hypothetical question

[orcot]

Say that in X00 year we're capable of interstellar travel and we make it to Epsilon Eridani ( a star system that's only 800 milion years old) and we find a young Venus like planet that still has a ocean but it's boiling and would be lost completly in the next 200 million years leaving a hell hole for another 12 billion years afther that the it's sun expands and vaporizes it.
But let's say that there is life on that planet based on extremophiles who can live in almost boiling water and without interference in could stay there for millions of years (altough it would probably never get multi cellular) would it be ethical to terraform such a planet and if so where do you draw the line?

[cosmictraveler]

If humans had that type of technology they could easily find another planet to terraform that had no life on it. :)

[quantum_wave]

Notify the local population, offer to leave the planet alone if they object; just kidding. If like you said, conscious self-aware life is not likely to evolve there then terraform it.

[Nasor]

Notify the local population, offer to leave the planet alone if they object; just kidding. If like you said, conscious self-aware life is not likely to evolve there then terraform it.
Even if self-aware life was likely to evolve, I'm not sure that humans would have any ethical obligations toward a hypothetical race that doesn't actually exist yet.

[Enmos]

Say that in X00 year we're capable of interstellar travel and we make it to Epsilon Eridani ( a star system that's only 800 milion years old) and we find a young Venus like planet that still has a ocean but it's boiling and would be lost completly in the next 200 million years leaving a hell hole for another 12 billion years afther that the it's sun expands and vaporizes it.
But let's say that there is life on that planet based on extremophiles who can live in almost boiling water and without interference in could stay there for millions of years (altough it would probably never get multi cellular) would it be ethical to terraform such a planet and if so where do you draw the line?

No, it would be unethical.

[orcot]

the hypothese is that the planet is in a spiral of doom, where it's oceans will completly evaporate in the next 200 million years and tempratures will sour with more then a 400°C whill changing the enviroment would kill all existing life forms it would give the planet a extra 8-12 billion years bio caring capacity.

200 million years is a long time however for single celled organisms it's not enough for anything

[Enmos]

the hypothese is that the planet is in a spiral of doom, where it's oceans will completly evaporate in the next 200 million years and tempratures will sour with more then a 400°C whill changing the enviroment would kill all existing life forms it would give the planet a extra 8-12 billion years bio caring capacity.

200 million years is a long time however for single celled organisms it's not enough for anything

Yea, I got the story line ;)

[spidergoat]

It seems worthless, there's no way to cool the planet. Now, say there was an ocean of ice, with deep liquid water where the critters lived. Then, it would be possible to introduce greenhouse gasses and heat it up.

[orcot]

It seems worthless, there's no way to cool the planet. Now, say there was an ocean of ice, with deep liquid water where the critters lived. Then, it would be possible to introduce greenhouse gasses and heat it up.

Okay in your version what if we find a +x billion year old planet that was to far from the sun and froze almost completly, but now the star entered it's red giants fase and slowly but shurly the ice is melting in a time period of less then a million year but +100 000 years and the moment the underwater ocean comes in contact witht the planet the creatures would again be lost because certain gasses now trapped in this ocean would vent in the atmosphere?

However it's perfect for terraforming and venting those gasses would rise the temprature more comfreble and make the oceans composition more terran like.

And hey let's say this planet has over a billion lifeforms none smarter then a mouse

[quantum_wave]

Again, I say terraform it. It is not just a matter of finding a place where future self-aware life forms can go when Earth gets old, but a matter of spreading conscious life to try to preserve it against natural local entropy. Terraforming a planet in Epsilon Eridani will extend conscious life and defeat local entropy for a time.

[cosmictraveler]

With the type of space travel you say exist then why not just travel around the universe and locate a suitable planet that could be inhabited right away? :shrug:

[quantum_wave]

Let's not try to be practicle :bugeye:.

[cosmictraveler]

Let's not try to be practicle :bugeye:.

But why spend allot of money and wait millions of years just to terraform a planet that we don't need because there are thousands of other perfectly inhabitable planets out there...somewhere.:shrug:

[quantum_wave]

I know. But we are working with a set of givens. One of the givens is not "there are thousands of other perfectly inhabitable planets out there" :).

[kaneda]

Even if we terraformed a planet, other life that we did not plan on would form there. We can only say that such a planet if left alone has the potential for a higher form of life and not know what will actually appear.

