Talk:Ethics of terraforming

Focus on indigenous life

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality

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)

"Space ethics" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)