Talk:Ethics of terraforming

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ethics of terraforming article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Ethics / Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of science

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Focus on indigenous life[edit]

The article jumps straight into a series of arguments based on the value of indigenous life without any prelude, despite the fact that the existence of life native to any planet other than Earth is pure science fiction. — special:contribs/67.176.216.173 10:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "jump" is due to this daughter article being split out from its parent without much thought or care. However the rest of your comment doesn't make sense. Do you understand that a discussion of the ethics of terraforming exists independently of whether or not we ever find extraterrestrial life? In any case, your objection is irrelevant. NASA (and presumably other space agencies) already take some of these ethical arguments into consideration when they plan space exploration missions. To learn more, please read planetary protection. Despite the fact that the existence of life native to any planet other than Earth has not yet been positively identified, these ethical arguments form the basis of guiding principles behind modern space exploration. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete nonsense. If you start applying "ethics", the human race has already lost. The whole thing about biological preservation is not a valid point, nothing in space is eternal. Asteroids can hit a planet anytime (and this is one of the smaller problems), people should focus on doing something against that instead of trying to perserve every little bacterium. Besides, a planet with organic life doesn't need terraforming anymore. — special:contribs/2.245.147.109 12:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the origin of this skepticism about ethics is. People die all the time, but we apply ethics to them, since we generally believe that it's better for them to live longer lives than to die sooner. We also believe (most of us) that it's wrong to kill people to preserve our own lives (e.g. by stealing their organs). I assume the objection is that bacteria aren't entitled to ethical protections, in the same way a person is? I generally tend to agree, if that's the view, but that doesn't render anything about this nonsensical. At most, it suggests that it's mistaken, which is not at all the same thing as nonsense. — special:contribs/2601:7:2300:30E:454D:C136:C83E:C5FA 07:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Obviously, this article is still fresh out of creation. More obviously yet, the sections are clearly divided into their respective sides, one opposing and one not. But the text still feels as though it was written from an author's argumentative perspective; the "pro-form" side especially seems to have this problem with usage of an adverb- ""R.Taylor more "succinctly" exemplified,"" for example... Xulsrom (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Space ethics" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect space ethics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at WP:redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Space ethics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]