|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
Is the title of my latest Fox column, in which I discuss the rights of
microorganisms. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94753,00.html -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Stellar Manifest Destiny ( Martian Game Reserves)
Rand Simberg wrote:
Is the title of my latest Fox column, in which I discuss the rights of microorganisms. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94753,00.html On Stellar Manifest Destiny Maybe we have already have examples of this in our neighborhood. A mere 4.35 light-years away is Alpha Centauri. A binary system. How might this be an example? http://www.goingfaster.com/icarus/destinationalpha.htm As the sun heats up, the habitable zone moves out. At some point the Earth will be inside the this habitable zone much the same as Venus is now. If we are to continue to inhabit this solar system, we will have to move out with the zone. http://www.btinternet.com/~patricks....resolarsys.htm As the earth gets hotter, all the water will eventually boil off. Creating a cosmic snowstorm in the habitable zone now occupied by Mars. Filling the planet with water. http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/snowball.htm But, is Mars big enough to hold the atmosphere and water? Or, does it need some more mass? Maybe a large moon? Something to get a planetary magnetic shield going. Liquefy the core. That's good for another billion years or so. But what then. What about Jupiter? Could it be the next Sun? Shades of "2001 A Space Odyssey" Has it already been done in the past, on Alpha Centauri? Could we be looking in the wrong direction for intelligent life in our solar system? Maybe, we should look at Venus a little more closely. Craig Fink |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Stellar Manifest Destiny ( Martian Game Reserves)
Craig Fink wrote: What about Jupiter? Could it be the next Sun? Shades of "2001 A Space Odyssey" I believe 13 Jupiter masses are needed to achieve fusion (that's been a suggested boundary between gas giant and brown dwarf). Could we be looking in the wrong direction for intelligent life in our solar system? Maybe, we should look at Venus a little more closely. You're not a Guth sock puppet, are you? Hop http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
... Is the title of my latest Fox column, in which I discuss the rights of microorganisms. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94753,00.html At the tail end, you mention a fourth possibility -- preserving things for future generations. That might fall under stewardship. Wiping everything out also falls under stewardship. Stewardship also applies to the moon -- leaving portions of the moon in pristine condition so future generations can see what it used to look like. A lion in a zoo is different from a lion in the wild. A wild lion knows how to be a lion. It knows how to hunt. There are advantages to preserving their knowledge in addition to preserving their genes. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... Is the title of my latest Fox column, in which I discuss the rights of microorganisms. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94753,00.html -- But what happens when we encounter another ecosystem? Well, it depends on whether it's intelligent (and particularly, if it's conscious) or not. If it is (assuming it's not hostile), we can leave it to do its bit to satisfy the goal, and move on to virgin territory. But if it's not, then it has no special claim to existence, or the territory in which it evolved. In the interests of the preservation of knowledge, the ecosystem will be preserved, but its range may be vastly limited in order to carry out the higher purpose. This either a) makes the assumption that this particular ecosystem will not evolve into intelligent life later on or b) being there first grants us right to destroy its chances of becoming intellingent later on So if some vastly more intelligent species eventually find us, they might think that we arent particularly intelligent either ( just reading some recent stuff on s.s.* newsgroups is enough to come to this conclusion ), and going by the plan b they will just make room for their hyperspace bypass. So lets have our fingers crossed and hope the Vogons dont get here anytime soon. -kert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
In article ,
Kaido Kert wrote: This either a) makes the assumption that this particular ecosystem will not evolve into intelligent life later on or b) being there first grants us right to destroy its chances of becoming intellingent later on This way lies paralysis. Everything we do and do not do affects the future. We cannot base our actions (or lack thereof) on wild speculations about what might or might not happen in a couple of million years time. If I go down to the store and purchase something from the lady behind the counter, perhaps this made her not notice the handsome guy who walked past behind me. Perhaps this is the one single occurrence that caused them not to meet, fall in love, get married and have children. Would this mean that I, in some moral sense, killed her children that are never to be? Would this mean I should never go to the store? We should base our actions on realistic expectations of the effect they will have on the world. Cheers Bent D -- Bent Dalager - - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd powered by emacs |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
