Is it ethical for humans to colonise other planets?
What if there's life there already (even bacteria) do we have a right to wipe it out and replace it with our own germs? If we send embryo's many of them may not survive because they will be born with an ineffective immune system. And what kind of system of government or nation will the colonists build? Will they be multicultural or a colony of an existing nation?
- nineteenthlyLv 73 weeks agoFavorite Answer
No, it wouldn't be ethical unless we were responsible, and space habitats would be a better move. Iain Banks has argued, among other people, that space colonies would automatically evolve into post-scarcity anarchist societies, and I agree, so whereas they might start out as colonies or international this would change.
- 3 weeks ago
This is a question for sociologists, biologists and philosphers.
Since no life has ever been detected in space, and is looking increasingly unlikely to ever be detected, the question has no relevance to astronomy.
- Ronald 7Lv 73 weeks ago
That has always been the Arguement
Should we even have went to the Moon ?
Every step is taken on all kinds of Missions to Sterilise every chance of cross contamination
The Question is there any life out there ??
Lately Tardigrades have been discovered and definitely more study is needed there
Where did they come from, how did it Start and for how long ??
If they are Extremophiles they could live on Mercury or Pluto
We need to get out of the thought of Colonization
Space should be MultinationalSource(s): A Tardigrade yesterday, Refused to Comment
- 3 weeks ago
>>Is it ethical for humans to colonise other planets?
Depends on the level of ethics you wish to address... If there's no obvious life on a planet, I would want Man to explore that planet... if bacterial or single-celled life is found, the decision to continue the exploration should be addressed then. If there *is* obvious life - I'd want Man to leave the planet alone.
>>What if there's life there already (even bacteria) do we have a right
>>to wipe it out and replace it with our own germs?
Well, I addressed this above, but... I think I'd have to weigh the benefits of exploration and discovery against the choice of leaving the planet untouched... It may be the planet isn't worth the cost (to both us,and to the life there) to be explored.
>>If we send embryo's many of them may not survive because they will
>>be born with an ineffective immune system.
Debatable... If the planet is needed to keep Mankind alive - well... the price of ethics may be too high to address. If it's simply to explore, then - I would bet more about the planet would be studied before trying to colonize it.
>>And what kind of system of government or nation will the colonists build?
>>Will they be multicultural or a colony of an existing nation?
I would think any 'colony' on another planet would start off as a base of some sort, probably military in organization, with a commander and subordinates. As the base grew into a colony, they'd have to determine what kind of leadership/government model is needed, but I would gather it would remain military in nature for some time - think of how the teams on an aircraft carrier are organized.. 6,500 people under a leader.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ob1knobLv 73 weeks ago
We have already colonized 5 continents besides ours and wiped out the megafauna within a few thousands of years, sometimes including other humans.
The damage would be for scientists if the colonization erases the traces of an extant or fossil local life.
- daniel gLv 73 weeks ago
No,,just highly impractical. Earth is the only planet in the solar system that will support human life and we are not going to be leaving our solar system for a great many thousands of years.
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
And if it's the other way around, we get wiped out.
- Pearl LLv 73 weeks ago
i dont see anything wrong with that