Ethics Of Colonization Of Other Planets.

[sigurdV]

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.

 

"Unlikely"...perhaps, but im not convinced its "very unlikely".

 

Life has, against all odds, been traced back close (geologically seen)

to the formation of the Earth.

But complex life had to wait a longer time, it seems ,for introduction.

Perhaps we are an extreme case,complex life arising much earlier elsewhere?

 

(And by "all the life" you mean "all the complex life" ,right?)

 

I think your topic is interesting but slightly Earth Biased. It is assumed we will only be interested in colonizing Planets,leaving interstellar Space behind us as soon as possible and settle on a Planet suitable for human life... Scrutinizing this "Space Ship Scenario" for engineering details will, I fear, result in a revised scenario like the "Space City Scenario"...

 

Which I think invites an extension of the topic: "Ethics of Colonizing Space"!

 

When we look at the possibly Empty Space,

we tend to overlook the fact that we only see it as it once was!

And that we may be latecomers to the Universal Arena...

Imagine our surprise if our first Space City meets another...

 

What shall we do?

Pay the ticket for Passing,

or Declare War?

[Moontanman]

"Unlikely"...perhaps, but im not convinced its "very unlikely".

 

It took over 3 billion years for complex life to develop on earth, giant stars seldom last more than a few million... I mean your lack of seeing it doesn't make it any more likely.

 

Life has, against all odds, been traced back close (geologically seen)

to the formation of the Earth.

But complex life had to wait a longer time, it seems ,for introduction.

Perhaps we are an extreme case,complex life arising much earlier elsewhere?

 

I could se it developing maybe twice as fast or even 4 times as fast maybe but a thousand times as fast?

 

(And by "all the life" you mean "all the complex life" ,right?)

 

Complex and simple both...

 

I think your topic is interesting but slightly Earth Biased. It is assumed we will only be interested in colonizing Planets,leaving interstellar Space behind us as soon as possible and settle on a Planet suitable for human life... Scrutinizing this "Space Ship Scenario" for engineering details will, I fear, result in a revised scenario like the "Space City Scenario"...

 

it was an ethical question, not a could it be done or would it be done question... I personally think it's unlikely we will colonize planets at all, free orbiting space colonies seem far more likely but it is not part of this question.

 

Which I think invites an extension of the topic: "Ethics of Colonizing Space"!

 

Start a thread on it...

 

When we look at the possibly Empty Space,

we tend to overlook the fact that we only see it as it once was!

And that we may be latecomers to the Universal Arena...

Imagine our surprise if our first Space City meets another...

 

 

If they are there why can't we hear their radio broadcasts?

 

What shall we do?

Pay the ticket for Passing,

or Declare War?

 

Resources in space are so vast I see no reason to go to war for that reason, there could be other reasons...

[Guest MacPhee]

Colonizing other planets, seems a modern version of colonizing other continents. In past ages, before the electric telegraph and steamships, other continents were as remote-seeming as other planets. A voyage from Europe to Australia, was almost like a voyage from Earth to Mars. So what role did "ethics" play in such voyages, and especially voyages aimed at colonization.

 

"Ethics" didn't figure much in the colonization of North America. When Europeans sailed to North America, in order to live there, and farm the land, and build towns and cities, did they worry about the "ethics" of it?

 

Did they ask themselves - "Is what we're doing 'ethical' - we're colonizing the continent and pushing the native North American people off their ancestral hunting lands. These lands are getting ploughed up, by us, to make farms. And all the buffaloes that used to roam around the lands, are getting shot. By us. With our rifles. This seems ethically highly dubious, so perhaps we should stop doing it and sail back to Europe."

 

If they'd taken such a bleeding-heart view, there'd be no United States of America today.

 

Thankfully, they didn't take that view - they saw a rich sparsely-inhabited continent, ripe for colonisation. So they took it, farmed it, civilised it, built towns and magnificent cities, and created the USA - the best country in the world.

 

So, suppose in the future, we travel out into space, and find an a habitable planet. Which is rich in resources, but only occupied by bacteria, or amphibians, or primitive thoat-herders. Shouldn't we just land, take the planet, and develope it into a wonderful New Earth - and not worry about prissy "ethics"?

[Moontanman]

Colonizing other planets, seems a modern version of colonizing other continents. In past ages, before the electric telegraph and steamships, other continents were as remote-seeming as other planets. A voyage from Europe to Australia, was almost like a voyage from Earth to Mars. So what role did "ethics" play in such voyages, and especially voyages aimed at colonization.

 

"Ethics" didn't figure much in the colonization of North America. When Europeans sailed to North America, in order to live there, and farm the land, and build towns and cities, did they worry about the "ethics" of it?

