Ethical planetary colonization.

[Moontanman]

If at some future date we found a giant star with one or maybe even several planets in it's life zone, large stars have a very broad life zone, would it be ethical to terraform these planets and colonize them knowing the star will blow up in a couple million years?

[CaptainPanic]

We are human. Resistance is futile.

 

We've colonized islands in the ocean that have a life expectancy of mere decades. I'd say a million years is plenty of time for the colonists to come up with a good plan.

[D H]

If at some future date we found a giant star with one or maybe even several planets in it's life zone, large stars have a very broad life zone, would it be ethical to terraform these planets and colonize them knowing the star will blow up in a couple million years?

Ethical (or unethical) to whom: They future human inhabitants of those planets, or to the life that already exists on those planets?

 

With regard to the latter question, I've raised the specter of the unethical nature of terraforming elsewhere; see this post, for example. I'm far from the only one who is concerned with the ethics of terraforming. Terraforming a planet that already harbors life is anathema to many. Even to some in NASA and other space agencies. NASA does have an Office of Planetary Protection (http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/). One of their goals is to ensure that if alien life is encountered, it isn't brought back to Earth. Another is to ensure that Earth life isn't brought to other planets that are potentially capable of harboring life.

 

With regard to the first question, I suspect your premise is incorrect, at least with regard to massive giants. Red giants don't blow up (they in a sense have already "blown up"). Their death is one of slow attrition. It is the massive stars that "blow up". My guess: Massive stars do not have a habitable zone. The current definition of the habitable zone is one dimensional. It looks at temperature only. It doesn't look at harmful radiation or solar winds, for example. Blue giants emit considerable amounts of ultraviolet light and even into the x rays. They also spit out incredible amounts of gas in the form of solar winds. The high radiation and the intense solar winds would quickly strip a planet of its atmosphere.

 

I see an even bigger problem with your premise: Why would we terraform at all? Assuming we ever do develop that level of technology, I'd bet that we would leave the planets behind. Why would we go back down into a gravity well, even just to visit, let alone live there permanently?

[Moontanman]

Ethical (or unethical) to whom: They future human inhabitants of those planets, or to the life that already exists on those planets?

 

With regard to the latter question, I've raised the specter of the unethical nature of terraforming elsewhere; see this post, for example. I'm far from the only one who is concerned with the ethics of terraforming. Terraforming a planet that already harbors life is anathema to many. Even to some in NASA and other space agencies. NASA does have an Office of Planetary Protection (http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/). One of their goals is to ensure that if alien life is encountered, it isn't brought back to Earth. Another is to ensure that Earth life isn't brought to other planets that are potentially capable of harboring life.

 

With regard to the first question, I suspect your premise is incorrect, at least with regard to massive giants. Red giants don't blow up (they in a sense have already "blown up"). Their death is one of slow attrition. It is the massive stars that "blow up". My guess: Massive stars do not have a habitable zone. The current definition of the habitable zone is one dimensional. It looks at temperature only. It doesn't look at harmful radiation or solar winds, for example. Blue giants emit considerable amounts of ultraviolet light and even into the x rays. They also spit out incredible amounts of gas in the form of solar winds. The high radiation and the intense solar winds would quickly strip a planet of its atmosphere.

 

I see an even bigger problem with your premise: Why would we terraform at all? Assuming we ever do develop that level of technology, I'd bet that we would leave the planets behind. Why would we go back down into a gravity well, even just to visit, let alone live there permanently?

 

 

I agree with you, advanced civilizations probably have no need for planets and massive stars almost certainly do not have life bearing planets, they simply don't live long enough for it to develop if nothing else and the radiation problems are real. My question is more of a ethical question as opposed to would it be possible, if we knew the star system would be destroyed in a couple million years would it be ethical to terra form and colonize those planets?

 

I can see the argument if complex life already exists then we should leave it alone, I am not so sure bacteria should be protected, I'll check out your link to see if I can add anything to it.

[Schrödinger's hat]

I agree with you, advanced civilizations probably have no need for planets and massive stars almost certainly do not have life bearing planets, they simply don't live long enough for it to develop if nothing else and the radiation problems are real. My question is more of a ethical question as opposed to would it be possible, if we knew the star system would be destroyed in a couple million years would it be ethical to terra form and colonize those planets?

 

I can see the argument if complex life already exists then we should leave it alone, I am not so sure bacteria should be protected, I'll check out your link to see if I can add anything to it.

 

We could just as easily have another scenario, planet in an unstable orbit, maybe.

I'm ignoring the life already present issue for now, as well. I'll assume there is none for the time being.

So now we have the question of whether it's ethical to colonize a planet that will become uninhabitable in the future.

This is true of all planets, even earth, it's just a matter of when. So let's try a bisection:

Is it unethical (on the basis of how long the planet will be around) to colonise a planet that will be destroyed:

Immediately after colonisation?

After one or two generations?

After centuries?

Millenia?

Megayears?

Gigayears?

 

 

 

I think I'd answer yes to the first one, no to the last, and a big fat it depends on all the others.

Next question is:

Depends on what?