The Buddhist View on Terraforming Mars

The Watercooler
22

I think the “kamma as intention” is a very narrow way to look at ethical conduct, especially when it is not just at a personal level but the level of a society. Certainly unintentional aspects of behaviour run through the ethical framework of the Dhamma Vinaya, and absence of intention doesn’t preclude consequences to our actions. The action of colonising itself is an intention. It’s not value neutral.

It’s interesting that you base your
concept of wholesomeness firstly on an unproven assumption (that Mars is barren) and then go on to say that not being able to see a being means you can’t make an assessment yet are willing to do it anyway! Doesn’t this sound a little acting out of like ignorance? The benefit you stated was getting resources and cheap goods, which is greed. And if there were locals of any sort, stuff em, you didn’t mean to, so could do whatever you’d want and you’d still get a kammic free pass to boot! I’d say that’s a very colonial approach indeed :laughing: but I suppose thats the issue with colonisation generally, it’s based on greed hatred and delusion! The question here is to what degree to which is colonisation able to be ethical. From past experience; not very.

Also just an interesting aside about the unseen beings: in classical Theravada it’s common for a community to give warning to a tree deva if a tree is to be felled and suggest they find another place elsewhere and apologise, and also quite common for forest monks to ask permission from the devas and apologise before urinating under a tree.

1 Like
23

Not only is the issue of what humans do to beings on other planets important to consider, but also we should consider the ethics of earth based animals who are involved in any space experiments or colonisation mission.

The history of humans using animals for experiments in space is truly sad, including sending all sorts of animals up in horrid conditions, many of those never came down and died in awful ways.

There has been movements to create a legal definition of “non-human personhood” for certain animals including great apes, elephants, dolphins and orcas to protect them from abuse and explotation from humans. India made dolphins non-human persons, and Sandra the orangutan was also granted this right. There have been attempts to get this right for elephants, too

Colonising a planet by willing, consenting humans is one thing, but dragging along animals from one planet to another adds another layer of ethical considerations.

2 Likes
24

Thank you for referencing this! I was not aware of this! :heart:

1 Like
25

There’s a useful concept in dealing with unknowns called the precautionary principle.

Here’s an article on using the precautionary principle in the environmental sciences:

From the abstract:

The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making.

It seems like this is a good methodology for investigating the colonization of Mars.

1 Like
26

And rivers and forests, which may be relevant to the idea of meddling with Mars…

3 Likes
27

Many types of plants and animals do effectively ‘colonize’ suitable habitats when given a chance. That’s why we have the kind of biological diversity we do on Earth.

A more recent example, just look at the plethora of invasive species around the globe, and global climate change isn’t exactly hindering their spread. The colonization instinct, so to speak, is deep rooted in the biological evolution of living organisms: adapt and survive to pass on their genes. Human beings are , biologically speaking, a product of evolution and natural selection and are very much influenced by these instincts.

That said, colonialism is “[manifest destiny] (Manifest destiny - Wikipedia)” all over again and very un-Buddhist indeed.

Personally, I find this Mars endeavour both a waste of time and resources when this planet’s ecosystems, water, soil and air are in such a dire state.

1 Like
28

Okay, so a couple of points here.

A number of people have pointed out that space missions are inherently wasteful and divert resources from earth. Now, personally I agree, but I am not convinced it’s a solid ethical argument against terraforming per se. It’s basically whataboutery, and it is always a problematic argument. Anything you do can be questioned in this light. Did you buy some flowers for your partner? Wouldn’t that money be better spent feeding the poor? I mean, probably it is, but still, life goes on, and we can’t just second-guess everything we do. Certainly if we consider terraforming, it is less useless and harmful than most of the things that the rich get up to, so maybe if it is considered as a diversion of the money of the rich it is actually good!

A more relevant point is that it is really a long term case of the more general principle of sacrifice. People are hungry now, but if we eat all our grain, they will starve next year. Better to give up a little now for the sake of much later on. In the case of long-term space exploration, there is a significant possibility that such exploration could lead to massive material advantages for humans in the long term. Most obviously, if we were able to mine and manufacture in space, we could save the earth’s resources. Steps like a Mars colony are essential if that is ever to happen. Not to say that this will actually happen, or even that it would be a good thing, simply that it is possible to launch a cogent ethical defense on this ground.

