I know I stole this opinion from a series of sci-fi books, but I like it.
Planets should not be terraformed. It's vandalism of the natural world. If we are ever at the point where we have the technology to terraform a planet, we'll just as easily be able to build artificial habitats in space.
I mean, "Nature" is a dialectic all in itself. It is at once both the ultimate origin of the human species, and everything with which we sustain & furnish ourselves; and at the same time it is the origin of every disease that would harm us, and of every condition & necessity that allows for one person to hold dominion over & abuse another. For that reason, it would be unwise not to attempt to make ourselves the masters of it.
But I would disagree that there is a "dialectic" between the "natural", and the "unnatural". That's a position born either out of theology, or of pastoral romanticism. Instead one might say that there is a dialectic between those things which are the product of human society distinctly, and those things which are not, but both are in fact contained within the broader scope of the Natural.
Good points all around. I will say that I wasn't using artificial to mean unnatural, merely to assert the dialectic you point out between human creation and nonhuman creation.
Otherwise we'd have to place bird nests and beaver dams into the category of artifice, and then things just get silly.
When there is a viable artificial alternative, in this case space habitats, I think terraforming is inexcusable.
Okay, but why? Particularly in the case of Mars, which doesn't presently have an extant ecosystem.
Why increase the productive capacity of Mars if there is literally no reason to?
I mean people usually do not engage in extremely expensive infrastructure projects for the meme of it. That's precisely why NASA said that we can't do it, and should bother. The question is why you have a moral, rather than simply practical objection to this?
We do not increas the productive capacity of a given piece of land - we only go through successive decreases in productivity that we attempt to mitigate through new technological methods. With another planet, you're starting from 0 productivity, and the prospect of increasing it is so outrageously expensive that it's invalidated before it even begins.
We do not increas the productive capacity of a given piece of land - we only go through successive decreases in productivity that we attempt to mitigate through new technological methods.
That's patently not true. If it were, then the general population of human beings on Earth would've remained steady since the dawn of agriculture, which even before the "industrial revolution" proper it hadn't.
Your second point about terraforming a dead planet being more expensive than it's worth, and being more-or-less impossible under current conditions (the whole point of the article in OP) I would tend to agree with though.
That's patently not true. If it were, then the general population of human beings on Earth would've remained steady since the dawn of agriculture, which even before the "industrial revolution" proper it hadn't.
That's because we have continually been bringing new land and resources into production. If you're a theory reader, Jason Moore's Capitalism and the Web of Life is all about this idea and the dialectics of appropriation and exploitation that drive social change. It's a really really good read.
Far as we know,Mars is a dead rock.
I agree that we should preserve hypothetical alien lifeforms,but what nature are we ruining by making an empty place livable?
As far as we know! There could be some extremely basic form of proto-life surviving off of minerals and radiation, or remnants of now extinct life when Mars had water, and that would be destroyed by terraforming.
Also? Geology (areology in Mars's case) has scientific value and helps us understand the universe. Who knows what kinds of things we might discover in the Martian crust? We can learn so much about how planets form and about the ancient history of our solar system. Rocks aren't worthless.
And there's an aesthetic and cultural value to preserving the ancient landscape. It's not "just" a rock anymore than mountains are "just" rocks. Shall we knock down the buttes and fill the canyons with concrete just because they're rocks?
I can see your point,but that doesn't seem enough to just not settle any planetside areas because we'd "upset the natural scenery".
I mean,I won't oppose anyone who would want to live on Mars in the far future just because the environment would change.
I dunno,I never jived with the perspective that humans are supposed to just not interact with foreign environments and keep them in some sort of glass case only out of some weird quasi religious deference to "Mother Nature".
Obviously,if we have the means,we should exercise extreme caution,but to flat out refuse to settle any planet other than this one seems silly in my opinion.
We don't do it for some metaphysical "Mother Nature" but for each other. Defacing Mars would be robbing humanity of the natural beauty of the Martian landscape.
Mars has it's own beauty that we can learn to appreciate, I think terraforming would rob us of the chance.
