If human beings do manage to develop practical interstellar travel, it occurred to me that the ethical considerations of colonizing other planets are not completely dissimilar to those of colonizing other continents. I think that most of us will probably agree that invading and colonizing a planet already inhabited by intelligent life would be unethical. However, I don't see a ton of conversation space generally given to the ethics of colonizing a planet where there is life, but none that we recognize as "intelligent". This raises multiple questions, including how we define "intelligence", where we draw the line for ownership purposes, and also, even in the definite absence of intelligent life, is it ethical to colonize a pristine, unexploited ecosystem?
Further, why do we seem to assume that we have some sort of natural RIGHT to colonize other planets?
I dunno, on that last point, I'd assume the notion of a right is what happened to our even more misplaced sense of duty: our particular brand of intelligence clearly being the light of reason, ethically bound to disseminate itself into any and all "hearts of darkness".
This does not mean that I am absolutely opposed to space exploration, because it may inadvertently make the world a better place. There must also be some more direct ways of going about it. For example, would it be possible to focus those resources, now, to postpose ever having to dispose of this planet in the future? I do not like projecting my own finitude on Mother Earth, actually, it feels like designing a "baby-sized" kitchen-sink drain & disposal unit.
Both of these things seem like the sort of thing that would only be issues depending on the range of our spaceships and possibly our intent for the planet. If we could reach a wide range of systems I can't see us ever having a legitimate reason to choose a planet with life over one an uninhabited one; that goes double if the goal is some kind of mining or resource extraction, because whereas I could see a possibility of the only planet in a system that supports life also being the only one that would be comfortable to settle down on, I can't see it being the only one with mineral wealth, so excuses would be limited for that purpose even if it was the only system we could reach.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 25, 2016, 09:38:25 PM
If human beings do manage to develop practical interstellar travel, it occurred to me that the ethical considerations of colonizing other planets are not completely dissimilar to those of colonizing other continents. I think that most of us will probably agree that invading and colonizing a planet already inhabited by intelligent life would be unethical. However, I don't see a ton of conversation space generally given to the ethics of colonizing a planet where there is life, but none that we recognize as "intelligent". This raises multiple questions, including how we define "intelligence", where we draw the line for ownership purposes, and also, even in the definite absence of intelligent life, is it ethical to colonize a pristine, unexploited ecosystem?
Further, why do we seem to assume that we have some sort of natural RIGHT to colonize other planets?
It's kind of a global version of the American "manifest destiny" shit. Until we find something that can push back, we own everything we can touch.
This does suggest that xenophobia will only really be stopped when dealing with actual hostile aliens. At this point, that's not one of the worst outcomes or unlikely things for 2017. The main downside is things go all starship troopers but we're heading for that anyway.
I think that the biological problem will be a fairly effective counter force to any expansionist ambitions.
I have this problem handled in my "Wizard" character's backstory because they use symbiotic biology much like the engineered concept of the "Space Marines" in Warhammer 40K. There's an engineered microbial symbiot that they call the "liminal phage" loosely translated into English. It's able to sense "what should be" in its host and eliminate most toxic and microbial deviation. In addition it makes all excretion sterile, even blood will "cook" immediately upon exposure to the external environment, cauterizing the open blood vessels as a side benefit.
An aside, but it illustrates a very REAL issue with any colonization... or even benign exploration.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 26, 2016, 03:04:43 AM
Also worth mentioning: If there's a breathable atmosphere, there are plants at the very least. And if there's no breathable atmosphere, there's no point in going.
It will probably be cheaper and easier to change humans to something that can survive in exotic environments than it will be to go from star to star. The Alcubierre drive is potato1, and barring some other loophole, we aren't going anywhere. Even in our own system, more than likely. Don't think of Earth as a bubble of air in a vacuum, think of it (due to radiation) as a bubble of air in a sea of hydrofluoric acid.
1 Something about gravity being common to all universes. I don't have the math to understand it, but I am assured by fairly reputable sources that this is somehow a thing.
Yup. All the yup. Especially the bolded. Hate to say it, but homo sapiens can't get off world in a meaningful way as is, if ever.
