If You Had The Decision To Make To Perpetuate Human Life Elsewhere Would You

[JP Cusick]

What if it's a planet with sentient plants?

Great question.

My view is that if the life already on that planet would be directly harmed by humans going there then we must stay away.

We must not interfere - the Prime Directive.

Plus there are vegetarian people now on earth who believe that a plant must not be harmed when we eat, as like the apple must fall from the tree before they eat that apple, and foods like grains which can be harvested without hurting the plant.

So it is possible that some people could work out an arrangement with the sentient plants while most of humanity can not and those uncivilized people must be stopped.

 

[JP Cusick]

I've never understood this sort of self-hate, or hate for one's own species, that prefers our annihilation in favor of colonization of another world.

You can not understand that - so you must be a Republican in disguise.

Can you not understand why we dropped two (2) atomic bombs on Japan? - They were our species too.

You can understand why we executed Nazies? - They too were our species.

How about the massacre and extermination of the Native Americans? - As they were the same species.

How about the worldwide threat of complete human destruction by the American nuclear arsenal just to maintain our dominance? Bet you can understand that.

But if the other planet has life on it and we on earth want to trample down that other planet to save our own skin from the ruin which we created by our self - then that you understand as like what - just your natural instinct???

I believe that there are very many people like myself who will aggressively say no.

 

[Paleocon]

The religion forum is thataway.

I didn't mention religion.

 

[zyzygy]

I didn't mention religion.

Can't you remember what you posted? Your god or any other alleged god is not on topic.

 

[ecofarm]

Some people in this thread are some real hippie-dippie, idealist nonsense.

Like they expect to land on another planet and not find life in competition with other life there, or something.

Easy peasy. We send the RNA to a planet in its infancy. Given we nearly have the capability to do this today, one must wonder what's more likely... this or abiogenesis.

 

[Goshin]

You can not understand that - so you must be a Republican in disguise.

Can you not understand why we dropped two (2) atomic bombs on Japan? - They were our species too.

You can understand why we executed Nazies? - They too were our species.

How about the massacre and extermination of the Native Americans? - As they were the same species.

How about the worldwide threat of complete human destruction by the American nuclear arsenal just to maintain our dominance? Bet you can understand that.

But if the other planet has life on it and we on earth want to trample down that other planet to save our own skin from the ruin which we created by our self - then that you understand as like what - just your natural instinct???

I believe that there are very many people like myself who will aggressively say no.

Pardon me for not being a self-hating extreme-Green.

Your words show your attitude towards humanity, by focusing entirely on the negative rather than on the positive.

Nukes have not been used in war since Nagasaki.

The past hundred years has seen industry clean up and green up immensely compared to previous industrial eras.

Human rights are more broadly considered and protected today regardless of race, etc than ever before, regardless of some regions and incidents to the contrary it used to be bad EVERYWHERE.


You give humanity far too little credit.

 

[Paleocon]

Can't you remember what you posted? Your god or any other alleged god is not on topic.

Yes I can. I would suggest you read my posts before babbling about them.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Great question.

My view is that if the life already on that planet would be directly harmed by humans going there then we must stay away.

We must not interfere - the Prime Directive.

Plus there are vegetarian people now on earth who believe that a plant must not be harmed when we eat, as like the apple must fall from the tree before they eat that apple, and foods like grains which can be harvested without hurting the plant.

So it is possible that some people could work out an arrangement with the sentient plants while most of humanity can not and those uncivilized people must be stopped.

Well said. Thanks.

 

[Sherman123]

I can not agree in defining the earth as just a rock or some lifeless globe in space, as the earth is the source of life or certainly the platform of life and that must be held in high regard.

It is like the ancient story of the town which had its one and only water-well go dry and THEN as they started to die off from thirst THEN they decided that it was a really great well which they failed to appreciate when they had it.

We surely can not be comfortable sending people with the ideals of the USA and our Capitalist system of greed and exploitation out to another planet knowing that our poison would infect another world forever after.

We went to war against the Nazis because that kind of persons' life is not more valuable then is their death.

I say our own death must come before dishonor.

If we go to another planet just to save humanity and we go as conquerors and as invaders then I would resist that, and let us finish our fighting here and immediately.

None of that makes sense or resonates with me. The Earth is important because we live on it. Without us it has no more value than any other planet in the Universe.

 

[Perotista]

Who cares if we destroy it? Christ. You make it sounds like you care more about a rock than you do for your fellow man. It's just a planet. It doesn't have rights, feelings, or value other than what we give to it. If you are actually willing to allow humanity to be annihilated because you're uncertain if we'll live an 'unsustainable' lifestyle on that planet that is madness.

