Moontanman Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 I want to ask the question would it be ethical to colonize a planet or planets that orbit a star that will soon (with in a couple million years)evolve off the main sequence and destroy any planets around it? Lets say a giant star has several planets in it's broad life zone, would it be ethical to terraform these planets and colonize them even if we knew the star was going to blow up in a couple million years, such a broad life zone might be tempting... Quote
pamela Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 does it depend upon the survival of the species to colonize the terraformed planet? Quote
Moontanman Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 I think in the context of this question... No, if we are freely colonizing the galaxy we would have our choice of stars, so the the idea is this is not the survival of the species but just acquiring new territory... but 2,000,000 years is along time, humans haven't even existed as humans that long. Quote
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 does it depend upon the survival of the species to colonize the terraformed planet? Im not sure of what you are asking... 1 If we dont colonize the terraformed planet then our species wont survive? By all means COLONIZE NOW! 2 If we dont etc ...then all other non earth related species wont survive? Lets think now and, perhaps colonize later if necessary. 3 If... then the species now existing on it will not survive?Arent they inviting us? Oughtnt we go? Also im not sure why Moon asks? Quote
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 c 2,000,000 years is a long time, humans haven't even existed as humans that long. The size of a number depends, as you are aware of ,what one is comparing it with. My reaction was: That is a very small number!I suppose we dont share the same outlook. Can i persuade you to tell us more of whats on your mind here? Quote
Moontanman Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 Im not sure of what you are asking... 1 I we dont colonize the terraformed planet then our species wont survive? By all means COLONIZE NOW! 2 If we dont etc ...then all other non earth related species wont survive? Lets think now and, perhaps colonize later if necessary. 3 If... then the species now existing on it will not survive?Arent they inviting us? Oughtnt we go? Also im not sure why Moon asks? Such a giant star would be very unlikely to have planets that had evolved complex life, they simply do not exist long enough for it to happen so all the life would be transferred earth life. Quote
Moontanman Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 The size of a number depends, as you are aware of ,what one is comparing it with. My reaction was: That is a very small number!I suppose we dont share the same outlook. In human time frame 2,000,000 years is forever... Quote
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 In human time frame 2,000,000 years is forever... Im not in the human time frame!? There probably is no forever! Like most things our universewill die... Did you notice that "just the other day" you were a kid? Time Flies Fast! Before life knows it,it might find itself in deep trouble. Quote
pamela Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I think in the context of this question... No, if we are freely colonizing the galaxy we would have our choice of stars, so the the idea is this is not the survival of the species but just acquiring new territory... but 2,000,000 years is along time, humans haven't even existed as humans that long.pfft don't ask me, i am a nihilist :P Quote
belovelife Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 well, i argue with myself if it is right to terraform mars, with little if any life galactic biodiversity then again, we reduce that ourselves Quote
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 well, i argue with myself if it is right to terraform mars, with little if any life galactic biodiversity then again, we reduce that ourselves It is Right to Terraform Mars! Its remaining flowersdeep down under groundwill then rise to the now sterile surfaceeventually... Quote
Moontanman Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 It is Right to Terraform Mars! Its remaining flowersdeep down under groundwill then rise to the now sterile surfaceeventually... Seriously dude, what ever it is you are doing you need to throttle back several notches.... Quote
lawcat Posted February 4, 2012 Report Posted February 4, 2012 I wouldn't call it unethical. I'd call it stupid if millions years represented immediate danger, but it does not. Quote
sigurdV Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 Seriously dude, what ever it is you are doing you need to throttle back several notches.... Whats eating you dude? Mars was once like Earth,and Earth has microbes, living in stone, deep underground! (Scientists say...) IF there once was life on mars, such microbes could still be there! (Is a conclusion!) To call them "flowers", is but a metaphor,I find rather pretty.And you missed the point !? Youre bright, arent you? :blink: Quote
phision Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 6 users were reading this thread! that's the most I've seen: is the superbowl on or something? LOL Quote
Uplift_Humanity Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 Lets say a giant star has several planets in it's broad life zone, would it be ethical to terraform these planets and colonize them even if we knew the star was going to blow up in a couple million years, such a broad life zone might be tempting... In human time frame 2,000,000 years is forever... No problem for me -- not really an ethics issue, especially if the people know (are told/volunteer to join) the situation before they're left there. 2 million years is a HUGE number of (~ 70 000) generations.So it's likely those people being left on the doomed planet will, within that time, develop the ability to move themselves to a new safer planet in another star-system. For this to be unethical, at least one of the following would have to be part of the scenario:The planet's star would collapse/explode in a "few" (~100) years (instead of 2x106 yrs)The planet has insufficient resources or is uninhabitable by humans (temperature level/stability, water availability, carbon-based food sources, stable ground/surface, sufficient resources & mineable metals/minerals/fuel, etc.). Terraforming alone is not enough.The ratio of men-to-women, or the number of people left on the planet is too low (e.g., only 50 people put there, or only 10% are women). In these cases, there would be too little genetic diversity for them to adequately procreate and sustain their population.. Interesting question. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.