So, I take it that nobody is interested in discussing the ethics of space colonization?
Prime Directive?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 03:36:22 AM
So, I take it that nobody is interested in discussing the ethics of space colonization?
I'm happy to in the abstract, but it's on par with talking about the ethics of using magic for personal ambition at this time. That is to say a topic strictly about maybe and outright make believe given ethical gravity..
:oops: Bad pun unintended.
That said if the current folks informing the culture continue to run things long enough to actually be at that point it would be like the :sad: same thing all over again. Our biodiversity is the wealth of this world and it's true inheritance. We've decided to squander it for petty gain. Pretty sure that trend will continue. There would need to be a serious revolution or tabula rasa event to have any other ambition driving the expansion effort at this point.
The idea of what qualifies as sentient will be sorely tested if we find complex exo-life. The willingness to "love your neighbor" is hard enough to find with people that are familiar and clearly human. I suspect that the idea of wiping out a non-human would appeal to folks in a disturbingly visceral and popular way, even without cultural propaganda reinforcing it.
No, but seriously... does anyone here understand what ethics is? Like IRB, IUCUC type stuff that's actually required before doing stuff? The kind of actual considerations that need to be hashed out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
QuoteEthics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, "custom"). The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of ethics and aesthetics, each concerned with values.[2]
As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions "What is the best way for people to live?" and "What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?" In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Three major areas of study within ethics recognised today are:[1]
Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action[1]
?
I mean, I'm generally pretty reserved about things like interstellar travel, but the EM drive does at least open possibilities of heretofore-unknown propulsion physics, and I think it's worth seriously considering what the ethics of space colonization could look like.
I think it will probably look something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXEhtFb8Was&t=5s).
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 04:03:13 AM
No, but seriously... does anyone here understand what ethics is? Like IRB, IUCUC type stuff that's actually required before doing stuff? The kind of actual considerations that need to be hashed out?
:nope:
My condition on discussing the ethics of space exploration is that we take care of this planet, in the first place, in order to ensure that any subsequent venture be autonomous. It should be a matter of choice that may result in obligation, instead of a last ditch effort to save the human race.
When the choice is suffocate in our own shit on this planet or get the hell offworld to colonize others how many people will be considering the ethics of the latter?
It would seem the most ethical to only target completely barren planets for colonisation. Any form of life, whether it meets the requirements to be called sentient/intelligent or otherwise could have all kinds of unforseen interactions with the humans of the future.
Do we even steer clear of entire solar systems if we detect life there? Probably.
I'm with TWJ on this one though - I've never really had to consider the ethics of stuff before and I feel ill equipped to be doing it with regards to space travel.
I think colonization of our system is distinctly possible. I feel like ethically it is not as questionable as colonization of the Americas was because there is no sign of life. If we were able to travel at interstellar distances I think that assessing a new system for danger would generally establish if there was life or not. Anything that can breathe the same air as us seems similar enough that infection might be a danger, in one direction or the other. We might not be able to detect alien pathogens so self interest alone seems like it would make colonization of living planets less likely.
I suspect that ethical concerns would not be something that would strongly motivate financiers or engineers of space colonization, in treatment of colonists maybe, but most likely not in treatment of native ecosystems. That means that for those who it would be a serious ethical concern for the question becomes not whether to do it or not, but how to stop people from doing it.
I'll take Wikipedia Articles I Never Would Have Thought Existed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_terraforming) for 200, Alex.
There are extensive ethical analyses done before any type of space exploration or any other science is actually conducted. This isn't *solely* hypothetical, although at this point interstellar travel is a hypothetical. Without immediately assuming a dystopian future in which we have taken our own planet past recovery, which is a scenario that assumes that we are too irresponsible to even consider space colonization, if we do reach a point where it is technologically possible to send colony ships to other planets, the conversation about ethics will be had, by necessity. If there is not enough of an intellectual and academic scaffolding for the conversation to take place, it will be because there is no space agency left, and therefore no space colonization, in which case it will be moot.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698687/
I just ran across this article, and the author does a pretty good job of identifying some of the most basic fundamentals of the ethical scaffolding, IMO.
https://www.wired.com/2014/11/future-of-space-exploration/
Quote...the lesson of Zheng He remains: Exploration of distant lands will be a short-lived venture unless it yields something really, really valuable.
