|
|
|
|
|
by itishappy
571 days ago
|
|
I personally think it would be amazing to visit the stars, but I'm also disappointed that human development currently makes it hard to even see them. My children will be unable to view the Milky Way with their eyes like I have. Is it "hating humanity" to mourn this loss a little, to want to preserve something like it for future generations? It feels a bit like natural parks to me. Of course they contain resources! We can tear all the trees out and strip mine the land, but I'm glad we don't! They're pretty in ways the lit Coca-Cola billboard that replaces them can't imitate. I'm honestly a bit depressed to hear this preservation framed as "self-hatred" and "loathing." Also, we should be super freakin' sure that these rocks are actually devoid of life before we start moving all our stuff in (and the recent asteroid sample contamination shows we move in hard and fast). I don't think we're anywhere near as certain about this as you imply, and it would suck to burry the evidence for abiogenesis before we understand it. > There is no environment to pollute. The moon has an environment. "We towed it outside the environment" was a joke! |
|
It strikes me as naively presumptuous more than hateful. We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable defintion of those terms. Maybe we figure out what we can do and what's over there before we loop in the space NIMBYs.
> it would suck to burry the evidence for abiogenesis before we understand it
What threshold of sureness would you propose for what amount of activity? Even massive (1mm+) colonisation wouldn't ruin evidence planet-wide.