| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - UFO SURVEY -> The moral implications of space exploration. | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: The moral implications of space exploration. |
| Posted By: Mr. B Posted On: Jun 19, 2008 Views: 1611 | The moral implications of space exploration. TAKE NOTE THAT THIS IS LONG AND PRESENTS SOME OF MY WORKMATES ARGUMENTS. wE WORK ON A FORUME, MUCH LIKE THIS, AS MODERATORS, SO IF YOU SEE THE WORD POST, THATS WHAT IT IS MEANT TO BE.(keith can edit out some of it if he really wants, or you can skip around.) I was talking to some people at work about the future possibility's of space travel. And one issue that kept creeping up was the need for food and water for any "outposts" or habitats to sustain life. (outpost was the word used for land, or in-orbit stations) Now, if habitable planets were confirmed to exist within our reach, this could be avoided. Such a planet would allow us to (hopefully) grow food and give access to water. Now here is where the discussion got weird. Someone mentioned that there is the moral aspect, that "invading" a planet that can (and in that case most likely will) sustain life of any sort, could have a huge impact on the future evolution of that planet. (butterfly effect) Now for most of us this wouldn't be an issue, we kill animals all the time, for food, or in some cases for fun. But I'm sure there are many who would protest the idea greatly. So, after that discussion ended here at work, i figured i would try and get some more opinions on the subject. Basically, what effect do you think human contact with other planets could cause, and do you believe it would cause any moral issues? And do if you believe there could be, Can you think of any solutions to those issues. One of them said, "It's Natural selecction at an interplanetary scale, sounds perfectly normal to me." but... i don't know, i wouldn't call it natural selection if something that did not happen naturally on the planet, say a human, came and messed with the whole process. Of course the whole situation would be decided, imo, if we really needed to be on the planet due overpopulation and all other apocolyptic things you could think of. you could also say that, what if something on the planet hitches a ride back after the initial survey and wreaks havoc on our planet after some freak mutation. there is that whole arguement about asteroids coming down and bringing some kind of ancient space plauge for which there is no cure, which could be used for the uninhabited planet. What if we were to find a primitive civilization there already using the planet, say something on the level of anicient egyptian type technology, should we study the from afar, should we subjugate them under our rule, should we go to a part on the planet where they aren't and try to be as inconspicous as possible? this whole topic could bring up a million more questions and what ifs really, i would say that is we really needed the planet then we should go and colonize the planet. I would say that we should take every precaution to make sure we don't bring something dangerous back, i would say we should study them from afar or try to coexist with them... thats what.... i would say. Anothher opinion: Honestly, we should figure out how to sort out our own problems before we end up spreading them out onto other planets. For example...we have problems with pollution and managing waste and obtaining fuel and whatnot. Humans need to resolve these problems. Otherwise, once we reach another planet, we will disrupt its ecosystem so much that it'll rot beneath the cities we build upon it. the point should be simple. Either we figure out how to manage our own problems on this planet or we will be more of a plague to the other planets. However:But that's why we go to another planet. If we have the tech to move to another planet, then we can destroy that one, use up all of its resources, and move on. Yeah, it sounds heartless, but it is a necessity. The majority of resources that we use on Earth are finite, not just the fossil fuels (which is what everyone cares about). Things like Iron, Copper, Gold, Silver, Diamonds, etc., etc. are all going to run out and are all very important to modern life. Yeah, we may be able to slow the use of oil, but iron? So, what happens when we use it all? Should we go back to living in caves and thatch-roofed houses? That may be well and good for you, but I sure as hell don't want to live like that. So, what are our options? Create replacements for said exhaustible resources, using other exhaustible resources, or find another source. Finding the other source is easiest, for example: Mars has a ****ton of iron. Now, to the topic more at hand: moral implications. In my opinion, there are none. Survival of the fittest and all that. People eat meat, people eat plants, so people kill living things, it's the way the world works. If there's life on other planets (a statistical certainty), they most likely have to eat other forms of life on their planet as well. As such, killing them for us to live is just survival and therefore morally right (just as it would be morally right to kill us if the survival situation were reversed). However, in my opinion, the whole topic is moot as we will most likely be able to terraform planets long before we find one with a habitable atmosphere, water, and carbon based life (required for us to live) within a reachable distance. Taking Mars and turning it into a place that we can live is doable with the technology we have now (melt the ice caps + transfered plant life + time = habitable) let alone what we will have 100 years, or 1,000 years from now. Hell, we can live without "nature" now. We have air filters that can turn CO2 into O2, we have water condensers that can pull hydrogen out of the air and create water, we can create artificial sunlight to sustain plants and therefore animals and therefore have food. So, really, we don't even need to completely terraform a planet, we can just go there and set up some domes (not quite possible with current tech) and live happily ever after. |
| Posted By: Mr. B Posted On: Jun 20, 2008 Views: 1602 | RE: The moral implications of space exploration. anyone? Is this page still alive? |
| Posted By: andres Posted On: Jun 20, 2008 Views: 1592 | RE: The moral implications of space exploration. It is but: moral implications of conquering other planets? Is this really a 21st century topic? How many steps have you skipped? Im not even sure if we will ever be able to reach another planet where we could also live. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 21, 2008 Views: 1589 | RE: The moral implications of space exploration. I'm inclined to agree. I will worry about it when and if we ever reach another planet. |