Care more for a rock? Yeah there are plenty of people out there who thinks mankind, the human race is the scourge of the earth and should be eliminated in order for the earth to go back to its pristine condition that before man arrived or crawled out of the seas or whatever.

 

[Perotista]

Pardon me for not being a self-hating extreme-Green.

Your words show your attitude towards humanity, by focusing entirely on the negative rather than on the positive.

Nukes have not been used in war since Nagasaki.

The past hundred years has seen industry clean up and green up immensely compared to previous industrial eras.

Human rights are more broadly considered and protected today regardless of race, etc than ever before, regardless of some regions and incidents to the contrary it used to be bad EVERYWHERE.


You give humanity far too little credit.

Okay, can I nuke him now?

 

[chromium]

I'm guessing this was inspired by that recent sci fi movie. No, if we ****ed up this world so bad that all life was doomed to extinction, i would not take part in a mission to repopulate the earth on another. Why, so we can destroy that world too? We only get 1 shot far as i'm concerned.

 

[chromium]

Of course, no question. However I believe that we will have long left the Earth before it has become unihabitable.

How do you figure that? Climate change is already becoming catastrophic, wormholes don't exist, and the closest *possibly* habitable planet we know of is 40 light years away. That's a damn longass trip for a species that hasn't even been to mars and is unwilling to invest in exploration.

 

[Jango]

Absolutely, in a heartbeat.


IN fact we should put some of our eggs in other baskets (planets) long before there's any such concern.

So long as we know that those baskets are not claimed already.

 

[chromium]

A train is coming to a fork in the rail and will go to the right if you do not throw the switch. On the right is 7 billion people. On the left is no one. Do you throw the switch?


Anyone answering 'no' should be institutionalized.

Evacuating 7 billion people and repopulating on another planet are entirely different matters. One is feasible, the other is a pipe dream. To have to *perpetuate* the species elsewhere, we'd have to be in apocalyptic conditions here, presumably too poor to muster any kind of mass exodus. It'd be exactly like "Interstellar," except without a wormhole to flee to. A small number of astronauts/politicians would escape, and everyone else would be stranded on earth

 

[Jango]

Gathering in all of your experiences relating to the human race if the world was ending as it will some day and there was a method of transporting any or all of the human race to another planet and the decision to do so or not to do so rested solely on your shoulders what would you decide and why?

Yes -- continuation of my species and of those different than me that are all around me.

 

[Jango]

Evacuating 7 billion people and repopulating on another planet are entirely different matters. One is feasible, the other is a pipe dream. To have to *perpetuate* the species elsewhere, we'd have to be in apocalyptic conditions here, presumably too poor to muster any kind of mass exodus. It'd be exactly like "Interstellar," except without a wormhole to flee to. A small number of astronauts/politicians would escape, and everyone else would be stranded on earth

They'd take worker ants with them too.

 

[chromium]

Who cares if we destroy it? Christ. You make it sounds like you care more about a rock than you do for your fellow man. It's just a planet. It doesn't have rights, feelings, or value other than what we give to it. If you are actually willing to allow humanity to be annihilated because you're uncertain if we'll live an 'unsustainable' lifestyle on that planet that is madness.

To not wipe out other living things in the process, the planet would have to be a barren ****hole. It is not madness to not want to continue living in such conditions.

 

[Jango]

It's funny that you'd say that last part, when nature very clearly does go by might making right, but you're insisting that we treat "it" (as we aren't part of nature anyway) better than it treats itself. We play by the exact same rules that nature plays by, because we are nature.

Of course, but because of our superior intellect we have a choice to bring death humanely or cruelly.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Gathering in all of your experiences relating to the human race if the world was ending as it will some day and there was a method of transporting any or all of the human race to another planet and the decision to do so or not to do so rested solely on your shoulders what would you decide and why?

Yes I would but let's face it humanity will have flown across the galaxy many times over in the next 2 billion years. Also by then we will have moved the Earth and so avoided the red giant phase of the Sun.

Powerful thing this science stuff.

 

[WCH]

Can't you remember what you posted? Your god or any other alleged god is not on topic.

Says you.

Any discussion of Earth's demise or any major move by populous of this planet would God-based for those who believe.

 

[brothern]

How do you figure that? Climate change is already becoming catastrophic, wormholes don't exist, and the closest *possibly* habitable planet we know of is 40 light years away. That's a damn longass trip for a species that hasn't even been to mars and is unwilling to invest in exploration.

I think humanity will be able to buy itself enough time before we trash the planet.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Humans are a virus.

 

[zyzygy]

Says you.

Any discussion of Earth's demise or any major move by populous of this planet would God-based for those who believe.

This is the philosophy forum, there is a separate forum for discussing imaginary beings.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is the philosophy forum, there is a separate forum for discussing imaginary beings.

Hubris.