• Would it be smart to alter a planet that is already inhabited?
    56 replies, posted
If we have the technology to find an inhabited planet, then we have the technology to find other planets that aren't inhabited as well, that also have resources we can use. I think that if we do find life on any other planet, even tiny life, even bacteria, then we should leave that species alone, and let it grow in peace. "If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes." - Carl Sagan
If it were a "protected world", like the galactic council forbade any "intervention" for that world, it would be unwise to go there, since the words "political shitstorm" would come to mind. In terms of a world that isn't "protected" and is otherwise up for grabs, we'd be able to go there, though we should obviously be responsible and careful with it, but otherwise we could claim it as a colony world, and if there is a native intelligence we should formulate peaceful and beneficial intergration; avoid repeating the mistakes that followed with the discovery of the Americas.
I'd say carefully monitor the planet for a year, but do it stealthly. After a year, go Avatar on it (the movie) and prepare a safezone. Of cors if we found any proof of intelligent life on the planet we shouldn't just land there as if nothing's happened, you first make contact and then you do the landing, otherwise it's all chaos.
Let the ecosystem adapt to us and then exploit it to the brink of shitting everything up.
[QUOTE=Paravin;35141030]Let the ecosystem adapt to us and then exploit it to the brink of shitting everything up.[/QUOTE] Why let it adapt? You don't let an enemy force adapt to you, you wipe 9it out as soon as you can.
We are cockroaches, if there is a new field of green grass, we will always work to get over the bridge and stomp it. Individual intentions might be pure, but as a society we are like cancer.
[QUOTE=elowin;35078133]You think in maybe two hundred years we can magically terraform any planet to be habitable?[/QUOTE] It all comes down to chemistry and physics.
Destroy all other intelligent life . Human race supreme .
[QUOTE=Satansick;35220679]Destroy all other intelligent life . Human race supreme .[/QUOTE] If you were sarcastic and your actual opinion is that we should leave intelligent life alone, but non-intelligent life is fine to fuck up, I've got a few words to say about that: The problem with saying "we should leave all intelligent life alone", is basically: how do we define intelligent life? What if some aliens come along and they are so technologically advanced compared to us, that they don't define us as intelligent life? Don't you think the same could happen if humans ever decided to go explore the universe?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;35082991]If we run out of resources soon, then yes we would do it. If there was another living species that is capable of creating technology but isn't as advanced as us and/or aren't humans we'd probably end up kicking them out since we did the exact same thing to the Native's for not being "civilized" like us.[/QUOTE] [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] Sometimes its necessary to do things like "kick out the natives" to continue the march of progress, sure it might not be the most ethical thing to do, but if such situations didn't occur throughout history, we would have never reached the point we are as a civilization today.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;35222201]As long as we don't go around killing millions of native animals, and people, while also damaging the land (IE what happened when Europeans colonized America) I don't see the problem, by time we encounter another planet with life on it anyway our society will have advanced to a point where our impact on the planet would probably be far less noticeable. I mean if we go to a planet for natural resources, and the only living species are creatures similar to dogs, and we didn't kill any of them while harvesting those resources, what would be the issue?[/QUOTE] It's their resources. Who knows what the "dogs" will evolve to after a few million years. If we have the technology to discover a planet full of any species, go there, and harvest stuff from it, then it's not unlikely that we have the same ability with uninhabited planets, as uninhabited planets are vastly more common than habited ones. I think it would be a much better idea to just observe the planet and the species on them, and see what happens.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;35223120]It's their resources. Who knows what the "dogs" will evolve to after a few million years. If we have the technology to discover a planet full of any species, go there, and harvest stuff from it, then it's not unlikely that we have the same ability with uninhabited planets, as uninhabited planets are vastly more common than habited ones. I think it would be a much better idea to just observe the planet and the species on them, and see what happens.[/QUOTE] Extraterrestrial expansion is not just about resource gathering it's about colonization. It's a lot easier to colonize garden worlds then it is to colonize worlds like Mars, even with terra-forming equipment. With that in mind, I'm fine with colonizing garden worlds if the native species are not sentient, which is a very vague term, I admit.
I imagine if we were that technologically advanced there would be easier ways to sustain ourselves.
[QUOTE=elowin;35078133]You think in maybe two hundred years we can magically terraform any planet to be habitable?[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.serenadawn.com/Alien-Processor2.JPG[/img] Yes. Though on-topic, I don't think it would be our decision whether or not to potentially wipe out life on a planet.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;35223777]Extraterrestrial expansion is not just about resource gathering it's about colonization. It's a lot easier to colonize garden worlds then it is to colonize worlds like Mars, even with terra-forming equipment. With that in mind, I'm fine with colonizing garden worlds if the native species are not sentient, which is a very vague term, I admit.[/QUOTE] Sentient is the completely wrong word to use there, you mean sapient. Sentience is essentially a general awareness and ability to take in data from the environment, sapience is the ability to apply that data to a new situation and solve a problem with it, that is what we typically mean as intelligent. Sentience = Ability to experience, so deer, dogs, cats etc. are all sapient as they can react to a situation. Sapience = Ability to reason why a certain thing happens, and to infer information from a situatuion and most importantly, the ability to understand.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35271019]Sentient is the completely wrong word to use there, you mean sapient. Sentience is essentially a general awareness and ability to take in data from the environment, sapience is the ability to apply that data to a new situation and solve a problem with it, that is what we typically mean as intelligent. Sentience = Ability to experience, so deer, dogs, cats etc. are all sapient as they can react to a situation. Sapience = Ability to reason why a certain thing happens, and to infer information from a situatuion and most importantly, the ability to understand.[/QUOTE] Alright, thanks for catching that.
