prohibitive (as that would always be a consideration) and we'd already have means to cheaply ship men and materials from Earth via Space Elevator or something as yet undiscovered.

I'm mainly aiming for the philiosophical side of the argument.

I know this is off topic but.... if we do ever go to another planet it would most likely be Mars. Venus has intense gravity, volcanic activity and I'm pretty sure it be pretty damn impossible to live there. Mars does have insane wind storms but at least the gravity and temperature aren't as extreme so we could possibly work around it.

Actually, the gravity is similar. I think that Venus has promise for terraforming, but Mars is more promising left alone (almost no environment is easier to work with than a hostile environment).

Uh...

Venus has a gravity of 0.904g, which is the closest to Earth gravity you'll find. The main problems are the fact that atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than that of Earth, the fact that the surface is hot enough to melt Lead due to the intense atmosphere, and the complete absence of water.

Atmospheric pressure is largely due to greenhouse gases, which can be relieved along with a fair portion of the heat issue (as they're largely the same problem) via a Solar Shade, to cool the planet to where a lot of the gas could fall to the surface as Dry Ice to be shipped elsewhere (perhaps to Mars, where the problem is not enough atmosphere). Water could possibly be mined from an Ice Moon of Saturn such as Europa and literally just bombard Venus with large chunks of ice.

That's all pretty offtopic (and the info is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus), I'm mainly interested in the ethical ramifications.

Whoops guess I got the pressure/gravity mixed up. I don't remember my 5th grade science too well I guess.

I've been reading this kind of stuff all day, it really has me intrigued.

lol gtf off of wiki srsly.

I've been a proponent of terraforming ever since I played Buck Rogers: Countdown to Doomsday on the C64. I've just always thought it seemed like a logical progression once we've finished jacking up Earth.
Seriously, though, I can understand the ethical issues involved here. Who's to say whether these "lifeless" planets aren't simply progressing on their own evolutionary course. Our tampering could cause irreparable damage to future ecosystems - probably in the form of McDonald's.

To me, it only seems logical that we should move to other planets. Once we're capable, we need to get on it. There's no reason we should just stick to our one planet, that I can really think of. The benefits would be great if we were to go to other places.

I was talking with Chruser recently about this, actually. I was saying, we need to spread our human population out between more than one planet(same with our animals, if possible.) If something catastrophic were to happen to earth, our entire species would be wiped out. If we're split up between a few different places, it would still suck but it wouldn't be the end. Also, with more "bases", we would have more of a chance to eliminate any potential threats(such as meteors and shit like that.)

As for the morality, I don't really see how there would be any problem with it. I mean, if there was some sentient lifeform that we were wiping out, I'd see a possible problem with it(and also possible provoking some problems farther down the road, depending on how intelligent they are.) Wiping out a bunch of bacteria doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

So I say, for cases such as mars and venus where there's not much if any life (I don't know much about the ecosystems of either planet, if they even have ecosystems,) let's terraform, baby!

I agree with you for your reasons of wanting to expand, and even the act of Terraforming itself can teach us things about how our planet formed. The act of colonizing another planet gives us access to other resources that are in short supply on Earth (although Oil wouldn't be one), as well as ensuring the continued survival of the human race by seperating us from being able to be killed all in one location.

I would not have a problem with Terraforming another planet personally after an exhaustive survey to determine if there were any alien lifeform present. I would be opposed to Terraforming over life of any kind though, as I kinda believe outside sources of life should be protected and allowed to continue along their natural path, as they would constitute an Endangered Species of sorts.

Where's Sov? I figured as a Trekkie he'd have been somewhat interested in this thread.

No we aren't playing the "role" of god or anything of that matter, I think there would be nothing wrong with it what-so-ever, even if you try to play the card of ethics, then you could in-turn say that everything was placed for us to use, not to leave untouched, we need to take advantage of these places eventually to continue our survival.

Doesn't the ISS have an evacuation vehicle? Problem solved.

I think the propagation of the human race through space is a natural consequence of technological progression under the assumption that it does not annihilate itself before it is capable of doing so. As Vollstrecker already pointed out living space is a limited resource. Though I believe that the human population will stabilize somewhat logarithmically, the idea of terraforming and living on other planets is certainly appealing.

Whether or not terraforming a planet is ethical is a difficult question to answer. Most people seem to agree that if terraforming eventuated the annihilation of an exoecosystem then it would be unethical. As a whole, however, I think that the intrinsic xenophobia and selfishness of the human species would inevitably lead to such an annihilation given that our technology was significantly superior. If what society considers acceptable is also considered ethical then terraforming another planet is certainly ethical; a direct consequence of human selfishness.

