Colonising another planetary system

[Moontanman]

For the sake of argument let's assume we've found a planet around another star, beautiful planet, perfect for and compatible with earth life.We have a star ship capable of getting 5000 people there along with tools, machines, and technology to build cities. In other words colonise a Terra Nova! Just one bad thing, studies had shown that the perfect Eden like planet would be destroyed rather abruptly by it's star in one million years. Would it be ethical to send people who did not know the time limit to colonise this planet? What about 25,000,000 years? How long is long enough to justify colonizing the planet?  

[Silvestru]

I would say even a few thousand years are still ok. As long as those few thousands have acceptable living conditions.

100 years ago we were using horses and carriages. Technology went a long way and I'm sure it will continue going. Even if for the sake of robbing the planet of resources and it still makes sense. The population of Earth2.0 should know though and evacuate before the catastrophic event. (wouldn't mind being a memebr of this colony. The fact that my grandX10 kids might boil to death wouldn't be on my mind that often.)

This is just my personal opinion. My ethics might need adjusting though. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by Silvestru

[StringJunky]

If the ulterior purpose is to keep humans going then I don't think a time limit matters.

[beecee]

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If the ulterior purpose is to keep humans going then I don't think a time limit matters.

To keep humans going, is certainly the main impetus  for reaching for the stars. But the nature of man, the adventure aspect in some of us, the never ending search for knowledge, and simply the fact "that its there" will always drive us forward I believe, and will continue at least until we either destroy ourselves, or that scenario is assisted by some catastrophic disaster.

[EdEarl]

Since the probability of mass extinction on Earth looms a real possibility in the not too distant future, I'd say it is essential to move a few people to another place, a safe haven. How about moving a million to Mars with technology to populate the Solar system with a Dyson swarm in case Earth is uninhabitable for a while. AI, 3D printing, and robots are key technologies. ATM it would take perhaps 100,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri, which is so long the probability of travelers getting to their destination is questionable. It would be easier to put that ship in orbit around the Sun and let them live there, i.e., start the Dyson Swarm. However, we should protect humanity when the Sun finally dies, but that is a long time into the future.

I think this question is essentially, should we colonize as much of the universe as possible, or should we allow abiogenesis to work wherever it will and be content with watching the Universe do its thing. I don't know of any evidence that says we should conquer the Universe; however, we are a species who like to conquer.

Edited January 24, 2018 by EdEarl

[Alex_Krycek]

Sure.  I think one million years is more than enough time for us to drain the resources of the planet, disrupt natural ecosystems, and generally make the planet unlivable before we move on to the next one. 

 

Also, just happened to be reading this article when I came across your thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/23/trappist-1-planets-likely-life-water-earth-like

Edited January 24, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

On 23/01/2018 at 6:25 AM, Moontanman said:

For the sake of argument let's assume we've found a planet around another star, beautiful planet, perfect for and compatible with earth life.We have a star ship capable of getting 5000 people there along with tools, machines, and technology to build cities. In other words colonise a Terra Nova! Just one bad thing, studies had shown that the perfect Eden like planet would be destroyed rather abruptly by it's star in one million years. Would it be ethical to send people who did not know the time limit to colonise this planet? What about 25,000,000 years? How long is long enough to justify colonizing the planet?  

 

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Sure.  I think one million years is more than enough time for us to drain the resources of the planet, disrupt natural ecosystems, and generally make the planet unlivable before we move on to the next one. 

1

The future is always an unknown. however certain you are of your guess.

[Raider5678]

8 hours ago, EdEarl said:

I don't know of any evidence that says we should conquer the Universe; however, we are a species who like to conquer.

 

Evidence that says we should conquer the universe?

[Silvestru]

This thread made me think if it's ethical to populate a world with life, fauna, colonies if you know that people are people and they will probably still have war, suffering and discrimination on Earth 2.0. (Sorry if high-jacking but it's kinda related to the OP)

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This thread made me think if it's ethical to populate a world with life, fauna, colonies if you know that people are people and they will probably still have war, suffering and discrimination on Earth 2.0. (Sorry if high-jacking but it's kinda related to the OP)

Is it ethical, to assume we can't learn (from the past)? Or, condemn our children because we won't?

[Silvestru]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is it ethical, to assume we can't learn (from the past)? Or, condemn our children because we won't?

Uhmm.... you have a point but I want to say if it's ethical to introduce ourselves in a new environment and "contaminate" it.

Like introducing feral pigs in Australia is causing problems (there are many examples of such cases). If OP's fictional planet  "perfect for and compatible with earth life"  it might already has some sort of life. 

[Alex_Krycek]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

The future is always an unknown. however certain you are of your guess.

You're absolutely right.  But I hope we adapt and evolve before stepping foot on some other virgin world. 

[EdEarl]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Evidence that says we should conquer the universe?

What evidence?

[Raider5678]

Just now, EdEarl said:

What evidence?

" I don't know of any evidence that says we should conquer the Universe; however, we are a species who like to conquer."

 

I was just asking what you meant by that.

[EdEarl]

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Uhmm.... you have a point but I want to say if it's ethical to introduce ourselves in a new environment and "contaminate" it.

Like introducing feral pigs in Australia is causing problems (there are many examples of such cases). If OP's fictional planet  "perfect for and compatible with earth life"  it might already has some sort of life. 

