To blow up this planet or not?

[Mise]

I think I have a problem with blowing up an entire planet, regardless of the material consequences.

 

[Atlas14]

People who want to just go around blowing everything up, including planets with "higher" life forms on them, are just plain moronic. Not only could you extract wealth from the creatures, but you could learn ecological lessons from them, it would potentially provide many scientific breakthroughs. And you wanna blow it up for what, easier travel? Get real.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

yeah, there is far more money in exploiting than in destroying . . .

 

[Xanikk999]

Just a little bit off topic... but we dont have the technology to blow up a planet of earth size do we? Maybe an asteroid, but not the earth, not even with the biggest bomb.

 

[Kozmos]

I'd do it in a humane way.

I'd first send a chemical or a biological weapon to exterminate everything on the planet and then I would blow it up.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Blow it up, destroy anything hindering economic progress.

 

[Mise]

Blow it up, destroy anything hindering economic progress.

In Soviet Russia, economic progress hinders YOU!

 

[Xanikk999]

In Soviet Russia, economic progress hinders YOU!

Wow, thats the only yakov smirnoff joke that ive heard that makes sense!

 

[puglover]

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?

Animals are living creatures. Taking life for material gain to that great extent is sinful, and not because life somehow benefits humans, but because of its intrinsic value. After all, there was life before there was currency.

 

[Communisto]

we cant visit it? If we cant visit, i say bombs away!

 

[Shylock]

Your scenario is a passable thought experiment. But it is patently impossible. How could it possibly not allow humans in?

Furthermore, there would be consequences. Matter cannot be destroyed and now you have big asteroid field, I bet that would be even worse than just one planet.

 

[nihilistic]

No no, not earth.

Here's the scenario: There is this pristine, beautiful natural world with abundant animals and ecosystems, yet no life that is as sentient as humans are on earth, but there are lots of those 'higher order' mammals and dolphins and what not... anyways we humans cannot ever settle on this world or ewven get throught the atmosphere (a satelite revealed its beauty and also its inability to allow humans in) and so therefore it has no use to us in any way at all.... and actually if we blow the planet up we'll open up some major interstellar route that makes a shortcut possible allowing more efficiency in space trade or whatever..... if we leave the planet be then we lose this express route ...because solar systems with planetary bodies are just incapable of allowing our spaceships to jump through because they disrupt their systems and all that and this solar system is situated so that travelling through it would provide the fatest jump route if it was jump-through-able...or whatever....

Blowing it up will have absolutely no negative effects on us or the solar system except for there will be one less beautiful world with all its species (none of them sentient like us) in the galaxy.

So the question is, would it be right for us to blow the planet up?
Why or why not?

I know what kind of scenario you are trying to create, but you fail at creating scenarios. Space is mostly "space" and no planet could conceivably impede interplanetary travel more than trillions of high velocity fragments of the blown-up planet. Furthermore, it is unlikely that we can simultaneously possess the firepower to destroy a planet and not possess the capability to land on such a planet. Also, no matter what the commercial route is, who is gonna pay for the destruction of a planet? The amount of energy needed to blow up a planet is extremely nontrivial.

 

[Perfection]

I tihkn the best scenario would be to lay waste to it in the process of terraforming it.

NASA is pretty good about trying to avoid any sort of damage to any world that concievably contains life.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Anyways yes I should've gone the terraforming to coruscant way, and if I did what would've your answers have been? And the species on this world existed a few other worlds as well so nothing new to research etc.

But even still, all the defenses for leaving the environment and species alone also linked back to us, don't harm them because we wouldn't want some uberciv to harm us, et all.

 

[Perfection]

Well, I think the question is really hard to answer because it's extraordinarily difficult to figure out the relative worth of in increase in the well being of some future society versus the novelty of the creatures.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Fair enough. But do you think non-human species and natural entities (like trees) that have no value to humans are worth protecting or have any moral standing?

And since these things can't sue for protection (or voice any interests) do they deserve any such protection from us?

 

[TheBladeRoden]

It's the same reason why we "theoretically" don't torture people. Not out of real concern for the potential torturees, but just so we can claim moral superiority to the side that would or just in case some other alien entity just looking for an excuse to hold humanity accountible for something.

 

[Perfection]

Fair enough. But do you think non-human species and natural entities (like trees) that have no value to humans are worth protecting or have any moral standing?

Well not much (if any) for nonsentient nonhuman species. However, the value of these is often lower.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

What about dolphins? They're intelligent and sentient, why should we treat them nicely?

 

[theimmortal1]

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

Whats the benefit of keeping in there?