Kevin's Watch

I saw this today, and decided I had never considered this before, and therefore it was interesting.

Is it ethical to colonize Mars?

[...] How thoroughly do we need to search for life forms before we can declare Mars ours? Should we leave the planet as a preserve if there is native life, or settle down and assume that native life will remain relatively unharmed? Should we intentionally restore the Martian climate by warming the planet and adding water so that whatever life is there may better flourish?

[...] Several organizations have already stated they are going to Mars as soon as possible, and SpaceX's Elon Musk has been clear on one reason why he thinks it is so important for humans to go to Mars.

Musk believes that living exclusively on Earth is too risky. Humanity is keeping all of its eggs on one planet, and given the natural and human-made risks in the universe that is simply not safe.

The moral value of having a "backup Earth" shouldn't be underestimated. [link to entire article]

I don't think this is entirely an "it's them or it's us" situation that is being considered here. For example, aliens who trash planets because they can always get another one has become a sci-fi trope -- do we want that trope to be us? Does "one basket" make us better people in some ways?

What other ethical issues is planetary colonization embued with?

Should we intentionally restore the Martian climate by warming the planet and adding water so that whatever life is there may better flourish?

I would think that whatever life might be there would have adapted to the current conditions, and drastic changes would probably not be beneficial.

If the life isn't intelligent, I don't see much chance of ethical considerations stopping us. KSR's mostly deathly boring "Mars" trilogy deals quite a bit with this question.

--A

You might as well ask if it's ethical to use anti-bacterial soap. If there is life on Mars, it's unlikely to be developed beyond single-cell organisms, since it's so hard to find. Given the extremely primitive state of Mars's hypothetical life forms--and the precarious nature of our own extremely developed life forms--I think the cost-benefit nature of the situation is infinitely more obvious than the question of using anti-bacterial soap.

Now, from a scientific standpoint, knowledge of life on Mars is extremely important, and we wouldn't want to wipe it out before we study it (though our initial, tiny colonization efforts could hardly wipe out life on an entire planet). Knowing that life evolved elsewhere in the universe is of extremely high value. But the actual existence/preservation of that life, weighed in the balance of our own potential extinction, is ethically a nonissue.

Avatar wrote:If the life isn't intelligent,
--A

Yea, it becomes a real ethical problem with intelligent life.
Near intelligent, I'd say, has an ethical dimension, too---things smart as dolphins/great apes, maybe even dogs.
It becomes a practical consideration with lower forms, if for no other reason than there will almost certainly be a lot of knowledge to be gained.

With Mars, we're talking microbes--maybe some lichen/fungus/algea-analogues.
No ethical problem there.

Vraith wrote:

Avatar wrote:If the life isn't intelligent,
--A

Yea, it becomes a real ethical problem with intelligent life.
Near intelligent, I'd say, has an ethical dimension, too---things smart as dolphins/great apes, maybe even dogs.
It becomes a practical consideration with lower forms, if for no other reason than there will almost certainly be a lot of knowledge to be gained.

With Mars, we're talking microbes--maybe some lichen/fungus/algea-analogues.
No ethical problem there.

Said the aliens that could have visited us 4 million years ago

We're only here because an asteroid crashed into our planet and wiped out nearly all the life on earth. Humans wouldn't have evolved if asteroids had the same ethical standards as our more hesitant humans. Nature creates through destruction. I think we worry too much about preservation and stasis ... a peculiarly human short-sightedness. I say we let our race grow and colonize and open ourselves to this universe without all this damn hesitancy and self-doubt.

We're gonna get there and die just like the aliens did in War of the Worlds.

Fist and Faith wrote:We're gonna get there and die just like the aliens did in War of the Worlds.

WRONG! We're gonna get there - come back - and everyone HERE is gonna die!

rdhopeca wrote:
Said the aliens that could have visited us 4 million years ago

Any aliens capable of interstellar flight would know enough to recognize critters on the road to intelligence.
Then they either give a shit, or they don't.
[[and I did say near-intelligence has an ethical dimension]].

I guess I'm surprised that everyone's okay with finally finding alien life, and then killing it with an anti-bacterial wipe. Looks like someone needs to be the Alien Microbe's Advocate.

First, I think it's unlikely that mankind's survival depends on colonizing Mars. To whatever degree that we're going to wipe ourselves out, it will likely happen long before colonizing Mars will make a difference. And to whatever degree we're going to sort it all out and be just fine, we'll be just fine with or without Mars.

