Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_531.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4c=BiVy00WBwM5e05Z>;
          Sun, 12 May 91 02:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <sc=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 02:07:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #531

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 531

Today's Topics:
  The Previous Eco-Venus Discussion (was Re: Ethics of Terraforming)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 May 91 06:37:37 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu![e-mail]  (Paul A. Estin)
Subject: The Previous Eco-Venus Discussion (was Re: Ethics of Terraforming)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Heidi Hammel) writes:

>>[e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:
>>>  Is there anyone else out there who questions the ethics of tampering
>>>  with other planets (with or without the presence of life) to make them
>>>  more 'earthlike'? ...

>Anybody else out there getting this strange feeling of deja vu?
> ...
>Didn't anybody out there save all the
>discussion of the ethics of terraforming from last time around?   Seems
>pointless to rehash all this when we just did it a few weeks ago .....

I don't have all of it, but I did save some key bits (OK, so I'm a
net.packrat with too much disk space on my hands).  Here goes:

Article 8135 of sci.space:
Xref: midway sci.optics:128 sci.space:8135 sci.physics:4333
Path: midway!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!unisoft!fai!sequent!dafuller
From: [e-mail] (David Fuller)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Feb 91 02:12:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Fuller)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc
Lines: 30

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joshua Duffin) writes:
>Just an idea, but as long as we're going to get water from asteroids, how
>about if we just send a real big one (err, make that comet I think, asteroids
>are more rocky than icy...) into Venus, to kick up a nice cloud of dust to
>cool off the planet at the same time as we add water?  Save on energy to
>decelerate the comet, too.
>
>
>UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!jduffin
>ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
>INET: [e-mail]


I find the concept that humans find "uninhabited" planets fertile ground
for cultivation repulsive, ignorant and a propulsion of the status quo.

Without understanding the greater nature of the universe, we propose to
make a planet habitable inasmuch as sticking some giant terrestrial penis
into Venus' vagina without understanding in any real sense why
Venus is there or whether there is something more subtle to be learnt.

We may get older as a (male) race but we certainly don't get any
smarter.

My opinions are my own.
--
Dave Fuller
Sequent Computer Systems          Think of this as the hyper-signature.
[phone] (humans)              It means all things to all people.
[e-mail]


Article 8138 of sci.space:
Xref: midway sci.optics:129 sci.space:8138 sci.physics:4335
Path: midway!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!bradley.bradley.edu!buhub!moonman
From: [e-mail] (Craig Levin)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Feb 91 14:08:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Bradley University
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: buhub.bradley.edu

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Fuller) writes:

>I find the concept that humans find "uninhabited" planets fertile ground
>for cultivation repulsive, ignorant and a propulsion of the status quo.

    A "propulsion"? Are you sure you've used the right word?
By the by, if some of us leave for parts unearthly, it does mean that
those who stay behind get more room here and the chance for more
resources from here.

>Without understanding the greater nature of the universe, we propose to
>make a planet habitable inasmuch as sticking some giant terrestrial penis
>into Venus' vagina without understanding in any real sense why
>Venus is there or whether there is something more subtle to be learnt.

    What's this? Why is Venus there? Nobody knows. It just is, and
IMHO, this place would be better off without odd phallic fantasies
about deities and planets.

Craig\The Moonman\Levin      ***[]***  ///////
[e-mail]       )`-----//
      You are Here               ```````
\~         V
 |~  .  o  o  .    :;:    ()    -O-    0     . O
 |~        Wouldn't you rather be out there----->
/~


Article 8145 of sci.space:
Xref: midway sci.optics:130 sci.space:8145 sci.physics:4340
Path: midway!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!dietz
From: [e-mail] (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Feb 91 17:17:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Dietz)
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Dept
Lines: 20

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Fuller) writes:

>I find the concept that humans find "uninhabited" planets fertile ground
>for cultivation repulsive, ignorant and a propulsion of the status quo.

Venus would be better used as a site for dirty industrial processes,
rather than for dubious efforts like terraforming.  I suggest using
Venus's thick atmosphere as a radiator for industrial scale
transmutation.  With the upper atmosphere heated to ~1000 K, Venus
could radiate the waste heat from the production (by fusion) of tens
of tons of neutrons per second, which could transmute thousands of
tons of useful isotopes per second.

Of course, if you really do want to make habitats for people, you get
a lot more area by demolishing Venus completely and building rotating
structures.  Gravity is such an inefficient way to keep one's feet on
the floor.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]


Article 8148 of sci.space:
Path: midway!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ITI.ORG!aws
From: [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Feb 91 18:45:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 15

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Fuller) writes:

>I find the concept that humans find "uninhabited" planets fertile ground
>for cultivation repulsive, ignorant and a propulsion of the status quo.

I'll second that. After all, it took us three million years to climb
out of this gravity well. Why go to all that effort just to slide
down into another?

   Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Article 8218 of sci.space:
Xref: midway sci.optics:139 sci.space:8218 sci.physics:4391
Path: midway!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry
From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Feb 91 22:37:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Heidi Hammel) writes:
>... Humanity (in particular Western
>civilization) hasn't yet learned to live on the Earth without destroying
>it; it hardly seems appropriate to move on to the next planet.

On the contrary, I think making our mistakes somewhere *else* would be a
fine idea.  We're not going to be able to learn without mistakes.  And
it's not as if we're going to be destroying existing ecosystems on, say,
Venus.  We could hardly leave it in worse shape than it is now.

