8 ms·

IMO this kind of stuff is going to be the biggest hurdle to terra-forming someday.

grecy 14y ago
uh-huh. To state that another way, some bad-ass aliens come along and decide to terraform Earth to their liking. It turns out they breathe 100% Helium, so they convert Earth's atmosphere to that. How do you feel about terra-forming now?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- aidenn0 14y ago
  Helium is an inert gas, so is extremely unlikely to be part of any chemical reaction (much less a bio-chemical reaction like breathing). [edit] Methane or ammonia appear to be much more likely alternative, and no I wouldn't like Earth's atmosphere to be replaced with it. While I'm being a nitpicker Terra-form means roughly "to make like Earth" so it specifically refers to making a planet more like Earth.
  - grecy 14y ago
    OK sure, Helium was a bad choice. Substitute your own. > While I'm being a nitpicker Terra-form means roughly "to make like Earth" Substitute whatever word the aliens have that means "to make like home planet" then.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  Are you comparing killing off a whole world's worth of sentient humans with killing off some potential bacteria on Mars?
  - grecy 14y ago
    I am indeed. As humans, we seem to think we're the most important thing getting around. Even your comment suggests killing off humans is much worse than killing of bacteria on Mars. Back to my story, the bad-ass aliens might very well look at us just like you're looking at the bacteria on Mars. What's the difference? (nothing)
    - tankbot 14y ago
      > As humans, we seem to think we're the most important thing getting around. Even your comment suggests killing off humans is much worse than killing of bacteria on Mars. That's because (according to humans) we are the most important thing getting around. No other species has the mental capacity to even consider this point, though every species acts in its own self interest. To put it another way, do you think beavers care about disenfranchised fish or animals downstream when they build a dam and reproduce? Should they? According to you beavers should seriously consider the ramifications of their behavior. Haughty beavers... I'm not saying we should completely disregard other species or go around destroying life needlessly, but that killing off humans is much worse than killing off bacteria, from a human perspective. Your assertion to the contrary is lunacy.
      - grecy 14y ago
        > killing off humans is much worse than killing off bacteria, from a human perspective Exactly. I introduced another perspective into the picture so that people can see this from a perspective other than a human one.
    - jerf 14y ago
      How does our staying our hand affect the decisions of your aliens? If someone is going to come exterminate Earth then it is imperative that we put our eggs in as many baskets as possible, regardless. Turning this into an existential question for the humans does not invoke the morality you are looking for. This form of argument only works on Earth because humans are the most important thing around, and it can be safely assumed that all human-capable things are humans and therefore you can make moral arguments based on the Golden Rule with the safe assumption that we are all working on the same basic desires. As soon as you introduce true aliens into the mix you can no longer make this assumption. You need to establish from some sort of more basic first principle why this is a bad idea. Might I also add that from my point of view, the question is, which do you prefer, a bare sterile ecosystem barely hanging on and marking time until the sun sterilizes it, or the sort of rich vibrant ecosystem that we can build by terraforming, bringing life abundant to a place nearly sterile. Even on its own terms the snap "Don't touch anything!" is not the life friendly answer you are probably casually assuming. The ecosystem that will exist AD 100,000,000 is quite different depending on whether we terraform or not. (Again, the snap "Don't touch anything!" is itself a terra-centric viewpoint. On Earth you can assume there's a rich ecosystem pretty much where ever on the planet you point, and you can sort of leap to the conclusion that extensive human interference will at least not make it richer. In space, you can't make that assumption.) In fact this whole thing ends up cutting to the question of exactly how do you compare two possible ecosystems and decide which is better, a question that environmentalists have to date not really had to face but is one of crucial importance even here on Earth, and completely unavoidable in space. If you're up for a challenge, try to rigorously explain why it's important that we leave a starving, barely-functional ecosystem alone for a hundred million years instead of terraforming the place and then in a hundred million years having a rich, varied Martian ecosystem.
- afiske 14y ago
  (in extremely high-pitched voice): I for one welcome our new helium-breathing overlords... [passes out]
Tuna-Fish 14y ago
Terraforming is pointless anyway. Space-based habitats are a much more efficient way to expand our living space, and most importantly, when living in one, you don't need to live at the bottom of a gravity well.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  Gravity wells don't spring leaks.
- politician 14y ago
  To paraphrase someone else, when planet-bound civilizations fall to barbarism, people revert to agrarian societies; when space-based habitats fall to barbarism, everybody dies. The difference being that maintaining a habitat takes a lot of technology that is constantly kept in working order.
  - praxulus 14y ago
    Modern farming is also a high tech field, most people will die anyway when you revert to agrarian societies. Once you've spread across multiple planets you're no longer at (significant) risk of extinction, so the effect is pretty much the same.
  - Tuna-Fish 14y ago
    When a planet-bound civilization at our level or above falls to barbarism, almost everyone dies. The planet simply cannot maintain billions of people without pretty advanced technology. In the end, that last % is probably not that significant, specifically because space-based habitats have a very strong advantage over planets -- planets are much rarer. The solar system can sustain many millions of space stations with >1M pop each, with cheap travel between them. I'd estimate that complete system-wide reversal to barbarism is pretty damn rare in that situation.
olalonde 14y ago
I think you are seriously under-estimating the complexity of terraforming if you think this NASA policy might be a big hurdle...
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  never underestimate the power of government regulations

