10 ms·

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristin

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

m3kw9 3y ago
Maybe the way there is no regulations, gonna look like dumping grounds everywhere except the developed areas
- jessriedel 3y ago
  The cost to bring trash (or even nuclear waste) to the moon is completely prohibitive, so the only thing it will be a dumping ground for is trash generated on the moon. And for the foreseeable future it will be entirely appropriate to dump lunar trash where ever it is most convenient.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    The cost to bring anything to the moon is completely prohibitive.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      Prohibitive currently. Not for long, with Starship on the horizon.
  - nirav72 3y ago
    >dumping ground for is trash generated on the moon. That might be a easier problem to solve on the moon. Considering its much much lower escape velocity. Once someone builds something like a mass-driver on the moon - they can just shoot the junk into an orbit that will eventually have it fall into the sun in a few hundred years.
    - jessriedel 3y ago
      With the possible exception of something extremely expensive to store like nuclear waste, we do not want to eject trash. It contains many valuable elements, and we have plenty of storage space. Much better to pile it up, as we are doing on Earth, and then mine it later once we have better tech.
jessriedel 3y ago
I like seeing these attempts because it draws out that the motivating factor often is (as you say) not protection of any nature/environment nor the human experience thereof. It's just a gut instinct a lot of people have to change and development.
- pdabbadabba 3y ago
  I don't think that's it. A lot of people find nature-—including barren landscapes--beautiful, and find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating. Protection of ecosystems and other living things is, of course, important. But that's not the only reason to protect at least parts of the natural world from human development. I don't claim that that these considerations should always (or even often) be decisive. But there is more going on than just resistance to change. Development of a pristine natural space destroys something of value, even when that space is barren. But, of course, it may create something of greater value. Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years. Once humans start digging and building there, we can't truly restore it to its former state. Maybe this is closer to mere resistance to change. But I think it's worth taking more seriously whether there is more to it than that. It's a much harder argument, though, when it's an environment that no living thing will ever really experience otherwise. Edit: I (and, I think, many others) believe that we would enjoy the experience of gazing out onto a martian or lunar landscape, generalizing from our experiences with environments on earth. But I suppose it's interesting to contemplate the possibility that we're wrong. I guess I can't rule out the possibility that some aspect of the experience on the moon or Mars could prevent it from scratching the same itch as, for example, a desert on earth. Edit 2: I recognize that these musings have basically nothing to do with TFA, which discusses scientists' concern over the potential destruction of sites with significant scientific value. They're certainly not just talking about the pretty views.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    > find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating As a justification for the rules people like, I don’t think that’s at all compatible with the frequency with which people actually partake in this, or their lack of concern with focusing on preserving the most valuable landscapes. > Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years I think this is not meaningfully different than what I said originally: resistance to change, period. It could be different if people had any sort of quantitative model for what sort of preservation our descendants would value, and how to trade that off against our current needs. But in practice no one does this, so it just becomes “don’t change anything”.
palata 3y ago
> “We need to preserve the far side for exciting science that includes measuring magnetic fields associated with potentially habitable exoplanets and uncovering the mysteries of the unexplored Dark Ages of the early universe—using low radio frequency observations” Does that sound completely crazy? Like... the fact that they want to study it before private companies destroy it for their own benefit? > Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment. I don't think this is obvious at all. Actually I don't believe it at all. First because enabling development in space will not at all make us reduce it on Earth. Why would it? If we can make money in space and on Earth, it's more money than just on Earth. It's even completely possible that having development in space will make it even worse for the environment on Earth.
- luqtas 3y ago
  > Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment. the CEO discourse for justifying Earth being explored for future space companies profiting +6 figures
- max-ibel 3y ago
  Nothing will "move". Think of it as "cp", not "mv".
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    The rust belt will grow to planetary scale.
- gosub100 3y ago
  Once the market believes that gold or other precious metals will imminently be returned from space, the price will plummet, making many destructive mining operations unprofitable. As a tangent, have you seen that gold rush show on discovery? Taking acres of lush and beautiful Klondike Forest and bulldoze it barren so they can maybe get a few oz of gold. It's terrible.
  - cpeterso 3y ago
awkward 3y ago
The Reds were defending the actual existing microorganisms on Mars, that were guaranteed to lose out to lifeforms engineered to terraform the planet. It's a harsh position to hold when weighed against human life, but there's something there.
- radus 3y ago
  They were defending rocks. They had not uncovered evidence of native martian life. See more discussion here: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/160959/is-or-was-t https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/160959/is-or-was-t...
h0l0cube 3y ago
> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the most radio-silent places in our solar system, as radio transmissions and interference from Earth are blocked. From there, radio telescopes can peer into the universe’s past to a time before the stars formed—or search for evidence of technologically advanced alien life, writes the Guardian. > But because of the far side’s mountainous terrain, scientists say the installation of telescopes is possible at only three sites—and one in particular is rich in helium-3, which space mining companies have identified as a key element in quantum computers and fusion energy. > Another scarce resource are the moon’s “cold traps,” located along craters near the north and south poles, where sunlight hasn’t been able to reach for billions of years. Among the universe’s most frigid places, they are the perfect location for infrared telescopes, which are specifically designed to operate at extremely cold temperatures. These could potentially collect images of Earth-sized exoplanets, and seismometers placed at cold traps could measure the moon’s own movement amidst gravitational waves.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  These places surely cannot be scarce in the universal sense? Are they even scarce in our own solar system?
  - bequanna 3y ago
    I think it actually might be the best spot because the far side of the moon is always positioned facing away from earth. Is there anywhere else in the solar system that can claim that?
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      > Is there anywhere else in the solar system that can claim that? I know Mercury shares this. Not super useful, except at the boundary.
KineticLensman 3y ago
> a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state A key theme in the trilogy was the independence (or not) of Mars from Earth. This really kicks in when the Arkady character argues that as the actual inhabitants of Mars, the colonists themselves should decide how they make their future rather than Mission Control on Earth. Kim Stanley Robinson then explores this tension from several viewpoints (including terraforming, as you say) that are held by his major characters. This also defuses the possible criticism of the plot that such an expensive mission would have been conducted while leaving the massive issue of terraforming unresolved. > I thought this was completely crazy. So did a lot of the characters, especially the ones who go about the terraforming anyway.

