Should terraforming planets occur knowing it will lead to the detriment of Earth and a class division of the human race?

Group 40

Terraformation is the intentional moulding of a planet to create Earth like conditions for colonisation. Assuming Earth’s civilisation is technologically advanced enough to be considering terraformation as a solution to an imminent species crisis, the ethics of terraformation should be explored. An important discussion considering interplanetary travel would only allow the wealthy to leave Earth, a decaying planet. This forsakes Earth to be ravaged by the consequences of humanities previous activities, but without the leadership of the wealthy, powerful and influential. To achieve this, McKay’s three perspectives of environmental ethics: anti-humanism, wise stewardship, and intrinsic worth will be used.

For

Civilisation was defined in 1964 by Russian Astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev by the amount of energy that humans can harness, where a Type 1 civilisation enables humans to harness 1016 W of energy. Based on Kardashev scale, humans shall achieve Type 1 civilisation in 100 years. The main ethical element that acts as a base to drive the human race to achieve Type 1 civilisation is intrinsic worth which defines that humans have their own self-worth independent of Earth’s detriment. It can be argued that Earth’s detriment is inevitable because an ever-increasing population will demand more resources than what Earth can provide. Leading to an ethical justification of terraforming which is to cater to the needs and therefore sustain the human race through extra-terrestrial resources. Achieving Type 1 civilisation will result in a better energy sustainability which is explained by expanded knowledge on advanced equipment that can harness cleaner energy which benefits the human race in the long run alongside with ensuring their survival.

       Moreover, the ethical element of anthropocentrism which means that humans are ranked above all other organisms supports the need for terraformation. Ensuring the survival of the human race in the face of Earth’s decay through terraformation is ethical under the perspective of anthropocentrism. Achieving a success in terraforming might also reduce the Earth’s decay rate. The Earth currently houses 7.65 billion humans and having other potential planets as future homes will drastically reduce the consumption of Earth’s natural resources.

       Certain regions on Earth will not be able to sustain the local population due to global warming. The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has surpassed 400 ppm resulting in significant sea level rises, which incur floods at low sea level countries. As a result, agricultural resources are depleting which will eventually lead to famine in climate sensitive areas. Civilization will need to find another planet and prioritize for the preservation of the human race. This follows the ethical perspective of anthropocentrism.

       The issue of human overpopulation can be mitigated through the migration to a terraformed planet. This relaxes the demand on Earth’s resources following the ethics of wise stewardship as put forth by McKay. This axiom of natural ethics describes the sustainable utility of Earth’s resources. An additional benefit of reducing Earth’s population through emigration is the reduced habitat loss for Earth’s fauna and flora. This relates to another axiom put forth by McKay: Intrinsic worth, in that, it is ethical to value all life on Earth.

Against

       The first ethical criticism of terraforming under the highlighted assumptions uses biocentrism, an ideal which places an intrinsic value on, and willingness to preserve ecosystems. Endeavouring to a foreign planet and engineering a human compatible environment may eradicate entire ecosystems. This is an ethically unjust act easy to justify under even the loosest of ecocentrists as any life should be able to develop without interference. Additionally, this signifies a loss in potential knowledge obtainable from observing the development of an alien species in an alien environment, observations that may hold the key to having the human race truly prospering as a genetically adaptive interplanetary species.
Terraforming is an astronomical feat which would require an abundance of resources, possibly sourced from Earth. The opportunity cost of which is directing those resources to solve existing species threatening scenarios such as famine, conflict, economic turmoil, threatened democracy and natural disasters. Alternatively, it may be unethical to terraform a planet when the planet’s material may be used in a different, more productive way. Enough material where, if repurposed outside of the planet, would compromise the optimal gravity necessary to alleviate colonisation on the planet’s surface. Extensively mining a planet’s materials could be used to create suspended space colonies, a more sustainable method for expanding the reaches of humanity which could possibly support more humans.


       The perpetuation of Earth’s demise once extra-terrestrial colonies are established would be optimistically compensated with the assumption that sustainable development on the foreign planet would begin immediately, i.e., humans would have learned from their mistakes on Earth. Realists would counter that humans are incapable of change, and will show unwise stewardship to the terraformed planet. Therefore, from a pragmatic sociological standpoint, it would be unethical to colonize additional planets to only doom both by providing no solution. This would also mean the human race is fated to be extinct and as such, the human race should embrace an end caused by asteroid impacts or the Sun’s expiration rather than an end from our own doing.

       Intrinsic value is placed on the entire universe using an ethics perspective named cosmic preservationism. This illustrates that all nature, both inanimate and living possess an intrinsic value and should be left untouched, preventing the mammoth alteration that is terraformation. Sacrificing the widely shared bewilderment that comes from discovering and observing Earth’s cosmic environment by means of terraformation would be wasteful, and would taint extra-terrestrial colonisation in some eyes. It is with these arguments that suggest that terraformation is mostly an opportunity to demonstrate vicious traits rather than virtuous ones.

We are in favour of terraformation despite the consequences to Earth.

References:

[1]   http://igem.org/wiki/images/6/60/Valencia_Ethics_Review.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1a9oGvaNIxxRkUZ7-yNw2HTIwUTLXGx8PwL0WGsd_M3OzHf-JGdFmn7tk

[2] http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/85/the-argument-against-terraforming-mars

[3] https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/12/life-mars-paradigm.html

[4] http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/EthicsDTP.pdf

[5] https://futurism.com/the-kardashev-scale-type-i-ii-iii-iv-v-civilization

[6] http://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/shocking_environmental_facts_and_statistics/world_population_clock_live

[7] https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

[8] https://interestingengineering.com/terraforming-will-define-the-long-term-future-of-humanity

[9] http://theconversation.com/the-ethics-of-climate-change-what-we-owe-people-and-the-rest-of-the-planet-51785

[10] http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

[11] https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/ethics-of-wildlife-management-and-conservation-what-80060473

11 thoughts on “Should terraforming planets occur knowing it will lead to the detriment of Earth and a class division of the human race?

  1. The article in general is very well written and structured. However, the procedure to terraform any planet would be the most inhuman act ever made in history as this process would disrupt the continuity of life of the terraformed planet. In other words, it would justify the fact that human species are trying to play the role of God by alternating the natural order of a foreign planet. Although this process is very sadistic, there are a few advantages for the human race. A terraformed planet would be an insurance for the human race assuming that planet Earth was predicted to be destroyed, whether or not human activities take place. Overall, the state of matter in space should not be intervened as it is the only form of nature that is truly preserved.

  2. This is an interesting topic.

    Let’s have a look at an example of terraforming nearer to home namely climate change here on Earth. Initially, we unwittingly began increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the same time as increasing the rate of deforestation. Now, we are aware of this terraforming we are taking steps to reduce and reverse the changes.

    If we had known that our actions would cause our home to get hotter, thereby jeopardising our food supply and our lives, would we have made that choice?
    Well, so far, the quality of life for many has got better. More people can now travel further afield. The advances we’ve made in clean energy were initially powered by fossil fuels. Utilitarianism supports the action that gives the most happiness to the most people, so we probably would have chosen it, but added the caveat that at a certain point we stop and adopt a less harmful way forward.

    In terms of terraforming another planet, where do the resources come from? What are the resources? If the resources are rich people, then taking large amounts of wealth out of a system could be harmful; Spain in the 16th century had a large concentration of wealth but didn’t use it and fell behind the rest of Europe, and Latin America went through a period of decline. A Martian colony of rich people might be the same.

    Currently, I’m against the terraforming of another planet until we complete the terraforming of Earth by returning her to a cooler setting.

    Finally, in your article you’ve used a number of new ethical theories, which makes for interesting reading, but can you also use the four I provided in the lectures for assignment two.

  3. I think a more detailed premise to the ethical question would prove useful, in particular, the species crisis in question.

    For example, if the crisis is climate change effects causing massive loss of life, could the technology to terraform another planet such that it could sustain Earth-like life not be used on Earth itself?

    It seems defeatist to suggest that humans should not terraform, or even colonise another planet, due to our probable extinction. I believe a pessimist would suggest humans are incapable of change and that a realist would highlight the development of sapiens as a species over the past several millennia (perhaps even that the 21st century is the most peaceful era in human history).

  4. I am definitely against terraformation.

    As stated in the article, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has surpassed 400 ppm resulting in significant sea level rises. I highly doubt that moving to another planet will fix the problems rather it will create the same problem at that planet, same goes with other problems that we are facing on Earth.

    Not everyone can afford the cost to migrate to another planet. Is it ethical to leave behind the “unprivileged” human beings on the Earth?

    And there are too many uncertainties that could happen. Is it worth risking it?

  5. Transporting a percentage of people to this haven would reduce the population significantly, but it does not actually fix the problem. Throughout the years, our population has been increasing exponentially so moving to a teraformed planet wouldn’t actually solve anything; it would just give us a short-term pause. Instead of running away, we should educate citizens and implement social policies that would actually attempt to fix it.

    Furthermore, I disagree with humans not being able to change. Politically, we have seen huge changes in nature of institutions, from countries being ruled by monarchs to countries being ruled by citizens. If anything, we have changed for the better and have the capabilities of changing for the best!

    We should collectively attempt to resolve this issue that we have put ourselves into!

  6. The ultimate goal of our species is to survive. Unfortunately, the biological success of a species is measured by the absolute number of individual organisms belonging to that species.
    All carnivores survive at the expense of other animal species and this is the law of nature. As the human population increases, so as the number of domesticated cows, pigs and chickens.
    There is no rule that we must practice survival of the fittest only in our planet, which means that there is nothing wrong having the same practice on other planets. The universe has created humans to be highly intelligent. If survival by means of creating rockets, travelling across the universe, colonising planets, for the ultimate survival of mankind, so be it.

  7. I’d say the whole terraformation idea is selfish. First, only the wealthy are allowed to leave and leaving the poor behind. But all I can say is that humans would do anything for survival. I believe terraformation would be hard for human, animals and plants to adapt. Would they be able to live and grow well? Talking about reduce of ingenuity since the whole land is seen to be ‘man-made’. It’s an act of selfishness and basicly running away from problem instead of trying to find a solution together across the globe. Terraformation is unlawful as it is going against nature. Who knows if something bad would happen if we do so?

  8. Any process of change has its own risk regardless of the size of the change. As stated in the topic, terraforming will lead to the detriment of Earth and a class division of the human race. If terraforming planets occur and are not managed carefully, I believe there will be other potential problems that could arise (not just one, but on both planets).

    This topic is a question of possibility in the far future. In my opinion, terraforming planets should not occur until all potential impacts on every aspect are identified and all controls are in place. It is critical to identify what could go wrong to both populations and to ensure that risks on both sides are minimized.

    The human race will continue to explore and find ways to survive, which includes the idea of terraforming planets. That being said, I also believe that it is possible to save planet Earth from becoming inhabitable and this should be the top priority.

  9. This is a well written article, but one where I believe that the disagree argument is stronger than the one for. The reason being is that terraforming other planets, will give us an excuse to selfishly harm the earth, as we would now have a safety net to fall back on. We should first aim to resolve the issues here such as to restore the depleting ozone layer, and if are to terraform anything, it should be Earth so that it returns to its original temperature and atmospheric composition.

    If we do not recognise this selfishness, what’s stopping us from terraforming planets only to damage them for our own gain just like Earth, once we’ve found another planet to lay our eyes on. As a result, we will end up in a vicious cycle of planet hopping where instead of becoming safe keepers, we become a parasite to the galaxy.

  10. This was an original idea which made for an educational read. The ethics principles here were new to me and so I appreciate the clarity provided.

    New Mars development plans are emerging. Promising ideas that have received official consideration and public attention are automated, multi-purposed robots that sinter Mar’s surface material (possibly named Mars’ Mars!) create a basic shelter ahead of incoming settlers. The article suggests that resources would be sourced from Earth which these emerging ideas combat. I would like to know the author’s revised take on the ethics question knowing that resourcing can be done without compromising earths natural resources.

    Additionally, I fundamentally disagree with the application of intrinsic value on an lifeless planet. I believe this concept was inspired by enjoying the natural beauties of Earth and the disgust we feel when it is eradicated. If there is nobody to enjoy it, the protection of a Martian valley or rock formation simply does not hold nearly enough value to be a counter point to an action that could preserve the human race.

  11. The hypothesis of this article suggests that there would be a class division between Earth and the newly terraformed Mars. This articles goes so far as to suggest that Mars would be an Eden for the rich as they evacuate the failing earth and leave the chaos of the Earth and it is for this reason I feel as though a conversation towards who will leave earth to the newly colonised mars should have been explored. What is the colonisation for? the seeding of a new home for the human race or to now export resources back to the apex planet to prevent the destruction of that planet.

    Another point that I thought was interesting was the spread of contaminants and microbes from earth being brought over to Mars and the possible genocide of the Martian ethic population. How would this be overcome?

Leave a Reply