I personally find the idea of terraforming another planet with life on it appalling. Human beings are like a plague to our own planet's ecosystem. I certainly hope that the plague never becomes infectious.

Even otherwise, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the idea of terraforming a planet. I find that there is inherent beauty in the way nature set things up. The human plague would only tarnish this beauty, with or without life. However, the spread of the human plague is a necessity for the progression of science. In my personal opinion, our quest for knowledge transcends any question of ethics unless we are harming living beings.

College education ftw!

Terraform jupiter we'll have like 50x as much space! jk =P.

You can't terraform that which has no terra to form, Willkill. Although we don't know Jupiter's mass 100%, all signs indicate that it honestly has no solid mass to it, and given its temperature, some scientists believe that it was a star that simply didn't quite get the mass needed to ignite.

Mj pretty much summed up my feeling exactly, it's really difficult to decide between natural beauty and making ourselves infinitely more comfortable. I suppose the decision to terraform would depend upon what we intend to DO while we occupy the planet and if we truly intended to populate the entirety of it.

I can only hope we'd have learned how to lessen our negative impact on the planets by the time this is a consideration, otherwise we'd just be destroying planets in our wake.

Heh. So many future shows with a scene where a character looks up at the moon and remembers what it looked like before colonization, or looks up at it during a trip to the past and remarks at how pretty it is.

Exactly, this was precisely the type of discussion I was looking for. I suppose it boils down to human progress vs. environment seniments.

I guess you didn't see my "jk =P". Not just that ...even if it retained its current size and it were a rocky planet we would be crushed by the gravity.

I think the possibility for a solid surface deep within Jupiter still exists, though. Not entirely sure about that.

I did some brief studying of Jupiter a few years ago while working on a Sci-fi novel which never actually materialized, and that sounds about right. The outer layer is gaseous and comprised mainly of Hydrogen and Helium, but there is indication of some sort of solid core within based on the gravitational forces present. We just have no way of probing that deeply into the planet.

Actually, according to wikipedia, Jupiter may have a solid core. Interestingly, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of Jupiter may be much less than the acceleration in orbit, since you'd have about 95% of it's mass pretty much evenly distributed arround you and canceling itself out. Not to say that the pressure and heat wouldn't kill you...

Unfortunately, the colonization of the moon is almost inevitable. We need a cheap way to supply space docks for longer range exploration and exploitation. Really, the view of the moon is so polluted by Earth-shine these days, that I don't think it'll makes much difference by the time it'd be noticable.

Jupiter is theorized to have a small, solid core or a gaseous core of dense materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure

They just don't have all the info to know for sure yet, WW. The temperature near the core is believed to be 36,000 degrees Kelvin and under 3,000–4,500 GPa of pressure. I don't know enough about chemistry to formulate a real guess, but wouldn't the molecules be flying EVERYWHERE under the excitement generated by that insane amount of heat, or would the immense pressure cut down on some of that?

The pressure would cut down on some of that but 36,000 degrees...I don't know. That is a really high temperature.

I'd think it'd be inevitable that there'd be some sort of "solid" core considering the pressures etc. involved but I'm definitely no expert.

Unless I converted wrong, the interior temp would be ~64,000 degrees Farenheit for something more comparable for those of us who aren't fluent in Kelvin.

I don't think anyone has a true idea of what the interior could be like because the temperature and pressure are so much greater than we could hope to witness the effects of. Can you imagine trying to build a probe that could stand up to those conditions?

It's really weird to think about. I mean, if your not religious and you believe that everything was made from molecules...then shouldn't that happen on the other planets as well...but creatures that are already adjusted for the planets culture? Earth may have been just like Mars or Jupiter way back when....and evolved with everything else on it...or is there some proof that's not possible :P.

Ok, so if we were to start moing to different planets tomorrow...(IF)...who would go from her. I personally would stay on earth.

Earth is a lot more like mars than Jupiter ...for sure.

From what we can tell, Earth would never have been like Jupiter simply because of the mass difference and of course the vastly different atmospheres, the best comparison to Earth would be Venus.

The general question would be if we were to have a breakthrough tomorrow and be able to change Venus or Mars into a habitable planet for human life, do you think it would be wrong to do so? I think everyone agrees that exterminating an alien life form would be horrendously wrong, so I don't intend really to include that as a consideration.

I personally would think seriously about a move to Mars, I would love to set foot on another planet. It would truly be a moment to remember.

Any natural beauty of Mars would be out of range of the masses unless we colonize it.

Not necessarily, as Phobos or Deimos would be fairly acceptable way-stations as well, as would be a station at Legrange points.