 

Did they ask themselves - "Is what we're doing 'ethical' - we're colonizing the continent and pushing the native North American people off their ancestral hunting lands. These lands are getting ploughed up, by us, to make farms. And all the buffaloes that used to roam around the lands, are getting shot. By us. With our rifles. This seems ethically highly dubious, so perhaps we should stop doing it and sail back to Europe."

 

If they'd taken such a bleeding-heart view, there'd be no United States of America today.

 

Thankfully, they didn't take that view - they saw a rich sparsely-inhabited continent, ripe for colonisation. So they took it, farmed it, civilised it, built towns and magnificent cities, and created the USA - the best country in the world.

 

So, suppose in the future, we travel out into space, and find an a habitable planet. Which is rich in resources, but only occupied by bacteria, or amphibians, or primitive thoat-herders. Shouldn't we just land, take the planet, and develope it into a wonderful New Earth - and not worry about prissy "ethics"?

 

 

An interesting point of view, the conquers always seem to be able to justify their acts after the fact. Since a great many of my ancestors were native american i have slightly different point of view on this, Andrew Jackson was a dishonest man who did horrific things in the name of building the US and he was one of the later ones. Earlier men did far worse even to biological warfare but that is not the subject of this thread.

 

I have some real doubts about whether or not we would want to colonize other planets much less be able to do so due to biological reasons.

 

I can see no reason not to colonize a planet that doesn't have complex life, complex life would make such colonization ethically debatable but intelligent life should preclude any colonization. Just because we did it in the past doesn't mean it's ok now. But again this is off topic.

 

The topic is, if the planet we want to colonize can be shown to be uninhabitable X number of years from now, i said 2 million years, is it ethical to colonize that planet?

[sigurdV]

1 It took over 3 billion years for complex life to develop on earth, giant stars seldom last more than a few million... I mean your lack of seeing it doesn't make it any more likely.

 

 

 

2 I could se it developing maybe twice as fast or even 4 times as fast maybe but a thousand times as fast?

 

 

3 complex and simple: Both...

 

 

4 it was an ethical question, not a could it be done or would it be done question... I personally think it's unlikely we will colonize planets at all, free orbiting space colonies seem far more likely but it is not part of this question.

 

 

 

Start a thread on it...

 

 

 

 

5 If they are there why can't we hear their radio broadcasts?

 

 

 

6 Resources in space are so vast I see no reason to go to war for that reason, there could be other reasons...

 

1 i didnt calculate.

 

2 i dont dispute your number sense here.

 

3 ...

 

4 If ill do i will tell it was on demand,

some ppl consider me a spammer

and i dont want to provoke them

ill consider opening the thread "Colonizing space: How?"

And you will enter some careful predictions?

 

5 Distance! Their "stop or pay tax" demand will be recieved somehow.

 

6 An illusion, if life propagates exponentially!

[Moontanman]

4 If ill do i will tell it was on demand,

some ppl consider me a spammer

and i dont want to provoke them

ill consider opening the thread "Colonizing space: How?"

And you will enter some careful predictions?

 

I'll be glad to contribute.

 

5 Distance! Their "stop or pay tax" demand will be recieved somehow.

 

Radio waves should be detectable at vast distances but it is a problem, we can discuss this in the new thread.

 

6 An illusion, if life propagates exponentially!

 

If life propagates exponentially then where are they?

[sigurdV]

I'll be glad to contribute.

 

 

 

Radio waves should be detectable at vast distances but it is a problem, we can discuss this in the new thread.

 

 

 

If life propagates exponentially then where are they?

 

The New Thread is there in space forum, im known to be whacky so I opened up with some timid questions...How about you taking on the

challenge ;)

[Guest MacPhee]

The topic is, if the planet we want to colonize can be shown to be uninhabitable X number of years from now, i said 2 million years, is it ethical to colonize that planet?

 

Could you just clarify, please, why you think "ethics" comes into the question? Because I don't quite see how it does.

 

You seem to be arguing thus:

 

1. We find a planet that humans can live on. Some terraforming may be required. But a human civilisation can be set up.

2. However, in 2 million years time,the planet's sun will expand into a Red Giant, or blow up as a supernova, or whatever. This will end the civilisation.

3. Therefore, it would be unethical for us to set up the civilisation in the first place.

 

I must admit to finding this a difficult argument to follow, and will appreciate your further elucidation - thanks.

[Moontanman]

Could you just clarify, please, why you think "ethics" comes into the question? Because I don't quite see how it does.

 

You seem to be arguing thus:

 

1. We find a planet that humans can live on. Some terraforming may be required. But a human civilisation can be set up.

2. However, in 2 million years time,the planet's sun will expand into a Red Giant, or blow up as a supernova, or whatever. This will end the civilisation.

3. Therefore, it would be unethical for us to set up the civilisation in the first place.

 

I must admit to finding this a difficult argument to follow, and will appreciate your further elucidation - thanks.