One day, our galaxy will consist of stars and remnants from our local group of galaxies, which will be the entirety of the Visible Universe. All other galaxies will be receding faster than the speed of light, so invisible. If man survives until this time, we will certainly inhabit other stars, for old Sol will be too dim to be of much use or wrecked by a collision. The survival of humanity may not be an ethical concern in this context; however, it is my opinion that wishing human extinction is objectionable. Thus, I recommend inhabiting other Stars. However we can always make Dyson swarms and avoid planetary pollution.

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

" I don't know of any evidence that says we should conquer the Universe; however, we are a species who like to conquer."

 

I was just asking what you meant by that.

I don't have any evidence. Are you asking about the nature of evidence? If so, that's a topic for another thread, and probably already exists.

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I don't have any evidence. Are you asking about the nature of evidence? If so, that's a topic for another thread, and probably already exists.

 

No, I wasn't asking for evidence.

I just have no idea what you meant by that statement, could you clarify?

[EdEarl]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, I wasn't asking for evidence.

I just have no idea what you meant by that statement, could you clarify?

I am confused about your misunderstanding. Can you tell me which parts of my statement you do not understand?

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I am confused about your misunderstanding. Can you tell me which parts of my statement you do not understand?

What did you mean you're not aware of any evidence that we should conquer the universe?

Are you suggesting that there could be evidence for such a thing?

Or?

[EdEarl]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

What did you mean you're not aware of any evidence that we should conquer the universe?

Are you suggesting that there could be evidence for such a thing?

Or?

No, it is more like a plea to anyone who reads this thread to post about their evidence, if anyone else has any. I cannot prove, but suspect there is no such evidence.

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, EdEarl said:

No, it is more like a plea to anyone who reads this thread to post about their evidence, if anyone else has any. I cannot prove, but suspect there is no such evidence.

 I would say there is only two possibilities, we expand or go extinct... or maybe both..  

[EdEarl]

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 I would say there is only two possibilities, we expand or go extinct... or maybe both..  

I agree, except we will go extinct sooner or later; the fate of the Universe seems to assure our demise.

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, EdEarl said:

I agree, except we will go extinct sooner or later; the fate of the Universe seems to assure our demise.

I'm not willing to assert that, we have no idea what the bounds of technology are, maybe it's possible to manipulate the entire universe in some manner to manage it or even leave it for another... All I can be sure if is if we do not try we will fail... 

[EdEarl]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not willing to assert that, we have no idea what the bounds of technology are, maybe it's possible to manipulate the entire universe in some manner to manage it or even leave it for another... All I can be sure if is if we do not try we will fail... 

No argument.

[Ken Fabian]

The technological capabilities that would get humans to the planets of other stars ought to be sufficient to be capable of building space habitats independent of planets. Such colonising would not be about securing the long term survival of humanity, it would be based on more base human motivations. The only thing a planet would have that cannot be produced artificially is the alien life such a world would contain - and for breathable atmosphere there must be life. That uncontaminated alien biology - I think - would be the most valuable resource the planet could have.

The ethical issues I see are not so much about the long term survivability of humans on such a planet - the ability to reach such a world implies the ability to leave again, although a seed population (which I think still needs to be a large population) will be easier than a whole planet's worth - but about the ethics around shorter term survivability of native, alien life with the enduring presence of humans - with their surprising combination of shortsightedness and ability to find justifications for whatever activities they find desirable. Like replacing useless and nuisancy alien lifeforms with something more familiar, useful and in keeping with a fashionable colonial lifestyle.  If terrestrial life is compatible with life on a planet within human reach then it seems to me it is more - not less - at risk of displacement and extinction than alien life with incompatible biochemistry.

I don't think ensuring long term human survival via seeded colonies is a viable motivation - self reliant colonies will be an emergent outcome of enduring, economically viable space based commercial activities occurring within a larger Earth based trading economy. I think the minimum threshold for true self reliance, wherever high levels of technology are essential for basic survival, is a very large population and broadly capable, advanced industrial economy.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Ken Fabian

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

The technological capabilities that would get humans to the planets of other stars ought to be sufficient to be capable of building space habitats independent of planets. Such colonising would not be about securing the long term survival of humanity, it would be based on more base human motivations. The only thing a planet would have that cannot be produced artificially is the alien life such a world would contain - and for breathable atmosphere there must be life. That uncontaminated alien biology - I think - would be the most valuable resource the planet could have.

The ethical issues I see are not so much about the long term survivability of humans on such a planet - the ability to reach such a world implies the ability to leave again, although a seed population will be easier than a whole planet's worth - but about the ethics around shorter term survivability of native, alien life with the enduring presence of humans - with their surprising combination of shortsightedness and ability to find justifications for whatever activities they find desirable. Like replacing useless and nuisancy alien lifeforms with something more familiar, useful and in keeping with a fashionable colonial lifestyle.  If terrestrial life is compatible with life on a planet within human reach then it seems to me it is more - not less - at risk of displacement and extinction than alien life with incompatible biochemistry.

I don't think ensuring long term human survival via seeded colonies is a viable motivation - self reliant colonies will be an emergent outcome of enduring, economically viable space based commercial activities occurring within a larger Earth based trading economy. I think the minimum threshold for true self reliance, wherever high levels of technology are essential for basic survival, is a very large population and broadly capable, advanced industrial economy.

I would agree that colonising other planets will come much later than building space habitats. In fact I doubt we will have much use for planets, the risk of biocontamination is too great and the idea of a planet we could live on, even if it did have life, is unlikely. The addition of too little or too much of just trace substances could prevent us from living there at all..