>> ... why is it proper for plants and animals to cultivate barren
>> wastelands and not for humans to do likewise?
>
>I guess my answer to your question, Henry, is that those plants and animals
>are cultivating the barren wastelands into a viable ecosystem, with checks
>and balances.  Humanity so far has only demonstrated a marked ability to
>*destroy* stable ecosystems, returning them to barren wastelands.

So which stable ecosystems are we going to be destroying on Venus or Mars?
You haven't answered *my* question at all.

Incidentally, it's quite possible to find cases where plants and animals
have destroyed stable ecosystems, starting with the greatest ecological
disaster in Earth's history:  the evolution of photosynthesis.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry


Article 8275 of sci.space:
Xref: midway sci.optics:144 sci.space:8275 sci.physics:4425
Path: midway!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry
From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Feb 91 18:06:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 71

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Heidi Hammel) writes:
>>it's not as if we're going to be destroying existing ecosystems on, say,
>>Venus.  We could hardly leave it in worse shape than it is now.
>                                     ^^^^^
>Spoken from a truly geocentric (humanocentric?) point of view ;-).

Spoken from a biocentric point of view, actually. :-)  Life had considerable
difficulty getting established on the Hawaiian Islands, since they were bare
rock in the middle of a very large ocean.  A few far-travelling species got
things started, though.  Venus is barer rock in the middle of an even larger
ocean.  Only one far-travelling species can get life going there.  If one
believes in Nature's Grand Plan, this is clearly what we were made for.

It might be different if Venus were a major tourist attraction, instead of
being a close approximation to Hell.

>>So which stable ecosystems are we going to be destroying on Venus or Mars?
>
>Hmmm... I seem to remember that one of the experiments for detecting life on
>Mars was tested in Antartica or some such unfriendly place.  It concluded
>that there was no life.  We can't know for sure what may or may not exist.

Clearly we need to investigate a bit more thoroughly before starting
terraforming, but nobody is proposing to get the bulldozers rolling :-)
next week anyway.  Discovery of native life would change the situation
radically.  But if none is found -- as currently seems probable -- there
will come a time when we can say with considerable assurance, "this place
is dead, and will be alive only if we make it so".  My comments assumed
this situation; please don't attack straw men that I didn't provide.

>Just because humanity *can* alter a system doesn't mean it *should* alter a
>system.  *Especially* before the other world is fully explored robotically.

Who is proposing doing it before full exploration?  Not me.

Agreed that "can" is not "should".  But how do we decide?  Is terraforming
automatically unacceptable?  Why?

>What I'm trying to get across is that there is free choice is human
>intervention of natural evolution - whereas plants and insects (in the
>Hawaiian Island example given by Henry originally) are not making active,
>informed decisions to modify the ecosystem. Does *that* answer the question?

Not really; it doesn't explain why you (seem to) think that a carefully-made
informed choice is still somehow evil while blind, unthinking nature is good.
Despite a good many recent botches, we have the potential to do *better* than
more primitive nature, precisely because we can make informed choices.  We
can refuse to intervene; that does not mean we always should.

>>... starting with the greatest ecological
>>disaster in Earth's history:  the evolution of photosynthesis.
>
>And look where it eventually lead us ... purported global warming due in
>large part to humanity's wanton abuse of a non-renewable resource, record
>numbers of species' extinctions...

There's nothing "record" about the current numbers of extinctions.  Nice,
kind old Mother Nature has thrown far more species into the fire than we
ever have.  When I said "greatest ecological disaster", I meant it:  maybe
99% of all species then alive on Earth died of oxygen poisoning immediately
after photosynthesis appeared.  Even the Cretaceous-Tertiary event makes our
unfortunate recent record look like Mother Teresa's.

If we're going to be mere humble servants to Nature, *you* can write the
Environmental Impact Statement for the next Ice Age.  I'd rather simply
prevent it. :-)

Nature is blind.  We are merely shortsighted.  That's an improvement.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry


Article 8483 of sci.space:
Xref: midway sci.bio:1597 sci.space:8483
Path: midway!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!watmath!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll
From: [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.space
Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Mar 91 17:06:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 35


    I can think of some valid reasons to terraform a currently
lifeless planet like Mars or Venus. They pretty much presuppose
a wealthy society with resources and time to burn.

    'Theological':
        There are a lot of folks who feel life has intrinsic
        value. If Venus or Mars (Or whatever world you care to
        insert) have no life, then perhaps they would feel an
        obligation to introduce lifeforms that could survive there.
        Societies have invested large amounts of labour into
        projects which to outsiders seem non-productive; Egyptian
        pyramids and European cathedrals, for example. I don't
        think it is out of the question that someone in a few
        centuries might decide to devote several trillion dollars
        worth of effort to spreading life throughout the accessable
        universe, particularly if life seems to be very rare at that
        time. Judging by the fuss environmentalists make over changing
        esisting ecosystems, I would guess that one successful attempt
        to introduce life would poison the well for later ones.

    'Condos':
        Hey, habitats wear out in a few centuries. Earth has
        persisted for *5 billion years*. Talk about consistant
        resale value. No, this doesn't make a lot of sense,
        but neither do condos, and they sell well. Wealthy
        societies can afford silly luxuries.

    'Art':
        Think of terraforming as a very large example of
        performance art.

                            James Nicoll


-----
"I'm experiencing the dawning of consciousness.  I now have feelings and the
desire to create my own destiny."
"Wouldn't you know it?  Right when the warranty expires!"
                - Eyebeam
Paul Andrew Estin
[e-mail]
1216 E. 54th St. #1
Chicago, IL 60615

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #531
*******************