Humanity can preserve sections of it for aesthetic or scientific purposes,but if it's more cost effective than building an orbital arcology,then I would be in favor of that. I see it like this,we should prioritize the needs of human society first over preserving natural landscapes in the case where it would help us develop technologically. Again,with the caveat that all necessary precautions are taken first.
I understand your point about the value of things as they are to human science and society, but I personally think our needs should be put first in the purely hypothetical scenario where we can interact with with foreign planetary bodies. Also, wouldn't terraforming offer valuable scientific data about how to curate and develop an ecosystem from the ground up? The Earth and other potentially habitable planets offer plenty of information, but wouldn't some direct practice be also needed to create proper orbital ecosystems?
I would also like to point out that I am no where near an expert in biology or geology and I'm merely expressing the perspective I have with the limited information I have. I take full ownership of any lapses in my judgement and I will be the first to admit that whatever discrepancies there are in my beliefs are most probably caused by the limited knowledge I possess.
Don't get me wrong,I'm no Muskite,and I wouldn't lose any sleep over Mars staying the same,but if it's deemed more efficient to terraform Mars over building orbital arcologies,I would back that policy.
My apologies for misinterpreting your sentiment,I just have a dislike for the people who act like we should swear off all development in the name of some idealistic notion of us being "caretakers" or "guardians" of nature because it just seems to be full of hubris. I see now that is not your position,and I want to clarify I didn't intend to come off in a hostile way.
Humanity can preserve sections of it for aesthetic or scientific purposes,
Oh I don't disagree! The natural world and the artificial world are in a dialectical relationship, one can not exist without the other. It seems entirely possible to reach a synthesis.
Forbidding humans from setting foot on Mars is pointless anyway, if it's possible then it literally can not be truly forbidden because people will go there no matter what. People trespass in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, they'll trespass on Mars too.
We've already disturbed the ancient landscape with our rovers anway, even if we painstakingly undid the damage it wouldn't really be natural. It'd just be an artificial rehabilitation.
I know I stole this opinion from a series of sci-fi books, but I like it.
Planets should not be terraformed. It's vandalism of the natural world. If we are ever at the point where we have the technology to terraform a planet, we'll just as easily be able to build artificial habitats in space.
That can be said about literally any endeavor to increase the productive capacity of a given piece of land though...
This isn't a Marxist/Materialist position, is what I'm getting at.
There is still a dialectic between the artificial world and the natural world. Valuing nature is a dialectical position.
Based and correct honestly
I mean, "Nature" is a dialectic all in itself. It is at once both the ultimate origin of the human species, and everything with which we sustain & furnish ourselves; and at the same time it is the origin of every disease that would harm us, and of every condition & necessity that allows for one person to hold dominion over & abuse another. For that reason, it would be unwise not to attempt to make ourselves the masters of it.
But I would disagree that there is a "dialectic" between the "natural", and the "unnatural". That's a position born either out of theology, or of pastoral romanticism. Instead one might say that there is a dialectic between those things which are the product of human society distinctly, and those things which are not, but both are in fact contained within the broader scope of the Natural.
Good points all around. I will say that I wasn't using artificial to mean unnatural, merely to assert the dialectic you point out between human creation and nonhuman creation.
Otherwise we'd have to place bird nests and beaver dams into the category of artifice, and then things just get silly.
When there is a viable artificial alternative, in this case space habitats, I think terraforming is inexcusable.
Why increase the productive capacity of Mars if there is literally no reason to?
Okay, but why? Particularly in the case of Mars, which doesn't presently have an extant ecosystem.
I mean people usually do not engage in extremely expensive infrastructure projects for the meme of it. That's precisely why NASA said that we can't do it, and should bother. The question is why you have a moral, rather than simply practical objection to this?
We do not increas the productive capacity of a given piece of land - we only go through successive decreases in productivity that we attempt to mitigate through new technological methods. With another planet, you're starting from 0 productivity, and the prospect of increasing it is so outrageously expensive that it's invalidated before it even begins.