On 15 Aug 2003 07:35:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kaido Kert"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: But what happens when we encounter another ecosystem? Well, it depends on whether it's intelligent (and particularly, if it's conscious) or not. If it is (assuming it's not hostile), we can leave it to do its bit to satisfy the goal, and move on to virgin territory. But if it's not, then it has no special claim to existence, or the territory in which it evolved. In the interests of the preservation of knowledge, the ecosystem will be preserved, but its range may be vastly limited in order to carry out the higher purpose. This either a) makes the assumption that this particular ecosystem will not evolve into intelligent life later on or b) being there first grants us right to destroy its chances of becoming intellingent later on Yup. Under this formulation, it's better to accelerate the process by building on existing intelligence than hoping that slime mold might become intellligent a billion years from now. So if some vastly more intelligent species eventually find us, they might think that we arent particularly intelligent either ( just reading some recent stuff on s.s.* newsgroups is enough to come to this conclusion ), and going by the plan b they will just make room for their hyperspace bypass. There are clearly going to be some gray areas, and I'd say when in doubt, leave it alone. It's not a matter of *which* is more intelligent, so much as whether there's any intelligence at all. Aside from the scientific value, what is the ethical difference between colonizing large parts of Mars with earth life, wiping out the native stuff in those regions, and cleaning a toilet bowl? -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
Bent C Dalager wrote: In article , Kaido Kert wrote: This either a) makes the assumption that this particular ecosystem will not evolve into intelligent life later on or b) being there first grants us right to destroy its chances of becoming intellingent later on This way lies paralysis. Everything we do and do not do affects the future. We cannot base our actions (or lack thereof) on wild speculations about what might or might not happen in a couple of million years time. In this case though, any potential Martian ecosystem is entirely detached from connection with Earth's, other than by intentional human interaction with it....so the old Zen proverb about about "By choosing not to act... you have already acted" really doesn't apply in this case, as any actions on our part will only affect Mars if we allow then to; there are three possibilities in regards to life on Mars: 1. It never had life; and doesn't have life now- if that's the case, then it's humanity's for the taking, no questions asked. 2. It once had life, but is presently lifeless- end result is the same as the above...but this is going to take a very comprehensive planet-wide survey to establish as the current situation. 3. It has life currently- now the shaky ground starts- if we explore the planet, it's one thing, as I doubt very many Earth microorganisms would survive on Mars if brought there unintentionally by an expedition, so that the situation would be self-steralizing...but any attempt to colonize or terraform the planet would pretty well spell an end to any pristine evolution that such hypothetical organisms would have, and frankly, I would be loathe to do that, considering that there are plenty of lifeless planetary bodies in our Solar System to exploit. Of course the real oddball situation would be if we find life on Mars...and it turns out to be identical genetically to some form of life on Earth...indicating that it was transferred one way or the other via meteorite between the two planets....now a philosophical conundrum like that could give a Rabbi fits in regards what to do. Of course, if all the planets got seeded by microorganism from comets (an idea I don't buy for a minute, due to the high radiation flux they encounter during perihelion) then we are also in a lulu of a fix in a moral sense. If I go down to the store and purchase something from the lady behind the counter, perhaps this made her not notice the handsome guy who walked past behind me. Perhaps this is the one single occurrence that caused them not to meet, fall in love, get married and have children. Would this mean that I, in some moral sense, killed her children that are never to be? Would this mean I should never go to the store? Again, that really doesn't apply to Mars, as it will go of it's merry way regardless of what we on Earth do, unless we interfere with it in some way. We should base our actions on realistic expectations of the effect they will have on the world. The first question is