Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4544 sci.space:28102
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.space
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield)
Message-ID: <1991Mar6.170617.21145@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <6956@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> <PH49X2w163w@bluemoon.uucp>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1991 17:06:17 GMT
Lines: 34

	I can think of some valid reasons to terraform a currently
lifeless planet like Mars or Venus. They pretty much presuppose 
a wealthy society with resources and time to burn.

	'Theological':
		There are a lot of folks who feel life has intrinsic
		value. If Venus or Mars (Or whatever world you care to 
		insert) have no life, then perhaps they would feel an 
		obligation to introduce lifeforms that could survive there.
		Societies have invested large amounts of labour into
		projects which to outsiders seem non-productive; Egyptian
		pyramids and European cathedrals, for example. I don't
		think it is out of the question that someone in a few
		centuries might decide to devote several trillion dollars
		worth of effort to spreading life throughout the accessable
		universe, particularly if life seems to be very rare at that
		time. Judging by the fuss environmentalists make over changing
		esisting ecosystems, I would guess that one successful attempt
		to introduce life would poison the well for later ones.

	'Condos':
		Hey, habitats wear out in a few centuries. Earth has
		persisted for *5 billion years*. Talk about consistant
		resale value. No, this doesn't make a lot of sense, 
		but neither do condos, and they sell well. Wealthy 
		societies can afford silly luxuries.

	'Art':
		Think of terraforming as a very large example of
		performance art.

							James Nicoll