The Ethics of Terraforming

[Philosophy Now]

Terraforming is the artificial transformation of other planets into places suitable for human habitation. A good thing, surely? Paul York argues that terraforming isn’t as ethically straightforward as you might think.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/38/The_ ... rraforming

[chaz wyman]

Terraforming is the artificial transformation of other planets into places suitable for human habitation. A good thing, surely? Paul York argues that terraforming isn’t as ethically straightforward as you might think.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/38/The_ ... rraforming

I've heard of a solution looking for a problem, but this is a criticism looking for a problem.

There is no problem. It is highly unlikely that the human race will ever be in a position to terraform Mars. Not just because Mars will always be a poor subject for terraforming due to its distance from the sun, but because the problems involved in getting there in any numbers will always make it far more economical to look after the earth.
You only have to look at the ridiculous energy costs just to get to the moon how ridiculous this entire article is.

I can only image that Philosophy Now has run out of things to say. I can understand why it might be too scared to address the multitude of real problems that the world is now facing, but this is just banal.

Where is the reaction to the Arab Spring; world terrorism; the financial crisis?

[RickLewis]

Well, the article you're quoting is from back in 2002, but (a) I still think the questions within it are likely to be important one day and (b) the underlying discussion about values is always going to be relevant.

I agree with you about the practicalities of colonizing Mars at present - but technology develops rather fast sometimes, and in a century from now might make the situation utterly different. I suspect that by then, mining of the lunar ice discovered in 2009 will have provided a useful source of rocket fuel outside the Earth's gravity well. At one point we discussed this on the Space Age Forum here:

http://forum.spaceagemag.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=330

I can only image that Philosophy Now has run out of things to say. I can understand why it might be too scared to address the multitude of real problems that the world is now facing, but this is just banal.

Where is the reaction to the Arab Spring; world terrorism; the financial crisis?

We're a philosophy magazine not a current affairs magazine. We did have an issue partly devoted to the financial crisis:

http://philosophynow.org/issue73

and we've often had articles on democracy, war etc. We may have something on the Arab Spring soon: I'd like to publish one on the development of political ideas in the Arab world.

[Typist]

I apologize for being a one trick pony, but...

The article is useful in demonstrating how incredibly brilliant and ambitious we can be in some directions, and how fantastically stupid we can at the same time be in other directions.

If we wish to spend trillions of dollars terraforming anything, it should be our own minds. Unless we do that first, going to Mars or anywhere else will simply be a repetition of all the same stupid destructive things we already do on Earth.

Almost all of our problems arise directly from the nature of the human mind. Why not address our problems where they actually exist??

Let's take an example. Hurricanes. Are hurricanes caused by the human mind? Of course not. But their effect upon us is caused by our brilliant plan of building trillions of dollars of real estate directly on the beach. Why do we build on the beach, when we know ahead of time what the outcome will be? Investigate that!

If we had truly visionary philosopher leaders, we would be redirecting our vast spending on a million different topics, and focusing it on the study of our brains. That's the point of greatest leverage, and where the solution to all our problems will be found.

Another example. We just spent billions upon billions in addressing the financial crisis, which is purely a function of greed and fear psychology. The best we can hope to get out of this investment is a brief reprieve before diving in to the next financial crisis.

That's what addressing symptoms instead of a causes earns us, the opportunity to experience the same unnecessary problems over and over and endlessly over again.

Terraform this!

[chaz wyman]

Well, the article you're quoting is from back in 2002, but (a) I still think the questions within it are likely to be important one day and (b) the underlying discussion about values is always going to be relevant.

I agree with you about the practicalities of colonizing Mars at present - but technology develops rather fast sometimes, and in a century from now might make the situation utterly different. I suspect that by then, mining of the lunar ice discovered in 2009 will have provided a useful source of rocket fuel outside the Earth's gravity well. At one point we discussed this on the Space Age Forum here:

http://forum.spaceagemag.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=330

I can only image that Philosophy Now has run out of things to say. I can understand why it might be too scared to address the multitude of real problems that the world is now facing, but this is just banal.

Where is the reaction to the Arab Spring; world terrorism; the financial crisis?

We're a philosophy magazine not a current affairs magazine. We did have an issue partly devoted to the financial crisis:

http://philosophynow.org/issue73

and we've often had articles on democracy, war etc. We may have something on the Arab Spring soon: I'd like to publish one on the development of political ideas in the Arab world.

Thanks for the response.

Terraforming or not. The energy requirements to get to Mars will always be prohibitive, and Mar will always be too far from the Sun.

The planet we are on is ideal and the only future for human kind, anyone who thinks otherwise is deficient in basic arithmetic.

I look forwards to discussion on the Arab spring.