If future space voyagers decided to exploit a barren, lifeless planet, few would be upset. But such an endeavor is unlikely. As far as we know, a world without life would be a world without oxygen, a stable climate, or the possibility of growing food. Barring the discovery of some immensely valuable substance that doesn't exist on Earth, there would be no reason to set up shop there, let alone despoil it. A world with functioning ecosystems would be more attractive.
One problem I'm not that worried about is barren/inhospitable places being picked on. It's reasonable to assume that science and tech along the lines of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization will get more interest and variations could theoretically be used on such planets. Places we look at as totally nonviable now may not be so in 2-300 years.
I'm not sure the logic of the article above fully takes into account ego. Being involved in this kind of exploration, particularly early on when the threshold for a huge discovery is much closer puts you into the history books in a big way. With more billionaires every year, the ones who are going to make the news when they die are the ones actively trying to change the world in a particular way. Musk and Thiel for example will both be big news, but the tone will be very different for each.
This Zheng He chap sounds interesting too. Will be looking more at him.
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
If nothing else render them into chemical fertilizer and feed the crops.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
Assuming their sugars and proteins have the right chirality. And they aren't made of arsenic or some shit. There's plenty that grows on earth we can't eat and for reasons other than "it's poisonous on purpose."
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 26, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
If nothing else render them into chemical fertilizer and feed the crops.
I can think of very few scenarios in which that would be at all an ethical decision.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 11:54:40 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
Assuming their sugars and proteins have the right chirality. And they aren't made of arsenic or some shit. There's plenty that grows on earth we can't eat and for reasons other than "it's poisonous on purpose."
The same basic rules of physics and chemistry apply everywhere in the universe. While it's possible that life on another planet could be based on D aminos, they would still break down to component parts with the right processing.
Not that any of that is particularly related to the ethics of interstellar colonizaton.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2016, 12:01:37 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 26, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
If nothing else render them into chemical fertilizer and feed the crops.
I can think of very few scenarios in which that would be at all an ethical decision.
I was thinking along the lines of "Hey this (whatever) we found is entirely inedible because it naturally accumulates heavy metals in a novel fashion (or something).
But watch me just harvest the chemicals we need through chemistry to feed our kelp farm."
What scenarios were you thinking? :?
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 27, 2016, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2016, 12:01:37 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 26, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
If nothing else render them into chemical fertilizer and feed the crops.
I can think of very few scenarios in which that would be at all an ethical decision.
I was thinking along the lines of "Hey this (whatever) we found is entirely inedible because it naturally accumulates heavy metals in a novel fashion (or something).
But watch me just harvest the chemicals we need through chemistry to feed our kelp farm."
What scenarios were you thinking? :?
The part where you're damaging an alien ecosystem for your own benefit.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
That high bond number also allows for a lot of stuff that's viable but isn't actually used or usable by earthly life. One definitely viable and definitely not usable by earth creatures (or at least not by mammals, for all we know there could be some undiscovered microorganism or fungus or weird sea creature that can make use of them) is chemicals of opposite chirality.
As for cross-infection by pathogens, viruses and plasmids would likely have a very difficult time given that the the aliens genes, even if based on similar chemicals, are unlikely to use the same base pairs (there are plenty of perfectly viable nucleobases and chemical relatives thereof that aren't used in DNA (some of them, though by no means all that are possible, are used in RNA. Uracil is of course the most famous, but you also occasionally get things like inosine/hypoxanthine). Furthermore, even if they used the same bases, it is unlikely that the same combinations would code for the same things; The genetic code by which dna codons of earthly organisms are translated into proteins is highly conserved but variations can and do exist (mitochondrial DNA is translated slightly differently than the regular dna of the rest of the cell). They might not even use the same amino acids as us; there are plenty of amino acids out there with no corresponding codon.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 27, 2016, 03:21:26 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 27, 2016, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2016, 12:01:37 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 26, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2016, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 26, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
One thing interstellar colonization has going for it over planetary scale is that the plausible returns from an interaction with an alien civilization are by necessity not the same kind of resource grabbing nonsense we saw on earth. It is wildly idiotic to waste so much time, energy, and money stealing raw resources out from under the little green men, as opposed to mining in our own system in an inhospitable environment. it's also laughably unlikely that we will be able to infect one another with anything, or even use each other as food. If life on earth was partially or wholly seeded from outside sources, it becomes more plausible that we could be a little bit like whatever we meet out there, at least on the molecular level, but even then it's rare enough for a disease to jump between two different mammals, the differences between planets would be enormous.