So let’s leave aside the problem of the relative merits of this versus other potential uses and just consider the terraforming as such.

There is overwhelming evidence that there is no advanced life on Mars. It’s possible that there are very small organisms, and if there are, they would very likely be harmed by terraforming. From a scientific point of view, this would clearly be a loss, as it would be an opportunity to examine alien life up close. In terms of the Buddhist concept of sentient beings, it seems unlikely that there is anything complex enough to support consciousness; however, the grounds for understanding exactly what beings are conscious are very unclear in Buddhism.

It would, IMHO, be wise to follow a precautionary principle, and assume that all life is valuable, and avoid any harm of any sort, or even the possibility of harm.

Akaliko’s analogy with the invasion of Australia is a very apt one. It really is so striking how the mindset of the colonist is just re-appearing in our age, merely directed outwards; the same blithe assumption that ours is the only culture worth anything.

The US has just announced its first “Spacepower” policy, outlining its program to militarize space. One of the lessons of the colonial era is, I think, that the very impulse of those who would colonize others is a sign of their lack of moral perspective. They so blindly assumed their own superiority. Explorers chanced upon foreign shores and were full of tales of wonder and discovery; but the gunboats soon followed. And in space we are seeing the same pattern.

The more that time goes on, the more it becomes clear that the cultures of real worth are those who never wanted to colonize anyone else. Those who are true visionaries, whose morality is that of an actual livable future for humanity, are not imposing their will on the skies; they are growing their roots in the earth.

6 Likes
29

Actually we can! This basically describes Peter Singer’s moral reasoning and it turns out to be quite solid. Reacting to it is one of the major projects in contemporary ethics afaict. Because the opposite extreme is just ignoring collateral damage and option value entirely, and that just doesn’t seem very… ethical.

2 Likes
30

I think the “kamma as intention” is a very narrow way to look at ethical conduct, especially when it is not just at a personal level but the level of a society. Certainly unintentional aspects of behaviour run through the ethical framework of the Dhamma Vinaya, and absence of intention doesn’t preclude consequences to our actions.

Oh well, I disagree. I think it is the primary way to look at all ethical conduct.

The action of colonising itself is an intention. It’s not value neutral.

I agree.

It’s interesting that you base your
concept of wholesomeness firstly on an unproven assumption (that Mars is barren) and then go on to say that not being able to see a being means you can’t make an assessment yet are willing to do it anyway! Doesn’t this sound a little acting out of like ignorance?

I did base my conclusion on the premise that there is no life on Mars. To clarify further, if we were to colonise it I think the ethical thing to do would be to assess fully if there is any life. If we do then colonise it and find life in the process, there would be no unwholesome action performed.

The benefit you stated was getting resources and cheap goods, which is greed.

Well of course it has the root of greed. That doesn’t mean its bad Buddhist conduct. Wanting sex is rooted in greed, but its not considered to be immoral for a man to have sex with his wife. Likewise, wanting cheap goods has a root in greed but that does not mean its immoral for householders. Cheap goods actually means everyone is better off. The people who benefit the most from cheap goods are the poor. Sound home economics is also recommended by the Buddha, where he advises that wives back then should be in charge of the finances. It follows from this that she should manage the home finances well, which would include sensible purchases. For example, if I went to a car dealership it would be unwise for me to spend £100,000 on a car when a £400 banger is all that I need.

And if there were locals of any sort, stuff em, you didn’t mean to, so could do whatever you’d want and you’d still get a kammic free pass to boot! I’d say that’s a very colonial approach indeed :laughing:

“Stuff em” are your choice of words Bhante not mine. If there are sentient life forms on Mars then it would be inappropriate to settle there without permission.

Also just an interesting aside about the unseen beings: in classical Theravada it’s common for a community to give warning to a tree deva if a tree is to be felled and suggest they find another place elsewhere and apologise, and also quite common for forest monks to ask permission from the devas and apologise before urinating under a tree.

That sounds like a very wholesome thing to do. Those monks are practicing well.