[QUOTE=imMonkeyGOD;35086603]Corporations will not care if it's ethical or not. If that planet has a certain resource we want and we got the technology, we will go great lengths to obtain it. If it was some intelligent species that was on the planet, I would definitely say back off, but how can we judge if they're intelligent or not? I feel like we would not be able to live on any new planet if we believe we're preventing a species from expanding.[/QUOTE] Except they will almost definitely have no reason to go to the planet. As asteroid belts will have the same resources most of the time, far more easily accessible and you won't need to lift them from orbit. Honestly planetary mining is probably not very likely with a decent orbital economy. It's actually certainly possibly that garden worlds would be far tougher to colonise in a number of case than post garden worlds or worlds in the goldilocks belt but no life and atmosphere. Life pretty massively modifies the chemical composition of an atmosphere's planet. And you have to remove this life first before you can begin your modification. In that sense, it's possible that a world like mars might be cheaper and faster to terraform that a world that has life which uses a different atmospheric composition.
If we are so advanced in technology at that time, I'm sure that won't be the only planet we find that is blooming with life. Perhaps we could keep a planet as like a wildlife sanctuary, and keep it in it's natural state and not alter it. Although at some point, if humans don't kill each other off, Earth will become too populated and we would have no choice but to move out. Perhaps the moon, Mars, or maybe even a planet in another solar system. That is, if we ever get that advanced and if humans can keep alive that long. Also, we can most likely find a way to colonize a planet without destroying it's ecosystem completely. And have you ever seen the show Ancient Aliens? Perhaps some form of intelligent life came to Earth in it's early stages of development (cavemen for example), and they could have possibly had the choice to alter Earth.
If we find any life, we should try to take the resources such as any type of ore, etc without disturbing the natural life on the planet. If it's uninhabited then we should take it. If we run into any of these, we should bomb the fuck out of the planet. [img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQptrHiGMPB16ERuQc7ng-xRlaft8x09gnMPRNBb67xCkkixsiZ[/img]
Sounds like a Spore question.
Why would we, if we had the technology to alter the weather and atmosphere of a planet, there would be many possible candidates without any sort of lifeforms. Or do you mean to establish a civilization on a planet with other lifeforms? I believe that by the time we are even able to do these things the human species will have changed into something more intelligent and understanding.
[QUOTE=Secrios;35275676]Sounds like a Spore question.[/QUOTE] I was thinking that also...
[QUOTE=Atlascore;35226686]Evolution is a very long process, by time they've evolved to our level we will either be extinct or no longer care about their planet and it's inhabitants. Like DaysBefore said, if a planet has life on it, it's a lot easier to colonize, which is most likely what would happen.[/QUOTE] We humans have [I]such[/I] a good record when it comes to peaceful colonization right? And on your point about evolution, I didn't say we should leave it alone to see it evolve, I said we should leave it alone because it might, and then we could look at it [I]as well,[/I] but first and foremost we should leave alone because it's [I]that species[/I] planet, it belongs to them, not us. There are plenty of planets that wouldn't be terribly difficult to terraform, that we could use, especially if we're so far advanced in technology that we can travel many lightyears to find these planets. And once again, how would one define life?
Depends on how advanced the planet's life is. If it's a Nitrogen-Oxygen atmosphere with non-sapient animals? Then sure, establish some colonies there and see if you can keep the native wildlife alive along with shipped in crops/animals. It's more trouble then it's worth if it's inhabited with sapient life (especially if it's above bow-and-arrow tribal style civilizations.) [editline]24th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=LarparNar;35278004]We humans have [I]such[/I] a good record when it comes to peaceful colonization right? And on your point about evolution, I didn't say we should leave it alone to see it evolve, I said we should leave it alone because it might, and then we could look at it [I]as well,[/I] but first and foremost we should leave alone because it's [I]that species[/I] planet, it belongs to them, not us. There are plenty of planets that wouldn't be terribly difficult to terraform, that we could use, especially if we're so far advanced in technology that we can travel many lightyears to find these planets. And once again, how would one define life?[/QUOTE] There is no galactic police force to punish the evil Humans for pouring rubbing alcohol on some bacteria. It's ridiculous to assume we'd waste a perfectly good planet just because it has some trees and animals on it. While I'm all for terraforming worlds without life and creating our own Earths from the wastelands, we're going to have a point in observing planets where we have to decide whether or not it's ok to remove the native life. Bacteria is pretty damn common and resilient, after all, the odds of finding some on an obviously dead world that we could terraform is fairly high.
[QUOTE=Canuhearmenow;35278472]There is no galactic police force to punish the evil Humans for pouring rubbing alcohol on some bacteria. It's ridiculous to assume we'd waste a perfectly good planet just because it has some trees and animals on it.[/QUOTE] Humans evolved from trees and animals, if aliens had come here and intervened, we might never have been here. It's also ridiculous to assume we'd require every single planet we find for our own use. [quote]Bacteria is pretty damn common and resilient, after all, the odds of finding some on an obviously dead world that we could terraform is fairly high.[/quote] Unless you can cite a source that says microbial life is common on other planets, this argument is not worth anything at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.