The Ethics of Planetary Colonization (part 1)

[beachofdreams]

The chances of humanity ever discovering and and colonizing another world like ours are rather slim. Obviously, I can't put a figure on it (although I'm betting it'd be higher than some would expect). Still, it is a possibility, and barring the certain fact that humans would have evolved since then (and possibly evolved a new way of thinking about

Comments

[peristaltor]

This is assuming that you subscribe to the view that there environmental ethics in the first place.

Which is why, whenever I consider the possibility of colonization, I always choose dead wet rocks and self-contained space arks, and steer clear of anything remotely biotic.

As to altering or destroying any native life, no matter how small, whatever. Really. Any ships of fools that need to touch down on "inhabited" planets by definition NEED to do so. The distances involved to discover new rocks simply stagger the imagination.

Besides, let's say some living toehold appears. Never mind the Star Trek Prime Directive preventing interference. The biggest danger from this life is not our hapless destruction of it, but it's defensive reaction to us. Very War of the Worlds.

[beachofdreams]

"The biggest danger from this life is not our hapless destruction of it, but it's defensive reaction to us."

That's true. I was considering the ethics of sending astronauts (or exterranauts) to another planet and putting them in harm's way. I was also considering the ethics of not not doing this; ought we capture the opportunities space exploration offers us?

Mining the Rocks

[peristaltor]

For that reason, I have for decades now been enamored of the Human Virus concept

[the_real_eris]

you mean by that that soon aliens are going to eat all of us, including animals, leaaving out maybe one or two mammal species??

who wants to correspond in email:
poo.face@y7mail.com

[zorander22]

I think that this is a very interesting question which is not easily answered. I think almost all morality depends somewhat on the context... so I can see with various contexts the answer going one way or another.

I would say that if we get to the point where we are able to colonize another "natural world", we'd likely have a better solution for expanding our living area, without interfering with the planet in question. I suppose that's circumventing the question somewhat... but I like to think that if there is a very tricky moral question, the best answer usually lies in never having that question become an issue in the first place.