[bronzevolley]

Such as creating an atmosphere on Mars or The Moon to create more Earth-like conditions. Ignoring the scientific feasibility of such projects, do you think such projects should be permitted, or should they never be attempted as it would be unethical to drastically alter the natural environment of another body in the solar system?

[Ape Gone Insane]

If there were other lifeforms living on other planets, then I'd say it could be unethical to terraform. But if they are barren and devoid of any life then I don't see why not.

[Bulbasaur]

I guess that argument could be valid if there was actually life there. But morals are subjective.

To be fair, beyond 99.9% of these will probably be lifeless so I see no issue.

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
If there were other lifeforms living on other planets, then I'd say it could be unethical to terraform. But if they are barren and devoid of any life then I don't see why not.

Got to it first. Basically this.

[Nick100]

I don't even think the presence of microbial life particularly matters; it is unlikely to evolve into anything sentient by the time the sun expands. Some specimens could be reserved for scientific interests, but their existence shouldn't stop us from altering planets to our benefit.

[green.tea]

I suppose theres a question over our not knowing what forms life could take. Its possible that life could take a form undetectable to us so we'd have no way of knowing it was there. Its life jim but not as we know it and all that.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Nick100)
I don't even think the presence of microbial life particularly matters; it is unlikely to evolve into anything sentient by the time the sun expands. Some specimens could be reserved for scientific interests, but their existence shouldn't stop us from altering planets to our benefit.

Personally when aliens as more advanced than us as we are from microbial life arrive id like to have some moral high ground.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

**** "ethics". If that sort of thing was possible I'd be all over it.
We really should be looking into colonising places other than this planet, because we could easily be wiped out by a comet strike or supervolcano or disease or whatever.

[Inverse]

No. What is with all this ethics crap?

[Sir Fox]

Nope. No one benefits from barren, uninhabited flying rocks and no one would be harmed, so ... go ahead.

[RyanT]

How can ethics be involved?

They are not moral units in themselves.

i.e. is it ethical to pick up a stone?

versus

is it ethical to throw a cat into water?

One of the two is evidently a serious question as it involves moral units. Terraforming planets/moons is not an ethical question.

It is possible for an ethical question to arise with regards to what is done with these terraformed planets/moons but they do not in themselves represent a morality.

[MangoFreak]

Although there could be life that we don't actually recognise as life, I suppose that if we had the technology to terraform a planet then we'd probably be capable of recognising MOST forms of somewhat evolved life. But you never know...what if the rocks on Mars are actually sentient?

[ZombieMartin]

Why not, there have been no signs of life on the planets that are close to us so we should start looking into perhaps actually using them for something. I for one would be glad to live on another planet if it were to be possible.

[sugar-n-spice]

Whats with dis crap dat we might not recognise it as life? Pretentious BS. MOst experts agree than if der is life out der it will be carbon based cos carbon atoms are able to form way more different types of molecules than silicone yehgetme? If you wanna take that road fine but we could just as easily say there is life we don't recognise as life here on earth but it doesn't make us get mad, right.

[DynamicSyngery]

It's unethical not to terraform them.

[MQ003C]

If there is nothing there that exerts self awareness and we really are terraforming barren rocks as far as we know then there isn't a problem. The thing is we need to figure out more sustainable ways of survival in such places. There's no use in travelling to far off planets for the purposes of stripping them of resources. If the current world is any indication and we had the means to do in the present, we would be doing just that.

[Pitt1988]

It's just the next step once we've exhausted all our resources. Nothing wrong with it, especially if there was nothing on it to begin with, in fact, spreading life to other barren worlds is quite a nice though!

[UniversalAutocrat]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
If there were other lifeforms living on other planets, then I'd say it could be unethical to terraform. But if they are barren and devoid of any life then I don't see why not.

But if they were non-sentient or such, we would probably pass over this. Indeed, one could use a utilitarian argument and venture to say that one should terraform in the aforementioned instance as the happiness/pleasure of humans resulting from such an act would outweigh the 'pain' suffered by the lifeforms (if any).

(Original post by bronzevolley)
Such as creating an atmosphere on Mars or The Moon to create more Earth-like conditions. Ignoring the scientific feasibility of such projects, do you think such projects should be permitted, or should they never be attempted as it would be unethical to drastically alter the natural environment of another body in the solar system?

Unethical? This is the first I've heard of it!

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, this solar system is humanity's property - it's ours, so we can do what we bloody well please! (When we actually advance more in space technology )

P.S. Unethical would suggest that there were a universal standard of ethics (which there aren't). And I wouldn't go as far as to say natural. For all you know, the sun was unethical when it scorched ancient Mars (apparently similar to Earth) into what it is now (apparently a barren wasteland - hopefully Curiosty will tell us more this August ).

[Off_My_Planet]

Yes, if your Joss Whedon

[green.tea]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
Whats with dis crap dat we might not recognise it as life? Pretentious BS. MOst experts agree than if der is life out der it will be carbon based cos carbon atoms are able to form way more different types of molecules than silicone yehgetme? If you wanna take that road fine but we could just as easily say there is life we don't recognise as life here on earth but it doesn't make us get mad, right.

Experts are only able to examine a very small speck of reality and only what their senses and equipment allow them to detect. They are simply speculating what is most likely based on a knowledge that is very limited because you simply cant understand the earth by examining a blade of grass or standing on its tip with binoculars..

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by green.tea)
Experts are only able to examine a very small speck of reality and only what their senses and equipment allow them to detect. They are simply speculating what is most likely based on a knowledge that is very limited because you simply cant understand the earth by examining a blade of grass or standing on its tip with binoculars..

Brah..if we can't observe that a thing is a living breathing organism how our actions possible affect it? Most scientists are in agreement that any life we are likely to encounter will be carbon based.