grecy 14y ago

uh-huh. To state that another way, some bad-ass aliens come along and decide to terraform Earth to their liking. It turns out they breathe 100% Helium, so they convert Earth's atmosphere to that. How do you feel about terra-forming now?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
aidenn0 14y ago
Helium is an inert gas, so is extremely unlikely to be part of any chemical reaction (much less a bio-chemical reaction like breathing). [edit] Methane or ammonia appear to be much more likely alternative, and no I wouldn't like Earth's atmosphere to be replaced with it. While I'm being a nitpicker Terra-form means roughly "to make like Earth" so it specifically refers to making a planet more like Earth.
- grecy 14y ago
  OK sure, Helium was a bad choice. Substitute your own. > While I'm being a nitpicker Terra-form means roughly "to make like Earth" Substitute whatever word the aliens have that means "to make like home planet" then.
pavel_lishin 14y ago
Are you comparing killing off a whole world's worth of sentient humans with killing off some potential bacteria on Mars?
- grecy 14y ago
  I am indeed. As humans, we seem to think we're the most important thing getting around. Even your comment suggests killing off humans is much worse than killing of bacteria on Mars. Back to my story, the bad-ass aliens might very well look at us just like you're looking at the bacteria on Mars. What's the difference? (nothing)
  - tankbot 14y ago
    > As humans, we seem to think we're the most important thing getting around. Even your comment suggests killing off humans is much worse than killing of bacteria on Mars. That's because (according to humans) we are the most important thing getting around. No other species has the mental capacity to even consider this point, though every species acts in its own self interest. To put it another way, do you think beavers care about disenfranchised fish or animals downstream when they build a dam and reproduce? Should they? According to you beavers should seriously consider the ramifications of their behavior. Haughty beavers... I'm not saying we should completely disregard other species or go around destroying life needlessly, but that killing off humans is much worse than killing off bacteria, from a human perspective. Your assertion to the contrary is lunacy.
    - grecy 14y ago
      > killing off humans is much worse than killing off bacteria, from a human perspective Exactly. I introduced another perspective into the picture so that people can see this from a perspective other than a human one.
  - jerf 14y ago
    How does our staying our hand affect the decisions of your aliens? If someone is going to come exterminate Earth then it is imperative that we put our eggs in as many baskets as possible, regardless. Turning this into an existential question for the humans does not invoke the morality you are looking for. This form of argument only works on Earth because humans are the most important thing around, and it can be safely assumed that all human-capable things are humans and therefore you can make moral arguments based on the Golden Rule with the safe assumption that we are all working on the same basic desires. As soon as you introduce true aliens into the mix you can no longer make this assumption. You need to establish from some sort of more basic first principle why this is a bad idea. Might I also add that from my point of view, the question is, which do you prefer, a bare sterile ecosystem barely hanging on and marking time until the sun sterilizes it, or the sort of rich vibrant ecosystem that we can build by terraforming, bringing life abundant to a place nearly sterile. Even on its own terms the snap "Don't touch anything!" is not the life friendly answer you are probably casually assuming. The ecosystem that will exist AD 100,000,000 is quite different depending on whether we terraform or not. (Again, the snap "Don't touch anything!" is itself a terra-centric viewpoint. On Earth you can assume there's a rich ecosystem pretty much where ever on the planet you point, and you can sort of leap to the conclusion that extensive human interference will at least not make it richer. In space, you can't make that assumption.) In fact this whole thing ends up cutting to the question of exactly how do you compare two possible ecosystems and decide which is better, a question that environmentalists have to date not really had to face but is one of crucial importance even here on Earth, and completely unavoidable in space. If you're up for a challenge, try to rigorously explain why it's important that we leave a starving, barely-functional ecosystem alone for a hundred million years instead of terraforming the place and then in a hundred million years having a rich, varied Martian ecosystem.
afiske 14y ago
(in extremely high-pitched voice): I for one welcome our new helium-breathing overlords... [passes out]

Tuna-Fish 14y ago

Terraforming is pointless anyway. Space-based habitats are a much more efficient way to expand our living space, and most importantly, when living in one, you don't need to live at the bottom of a gravity well.

pavel_lishin 14y ago
Gravity wells don't spring leaks.
politician 14y ago
To paraphrase someone else, when planet-bound civilizations fall to barbarism, people revert to agrarian societies; when space-based habitats fall to barbarism, everybody dies. The difference being that maintaining a habitat takes a lot of technology that is constantly kept in working order.
- praxulus 14y ago
  Modern farming is also a high tech field, most people will die anyway when you revert to agrarian societies. Once you've spread across multiple planets you're no longer at (significant) risk of extinction, so the effect is pretty much the same.
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  When a planet-bound civilization at our level or above falls to barbarism, almost everyone dies. The planet simply cannot maintain billions of people without pretty advanced technology. In the end, that last % is probably not that significant, specifically because space-based habitats have a very strong advantage over planets -- planets are much rarer. The solar system can sustain many millions of space stations with >1M pop each, with cheap travel between them. I'd estimate that complete system-wide reversal to barbarism is pretty damn rare in that situation.

olalonde 14y ago

I think you are seriously under-estimating the complexity of terraforming if you think this NASA policy might be a big hurdle...

AutoCorrect 14y ago
never underestimate the power of government regulations