From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Ethics of Terraforming
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:54:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuI30u.8IB.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


 David Knapp writes: (Highly paraphrased...Let me know if I've mis-stated
                      your postition, Dave)

>Premise:  We are hurting the Planet, to both our detriment, as well as Gaia's.
>Premise:  We can expect the same treatment, at the hands of Humans, for Mars.
>Conclusion:  We should not terraform Mars, until we can treat Gaia right.

[followed by...

>Rebuttals to Premise 1, including reference to population dynamics, various
>predictions invloving fuel, food, politcal changes, geological theories,
>car technology, technology change in general...
>...
>degenrating into name-calling (Mathus is a..), references to drug use, astral
>projection, voting republican, etc by both sides.

I feel the point has been missed entirely.  The argument put forth by Dave
hinges not on the premise that the Earth is being damaged, (I believe it is,
BTW, though not to the extent many (loudly) proclaim) but on the premise that
we can hurt Mars.

Here on Earth, we can only hurt live things.  Whether it's us, or your
favorite animal, or Gaia herself, our ability to destroy ends with life-less
things.  We can't hurt rock.  Even large, red, pretty-to-look at rock.

Perhaps Mars has life already.  So what?  Anything we do will increase the
amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is
there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better
suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve.
Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life.  Again, so what?  We can predict that
it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the
mechanism of evolution.  But we would bring already-complex stuff along,
speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself.

So Dave's argument is moot.  By his own criteria (damage to life) we are
powerless to hurt anything or anyone by terra-forming Mars.  So his second
premise is the false one (though the first may be, as well.  See the previous
week's posts for the lengthly arguments referenced above)

If Dave takes the less-general, but more defendable, 'damage to people'
criteria, then it turns out he is arguing FOR the Terra-forming of Mars,
as it would 'hurt' us more not to have a livable Mars.

Sadly, he posted contradictorally to his own position, leading him to
take 'damage to humans' as the actual criteria for his argument, as many
greens often do.  Kind of depressing, really.  At least his argument
escapes unscathed.

An example;

>>When we do run out of fossil fuels, I'm sure I won't see you shoving to get
>>an electric car because you were so convinced it wouldn't be an issue. I hope
>>you like the bus.

Unfortunately, electric cars depend on energy even more than fossil-fuel cars,
as they are less efficient (from the orignal source) than oil-powered cars now.
To really get pollution-advantages from electric cars requires a new energy
source, not a new way of using more coal and oil.

Naturally, gov. has instituted legislation to the effect that people must
drive electric (emmission-free) cars in some cities by a certain date.  And
this at the request, nay, demand, of people trying to slow pollution and
energy use.  Double-speaking of saving the environment...

>Like I said, Saturn's rings are off-limits, and I'll add Halley's comet to the
>protected list :)

I think you should jump in a lake, like, say, Lake Michigan.  Quite symbolic,
as the rings of Saturn will one day be the cheapest source of water in the
solar system.  But I'll back you up on the Comet :-)

>>No, really, I see what you're saying, until we see that it is a problem,
>>we should not worry about it. Good strategy.

Here's a problem (that is quite demonstrable);  People using up lots and
lots of non-sustainable resources trying to save resources that are
allegedly limited.  If you believe they are limited, you shouldn't advocate
known resource wasters:  Totalitariansim, 'socialistic-market economies'
(that's oxymoron, to you and me :-), and gov. monopoly power.

>Now, if population growth is such a bad thing, will you be the first one to
>castrate yourself so as to slow the rate of growth? Will you be the first to
>hang yourself in order to save the ecosystem?

No, but he will probably feel no qualms about castrating (hurting) you and
me through the use of legislation and taxing power that bear no relation
to actual environmental problems or solutions.  As you would expect, from a
philosophy that takes 'damage to (other) humans' as a value.

Notice to all Greens:  If your values do not rest on the "what's good for us"
criteria, you will be the problem, not a solution.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space