That's patently not true. If it were, then the general population of human beings on Earth would've remained steady since the dawn of agriculture, which even before the "industrial revolution" proper it hadn't.
Your second point about terraforming a dead planet being more expensive than it's worth, and being more-or-less impossible under current conditions (the whole point of the article in OP) I would tend to agree with though.
That's because we have continually been bringing new land and resources into production. If you're a theory reader, Jason Moore's Capitalism and the Web of Life is all about this idea and the dialectics of appropriation and exploitation that drive social change. It's a really really good read.
What nature?
Far as we know,Mars is a dead rock. I agree that we should preserve hypothetical alien lifeforms,but what nature are we ruining by making an empty place livable?
As far as we know! There could be some extremely basic form of proto-life surviving off of minerals and radiation, or remnants of now extinct life when Mars had water, and that would be destroyed by terraforming.
Also? Geology (areology in Mars's case) has scientific value and helps us understand the universe. Who knows what kinds of things we might discover in the Martian crust? We can learn so much about how planets form and about the ancient history of our solar system. Rocks aren't worthless.
And there's an aesthetic and cultural value to preserving the ancient landscape. It's not "just" a rock anymore than mountains are "just" rocks. Shall we knock down the buttes and fill the canyons with concrete just because they're rocks?
Keep Mars red!
I can see your point,but that doesn't seem enough to just not settle any planetside areas because we'd "upset the natural scenery".
I mean,I won't oppose anyone who would want to live on Mars in the far future just because the environment would change.
I dunno,I never jived with the perspective that humans are supposed to just not interact with foreign environments and keep them in some sort of glass case only out of some weird quasi religious deference to "Mother Nature".
Obviously,if we have the means,we should exercise extreme caution,but to flat out refuse to settle any planet other than this one seems silly in my opinion.
We don't do it for some metaphysical "Mother Nature" but for each other. Defacing Mars would be robbing humanity of the natural beauty of the Martian landscape.
Mars has it's own beauty that we can learn to appreciate, I think terraforming would rob us of the chance.
I just think that it shouldn't be all forbidden.
Humanity can preserve sections of it for aesthetic or scientific purposes,but if it's more cost effective than building an orbital arcology,then I would be in favor of that. I see it like this,we should prioritize the needs of human society first over preserving natural landscapes in the case where it would help us develop technologically. Again,with the caveat that all necessary precautions are taken first.
I understand your point about the value of things as they are to human science and society, but I personally think our needs should be put first in the purely hypothetical scenario where we can interact with with foreign planetary bodies. Also, wouldn't terraforming offer valuable scientific data about how to curate and develop an ecosystem from the ground up? The Earth and other potentially habitable planets offer plenty of information, but wouldn't some direct practice be also needed to create proper orbital ecosystems?
I would also like to point out that I am no where near an expert in biology or geology and I'm merely expressing the perspective I have with the limited information I have. I take full ownership of any lapses in my judgement and I will be the first to admit that whatever discrepancies there are in my beliefs are most probably caused by the limited knowledge I possess.
Don't get me wrong,I'm no Muskite,and I wouldn't lose any sleep over Mars staying the same,but if it's deemed more efficient to terraform Mars over building orbital arcologies,I would back that policy.
My apologies for misinterpreting your sentiment,I just have a dislike for the people who act like we should swear off all development in the name of some idealistic notion of us being "caretakers" or "guardians" of nature because it just seems to be full of hubris. I see now that is not your position,and I want to clarify I didn't intend to come off in a hostile way.
Oh I don't disagree! The natural world and the artificial world are in a dialectical relationship, one can not exist without the other. It seems entirely possible to reach a synthesis.
Forbidding humans from setting foot on Mars is pointless anyway, if it's possible then it literally can not be truly forbidden because people will go there no matter what. People trespass in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, they'll trespass on Mars too.
We've already disturbed the ancient landscape with our rovers anway, even if we painstakingly undid the damage it wouldn't really be natural. It'd just be an artificial rehabilitation.
Humans can have a little bit of Mars, as a treat.
Anne Clayborne was right! Keep Mars Red!