Personally, I do think that dropping bacteria bombs on planets with small scale existing ecosystems would be a catastrophe. I think that interacting with intelligent life, should we ever be lucky enough to stumble upon it, is completely inevitable and as such it's more important to focus on getting that interaction right than deciding whether or not we should. It only takes one person to open their mouth, after all, and an entire planet to keep quiet.
One thing that not a lot of people realize is that carbon is very likely the only molecule that can serve as a basis for life, because of its unique bond number. So, if we encounter other life forms, it is very likely that they will also be carbon-based. A lot of what forms "life" is simply reliant on universal properties of atoms.
In short, we will probably be able to eat them, and vise versa.
If nothing else render them into chemical fertilizer and feed the crops.
I can think of very few scenarios in which that would be at all an ethical decision.
I was thinking along the lines of "Hey this (whatever) we found is entirely inedible because it naturally accumulates heavy metals in a novel fashion (or something).
But watch me just harvest the chemicals we need through chemistry to feed our kelp farm."
What scenarios were you thinking? :?
The part where you're damaging an alien ecosystem for your own benefit.
OK, yeah, this.
This is exactly why the conversation on ethics HAS to happen before we embark on any kind of endeavor, and why the world would have been a better place if, say, Europe had had a clearly defined sense of ethics before launching boats at other continents.
You know the Tuskeegee experiment? That's another case where not assuming that everything that exists is a possession for us to exploit would have helped.
In my opinion a strongly preserved understanding of ethics is a fundamentally necessary cognitive development that we must utilize moving forward as a species. Evolutionarily speaking, groups who do not employ ethical considerations are dinosaurs doomed to extinction.
I mean, or else we will be rendered back to the Stone Age by our own stupidity, and that's just where humans will stay for the duration of our remaining existence on the planet.
I get you better now.
Where might the line be drawn for inappropriate "harvesting" and taking samples for expanding knowledge? One feeds bodies, the other minds. Both are absolutely critical for survival.
My fictions are just that, but I'm interested in showing an inhuman sense of exploratory ethics as a contrast for folks to think about. The protagonist is in a dilemma exactly like any other drastically different cultural exposure might cause. Over time he gets more "human" as he begins to absorb concepts like friendship and environmental conservation on a world that "his kind" would probably rather burn down and forget out of sheer dogmatism and (not unfounded in story context) fear of facing true deviance.
I hope you don't mind my references to a story I've not yet largely written down or made public, but it's the closest thing that I have to a body of thought on the subject.
Also...
Possible highly relevant reference on the "EM" drive. Happened to be the first thing I saw on Yahoo just before I came here today.
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-em-drive-space-exploration-525147?rx=us (http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-em-drive-space-exploration-525147?rx=us)
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2016, 04:12:39 PM
I mean, or else we will be rendered back to the Stone Age by our own stupidity, and that's just where humans will stay for the duration of our remaining existence on the planet.
You know there is a reassuring appropriateness in our bombing ourselves back to the Stone Age. I mean just because karma is a bunch of weirdo bullshit it doesn't mean that you can't be hoist by your own petard.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 27, 2016, 06:19:25 PM
Where might the line be drawn for inappropriate "harvesting" and taking samples for expanding knowledge? One feeds bodies, the other minds. Both are absolutely critical for survival.
That's exactly the discussion I am interested in; that's the question I'm asking in the OP.
