3 ms·

I would conclude the opposite. If in fact Earth requires terraforming, that would be the strongest possible argument against any human influence on other planet

I would conclude the opposite. If in fact Earth requires terraforming, that would be the strongest possible argument against any human influence on other planets. Our current irresponsibility should be proof in and of itself that we should not try. To me it feels deeply wrong to use Mars as some sort of testing ground when it is currently pristine. Also, with a rich and privileged life raft available on Mars, there is no incentive to preserve the world we have now. Elysium comes to mind.

ethbr0 5y ago
That seems like an argument for stasis. We're likely to know more in the future than we know today, which means we should never do anything today because we will be able to do it better / with less risk / more reliably / more efficiently / etc. tomorrow? We wouldn't be facing climate change if we hadn't industrialized. But, then, we also wouldn't live in a world of plenty and have increased the human carrying capacity of the planet many times over either.
chalcolithic 5y ago
The Sun luminosity increases, preservation will only work short term.
- OmicronCeti 5y ago
  Are you referring to the sun going supernova? I'm not familiar with the luminosity increase.
  - chalcolithic 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth Given that the only option outside of SciFi is generation ships we have very little time.
Miraste 5y ago
> currently pristine I don't understand this line of thinking. Mars isn't pristine, it's sterile. Dead. It's the perfect testing ground because it can't be made worse.
- OmicronCeti 5y ago
  Guess pristine is subjective. I study surface processes on Mars so to me the planet is still alive and active. Things change, mysteries unfold, new environmental conditions come and go.
  - bobsmooth 5y ago
    Geological processes aren't sentient.
CountDrewku 5y ago
>To me it feels deeply wrong to use Mars as some sort of testing ground when it is currently pristine. Huh? It's essentially dead and not from the 'big bad human'. I don't consider a lifeless sand planet pristine and apparently neither do you since you've concluded Earth would be ruined if it got to the point of needing terraforming. Things will continue dying and suffering regardless of whether we involve ourselves in them. Your misanthropic argument just seems strange to me and you falsely appear to believe that everything will be fine/better without us. I would conclude the opposite and prefer improvement over just giving up.

ethbr0 5y ago

That seems like an argument for stasis. We're likely to know more in the future than we know today, which means we should never do anything today because we will be able to do it better / with less risk / more reliably / more efficiently / etc. tomorrow? We wouldn't be facing climate change if we hadn't industrialized. But, then, we also wouldn't live in a world of plenty and have increased the human carrying capacity of the planet many times over either.

chalcolithic 5y ago

The Sun luminosity increases, preservation will only work short term.

OmicronCeti 5y ago
Are you referring to the sun going supernova? I'm not familiar with the luminosity increase.
- chalcolithic 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth Given that the only option outside of SciFi is generation ships we have very little time.

Miraste 5y ago

> currently pristine I don't understand this line of thinking. Mars isn't pristine, it's sterile. Dead. It's the perfect testing ground because it can't be made worse.

OmicronCeti 5y ago
Guess pristine is subjective. I study surface processes on Mars so to me the planet is still alive and active. Things change, mysteries unfold, new environmental conditions come and go.
- bobsmooth 5y ago
  Geological processes aren't sentient.

CountDrewku 5y ago

>To me it feels deeply wrong to use Mars as some sort of testing ground when it is currently pristine. Huh? It's essentially dead and not from the 'big bad human'. I don't consider a lifeless sand planet pristine and apparently neither do you since you've concluded Earth would be ruined if it got to the point of needing terraforming. Things will continue dying and suffering regardless of whether we involve ourselves in them. Your misanthropic argument just seems strange to me and you falsely appear to believe that everything will be fine/better without us. I would conclude the opposite and prefer improvement over just giving up.