31

Forgive me Bhante but your post seems to suggest that seeking profit is immoral in Buddhism, for householders? If so I disagree since we have the example of Anāthapiṇḍika, who was a wealthy banker. Seeking a profit is not unwholesome. Its how you get the profit and what you do with it that matters. However, could you possibly mean instead that it is neo-liberalism you disagree with and less profit seeking itself?

1 Like
32

Do you think that some cultures are superior to others Bhante?

1 Like
33

Yes, I meant specifically the kind of neoliberal, capitalist mindset that “greed is good.” That is to say, which conflates money and value.

1 Like
34

I see. Thank you for clarifying Bhante. That makes more sense. I wouldn’t say that capitalism is inherently greedy although it does tend to bring that out of some people. The Wolf of Wall Street type of capitalism isn’t good, but there isn’t anything inherently wrong in a chain of family owned cake shops in my opinion.

35

Peter Singer was in the back of my mind as I wrote this! Look, ignore me then if you like!

But I guess my point was that it is problematic rather than wrong. I think that perhaps underlying my unease is a concern for the limitations of rationality. I think rational assessment of ethical concerns is useful for clarifying details. But I doubt whether it truly works when applied to the big picture of things. I think real and meaningful ethical decisions are matters of the heart, and have an element of irrationality to them. And I’m not convinced that following your heart is, all things considered, going to lead to worse outcomes.

But like I said, feel free to ignore this argument.

Coming back to a purely utilitarian consideration, though, I think there is something to this:

In a way, it relates to other activities of our favorite Mars-settling billionaire, Elon Musk. His cars are a terrible way of addressing the environmental costs of transport. Much better to tax the rich, build public transport, and design cities accordingly. But in a pragmatic world, one might argue that since that is not going to happen, at least buying a Tesla is less bad for the environment than buying a petrol car. Which is true as far as it goes. On the other hand, buying a Tesla might also be seen as a palliative that convinces the rich that they are doing something meaningful, and stands in the way of genuine change. Which I think is also true to a degree.

Does space travel, then, become less ethically problematic if it diverts funding from worse things? Or is that just another palliative?

1 Like
36

Message from Ollie, who raised the question originally . He included some tables but the formatting seems to have borked, sorry. Will try to fix - ok added screenshots of tables but also have left the text for those who use readers on the site

Wow, so many interesting responses, even the more off-topic answers did give me more ideas that had not entered my mind. Thank you again for posting the question on my behalf.

I thought I would take the time to write back and put my conclusions so far into greater detail, providing some context perhaps and clearing up some of the responders concerns with the ethics. This would be far too long for a casual forum post, but you may find it interesting.

I think I can see 3 big areas to cover - Getting to Mars, Terraforming it, Semantics/other.

I am an Environmental Scientist so I do look at problems from a technical mindset, and recognize that more ethical and even spiritual aspects will be overlooked by myself, hence my asking for some opinions. I don’t think I could start without putting everything into context, as a lot of the concerns raised where on the harm to Earth, Animals and Humans, wasting resources, colonization, personal enrichment etc etc.

Getting to Mars

Elon Musk is interesting, and I am of the opinion that acts should be the judge of a mans character, not his words. Making billions from selling the software Zip2 & Paypal, he used the money to found company’s that aim to solve big problems, and all work together ‘in synergy’. (Note - yes I know they run for profit, but if they did not, then they would stop existing and nothing would happen. Most of the profits are re-invested into the companies to help them grow to the bigger picture goal. Anāthapiṇḍika the banker is perhaps an example of profit gained well and spent well?) these I have condensed below:

table 1
table 11197×626 66.7 KB

Company (subsiduary) Big Picure Goal Stepping Stone Goal Issues fixed
SpaceX

(Starlink Internet)|* Make life Multi-planetary.

  • Move resource extraction and industry off-Earth|* Make Rockets cheap and safe.
  • Make the internet global and cheap.|* Pollution.
  • Wasted tax money.
  • Information poverty.
  • Extinction.Long-trip air travel.|
    |Tesla

(Solar City)|* Make energy production renewable.

