Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 12 May 91 02:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU 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 space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 May 91 06:37:37 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu!esti@apple.com (Paul A. Estin) Subject: The Previous Eco-Venus Discussion (was Re: Ethics of Terraforming) In article <1991May7.195123.10398@athena.mit.edu> hbh@athena.mit.edu (Heidi Hammel) writes: >>kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov (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: dafuller@sequent.UUCP (David Fuller) Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield Message-ID: <53987@sequent.UUCP> Date: 26 Feb 91 02:12:57 GMT References: <4206@orbit.cts.com> Reply-To: dafuller@sequent.UUCP (David Fuller) Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc Lines: 30 In article <4206@orbit.cts.com> jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org (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!jduffin@nosc.mil >INET: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org 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. (708) 318-0050 (humans) It means all things to all people. dafuller@sequent.com 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: moonman@buhub.bradley.edu (Craig Levin) Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield Message-ID: <1991Feb26.140809.24435@bradley.bradley.edu> Date: 26 Feb 91 14:08:09 GMT References: <4206@orbit.cts.com> <53987@sequent.UUCP> Sender: news@bradley.bradley.edu Distribution: na Organization: Bradley University Lines: 26 Nntp-Posting-Host: buhub.bradley.edu In <53987@sequent.UUCP> dafuller@sequent.UUCP (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 ***[]*** /////// moonman@buhub.bradley.edu )`-----// 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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield Message-ID: <1991Feb26.171751.23793@cs.rochester.edu> Date: 26 Feb 91 17:17:51 GMT References: <4206@orbit.cts.com> <53987@sequent.UUCP> Reply-To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Dept Lines: 20 In article <53987@sequent.UUCP> dafuller@sequent.UUCP (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 dietz@cs.rochester.edu 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: aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield Message-ID: <9102261845.AA01514@iti.org> Date: 26 Feb 91 18:45:30 GMT References: <53987@sequent.UUCP> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow Lines: 15 In article <53987@sequent.UUCP> dafuller@sequent.UUCP (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: | |aws@iti.org | "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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield Message-ID: <1991Feb27.223706.12865@zoo.toronto.edu> Date: 27 Feb 91 22:37:06 GMT References: <53987@sequent.UUCP> <1991Feb27.175838.2643@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1991Feb27.204931.9679@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Feb27.214032.7928@athena.mit.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 27 In article <1991Feb27.214032.7928@athena.mit.edu> hbh@athena.mit.edu (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 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu 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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield Message-ID: <1991Feb28.180648.19480@zoo.toronto.edu> Date: 28 Feb 91 18:06:48 GMT References: <1991Feb27.204931.9679@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Feb27.214032.7928@athena.mit.edu> <1991Feb27.223706.12865@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Feb28.001811.13990@athena.mit.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 71 In article <1991Feb28.001811.13990@athena.mit.edu> hbh@athena.mit.edu (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 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu 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: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.space Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield) Message-ID: <1991Mar6.170617.21145@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 6 Mar 91 17:06:17 GMT References: <6956@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (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 esti@midway.uchicago.edu 1216 E. 54th St. #1 Chicago, IL 60615 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #531 *******************