m3kw9 3y ago

Maybe the way there is no regulations, gonna look like dumping grounds everywhere except the developed areas

jessriedel 3y ago
The cost to bring trash (or even nuclear waste) to the moon is completely prohibitive, so the only thing it will be a dumping ground for is trash generated on the moon. And for the foreseeable future it will be entirely appropriate to dump lunar trash where ever it is most convenient.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  The cost to bring anything to the moon is completely prohibitive.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Prohibitive currently. Not for long, with Starship on the horizon.
- nirav72 3y ago
  >dumping ground for is trash generated on the moon. That might be a easier problem to solve on the moon. Considering its much much lower escape velocity. Once someone builds something like a mass-driver on the moon - they can just shoot the junk into an orbit that will eventually have it fall into the sun in a few hundred years.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    With the possible exception of something extremely expensive to store like nuclear waste, we do not want to eject trash. It contains many valuable elements, and we have plenty of storage space. Much better to pile it up, as we are doing on Earth, and then mine it later once we have better tech.

jessriedel 3y ago

I like seeing these attempts because it draws out that the motivating factor often is (as you say) not protection of any nature/environment nor the human experience thereof. It's just a gut instinct a lot of people have to change and development.

pdabbadabba 3y ago
I don't think that's it. A lot of people find nature-—including barren landscapes--beautiful, and find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating. Protection of ecosystems and other living things is, of course, important. But that's not the only reason to protect at least parts of the natural world from human development. I don't claim that that these considerations should always (or even often) be decisive. But there is more going on than just resistance to change. Development of a pristine natural space destroys something of value, even when that space is barren. But, of course, it may create something of greater value. Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years. Once humans start digging and building there, we can't truly restore it to its former state. Maybe this is closer to mere resistance to change. But I think it's worth taking more seriously whether there is more to it than that. It's a much harder argument, though, when it's an environment that no living thing will ever really experience otherwise. Edit: I (and, I think, many others) believe that we would enjoy the experience of gazing out onto a martian or lunar landscape, generalizing from our experiences with environments on earth. But I suppose it's interesting to contemplate the possibility that we're wrong. I guess I can't rule out the possibility that some aspect of the experience on the moon or Mars could prevent it from scratching the same itch as, for example, a desert on earth. Edit 2: I recognize that these musings have basically nothing to do with TFA, which discusses scientists' concern over the potential destruction of sites with significant scientific value. They're certainly not just talking about the pretty views.
- jessriedel 3y ago
  > find immersion in it to be psychologically rejuvenating As a justification for the rules people like, I don’t think that’s at all compatible with the frequency with which people actually partake in this, or their lack of concern with focusing on preserving the most valuable landscapes. > Another dimension may be the sense that the human touch feels, in some sense, irreversible. So one might think we should be conservative when disturbing an environment that has been formed only by natural processes over millions of years I think this is not meaningfully different than what I said originally: resistance to change, period. It could be different if people had any sort of quantitative model for what sort of preservation our descendants would value, and how to trade that off against our current needs. But in practice no one does this, so it just becomes “don’t change anything”.