[orcot]

Even if we terraformed a planet, other life that we did not plan on would form there. We can only say that such a planet if left alone has the potential for a higher form of life and not know what will actually appear.

The set is: that the planet has live of it's own but is going to loose it in a ridicilously long time period, but how ever long, not long enough to to develop (near) intiligent lifeforms.

the 2 set's one less then a billion year and one 5 billion year represent epsilon Eridani and sirius because together with alfa centauri they are the only massive stars in a 10LY radius

[Letticia]

I know. But we are working with a set of givens. One of the givens is not "there are thousands of other perfectly inhabitable planets out there" :).
Given this given -- AND given not "there are thousands of other terraformable yet lifeless planets out there", -- yes I would say terraform it.

But I find your set of givens unlikely in the extreme.

[quantum_wave]

Well Orcot, the originator, did point out that he selected or at least intended to select the nearest candidates. Going on that intention I was just supporting the givens. Sure, maybe if we widen the search to the entire galaxy there are untold terraformable yet lifeless planets out there.

[D H]

Why venture so far from home, and so far in the future? What about Mars?

Suppose
Some future (near future) Mars probe discovers incontrovertible proof that primitive life exists on Mars.
This proof comes while the first vehicle of a multi-billion dollar Mars terraforming project is underway to Mars.

So, some questions:

Do we stop the Mars terraforming project in its tracks?

Would it make a difference if the probe also uncovers incontrovertible evidence that life on Mars is dying out?

Would it make a difference if the Mars terraforming project was only in the planning stages?

Would it make a difference if the discovery came only after the terraforming had begun in earnest? (And should we try to re-aeroform Mars?)

[Harro]

To answer the Question above, I think in the current climate Money is more important than the ethical issue. So yes I think we would continue to terra-form.

I saw a documentary on the discovery channel about the possibility or thought experiment of humans terra-forming and inhabitation Mars. The general view was that not only would we terra-form mars to suit us, we would also need to or slowly adapt to suit Mars. So the humans that live there would very much become Marians.
So over time as the air became more breathable to humans could also loose the need or reliance on breathing apparatus or the breathing apparatus would become part of the organic structure.
One could wonder about the Consept not of racism but that of specism.
Hope I hav'nt strayed to far off topic.

I think Mar's gravity is 3 times less than of Earths. Do you think we would become giants or pigmies?

[orcot]

Giants probably...
I can see that we would eventually release some super greenhouse gasses that release frozen C02 from the poles however, what if all the CO2 is vaporized and we still have only 6% the pressure of our atmosfere. All the rest would have to be inportant (that's expensive). There is a good change that people would settle for those 6%bar. With this atmosphere the difference between night and day would be considereable smaller, and the water ice would stay frozen so that you don't loose surface to a ocean. Not to mention you won't loose all the city's that where build on the northern hemisfere. Imagen


what would happen if you proposed australia to drown abouth 50% of it's dryland it would involve the complete destruction of adelaide and many national monuments including most of the aboriginals homelands. however the remaining land would recieve much more water and have a richer biodiversity keeping in mind that there would still be a small percentage of dry bush land that doesn't necesairly benfit from it.

If you easly can answer yes on this, then I see no problem to terraforming mars. Can you?


Venus would suffer less from this because it's such a hell hole, you can't live on the land until you finished terraforming. That would be like if you flooded half the sahara and the rest became green would you approve doing it?

[kaneda]

If on Mars too long, your muscles would weaken because of the lighter gravity. If the air were breathable, your lungs expand to take in the thinner atmosphere. You might develop a lot more body hair, as in fur, to cope with the much colder climate. Your skin might become greasy, to cope with the drier atmosphere. Your hearing would probably change too because of the different acoustics.

[Nasor]

If on Mars too long, your muscles would weaken because of the lighter gravity. If the air were breathable, your lungs expand to take in the thinner atmosphere. You might develop a lot more body hair, as in fur, to cope with the much colder climate. Your skin might become greasy, to cope with the drier atmosphere. Your hearing would probably change too because of the different acoustics.
Maybe, but people on Mars won't be living in anything other than climate-controlled habitats for hundreds of years at least. It's likely that by the time it's an issue, people living on Mars would be able to very easily control their genes and phenotypes with artificial manipulation.

[draqon]

would it be ethical to terraform such a planet and if so where do you draw the line?

Ethical, without a doubt.