Wombaticus Rex wrote:Just wanted to engage -- not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree.Because this dream of colonization reflects a destructive ideology. First, it reveals a form of ultimate arrogance and hubris, presupposing that human life could actually be separated from all other terrestrial biological and chemical processes. This notion of separate identity represents, in my view, a grave spiritual error.
Odds are pretty even that our terrestrial biological and chemical process were imported in the first place. Certainly our ecosystem is not importable, but Life is. I think that's an interesting and worthy project.
There is no future for white culture in space, but there's no future for white culture anywhere else, either.Second, it encourages a notion that the earth is somehow disposable.
Could be. I think it also reflects the notion that the earth is not a permanent home. That our Life here is incredibly fragile.
Calling it "Colonization" is definitely hubris. I'm thinking of Martian Permaculture...Cosmic Seedbombs. I also don't have a lot of funding...but you know what? That's the biggest lesson of Biosphere 2 (or the Raelians) -- it doesn't take a lot, and fringe projects can get way more done than they ever expected. I might be a weirdo but at least my plan is more feasable than Crackers in Space visions of a new frontier.
You make some valid points, but your proposed projects and associated ethical orientations assume an ideology that is a minority player, if it even has a place at all on the world stage. Big institutional exploration projects are all about White Boys in Space. Likewise, not saying you're wrong, but that I disagree, mostly from the standpoint of Science As It Actually Happens, not Science The Way I Wish It Were.