Where might that line be drawn? It's something we HAVE to think about in advance of spending billions of dollars, which represent real resources, on development of any form of interstellar travel.
It may be hypothetical now, but it might not remain hypothetical if the EM drive effect is real, and it certainly seems to be real at this point.
And lets just dispense with any of these silly fantasies in which we are forced off the planet by our own waste and idiocy; if we can't sort our shit out enough to survive on this planet, we aren't going to sort our shit out enough to send people to other solar systems.
I don't know whether anyone has yet mentioned the inevitable heat-death of the sun, but before anyone does lets just take that logical step and understand that life on Earth has existed for around 3.8 billion years, our genus has existed for about 4 million years, and our species for roughly 400,000 years. Earth will become uninhabitable due to expansion of the sun in 5 billion years. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion so lets just don't. If we leave the planet, it will be because we want to, and have chosen to put excess resources into developing space travel, not because we have to; a scenario in which we have no choice is for comic books, not for NASA scientists, who are already having serious conversations about the ethics of space exploration.
Basically, IF we do manage to maintain a technological civilization, and IF the EM drive leads to interstellar exploration, first we have to have, and will have, a set of policies in place dictating how we will handle other planets in varying stages of their own evolution. For example, we might decide that disrupting another planet's ecosytem is unethical, and take measures to avoid introduction of Earth organisms. We might decide that garden planets with no animal life are open season for exploitation and development, but that planets with animals are off-limits. We might decide that animals that demonstrate self-awareness are the "owners" of their own planet. We might decide that only animals that demonstrate self-awareness and human-level intelligence or the equivalent are worthy of being granted that respect. After all, we have no qualms about exploiting non-human animals on our own planet.
We don't know how likely we are to encounter planets with life, but we have to at least have some ideas of how we will behave before we get to that point. We have to because it's what people do; it's the kind of animal we are. Nobody, be it NASA or some distant future space agency, dumps the necessary level of resources into a project like space exploration without a massive scaffolding of bureaucracy. That's just reality.
Quote from: MMIX on November 27, 2016, 06:24:48 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2016, 04:12:39 PM
I mean, or else we will be rendered back to the Stone Age by our own stupidity, and that's just where humans will stay for the duration of our remaining existence on the planet.
You know there is a reassuring appropriateness in our bombing ourselves back to the Stone Age. I mean just because karma is a bunch of weirdo bullshit it doesn't mean that you can't be hoist by your own petard.
We certainly seem hell-bent on barrelling our dumb monkey asses directly into resource depletion and social instability. :lulz:
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 27, 2016, 06:19:25 PM
I get you better now.
Where might the line be drawn for inappropriate "harvesting" and taking samples for expanding knowledge? One feeds bodies, the other minds. Both are absolutely critical for survival.
We have existing frameworks for what we think is appropriate for scientific study here on earth that we can build on looking forward. Removing a small sample for study is generally accepted as long as you're not taking a ton (compare the recent run of Antarctic sea floor exploration with Darwin's adventure in eating all the tortoises). Observing without interacting or with minimal interaction is generally more acceptable.
Where it gets wonky is when any interaction is likely to decimate what you're studying. If you land on a brandy brand new planet with a baby ecosystem, and you've got even one badass earth-tested bacterium chilling out on your rover? That could be lights out for the developing strain of life on that planet. And I do think that would be a terrible thing. I like the idea of seeding properly dead planets with life, because I am a little Manifest Destiny when it comes to life in general. That's not the same thing as aborting an entire planetary ecosystem just as it's getting started.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 27, 2016, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 27, 2016, 06:19:25 PM
I get you better now.
Where might the line be drawn for inappropriate "harvesting" and taking samples for expanding knowledge? One feeds bodies, the other minds. Both are absolutely critical for survival.
We have existing frameworks for what we think is appropriate for scientific study here on earth that we can build on looking forward. Removing a small sample for study is generally accepted as long as you're not taking a ton (compare the recent run of Antarctic sea floor exploration with Darwin's adventure in eating all the tortoises). Observing without interacting or with minimal interaction is generally more acceptable.
