[JumpCrisscross]

> it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute

I used to share this view until I read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars. There is aesthetic value to preserving Mars in its pristine form, within reason, if only so future generations can enjoy it.

That doesn't mean full space NIMBY, as this article suggets. But it does argue against being cavalier about an alien landscape simply because it's lifeless.

[goatlover]

Would future generations enjoy pristine Mars or colonized Mars more? In the trilogy, Mars does get converted to a blue planet people can live out in the open on just like Earth. Wouldn't that be more enjoyable? Seems like it is for most people in the book. The pristine Mars defenders are considered radicals who lose out.

The only constant in life is change. The future will be different. If Mars is worth colonizing, we'll colonize it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The pristine Mars defenders are considered radicals who lose out

The pristine Mars everywhere forever advocates are considered radicals and lose out. If I remember correctly, Mars is terraformed in a way that leaves parts of it as unchanged as possible, e.g. the extra-atmospheric peaks of Olympus Mons.

[WalterBright]

Terran life is not a stain that must be confined to Earth. We may be the only life in the universe.

[fsckboy]

that aesthetic value of preservation exists basically in every choice we make. Or maybe we can stop believing the ancient superstitions that consider us not to be part of nature.

[itishappy]

Would you consider NYC as a candidate for a new national park?

> National parks are designated for their natural beauty, unique geological features, diverse ecosystems, and recreational opportunities, typically "because of some outstanding scenic feature or natural phenomena."

Fits the bill, don't it?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Would you consider NYC as a candidate for a new national park?

Have you seen our zoning and construction codes? It might actually be simpler to erect a structure in a national park.

[JumpCrisscross]

> maybe we can stop believing the ancient superstitions that consider us not to be part of nature

What part of any argument in this thread requires this?

Also, being part of something doesn't mean you can't also be distinct from it, for the most part.

[fsckboy]

the comment I replied to, and the comment he was replying to. Both are talking about the entropy humans hasten being somehow different from the entropy that is occuring without humans.