Perfection
The Great Head.
It's not the same lands though!
To blow up this planet or not?
- Thread starter Prince_Imrahil
- Start date
Prince_Imrahil
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 820
So then no one can argue that natural life has any reason to be protected except for its benefit to us in either way as a resource or beauty? Ok, that's what I was looking for, to see if there were any compelling arguments that argued that we egoistic humans are not the point of everything (surely in the universe we're not, but to ourselves we are and to ourselves thats what matters, right?)
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Read the opening post, people; humans cannot survive on that planet.
That being said, they still aren't going to open up a Holiday Inn there.
That being said, they still aren't going to open up a Holiday Inn there.
Bluemofia
F=ma
I would have done that argument, but it's not going to convince many people.
Personally, we should not interfere with other developing life forms, and only after they have developed enough to form colonies outside their planet should we contact them.
Prince_Imrahil
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 820
I know, I was trying to go at it another angle, since few wanted to accept the improbability of the OP angle....
Hey Blue, these life forms aren't going to evolve to our levels anytime soon (we might as well say at all, actually, lets say at all) so why shouldnt we interfere with them?
And really, I want to hear your argument, becasue frankly I haven't seen any good ones against the anthropocentric views on such matters, and therefore I know I'm missing something, so if you could present your argument that would help me actually come to more thought-out reasoning, and even if it doesn't convince many people, don't worry, as long as its out there.
Bluemofia
F=ma
Yeah... But still. Shouldn't interfere because of the potential for them to develop radically new cultures. And new cultures are good. And even if they don't, we don't like having 17824639281641983264 Earths; all same and boring. I'd prefer 17824639281641983264 different planets, rather than all of them being the same.
My argument is based mostly on treating others like you would like to be treated yourself. If some other Uber-powerful civ decides: "Hey, it'll be more efficient for us to blow up this planet called Earth and build a cosmic wormhole time tunnel thing of doom or whatever, and save 15% or more on our gas mileage." you'd prefer to have your planet survive than be destroyed.
So I apply the same principal to us. Don't destroy some planet for profit... Would you like it if it was your planet? That'll totally ruin your day.
My argument is based mostly on treating others like you would like to be treated yourself. If some other Uber-powerful civ decides: "Hey, it'll be more efficient for us to blow up this planet called Earth and build a cosmic wormhole time tunnel thing of doom or whatever, and save 15% or more on our gas mileage." you'd prefer to have your planet survive than be destroyed.
So I apply the same principal to us. Don't destroy some planet for profit... Would you like it if it was your planet? That'll totally ruin your day.
MjM
Deity
No reason to keep it.
Bluemofia has it, and I'll add a caveat. Finding another planet with decently advanced life pretty well guarantees that there is an Uberciv out there somewhere that we're going to have to interact with some day. They might eventually be competitors (depending on our respective rates of development), but they also might be beings who've gotten where they are by understanding moral virtues.
Not killing lower (but intelligent) developed life sets a decent precedent for when the Uberciv asks us why they shouldn't treat us the way we treated others.
I don't factor in the future evolution of the lesser species, though, because it's not something that needs to be worried about. There's no 'natural' development in a timescale that's worth worrying about.
Not killing lower (but intelligent) developed life sets a decent precedent for when the Uberciv asks us why they shouldn't treat us the way we treated others.
I don't factor in the future evolution of the lesser species, though, because it's not something that needs to be worried about. There's no 'natural' development in a timescale that's worth worrying about.
WerBackIII
Jar of the Rotting Brain
The Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy;
Vogon=Human. Human=Selfish idiot.
Vogon=Human. Human=Selfish idiot.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
The planet doesn't have intelligent life . . .
Bluemofia
F=ma
But the same principle applies.
The OP declared that there were higher order animals. I'm sure we're the same to the Uberciv.
I'm quite sure that it is impossible to NOT being able to land in it. It's pretty much a guarentee that we'll be able to land if there's any flat land on the planet, and whether or not the atmosphere is hazordous to humans is irrelevant, as that has no bearing to us surviving there, since there would be more hazardous environments that exist that we would have explored or settled in.
So, ultimately, the question is stupid, because one of the premises is impossible.
So, ultimately, the question is stupid, because one of the premises is impossible.
. . . says the poster whose very avatar glorifies such feats . . .
Nylan
Characters Welcome
tenchars
Yeeek
Seizing The Day
We know the Rebel scum have a secret base there. Blow it up.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
Lets not be brutal and only think of money. You people have the mind frame of a colonialist.
Bluemofia
F=ma
Hehe... Actually it was meant as a sarcastic comment towards the lack of spending towards detecting Near Earth Asteroids.
Similar threads
