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 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.