And I think that 'whatever it takes to survive' is not ethical or moral -- it is the absence ethics and morality. It is saying 'no time for ethics now, gotta survive". As evidence, I point out that no one has ever admired anyone they didn't like for doing 'whatever it takes to survive'. We only admire it in people we side with. Ethics, to some degree, has to be about what's good without taking sides.

I think Vraith has a point - someone could have wiped out earth's biosphere before our ancestors evolved sentience. Are we like, cool, that's morally acceptable? Heck, they could wipe us out now because they are so advanced they don't consider us to be even close to their level. Still find it morally acceptable?

Does no one value The Prime Directive?

Would we be okay killing a microbe if it was the last microbe in a whole planetary eco-system? There's no -cide word for that, but maybe we need one. Planicide?

I'm not against colonizing planets. But I think we now recognize that the way men have colonized this planet in the past hasn't always been ethical. It's been in part rape and theft and murder. "Modern" civilization frowns on it -- e.g. ISIL.

I think mankind should try to be better than an interplanetary ISIL - invade, destroy, take, despoil. Which is what I hinted at in my first post. Today's Martian microbes may be tomorrows Martian psionic mind-controlling microbes. Let's stay on their good side.

Creator wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:We're gonna get there and die just like the aliens did in War of the Worlds.

WRONG! We're gonna get there - come back - and everyone HERE is gonna die!

You're good at this!

WF raises some interesting points. As I said, I don't think we should wipe out extraterrestrial life for the hell of it, even primitive life, at least before we study it. But I don't think colonization of Mars hinges on this question. As with bacteria on Earth, we're probably more at risk from them than they from us. The most primitive life tends to be the most adaptive and long-lasting. They survive extinction level events over and over again. That's why they're still here and the dinosaurs aren't.

I don't think mankind will wipe itself out, but I do think the universe might, and there's no telling when the next asteroid is coming. Whether it's Mars or our Moon or a moon of Jupiter, our existence absolutely depends upon colonizing some other world, eventually.

Wayfriend wrote:And I think that 'whatever it takes to survive' is not ethical or moral -- it is the absence ethics and morality.

Extinction is also the absence of ethics and morality. Without beings who practice ethics, there is no ethics. The bacteria sure don't give a damn. Neither do the dinosaurs.

If ethics don't help us survive--indeed, if they actually get in the way of it--then what good are ethics? A Darwinian dead end of an idea that should be cast aside, if it leads to our destruction.

Wayfriend wrote: I think Vraith has a point - someone could have wiped out earth's biosphere before our ancestors evolved sentience. Are we like, cool, that's morally acceptable?

So ethics *does* relate to our existence and/or its continuance? Now I'm confused, because you seemed to place ethics higher than our survival a second ago. Which is it? If it's not "whatever it takes (for humans) to survive," then how could it possibly matter if aliens wiped out earth's biosphere before our ancestors evolved sentience? If they had the foresight to know we'd do something as horrible as colonize Mars and kill some bacteria, maybe it would have been "ethical" to prevent our existence in the first place (according to this bizarre ethics system).

Wayfriend wrote:Heck, they could wipe us out now because they are so advanced they don't consider us to be even close to their level. Still find it morally acceptable?

Who is talking about wiping out intelligent life, besides you? I don't think anyone thinks that's ethical.

Wayfriend wrote:Does no one value The Prime Directive?

You mean that made up concept from that science fiction TV show? I don't. Not in the slightest. Script writers don't determine planetary ethics.

Wayfriend wrote:I'm not against colonizing planets. But I think we now recognize that the way men have colonized this planet in the past hasn't always been ethical. It's been in part rape and theft and murder. "Modern" civilization frowns on it -- e.g. ISIL.

I think mankind should try to be better than an interplanetary ISIL - invade, destroy, take, despoil. Which is what I hinted at in my first post. Today's Martian microbes may be tomorrows Martian psionic mind-controlling microbes. Let's stay on their good side.

Colonies haven't all been rape and murder and theft. The ISIS comparison is pure emotional hyperbole. [See the Columbus Day thread in the Tank for more ... exploring new worlds so that superior cultures conquer inferior ones is more important than preserving savage, inferior cultures. Some of the natives in the Americas make ISIS look gentle.] But the sins of our forefathers as they relate to other humans in history have no bearing upon Martian microbes.

Humans are the most valuable thing in the known universe. In 13 billion years of evolution, the universe may have only produced intelligence once, as far as we know. Given our unique and infinitely valuable status, we deserve a little leeway over your hypothetical psionic Martian microbes. I say we worry about the intelligent race we know is real, before we make extinction-level decisions on pure fancy and 60s TV shows.

Creator wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:We're gonna get there and die just like the aliens did in War of the Worlds.

