4 ms·

> I'm really not sure I want companies to have the capability to re-format entire planets. Does that mean you're against terraforming entirely, or would you pr

by lhnz 10y ago

> I'm really not sure I want companies to have the capability to re-format entire planets. Does that mean you're against terraforming entirely, or would you prefer for the US/Russian/Chinese government to be the only powers allowed to do so?

andyjohnson0 10y ago
I'm definitely not against terraforming, but I'd be against individual governments doing it for the same reasons that I gave for corporations. IMO it would have to be an international endeavour. Certainly wen we're talking about the solar system, where the number of candidate planets is basically two (plus Titan?). Does a Chinese planet and a US planet and a Facebook moon represent a useful and viable future? In some far-future scenario where there are thousands of accessible planets suitable for terraforming then maybe it would be ok for corps and governments to do as they wish. But you're past the point where there is likely to be any overall political or legal system of control anyway.
- lmm 10y ago
  > Does a Chinese planet and a US planet and a Facebook moon represent a useful and viable future? I'd say it's a better future than the "no terraforming at all" future. And I suspect the "wait until UN-like bodies are competent and willing to organize terraforming" future is actually the "no terraforming at all" future.
  - andyjohnson0 10y ago
    In the sense that we need to remove our dependence on a single-point-of-failure planet to avoid existential risk, then I agree that terraforming is ultimately desirable. But entire planets claimed by crushingly authoritarian political systems or uncontrolled profit-seeking corporations doesn't seem like a great way to safeguard humanity either. What do you want terraforming for?
    - lmm 10y ago
      Primarily avoiding the single point of failure. Extremely secondarily, to create a diversity of human cultures, because I think that will ultimately create a bunch of things people enjoy (better art etc.).

by lhnz 10y ago

andyjohnson0 10y ago

I'm definitely not against terraforming, but I'd be against individual governments doing it for the same reasons that I gave for corporations. IMO it would have to be an international endeavour. Certainly wen we're talking about the solar system, where the number of candidate planets is basically two (plus Titan?). Does a Chinese planet and a US planet and a Facebook moon represent a useful and viable future? In some far-future scenario where there are thousands of accessible planets suitable for terraforming then maybe it would be ok for corps and governments to do as they wish. But you're past the point where there is likely to be any overall political or legal system of control anyway.

lmm 10y ago
> Does a Chinese planet and a US planet and a Facebook moon represent a useful and viable future? I'd say it's a better future than the "no terraforming at all" future. And I suspect the "wait until UN-like bodies are competent and willing to organize terraforming" future is actually the "no terraforming at all" future.
- andyjohnson0 10y ago
  In the sense that we need to remove our dependence on a single-point-of-failure planet to avoid existential risk, then I agree that terraforming is ultimately desirable. But entire planets claimed by crushingly authoritarian political systems or uncontrolled profit-seeking corporations doesn't seem like a great way to safeguard humanity either. What do you want terraforming for?
  - lmm 10y ago
    Primarily avoiding the single point of failure. Extremely secondarily, to create a diversity of human cultures, because I think that will ultimately create a bunch of things people enjoy (better art etc.).