Where it gets wonky is when any interaction is likely to decimate what you're studying. If you land on a brandy brand new planet with a baby ecosystem, and you've got even one badass earth-tested bacterium chilling out on your rover? That could be lights out for the developing strain of life on that planet. And I do think that would be a terrible thing. I like the idea of seeding properly dead planets with life, because I am a little Manifest Destiny when it comes to life in general. That's not the same thing as aborting an entire planetary ecosystem just as it's getting started.
Yeah, I think there are pretty major ethical considerations to be made when dealing with any level of life, and beginning stages might just be the most fragile. After all, it looks like Mars may have once had life, and it just didn't take off. If two different planets in the same solar system had life arise spontaneously, it might mean that life is simply a spontaneous series of chemical reactions that will happen anywhere conditions are favorable... in that case, any planet we find is likely to be in some stage of evolution. While find it, fuck it, destroy it may have been the mode of behavior for Homo Sapiens for the last few thousand years or so, we are not locked in to past behavior; we are still evolving as a species, and that means that behaviors will change as environmental pressures change. It is possible that we will at some point conclude that the only ethical interaction with other life-supporting planets is trade with other intelligent spacefaring inhabitants.
I can't help imagining a sad story in which probes identify a number of burgeoning young planets for potential settlement, but bacteria carried on the probes wipes out all the life and when the colony ships arrive a few centuries later, the planet is barren and atmosphere-less. Everybody dies.
What kind of body would even be responsible for making sure that "we" don't gatecrash some other planet's party without a valid "ethical standpoint". I mean; who are "We"? Space is increasingly the domain of private, for-profit, enterprises. The world of business and finance isn't renowned for its spotless hands and cleaner than clean ethical standards, and there are also plenty of governments who would like a slice of that potentially profitable and internationally significant space action.
so, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Quote from: MMIX on November 28, 2016, 04:24:30 AM
What kind of body would even be responsible for making sure that "we" don't gatecrash some other planet's party without a valid "ethical standpoint". I mean; who are "We"? Space is increasingly the domain of private, for-profit, enterprises. The world of business and finance isn't renowned for its spotless hands and cleaner than clean ethical standards, and there are also plenty of governments who would like a slice of that potentially profitable and internationally significant space action.
so, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Currently, governmental space programs such as NASA. If private interests do end up taking the lead, regulation would be necessary, but enforcement becomes a problem.
I'm looking into the not too distant future and seeing a SpaceBus [executive class only] with TRUMP on the side. It is not a comforting thought.It wouldn't be conspicuously better if it said VIRGIN, either.
At this point we're going to be much more like the Ferengi than the Federation, which only formed after the world had gone through a geno-war that went thermonuclear.
... :facepalm: aaand thread now has Startrek. Sorry.
Hi everybody! :wave: Interesting thread...
If we encounter a planet with no life on it, and no obvious 'potential for life', I think it's "fair game" for mining and exploitation.
I think that planets which may one day have life need to be approached cautiously. But then the question becomes - When does life [on a planet] begin? At something like amino acids?
In my daydream hypothetical contact with alien life, I imagine the definition of 'life' will come into question. Like maybe life on other planets don't consist of distinct organisms, but something like distributed systems with lifelike properties.
There's a really good Kim Stanley Robinson book where space explorers have to deal with sickness caused by these alien 'prions'. It's basically just a protein molecule that unfolds in a dangerous way when exposed to some of the chemicals in our bodies. Like a virus, we don't consider a prion to be living... but when you're on an alien planet, how can you be sure?
I conjecture that we can (and should) come up with an agreement about ethical exploration.. but I think that parts of the plan will be confusing to apply. Whether a planet has 'life' or not may be fuzzy, hard to determine until we're already knee deep.
:eek: Cramulus' back!
:cramstipated:
Self-replicating is the current sticking point for most definitions of life, and is the reason viruses, which very nearly qualify as "alive", are in a gray area.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2016, 11:36:10 PM
Self-replicating is the current sticking point for most definitions of life, and is the reason viruses, which very nearly qualify as "alive", are in a gray area.