WRONG! We're gonna get there - come back - and everyone HERE is gonna die!

That's what I was thinking. Bacteria and viruses are far more resilient than multicellular life.

Damelon wrote:
That's what I was thinking. Bacteria and viruses are far more resilient than multicellular life.

That's true. But I think the vast majority of them don't affect humans at all...and a huge portion of those that do are helpful, not harmful.
And I suspect a world like Mars wouldn't have much diversity---
So the odds favor us.
Mostly.
At least for Mars.
A highly diverse, living planet, in a totally different system---might be a different story.
[[and if colonizing is what we need to survive long term, all our eggs in one solar system is only marginally better than all on one planet.]]

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote:If ethics don't help us survive--indeed, if they actually get in the way of it--then what good are ethics? …

… exploring new worlds so that superior cultures conquer inferior ones is more important than preserving savage, inferior cultures. …

… Humans are the most valuable thing in the known universe.

Cross-Referencing your "Survival Imperative" with your Ethnocidally-tinged statement and your support of a "Right to Die (Suicide/Euthanasia)" seems to make for a somewhat fragmented worldview.

This isn't to disagree with you in every element, of course (e.g. there is a certain sense in which Man is "the most valuable": in having a supereminent intracosmic dignity that bestows concomitant Rights and Duties), but there is a certain insouciance in the way that you assert these elements which seems to betray the workings of a simplistic reductionism.

So, yes, the colonization of Mars may not be intrinsically unethical, but never in a way which is so unproblematical such that Man (as the noblest/most valuable) can dissociate his Rights from those Duties which always accompany them.

Wosbald wrote:Cross-Referencing your "Survival Imperative" with your Ethnocidally-tinged statement and your support of a "Right to Die (Suicide/Euthanasia)" seems to make for a somewhat fragmented worldview.

The idea that people should be able to do what they want with their own lives, whether that's kill themselves or colonize Mars, isn't fragmented. Just because I think the survival and growth of our species is paramount doesn't mean that every single individual must exist as long as possible, whether they want to or not.

This isn't to disagree with you in every element, of course (e.g. there is a certain sense in which Man is "the most valuable" in having a supereminent intracosmic dignity that bestows concomitant Rights and Duties), but there is a certain insouciance in the way that you assert these elements which seems to betray the workings of a simplistic reductionism.

I'm not sure we agree even on those points where you cite agreement. I don't think we have a supereminent intracosmic dignity (you just made that up, right?) which bestows concomitant Rights and Duties. There's so many things wrong with that statement, I could detail disagreement with every single word. But I won't bother.

As far as my "insouciance betraying simplistic reductionism," I think you've got it backwards. It's not my insouciance that makes it easy for me to reduce the situation to what's important, it's just the opposite: deep concern and high regard for the sole instance of intelligence in the known universe. In as much as "spirit" inhabits this physical universe, it's in us. There is nothing more valuable than that, and I'd destroy worlds to save it. No question.

I don't think we have innate rights, and therefore no innate duties. We can do what we want. We just need to get our priorities (i.e. what we want) straight.

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote:

Wosbald wrote:This isn't to disagree with you in every element, of course (e.g. there is a certain sense in which Man is "the most valuable" in having a supereminent intracosmic dignity that bestows concomitant Rights and Duties), but there is a certain insouciance in the way that you assert these elements which seems to betray the workings of a simplistic reductionism.

I'm not sure we agree even on those points where you cite agreement. I don't think we have a supereminent intracosmic dignity (you just made that up, right?) which bestows concomitant Rights and Duties. There's so many things wrong with that statement, I could detail disagreement with every single word.

I was simply agreeing that there is a sense in which man is "the most valuable". I wasn't presuming agreement (at least, not complete agreement) as to the basis of that valuation.

Non sentient life need not enter into any moral calculus. And whatever moral calculus we make is binding only to ourselves. Still, I think the categorical imperative is useful here, so that we act according to a maxim that we can simultaneously will to be general law. I think that means that if we are in a position of such power as to be selective about the occupation of planets, then by all means, be selective using ethical criteria. However I'd say we're a few planets short of that point WF.

Wiping out microbes somewhere is not the same thing as wiping out a future form of life comparable to us. It's not remotely certain that life will lead to intelligent, aware life anywhere near the level of humans, or dolphins, or even dogs. Clearly, since it happened to various species to various degrees here, it's possible. But there are plenty of species that have been around tens or hundreds of millions of years that are not smarter or more aware now than they were when they began.

Looking at it another way, a murderer is not charged with the murder of the victim's unborn children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren...