JM, dinosaurs weren't the chosen ones.

No, I said water recycling wasn't the problem because, as of about three weeks ago, they use recycled water. Therefor, it's no longer a "problem".

If it's there, it makes more sense then mining it for the minerals...which was my point.

That's not what you implied and yes, I knew you were using an analogy. My whole point was that, as many experts have explained, it would not be cost effective to mine resources in space and haul them back to Earth for us to use. However, mining Ice to offset the cost of space flight does make sense. Which is what I've said since my initial comment.

Europa for the same reason. However, I would agree that mining asteroids doesn't make much sense at all. My comment, was that if we were to mine asteroids, the ice would be more valuable then the minerals, due to the cost associated with transporting the minerals to the Earth surface (safely).

Yes, because until recently other private companies (or individuals for that matter) could not go to those companies and request it. Which was the whole basis of my initial comment (before you took it out of context).

[Edit] Let me correct this comment. You could, but only these companies and then you had to launch the vehicle from a NASA site. Unlike now, where you have more freedom over who can engineer the vehicle and where you can launch it from. This should of happened a long time ago, but the US government wanted to corner the market.

Alco posted exactly what I was referring to in regards to materials being mined, etc I remembered reading that somewhere but couldn't remember which specific thing it was related to Space exploration.



I'm no scientist but I'm fairly certain that the makeup of a planet and an asteroid goes just a little bit beyond merely size. If not just in the material that they're made up of, but last I checked asteroids didn't have layers of crust which wrapped around a core. I'm certain most planets have that (Jupiter and Saturn being prime examples, made of gases yet thought to have a core). It goes a bit beyond simple "size".



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9796321
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html
http://dvice.com/archives/2009/04/earth-like-plan.php

I don't think it's ethically questionable if a planet is devoid of life, it's pretty much open game to whoever gets there first. If there is any life, even microscopic in form, we don't belong there (at least in a non-exploratory way).

You seem overtly pessimistic about the universe.

I mostly agree with your post. However, I would like to pose a question.

What about Mars? There's evidence that suggest that it was once a vibrant planet at one time with rivers, lakes, etc. Now it's a barren wasteland. Yet, the Mars Methane Mystery indicates at least some type of biological activity (even if microbial).

My two-part question then:
Do we let nature take it's course and not attempt to terraform Mars? If we do decide to terraform Mars, can we not harvest resources from it for use on Mars Colonies (especially if we do it in a smart way so that it has little to no long-term negative impacts on the planet. IE, replanting seeds after cutting down forests)?

Just curious. There's no right or wrong answer to the questions.

Uh, considering that we already have, yes. I really hope this isn't a serious statement.

BTW, look at our planets contribution to not only Earth's orbit, but future space goers!

Space Junk!


According to Wiki:
The largest space debris incident in history was the Chinese anti-satellite weapon test on January 11, 2007.[23] The event was estimated to have created more than 2300 pieces (updated 2007-12-13) of trackable debris (approximately golf ball size or larger), over 35,000 pieces 1 cm or larger, and 1 million pieces 1 mm or larger. The debris event is more significant than previous anti-satellite tests in that the debris field has a higher orbit altitude[clarification needed], resulting in deorbit times of 35 years and greater. In June 2007, NASA's Terra environmental spacecraft was the first to be moved in order to prevent impacts from this debris.[24]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2009, the retired Kosmos-2251 Russian satellite with a mass of 950-kilograms (2,094 lb) collided 500 miles above Siberia with the Iridium 33 commercial satellite weighing 560-kilograms (1,235 lb) . The collision created a debris cloud; although accurate estimates of the number of pieces of debris are not yet available.[30]


Does anybody want to start a Space Waste disposal service with me?

It looks far more serious when each piece of debris is a 3x3 pixel blob rather than their actual size.

True. Most of the junk will also fall back to Earth and burn up in the near future. But the fact remains, we haven't been very smart with how we should be disposing of junk in space. Kind of like how it use to be common place for countries to just dump trash into the oceans. Out of sight, out of mind mentality.

Also, having the ISS crew get in the Soyuz evacuation capsule each time a large piece of junk comes close to the station can't be fun, either. I guess my whole point was that the space junk issue also needs to be addressed before we can really start exploring space on a larger scale.

Hey maybe the space junk problem will create funding for research into force fields for spaceships!

Well not actually forcefields, but maybe some sort of lightweight armour that's really good at withstanding high-velocity kinetic projectiles.

Yes, this is true.





...there are still differences. Most of which wouldn't create arguments of ethics, but instead arguments of economics.


If true, you attempted to get lemonade from grapes.

The reason I attacked your position was that you made an arbitrary ethical assertion with out supporting it at all. I'm not an idiot for asking that you back up an arbitrary assertion beyond some ambiguous feeling you got from watching Star Trek. Call it devil's advocate. I just don't like it when people start discussing something using a fact that has not been demonstrated or supported in any way.



Do you have any grasp of the concept of context, or are you just being petulant?

I used the qualifier for a reason. I know about the differences. An igneous rock is significantly different from sedimentary rock in many respects, but the differences are irrelevant when discussing the ethics of throwing one at some one. That's why I didn't mention them. There was no reason at all to bring them up.



Learn to follow an argument. My whole post was an argument against the idea that the size of planets made them ethically less appropriate to mine than asteroids. You gave no information to indicate you were talking about a planet with an ecosystem. Considering the fact that the only plants that it would be possible for us to mine have no ecosystem, it was clearly reasonable for me to assume that you did not have an ecosystem in mind when you referred to a planet.