Prions are another I would think.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 01, 2016, 02:27:28 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2016, 11:36:10 PM
Self-replicating is the current sticking point for most definitions of life, and is the reason viruses, which very nearly qualify as "alive", are in a gray area.
Prions are another I would think.
Not exactly, because they don't "replicate" per se, but rather are a contagious form of misfolding protein that nobody really understands. They're like the shitty memes of the protein world.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2016, 04:51:30 AM
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 01, 2016, 02:27:28 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2016, 11:36:10 PM
Self-replicating is the current sticking point for most definitions of life, and is the reason viruses, which very nearly qualify as "alive", are in a gray area.
Prions are another I would think.
Not exactly, because they don't "replicate" per se, but rather are a contagious form of misfolding protein that nobody really understands. They're like the shitty memes of the protein world.
Do they work like ice 9? I can't think of something normal to conceptualise.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 02, 2016, 04:28:52 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2016, 04:51:30 AM
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 01, 2016, 02:27:28 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2016, 11:36:10 PM
Self-replicating is the current sticking point for most definitions of life, and is the reason viruses, which very nearly qualify as "alive", are in a gray area.
Prions are another I would think.
Not exactly, because they don't "replicate" per se, but rather are a contagious form of misfolding protein that nobody really understands. They're like the shitty memes of the protein world.
Do they work like ice 9? I can't think of something normal to conceptualise.
I'm not sure how ice 9 is supposed to work in the book, I don't recall it being heavy on technical details. Prions seem to act like a template that induces normal proteins in contact with the prion protein to re-fold into a nonfunctional form.
https://hegemony.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/how-do-prions-work/
Viruses have DNA, but they lack the replicative machinery with which to duplicate or transcribe it. That's why they hijack the cellular machinery of other organisms. One hypothesis about viruses is that they were originally parasitic organisms that gradually jettisoned their own cellular machinery. Prions, on the other hand, have no DNA at all, and simply seem to have a contact effect of inducing other proteins to misfold.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2016, 04:51:56 PM
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 02, 2016, 04:28:52 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2016, 04:51:30 AM
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 01, 2016, 02:27:28 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2016, 11:36:10 PM
Self-replicating is the current sticking point for most definitions of life, and is the reason viruses, which very nearly qualify as "alive", are in a gray area.
Prions are another I would think.
Not exactly, because they don't "replicate" per se, but rather are a contagious form of misfolding protein that nobody really understands. They're like the shitty memes of the protein world.
Do they work like ice 9? I can't think of something normal to conceptualise.
I'm not sure how ice 9 is supposed to work in the book, I don't recall it being heavy on technical details. Prions seem to act like a template that induces normal proteins in contact with the prion protein to re-fold into a nonfunctional form.
https://hegemony.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/how-do-prions-work/
Ice 9 made water crystallize at room temp because it was a more stable configuration. Basically any water that touched it would become ice 9.
It wasn't more technical than that though. Was just thinking of how a prion would turn any normal protein into a prion.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 02, 2016, 06:58:32 PM
Ice 9 made water crystallize at room temp because it was a more stable configuration. Basically any water that touched it would become ice 9.
It wasn't more technical than that though. Was just thinking of how a prion would turn any normal protein into a prion.
Yeah, that's what I remember of it. That's also about all we know about how prions work.
Is it OK to say that prions kind of scare me?
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2016, 07:37:12 PM
Is it OK to say that prions kind of scare me?
They are scary as fuck, so I'm gonna go with not only OK, but eminently reasonable. Contagious proteins that shut down your brain are a legitimate thing to be freaked the fuck out about.
Okay so now I'm freaked the fuck out about this prions shit. I think we may owe it to the world to spread mass-panic
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 02, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Okay so now I'm freaked the fuck out about this prions shit. I think we may owe it to the world to spread mass-panic
Already happened; remember Mad Cow Disease?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia)
So some people have genes that make these damn things.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 02, 2016, 09:25:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia)
So some people have genes that make these damn things.
