4 ms·

If you include moons, plenty of water on Europa, though don't know if it's salt water. Generally I'm against terraforming though, especially because we've not s

If you include moons, plenty of water on Europa, though don't know if it's salt water. Generally I'm against terraforming though, especially because we've not shown we can be good custodians of our home planet.

StillBored 10y ago
Generally I'm against terraforming though, especially because we've not shown we can be good custodians of our home planet. Which to me doesn't logically follow. Send a few politicians to some $%^# hole of a terraformed moon and see how long it takes before they decide taking care of the earth is important. Second, we are basically terraforming earth, the problem is that we don't really have a clue what the outcome will be. Its the equivalent of giving a 5YO a soldering iron and a laptop and letting them play.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Just because we can and do terraform doesn't mean we should. I'm a big believer in appreciating nature for what it is rather than seeking to dominate it. The Sahara Desert is a great example... Imagine we could cheaply and effectively green the Sahara desert, why would we not want to do that? Perhaps because it adds to the diversity and richness of our world. If you only consider this practically then it makes no sense, as very little grows in the desert, so it's less useful than more fertile land, but when viewed as a cultural asset it absolutely makes sense to keep it relatively untouched by human influence. This is a stark example, but it applies across the board. As I hinted at before, dominating something is less interesting than working with it.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    > I'm a big believer in appreciating nature for what it is rather than seeking to dominate it. Is a termite mound any less "nature" than some random patch of earth and rock? What about bird nests, beehives and beaver dams? We are nature. The Universe is one continuous stream of change.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "We are nature. The Universe is one continuous stream of change." Sure, but we're not the only expression of nature that exists. By optimising a planet for the desires of one type of organism you do not necessarily optimise it for all living organisms. If we want to be good custodians of a planet we share with other organisms we should seek to balance our needs/desires with those of other organisms we live alongside. Due to our position on the planet at the top of the food chain due to our abilities gained through tools/technology we have a greater ability to influence the quality of life of fellow Earth inhabitants. Whilst nature can be seen as indifferent, humans are not indifferent about the world they inhabit. If it makes it more straightforward to understand, see it as selfishness... I want to live in a world with a rich diversity of life that can thrive alongside humanity because it makes life more interesting for me.

StillBored 10y ago

Generally I'm against terraforming though, especially because we've not shown we can be good custodians of our home planet. Which to me doesn't logically follow. Send a few politicians to some $%^# hole of a terraformed moon and see how long it takes before they decide taking care of the earth is important. Second, we are basically terraforming earth, the problem is that we don't really have a clue what the outcome will be. Its the equivalent of giving a 5YO a soldering iron and a laptop and letting them play.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Just because we can and do terraform doesn't mean we should. I'm a big believer in appreciating nature for what it is rather than seeking to dominate it. The Sahara Desert is a great example... Imagine we could cheaply and effectively green the Sahara desert, why would we not want to do that? Perhaps because it adds to the diversity and richness of our world. If you only consider this practically then it makes no sense, as very little grows in the desert, so it's less useful than more fertile land, but when viewed as a cultural asset it absolutely makes sense to keep it relatively untouched by human influence. This is a stark example, but it applies across the board. As I hinted at before, dominating something is less interesting than working with it.
- Razengan 10y ago
  > I'm a big believer in appreciating nature for what it is rather than seeking to dominate it. Is a termite mound any less "nature" than some random patch of earth and rock? What about bird nests, beehives and beaver dams? We are nature. The Universe is one continuous stream of change.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "We are nature. The Universe is one continuous stream of change." Sure, but we're not the only expression of nature that exists. By optimising a planet for the desires of one type of organism you do not necessarily optimise it for all living organisms. If we want to be good custodians of a planet we share with other organisms we should seek to balance our needs/desires with those of other organisms we live alongside. Due to our position on the planet at the top of the food chain due to our abilities gained through tools/technology we have a greater ability to influence the quality of life of fellow Earth inhabitants. Whilst nature can be seen as indifferent, humans are not indifferent about the world they inhabit. If it makes it more straightforward to understand, see it as selfishness... I want to live in a world with a rich diversity of life that can thrive alongside humanity because it makes life more interesting for me.