I speculated that the only reason you believed this was because because planets were of significant size compared to an asteroid. Using that as a hypothetical, I demonstrated that the size of any object can be rendered insignificant if the proper perspective is chosen, proving size is a bad measure by which to determine weather or not it is ethically permissible to exploit an object's resources.

However, you have since clarified your position, so this entire line of argumentation is irrelevant.

That's not what petulant means. You're probably thinking of 'pedantic.'

Mimicking doesn't require thought.

Neither does your posting. :smug:

I don't remember implying anywhere that it did? :codycoker:

For the first part, I don't think the ethics come into question really until we can prove there is life there definitively. I think that in the event there is life there, no matter how small it is, we shouldn't do anything that puts it in harm.

I know it sounds really corny, but the Prime Directive from Star Trek fits the description best for what I mean. If there is a chance for natural evolution on a planet - no matter how large scale it could be or how small it is, above or under ground - we shouldn't do anything that would interfere with that natural evolution. If we can get away with mining it in a safe manner that wouldn't harm any life, sure by all means we can do it. Other than that we shouldn't do anything IMO.

dude jupiter is where the next space colonies should be

No Uranus.

Star Trek clause, conversation officially over.

And why exactly should we bend over backwards to protect this non-sentient alien organism for the theoretical prospect of it possibly evolving intelligence some billions of years from now instead of treating like we do all the other non-sentient organisms on THIS planet? Keep in mind that this isn't Star Trek where we magically solved all resource problems and everyone lives happily ever after, with iron clad morals so pristine white you need sunglasses to look at them, under the unchallengeable benevolent rule of The Part, I mean Federation.



Really, but I do seriously want to know this.

You're reading too much into what I said and taking it out of context. However, lots of conventions in science and space travel, not to mention ideas and inventions, COME from science fiction such as Star Trek, A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, and other sources.



You also are reading into what I said a bit too much. I didn't say everything was going to work like Star Trek, nor did I say everything was like Star Trek, and I also didn't compare everything like problems and resources to Star Trek. All I did was try to describe the way I felt about something, using the Prime Directive as a good example to illustrate exactly what I meant. Also, nobody said anything about "bending over backwards to protect them". But to answer your question, they have just as much right to exist as we do. Earth-born or not.

That doesn't make any sense no matter what way you look at it.

For starters: if I were reading too much into what you said, wouldn't I have a lot more to say about it?

You know exactly what I meant. Come on, you're the smartest guy on the internet.

I know you meant to dismiss my invocation of the Star Trek clause, but I completely fail to understand how your manner of refutation is supposed to make sense.

Does it count as reading too much into something if you never really read it? How was it taken out of context? Did the word 'context' mean something different back then? These are the questions that will be asked by future archaeologists.

Look at Jonk's wristwatch; it's worthless. Ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless! Like the Ark. Men will kill for it; men like you and me.

:downswords::downswords::downswords:

"Rights" do not exist in nature. They have as much "right" to exist as the tuna that was forcibly ripped out of it's habitat, killed, "processed", and ended up in the sandwich I ate an hour ago.

If they could argue, I think they might disagree with you. And I didn't know you made the laws of nature up.

Some tribes believe it's perfectly fine to eat meat, so long as you show some gratitude towards the animal or whichever God you believe in for giving its life or putting that animal there, to help you sustain your own. I don't think this is a particularly bad thought process to adapt.

Are you basically saying the only thing that has any form of right to live at all is something that is intelligent?

A thing has the right to exist if it considers non-existence and comes to the conclusion that it doesn't want to not exist.

Fair enough.


Good. I admit that I had mistakened the question rooted from ignorance. And, for assuming such a thing, I apologize.


Because it wasn't. In retrospect, I did leave out a lot of details. I will explain, now, as to my reasoning. Let us say that by some small chance, a planet with an ecosystem is discovered. As previously stated, it is extremely unlikely, but the possibility does exist. If destructive mining practices are used (let's say strip mining, for example), or any type of mining practices with little reguard for that planet's environment (such as the pooling of toxic wastes), there is the risk of damaging it in some way. The destruction of the ecosystem for the simple reason of getting as much resource out of it is what I find to be the questionable part. With the destruction of a planet's ecosystem, we could lose out on a lot of things. The planet would lose out as having some alternative value in the future.

I admit this will sound a bit strange, but please bear with me. Perhaps, say, if we get something to eat at the drive-through at a fast food resteruant, like McDonalds. The containers (bags, boxes, cups) represent, in a way, the planet. Our only interest is the resource (the food). We consume it and then throw out the window. As to what use will it have for us? Without resource, it has no interesting aspects, at the moment. On the ground, it has no interesting aspects, and it holds very little significance to anyone. Its just a small peice of trash. However, say you recycle it, interest (for the sake of this example) will be renewed in a different way.

Hm... now that you mention it, perhaps ethics was a bad choice of words. Silly me.


Fair enough. I simply prefer being asked straight up as to my reasoning.


I can apologize only somewhat on this. I read what you said as you said it. A misunderstanding in the act of reading.


Good. Then I apologize for making the assumption that you did not. I do have a bad habit of assuming ignorance.

Yes.

The only reason most things even live on this planet is simply because we haven't found a reliable way to get rid of them, the second reason being tied between "nice pet" and "tastes like chicken", and the third reason being that we simply don't want to get rid of them for whatever emotional attachment/mascot status we've given them...and that only kicked in this past century when most of them stopped being a threat to most of our food supplies and/or us.

Just because we might like <Insert Animal> a lot, doesn't mean we actually gave it the "right" to live. When it comes down to it the family dog is still just the family dog and guess who's last on the list of family members you're going to get out of the house if it's on fire.

I'm Cody Coker.

Generally dogs are the first to get themselves out. They are, after all, somewhat smarter than children.