 

The terra forming part is irrelevant, but the idea of setting up a colony that is doomed in a relatively short time as cosmic times goes is the question, would it be ethical to risk your descendants in that manner? Even if civilization didn't fall your descendants would still be cooked in a known time frame. Removing the inhabitants of an entire world is not realistic, at some point we would be reproducing faster than we could be removed.

 

Of course all stars die eventually and all worlds die as a result, but what is the limit? Where would you draw the line, 2 million? One hundred thousand? one thousand? Or current civilization is less than a few thousand years old, it could be argued our current civilization is just a few hundred years old, 2 million is forever in human terms but when does the time become a factor in deciding to colonize?

[Guest MacPhee]

The terra forming part is irrelevant, but the idea of setting up a colony that is doomed in a relatively short time as cosmic times goes is the question, would it be ethical to risk your descendants in that manner? Even if civilization didn't fall your descendants would still be cooked in a known time frame. Removing the inhabitants of an entire world is not realistic, at some point we would be reproducing faster than we could be removed.

 

Of course all stars die eventually and all worlds die as a result, but what is the limit? Where would you draw the line, 2 million? One hundred thousand? one thousand? Or current civilization is less than a few thousand years old, it could be argued our current civilization is just a few hundred years old, 2 million is forever in human terms but when does the time become a factor in deciding to colonize?

 

Thanks Moontanman. Yes, I see what you mean. This reminds me of the old arguments about starships. Suppose we could build a starship, but it hadn't got FTL speed. So it would take hundreds of years, or thousands, to arrive at its destination star. During that time, many generations would be born, grow old and die, aboard the ship. They would be forced to spend their entire lives cooped up in the ship, through no choice of their own. Would it be ethical for us to launch such a ship? I'd say definitely "no".

 

Setting up a colony on another planet, though, isn't quite the same. I take your point about the impracticability of removing the entire population of the colony planet, as doom-time became imminent. But that assumes we left it right till the last minute. Couldn't we have a kind of "phased withdrawal" from the planet, so the inhabitants could leave over a period of time.

 

Your question of where to draw the line, when deciding whether to colonize a planet with a limited habitability period, is interesting. If the planet was only going to last a very short time, say 100 years, then it obviously wouldn't be worthwhile.

 

On the other hand, 1,000,000 years, is (in human terms!) like an eternity, so I'd go for that as the benchmark.

We only colonise "million-year planets". Sounds reasonable?

 

Thanks again for the courtesy of your reply.

[maddog]

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...

Moontanman,

 

A million years (10^6) is a loooong time. Given that where the "ethical" problem with that. The Only one I

think of is "what if" -- "civilization" breaks down and the indigent lifeform that colonized regressed back

to animal-like intelligence (whatever that means).

 

maddog

[maddog]

Colonizing other planets, seems a modern version of colonizing other continents. In past ages, before the electric telegraph and steamships, other continents were as remote-seeming as other planets. A voyage from Europe to Australia, was almost like a voyage from Earth to Mars. So what role did "ethics" play in such voyages, and especially voyages aimed at colonization.

I agree with the analogy. Ethics would play a role, really. I mean we consider such issues today. What is different today

than yesterday?

 

"Ethics" didn't figure much in the colonization of North America. When Europeans sailed to North America, in order to live there, and farm the land, and build towns and cities, did they worry about the "ethics" of it?

Maybe "ethics" didn't enter into it -- only because the colonizers didn't consider or were not aware of any consequences.

I don't mean to imply that it was "wrong" to colonize America. We did what we did.

 

Do I think we should colonize nearby planets? Yeah, I do. I also accept Moontanman's concept of space cities. I as well

see the value as on planets or asteroid near where mining operations for resources very similar to

mining towns of the past had done. They sprang up for the same reasons. Only difference is this

time you have to bring your environment with you.

 

However, do we consider consequences in our action, yes, I think we should. So before any actual

terraforming operations, first determine whether any indigenous lifeform exists. If so, one then

must consider what happens to that lifeform once terraforming commences.

 

Venus for example seems very inhospitable for life. We could terraform that maybe in the far

future. The planet is earthlike at least gealogically. This may be a possibility of some

extreme lifeform "living" in the upper clouds feeding on something. We might need to confirm

this is not the case before we "destroy" this habitat, were it to exist.

 

maddog

[sigurdV]

 

Do I think we should colonize nearby planets? Yeah, I do. I also accept Moontanman's concept of space cities. I as well

see the value as on planets or asteroid near where mining operations for resources very similar to

mining towns of the past had done. They sprang up for the same reasons. Only difference is this

time you have to bring your environment with you.

