To blow up this planet or not?

[Pasi Nurminen]

The point was whether it would be wrong to destory the nature of that planet just to benefit ourselves.... I know the specifics were pretty much nonsense though...

What possible benefit could blowing up said planet have?

 

[Perfection]

So, why are we worrying about this again?

Because we're nerds and we can.

The point was whether it would be wrong to destory the nature of that planet just to benefit ourselves.... I know the specifics were pretty much nonsense though...

Terraforming it in a destructive manner may have been a better idea.

What possible benefit could blowing up said planet have?

Blowing up a planet is its own reward.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Improbable, but not impossible. They aren't as hard to make as, say, a Dyson Sphere or Dyson Ring, etc.

Especially if we have an improbability drive.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Blowing up a planet is its own reward.

It would be pointless, because all of the matter would reform into another body orbiting the system's star. With time, of course.

 

[Perfection]

It would be pointless, because all of the matter would reform into another body orbiting the system's star. With time, of course.

Not if you dump in enough kinetic energy.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Not if you dump in enough kinetic energy.

Which is something we don't have, and never will.

 

[Perfection]

Which is something we don't have, and never will.

We could do it, but it would be a royal pain in the ass. It's obtainable, just not easily.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

Wouldn't it be easier to, say, take a large but still maneuverable asteroid and build your weapon and some thrusters on top of it instead of building the entire death starish object from scratch?

 

[Perfection]

Wouldn't it be easier to, say, take a large but still maneuverable asteroid and build your weapon and some thrusters on top of it instead of building the entire death starish object from scratch?

Well, the biggest problem with the whole scheme is to deliver enough power to blow up a planet while not blowing up yourself in the process. The easiest thing to do is just to lob something really big or something really fast at it.

 

[ummmm........]

To see if there's any real reason to actually care about nonconsequential things like mistreating this planet when it won't affect us in any negative way... or harming species that can't harm us back or even making them extinct if they have no value as pets or research or even to the ecology as pest or other animal eaters or what not or mistreating the environment to build roads et all...

I currently do not see the point of why a lot of people imply that the natural world, environment, animals and all that, have inherent value and all that.

But the OP doesn't address that point. The OP puts us in a position where we know both outcomes with certainty, and in response to it I would clearly say: "Blow it up".

But then you are trying to apply the information gathered in a poll based on the OP to an entirely different situation, which is to say one that actually exists in the real world. The trouble with real world situations is that you don't know all the outcomes.

A better OP would've been along the lines of "There's this thing that doesn't have any use that we know of, but if we destroy it we get a benefit that we haven't figured out any other way to get yet. Destroying it doesn't cost us anything that we can see at this time." In that case, I'd still say blow it up, but with much less certainty.

But that still wouldn't get at the question you're shooting for, since 'nature' isn't valued solely (or even at all, necessarily) for its own sake, but for the enjoyment it provides us as people. Being able to look at the beautiful and verdant planet is better than the planet not existing. If nothing else, think of all the new programming suddenly available to Discovery and Animal Planet and National Geographic and all those other channels . . .

 

[puglover]

I'm no hippie, but there are limits to the morality of industrial progress.

 

[amadeus]

What gives us the right to destroy so many of god's creations? especially if its just for material gain.

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'"

-Genesis 1:26

 

[Ramius75]

relocate the animals, then blow up the planet hurhurhurhurhur

 

[Perfection]

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'"

-Genesis 1:26

This ain't the Earth!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

This ain't the Earth!

The "earth" being lowercase might be interpreted as meaning all land, including that on other worlds.

 

[Perfection]

The "earth" being lowercase might be interpreted as meaning all land, including that on other worlds.

Nah, God didn't give us domain of the land in heaven, so why give us domain in the land in the heavens?

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

I'm no hippie, but there are limits to the morality of industrial progress.

So puglover, what's the reason behind these limits? If we can progress industrially at the expense of nature but to our benefit (we discover some fuel that doesnt pollute and harm us ultimately, some kind of tech that allows us to do what trees do without needing trees, etc.) should we or should we try to preserve bits and pieces of nature... and if so, do we do so because 'we' get pleasure from nature or is there something special about nature and we should 'respect' its, er, specialness?

But that still wouldn't get at the question you're shooting for, since 'nature' isn't valued solely (or even at all, necessarily) for its own sake, but for the enjoyment it provides us as people. Being able to look at the beautiful and verdant planet is better than the planet not existing. If nothing else, think of all the new programming suddenly available to Discovery and Animal Planet and National Geographic and all those other channels . . .

What if , like Perf suggested, we could colonize and industrialize the planet and turn it into a Coruscant... we don't have to (no population problems or anything) but our corporate sectors have calculated that doing so would provide mankind with the best economic benefits rather than letting the planet be...

 

[Bluemofia]

No, keep the planet.

We can stare at it... With telescopes! Intergalactic Zoo!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Nah, God didn't give us domain of the land in heaven, so why give us domain in the land in the heavens?

The term "heavens" when used to describe the cosmos is obsolete, a remnant from times when we actually thought heaven was a physical place above us instead of a spiritual realm.

 

[Stylesjl]

I say leave it. Natural life could be nice to look at, and for ecotourism or something.