85 upvotes, 10 direct replies (showing 10)
I saw this effect fairly clearly on a r/futurology post about the prospect of dumping future manufacturing waste onto barren, lifeless planets. There is still a vocal opposition to this hypothetical solution, because we would just "be polluting an entire other planet".
Reducing pollution isn't an end unto itself, it is part of preserving the ecosystem that supports our life. Polluting an environment without an ecosystem should not be considered wrong or evil under this premise, and yet many people still see it so. This, to me, is further sign of the "excess enthusiasm" discussed in the article.
Comment by DrRidleyCooper at 25/01/2020 at 16:21 UTC
14 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing that.
Comment by bertiebees at 25/01/2020 at 17:05 UTC
27 upvotes, 3 direct replies
The evil that is trying to remain untouched is the entire reason the ridiculous premise of polluting other worlds even exists. The modern evil of unsustainable, wasteful, unnecessary, and unsatisfying consumer products that generate massive waste(and massive profits for a select minority of already wealthy people) remains safely unchallenged in that premise. While the rabble argue over the merits of theoretical nonsense. Existing concentrations of private wealth and power can sit comfortably knowing their system of unnecessary garbage production remains unchallenged. While we ineffectually argue amongst ourselves how best to clean up their mess in a way that doesn't bother, impact, or require any change on their part.
Comment by [deleted] at 25/01/2020 at 18:33 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Reducing pollution isn't an end unto itself, it is part of preserving the ecosystem that supports our life. Polluting an environment without an ecosystem should not be considered wrong or evil under this premise, and yet many people still see it so. This, to me, is further sign of the "excess enthusiasm" discussed in the article.
Or taking matter from one planet and taking to another. Its not like the earth is gaining mass at a rate equivalent to our creation of litter. The idea in the other subreddit is so stupid it was ridiculed by Douglas Adams in Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Bethselamin[1][2]
1: https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Bethselamin
2: https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Bethselamin
It fails basic a=a logic
Comment by GalleonStar at 26/01/2020 at 09:42 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Polluting a "barren, lifeless planet' would be unambiguously evil. It is almost identical to if we had moved our rubbish tips to uninhabited islands in history.The main difference? We have no reason to believe that our ability to detect or categorise life on alien planets is sufficient to make the distinction.
Comment by Tato7069 at 25/01/2020 at 16:33 UTC
5 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Yeah, reddit is full of hypocritical pseudo-intellectuals. People seem to think that dirt and rocks have feelings
Comment by [deleted] at 25/01/2020 at 16:35 UTC
3 upvotes, 3 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by MustLoveAllCats at 26/01/2020 at 01:15 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I saw this effect fairly clearly on a r/futurology post about the prospect of dumping future manufacturing waste onto barren, lifeless planets. There is still a vocal opposition to this hypothetical solution, because we would just "be polluting an entire other planet".
I really don't understand this at all. Why not just propel it at stars, and let their reactions just vaporize our waste?
Comment by anarcho-n00b at 26/01/2020 at 01:31 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Polluting an environment without an ecosystem should not be considered wrong or evil under this premise
It could be considered ugly though. I wonder if some of those people are trying to frame an aesthetic opposition as an ethical one.
Comment by ImFrom1988 at 26/01/2020 at 06:09 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Well it currently costs 10 grand to put a single pound of material into orbit.. much less on to another planet. What are the chances we even make it to the point that your solution becomes feasible, without finding some much better alternatives for right now?
I guess it's a good thought exercise though.
Comment by eaglessoar at 25/01/2020 at 16:57 UTC
2 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Unless you think humans have some cosmic charge from some privliged place we occupy in the universe to maintain it in its natural form whatever that means then the only reason for preserving the environment, any environment, is for humans. Wiping out humanity or the idea of having a baby being the worst thing for the environment are non sensicial in this light. What's the point of preserving some thing if not for humans?