 

Venus for example seems very inhospitable for life. We could terraform that maybe in the far

future. The planet is earthlike at least gealogically. This may be a possibility of some

extreme lifeform "living" in the upper clouds feeding on something. We might need to confirm

this is not the case before we "destroy" this habitat, were it to exist.

 

maddog

 

Ahem... Moontanmans version was the torus shaped space colony I think it was I who introduced the spherical space cities...At least in here.(Check out the thread Space colonization: How When Why?)

 

The colonisation of Venus has problems because of its hot ground!

 

The athmosphere seems the best entry. It contains C and sulphur i recall , its thick we could live on gliders or balloons there while pondering the next step. Can we feed ourselves from the athmosphere? Exporting coal and sulphur?

 

The possibilites of life on venus are slim, the athmosphere is as you point out the best chance, but the question of extremophiles surviving underground depends on how hot it is a bit down...

I dont think we know yet.

 

If we can feed us, and if the athmospere contains exportable matter, then Venus could be a profitable affair...All we need is a Space Elevator from empty space to the upper layers of the athmosphere and since we could extract oxygen from the CO then our exports are approximately free of cost. Well need hydrogen as well. I think there

is a problem there...Must it be imported? From where? The Oorth cloud?

 

This is a thread on The ETHICS of Colonizing Space

 

And here I write on HOW to colonize The Solar System...

Must we keep the questions apart?

 

How do you see it Moontanman?

[Moontanman]

Ahem... Moontanmans version was the torus shaped space colony I think it was I who introduced the spherical space cities...At least in here.(Check out the thread Space colonization: How When Why?)

 

Trust me when I say you are not the first to come up with these concpets.

 

The colonisation of Venus has problems because of its hot ground!

 

Changing that would be part of terra forming Venus..

 

 

 

The athmosphere seems the best entry. It contains C and sulphur i recall , its thick we could live on gliders or balloons there while pondering the next step. Can we feed ourselves from the athmosphere? Exporting coal and sulphur?

 

Give this some thought, and if the flaws in these ideas don't jump out at you let me know and I'll get back to you. I will give you some hints.. gravity well, coal?

 

The possibilites of life on venus are slim, the athmosphere is as you point out the best chance, but the question of extremophiles surviving underground depends on how hot it is a bit down...

I dont think we know yet.

 

The possibilities of earth like life on Venus is slim.

 

If we can feed us, and if the athmospere contains exportable matter, then Venus could be a profitable affair...All we need is a Space Elevator from empty space to the upper layers of the athmosphere and since we could extract oxygen from the CO then our exports are approximately free of cost. Well need hydrogen as well. I think there

is a problem there...Must it be imported? From where? The Oorth cloud?

 

Again a clue for you

 

Gravity well...

[sigurdV]

Thanks Moontanman. Yes, I see what you mean. This reminds me of the old arguments about starships. Suppose we could build a starship, but it hadn't got FTL speed. So it would take hundreds of years, or thousands, to arrive at its destination star. During that time, many generations would be born, grow old and die, aboard the ship. They would be forced to spend their entire lives cooped up in the ship, through no choice of their own. Would it be ethical for us to launch such a ship? I'd say definitely "no".

 

Setting up a colony on another planet, though, isn't quite the same. I take your point about the impracticability of removing the entire population of the colony planet, as doom-time became imminent. But that assumes we left it right till the last minute. Couldn't we have a kind of "phased withdrawal" from the planet, so the inhabitants could leave over a period of time.

 

Your question of where to draw the line, when deciding whether to colonize a planet with a limited habitability period, is interesting. If the planet was only going to last a very short time, say 100 years, then it obviously wouldn't be worthwhile.

 

On the other hand, 1,000,000 years, is (in human terms!) like an eternity, so I'd go for that as the benchmark.

We only colonise "million-year planets". Sounds reasonable?

 

Thanks again for the courtesy of your reply.

 

So I decided that only a Space City would do!

And I think Space Cities is how we solve the colonisation of the Solar System! And the next Solar Systems...

 

I was discussing Venus:Begin by parking a Space City in orbit...

[Moontanman]

So I decided that only a Space City would do!

And I think Space Cities is how we solve the colonisation of the Solar System! And the next Solar Systems...

 

I was discussing Venus:Begin by parking a Space City in orbit...

 

 

Well then, i am glad someone has finally made the decision...

[sigurdV]

Until Moontanman accepts a merger I will now Only discuss Ethics:

 

And I think its our Duty to defend our Species from invading Space Cities,

 

or Armadas of Space Cities or whatever Threats there may be!

 

Do I think its urgent,are we in danger of attack at the moment?

 

No, but we must be able to do our Duty! And we are not!

 

We cant defend ourselves from the Earth and that,I think,

 

is a good reason to colonize the Solar System. <_<

 

We dont need warriors now, we need merchants!