6 ms·

One reason not is: we're directly responsible for any suffering that then happens on that rock. A biosphere full of life means horror and suffering every day fo

One reason not is: we're directly responsible for any suffering that then happens on that rock. A biosphere full of life means horror and suffering every day for so many living things it potentially eclipses all humanity's past crimes combined.

beckingz 5y ago
By that logic we should take responsibility for the suffering on earth. Seems like the winning move is to go double or nothing and try and make life more sufferable (containing less suffering) on both planets.
- medstrom 5y ago
  Mars is a single easily avertable project, still actually free for discussion unlike profit-motivated matters like the ongoing deforestation here. Until there's a clear profit to be made from Mars, it's politically possible to make a "ok, let's not" pact. Why not make it more sufferable here on Earth first, build all sorts of guardrails on existence, e.g. modify biology such that we all have a certain maximum to which the pain knob can be turned. And only then terraform other planets? Why be premature?
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    You should read medical studies about people born with or who acquired a lessened sense of pain. It’s quite horrific. I’m not saying all pain is necessary but any pain that indicates damage is. It would be wiser to engineer biology to be more robust and to recover from damage more completely so that chronic pain is not a thing.
    - medstrom 5y ago
      Give me some credit, I just said put some maximum on pain, not remove it. Yes it'd be nice to recover from damage better but that doesn't help when you are being predated on, like when there is a torturer to make sure you don't recover or when a parasite like the Ichneumon wasp has its whole lifecycle dependent on eating a paralyzed creature alive from the inside out. If you want a discussion please be charitable, it's no fun if you seem to assume I didn't think at all.
  - natch 5y ago
    This question (your last sentence) has been asked and answered. Basically because the window of opportunity is open now and may only be open for a short time. If we wait, we may lose the chance.
Robotbeat 5y ago
> “A biosphere full of life means horror and suffering every day for so many living things it potentially eclipses all humanity's past crimes combined.” This is the most astounding perspective on the value of life that I can imagine. Like the argument of a genocidal supervillain.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  "I have the moral obligation to kill all the living humans today so I spare the suffering of until generations hereafter"?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- medstrom 5y ago
  That's only if you equate the value of life-that-lives-now and life-that-hasn't-been-born-yet. The majority of us value them differently: it's a lot worse to murder than to decline to give birth. Consequently, you can hold the opinion "Don't turn Mars into another biosphere" and nevertheless be against omnicide on Earth.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    That’s only if you neglect the fact that reproduction is a continuance of life. Literally a part of each living being renews itself to continue living by reproducing either asexually or sexually. Not reproducing is equivalent to murdering your germ line and extinguishing all of the potential invested in you by your ancestors reaching back millions of years or further if you look beyond your own species. Death is death whether caused by direct action or neglect.
    - medstrom 5y ago
      This isn't meant as a rejoinder, but I think you should ask random people what they feel about the difference between murder and declining to be a parent. I think you've been sitting thinking this to yourself without really debating anyone. As for me, I'm bowing out, thanks for the perspectives so far. Downvotes drain my energy.
throwaway316943 5y ago
That’s the most suicidal perspective I’ve ever heard. If we sit on our hands and do nothing then life on earth is doomed to extinction and we will be directly responsible. Our duty as rational beings is to preserve and spread life. If you really want to be anti suffering then figure out a way to improve things so nothing needs to suffer. We’re already on a trajectory for doing that for humans so there’s no reason to think we couldn’t do it for all life. Even if the odds are slim it’s cowardly to not even try.
- medstrom 5y ago
  You know, I agree fully on trying and not being a coward. I wonder why it sounds otherwise to you. I just think there's no need to spread life beyond those of us who are here right now. It's worth keeping currently living individuals alive and happy as long as they want to live, because it's a great ill when something with a desire to keep living has their life forcibly taken away, but I don't see the intrinsic good in breeding.

beckingz 5y ago

By that logic we should take responsibility for the suffering on earth. Seems like the winning move is to go double or nothing and try and make life more sufferable (containing less suffering) on both planets.

medstrom 5y ago
Mars is a single easily avertable project, still actually free for discussion unlike profit-motivated matters like the ongoing deforestation here. Until there's a clear profit to be made from Mars, it's politically possible to make a "ok, let's not" pact. Why not make it more sufferable here on Earth first, build all sorts of guardrails on existence, e.g. modify biology such that we all have a certain maximum to which the pain knob can be turned. And only then terraform other planets? Why be premature?
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  You should read medical studies about people born with or who acquired a lessened sense of pain. It’s quite horrific. I’m not saying all pain is necessary but any pain that indicates damage is. It would be wiser to engineer biology to be more robust and to recover from damage more completely so that chronic pain is not a thing.
  - medstrom 5y ago
    Give me some credit, I just said put some maximum on pain, not remove it. Yes it'd be nice to recover from damage better but that doesn't help when you are being predated on, like when there is a torturer to make sure you don't recover or when a parasite like the Ichneumon wasp has its whole lifecycle dependent on eating a paralyzed creature alive from the inside out. If you want a discussion please be charitable, it's no fun if you seem to assume I didn't think at all.
- natch 5y ago
  This question (your last sentence) has been asked and answered. Basically because the window of opportunity is open now and may only be open for a short time. If we wait, we may lose the chance.

Robotbeat 5y ago

> “A biosphere full of life means horror and suffering every day for so many living things it potentially eclipses all humanity's past crimes combined.” This is the most astounding perspective on the value of life that I can imagine. Like the argument of a genocidal supervillain.

ithkuil 5y ago
"I have the moral obligation to kill all the living humans today so I spare the suffering of until generations hereafter"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
medstrom 5y ago
That's only if you equate the value of life-that-lives-now and life-that-hasn't-been-born-yet. The majority of us value them differently: it's a lot worse to murder than to decline to give birth. Consequently, you can hold the opinion "Don't turn Mars into another biosphere" and nevertheless be against omnicide on Earth.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  That’s only if you neglect the fact that reproduction is a continuance of life. Literally a part of each living being renews itself to continue living by reproducing either asexually or sexually. Not reproducing is equivalent to murdering your germ line and extinguishing all of the potential invested in you by your ancestors reaching back millions of years or further if you look beyond your own species. Death is death whether caused by direct action or neglect.
  - medstrom 5y ago
    This isn't meant as a rejoinder, but I think you should ask random people what they feel about the difference between murder and declining to be a parent. I think you've been sitting thinking this to yourself without really debating anyone. As for me, I'm bowing out, thanks for the perspectives so far. Downvotes drain my energy.

throwaway316943 5y ago

That’s the most suicidal perspective I’ve ever heard. If we sit on our hands and do nothing then life on earth is doomed to extinction and we will be directly responsible. Our duty as rational beings is to preserve and spread life. If you really want to be anti suffering then figure out a way to improve things so nothing needs to suffer. We’re already on a trajectory for doing that for humans so there’s no reason to think we couldn’t do it for all life. Even if the odds are slim it’s cowardly to not even try.

medstrom 5y ago
You know, I agree fully on trying and not being a coward. I wonder why it sounds otherwise to you. I just think there's no need to spread life beyond those of us who are here right now. It's worth keeping currently living individuals alive and happy as long as they want to live, because it's a great ill when something with a desire to keep living has their life forcibly taken away, but I don't see the intrinsic good in breeding.