One word - death camps
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 02, 2016, 09:25:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia)
So some people have genes that make these damn things.
Yep. Horrible.
Don't eat brains or you'll catch the prions.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 03, 2016, 02:18:42 AM
Don't eat brains or you'll catch the prions.
A good rule for the colony ships.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2016, 05:39:22 AM
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 03, 2016, 02:18:42 AM
Don't eat brains or you'll catch the prions.
A good rule for the colony ships.
Probably up there with having sex with aliens, they might mate like anglerfish.
I'd guess that any habitable planet will have life. Our atmosphere will react with about anything including itself, it needs life to maintain the levels of oxygen. Any landing we make will may alter any sort of evolutionary course. Just wondering if we'd even care about future possible lifeforms. Maybe it'd depend on how awesome we make space stations.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 05, 2016, 03:43:29 PM
I'd guess that any habitable planet will have life. Our atmosphere will react with about anything including itself, it needs life to maintain the levels of oxygen. Any landing we make will may alter any sort of evolutionary course. Just wondering if we'd even care about future possible lifeforms. Maybe it'd depend on how awesome we make space stations.
Yes, due to the nature of planetary oxygen production, if it's habitable it will have life.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 05, 2016, 03:43:29 PM
I'd guess that any habitable planet will have life. Our atmosphere will react with about anything including itself, it needs life to maintain the levels of oxygen. Any landing we make will may alter any sort of evolutionary course. Just wondering if we'd even care about future possible lifeforms. Maybe it'd depend on how awesome we make space stations.
How do you define "habitable"? Because the presence of oxygen and earth-like temperatures doesn't necessarily guarantee the existence of any of the other building blocks of life (even though bacteria did play an enormous part in providing out own atmosphere with free elemental oxygen)
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 02, 2016, 09:25:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_familial_insomnia)
So some people have genes that make these damn things.
Everyone does, pr else they wpuldn't work. What some people don't have is a means of folding the protein into other configurations
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 09, 2016, 05:56:00 PM
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 05, 2016, 03:43:29 PM
I'd guess that any habitable planet will have life. Our atmosphere will react with about anything including itself, it needs life to maintain the levels of oxygen. Any landing we make will may alter any sort of evolutionary course. Just wondering if we'd even care about future possible lifeforms. Maybe it'd depend on how awesome we make space stations.
How do you define "habitable"? Because the presence of oxygen and earth-like temperatures doesn't necessarily guarantee the existence of any of the other building blocks of life (even though bacteria did play an enormous part in providing out own atmosphere with free elemental oxygen)
Trying to think of scenarios where oxygen would stick around. Oxygen and noble gas combo?
You're really gonna need life of some sort to get physiologically relevant quantities of atmospheric oxygen.
I mean, there is also the hypothetical possibility of high-surface-titanium planets, but the likelihood of a high-surface-titanium planet being otherwise inhabitable seems low.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2016, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 02, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Okay so now I'm freaked the fuck out about this prions shit. I think we may owe it to the world to spread mass-panic
Already happened; remember Mad Cow Disease?
Literally why I tell people cannibalism is bad.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 09, 2016, 06:22:48 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 09, 2016, 05:56:00 PM
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 05, 2016, 03:43:29 PM
I'd guess that any habitable planet will have life. Our atmosphere will react with about anything including itself, it needs life to maintain the levels of oxygen. Any landing we make will may alter any sort of evolutionary course. Just wondering if we'd even care about future possible lifeforms. Maybe it'd depend on how awesome we make space stations.
How do you define "habitable"? Because the presence of oxygen and earth-like temperatures doesn't necessarily guarantee the existence of any of the other building blocks of life (even though bacteria did play an enormous part in providing out own atmosphere with free elemental oxygen)
Trying to think of scenarios where oxygen would stick around. Oxygen and noble gas combo?
If a noble gas /had/ to share electrons with something, it would probably choose oxygen. Otherwise, I think O
2 is a decent scenario, or we could lock it in carbon and send in oxygen releasing "plants" prior to arrival. Worst case scenario, we get it from water by electrolysis. Oxygen rules.