palata 3y ago

> “We need to preserve the far side for exciting science that includes measuring magnetic fields associated with potentially habitable exoplanets and uncovering the mysteries of the unexplored Dark Ages of the early universe—using low radio frequency observations” Does that sound completely crazy? Like... the fact that they want to study it before private companies destroy it for their own benefit? > Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment. I don't think this is obvious at all. Actually I don't believe it at all. First because enabling development in space will not at all make us reduce it on Earth. Why would it? If we can make money in space and on Earth, it's more money than just on Earth. It's even completely possible that having development in space will make it even worse for the environment on Earth.

luqtas 3y ago
> Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment. the CEO discourse for justifying Earth being explored for future space companies profiting +6 figures
max-ibel 3y ago
Nothing will "move". Think of it as "cp", not "mv".
- HPsquared 3y ago
  The rust belt will grow to planetary scale.
gosub100 3y ago
Once the market believes that gold or other precious metals will imminently be returned from space, the price will plummet, making many destructive mining operations unprofitable. As a tangent, have you seen that gold rush show on discovery? Taking acres of lush and beautiful Klondike Forest and bulldoze it barren so they can maybe get a few oz of gold. It's terrible.
- cpeterso 3y ago

awkward 3y ago

The Reds were defending the actual existing microorganisms on Mars, that were guaranteed to lose out to lifeforms engineered to terraform the planet. It's a harsh position to hold when weighed against human life, but there's something there.

radus 3y ago
They were defending rocks. They had not uncovered evidence of native martian life. See more discussion here: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/160959/is-or-was-t https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/160959/is-or-was-t...

h0l0cube 3y ago

> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the most radio-silent places in our solar system, as radio transmissions and interference from Earth are blocked. From there, radio telescopes can peer into the universe’s past to a time before the stars formed—or search for evidence of technologically advanced alien life, writes the Guardian. > But because of the far side’s mountainous terrain, scientists say the installation of telescopes is possible at only three sites—and one in particular is rich in helium-3, which space mining companies have identified as a key element in quantum computers and fusion energy. > Another scarce resource are the moon’s “cold traps,” located along craters near the north and south poles, where sunlight hasn’t been able to reach for billions of years. Among the universe’s most frigid places, they are the perfect location for infrared telescopes, which are specifically designed to operate at extremely cold temperatures. These could potentially collect images of Earth-sized exoplanets, and seismometers placed at cold traps could measure the moon’s own movement amidst gravitational waves.

jncfhnb 3y ago
These places surely cannot be scarce in the universal sense? Are they even scarce in our own solar system?
- bequanna 3y ago
  I think it actually might be the best spot because the far side of the moon is always positioned facing away from earth. Is there anywhere else in the solar system that can claim that?
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > Is there anywhere else in the solar system that can claim that? I know Mercury shares this. Not super useful, except at the boundary.

KineticLensman 3y ago

> a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state A key theme in the trilogy was the independence (or not) of Mars from Earth. This really kicks in when the Arkady character argues that as the actual inhabitants of Mars, the colonists themselves should decide how they make their future rather than Mission Control on Earth. Kim Stanley Robinson then explores this tension from several viewpoints (including terraforming, as you say) that are held by his major characters. This also defuses the possible criticism of the plot that such an expensive mission would have been conducted while leaving the massive issue of terraforming unresolved. > I thought this was completely crazy. So did a lot of the characters, especially the ones who go about the terraforming anyway.