which "world" you are referring to? Ours or Mars? Never liked the idea of planecide as being something that we might do.... intentionally or unintentionally- and unfortunately, by the time we find out that Mars has some life on it, after years of exploring...we might well have screwed things up for that lifeform's future. Me, I like the Non-Interference Prime Directive Idea- which means that unless any Martian lifeforms are under the control of some soulless, all-powerful computer that needs a little application of Phaser Energy to its godless sparking innards to put it on the moral straight-and-narrow, then I'd just leave Mars go if we find life there...and proceed to search for life on Europa, via detailed sonargrams of its interior using 50 megaton thermonuclear depth charges to start subtle echoes in it's no-doubt-life-infested subsurface seas... just to shake things up a bit, and show those wimpy Sono-Squids that The Monkey-Boys From Sol Three are in town, and there's going to be a rumble tonight! Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 15 Aug 2003 07:35:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kaido Kert" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: So if some vastly more intelligent species eventually find us, they might think that we arent particularly intelligent either ( just reading some recent stuff on s.s.* newsgroups is enough to come to this conclusion ), and going by the plan b they will just make room for their hyperspace bypass. There are clearly going to be some gray areas, and I'd say when in doubt, leave it alone. It's not a matter of *which* is more intelligent, so much as whether there's any intelligence at all. This precautionary principle seems to me to indicate we need to radically revise our treatment of chimps and dolphins at minimum. The problem with a formulation of moral value in terms of a hypothetical clear division between intelligent and not intelligent is that you inevitably have to admit that in practice there is a grey area. This (among other things) suggests to me that a formulation in terms of a continuum between the smartest human and the simplest virus is better. It leads to a hierarchy (and of course, uncertainty about what falls where in the hierarchy) of moral worth, which is trickier to reason with, but a better fit to reality, IMO. Aside from the scientific value, what is the ethical difference between colonizing large parts of Mars with earth life, wiping out the native stuff in those regions, and cleaning a toilet bowl? Well, for one thing, presumably you either own the toilet or have the owner's permission :-) More seriously there are other interests as well as scientific (esthetic, for one), but the scientific value seems to me primary, which is unsurprising since it's what I do for a living. The question of the morality of terraforming is often posed in terms of wiping out some organism we know is there. Much more likely is that we'll end up wiping out ecosystems that we have no idea even exist. That's a much stickier problem, since if we don't know they exist, how can we make moral judgements about them unless those judgements are independent of the attributes of the organisms (including intelligence or the lack thereof)? Presuming we know exactly what it is that we're wiping out, and that it's things similar to slime mold, extensive samples of which are held in laboratories on Mars, Earth and other places, I'd have to come down on the side of letting the creatures go extinct in the wild. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that conclusion, but perhaps that's appropriate. .......Andrew -- -- Andrew Case | | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Martian Game Reserves
In sci.space.policy Bent C Dalager wrote:
In article , Kaido Kert wrote: This either a) makes the assumption that this particular ecosystem will not evolve into intelligent life later on or b) being there first grants us right to destroy its chances of becoming intellingent later on This way lies paralysis. Everything we do and do not do affects the future. We cannot base our actions (or lack thereof) on wild speculations about what might or might not happen in a couple of million years time. If I go down to the store and purchase something from the lady behind the counter, perhaps this made her not notice the handsome guy who walked past behind me. Perhaps this is the one single occurrence that caused them not to meet, fall in love, get married and have children. Would this mean that I, in some moral sense, killed her children that are never to be? Would this mean I should never go to the store? We should base our actions on realistic expectations of the effect they will have on the world. the only realistic expectation without extra data is that native higher lifeforms will never appear on Mars. Even so, it appears extermely unlikely. What might happen is thatthere willbe unique adapedto Mars forms of cokroaces, possibly some rodents, etc. in addition to say cetipedes and earthworms which probably will get deliverately introduced. Cheers Bent D -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|