  • Make transportation renewable.|* Make batteries cheap.
  • Make solar power cheap.
  • Make driving easy and cheap.|* Pollution.
  • Conflict metals in batteries.
  • Lack of movement.
  • Accidents.
  • Expensive electricity.|
    |The Boring Company

(Loop & Hyperloop)|* Make local and long distance transportation safer, faster and renewable.|* Make tunnelling machines fast, electric and self-sealing.

  • Build short loops in congested cities.|* Pollution.
  • Short-trip air travel.
  • Accidents.|

The key point here is that all these efforts make life better on Earth, while at the same time providing the technology and funding for the larger project of Mars missions.

Meanwhile, it is important to consider the state of Space when he entered the market. NASA, and by extinction all other national space agencies and rocket makers where (and still are) stagnant. This is a result of ‘pork-barrel’ politics, killing innovation and raising costs sky-high and a lack of will to go to places where by law you can’t annex as territory, or extract any resources from. Quasi-serious MarsOne suicide one way trip missions to save on costs, and Richard Branson’s private space trips? A pathetic waste of money that only takes you over the 100km Karman Line for 10 minutes in a rocket-boosted-airplane so you can have the ego-trip of “I’ve been to space”. A true luxury rollercoster ride with no useful purpose.

Below is a comparison of Elon’s rockets and methods to the conventional National Space Agencies and rocket manufacturers.

Table 2a
Table 2a1173×598 74.8 KB

Table 2b
Table 2b1201×455 56.6 KB

Facts on… SpaceX NASA ( et al. )
Rockets * Re-usable, the Starship-Class ones having a usful life similar to that of an Airplane (30-40 years).
  • Made of Stainless Steel, almost fully recycleble.
  • Airliner level of flight risk over total lifespan with design choices and inpections pre-and-post flight.|* One use only. (20 minutes lifespan).
  • Made of composites, dispoded of by dumping into the sea.
  • Minimize risk though single-use.|
    |Fuel|* Engines use METHLOX, (liqued Methane and Oxygen).
  • Production of fuals can take place localy on mars.
  • Renewable. Electricity from green sorces extract the CO2 and O2 from the atmosphere and water to make and liquify both gases.
  • Greenhouse Gas neutral.|* Engines use RP-1 (Kerosine) or Hydrazine.
  • Non-renewable fossil-fuals.
  • Greenhouse gas sources.
  • Highly toxic to human health on contact with skin or lungs, environment.|
    |Cost|* $2million to launch 100 tons to orbit.
  • RnD - $2-5billion.
  • Privately Funded by Elon’s Wallet and a donor.|* $110million to launch 20.5 tons to orbit.
  • RnD - $18.5billion.
  • USA taxpayer funded.|
    |Risks|* Journey to Mars – 90 to 80 days.
  • Passengers – 100 to 200.
  • Habitat – Steel, Ice, concrete, Rock.
  • Short journey times, thick rocket shielding, permanent Mars habitats with lots of people lowers radiation exposure and stress.
  • Trip to Mars is a return trip.
  • Communication local/Earth uses Starlink Internet.|* Journey to Mars – 180 to 200 days.
  • Passengers – 5 to 10.
  • Habitat – Aluminium, Pyrex, Kevlar.
  • Long journey time, thin light rocket, temporary Mars habitats and few people increase radiation and stress to predicted dangerous levels.
  • Some suggestions are for the trip to be one-way.
  • Communication uses existing low-bandwidth satellites.|

With all this in mind, I feel that the considerations wisely brought up by the forum members about:

  • Mission Safety
  • Use of resources
  • Use of time

are greatly alleviated by the amount of benefits alone the start-up industry has been created just to get to Mars, let alone the benefits of cheap and easy space access to come.

Terraforming

I saw two issues, the big one being the destruction of Martian life, and the resource cost to undertake it.

To get the latter out of the way, all efforts would use resources in-situ or in local space. Elon’s T-shirt ‘Nuke Mars[’ poles to warm them up and get bonus CO2] was a joke! A point was brought up about the lack of a magnetosphere on Mars, and how this would remove the atmosphere. True, this is why Mars has an atmospheric pressure of 1% of Earths. However, the loss is over Geological time. If I snapped my fingers and gave Mars an Earth-Atmosphere, it would take 1 to 5 Million years for the “Death Zone” of O2 partial pressure not being enough to sustain life (here on Earth, over 8000m up) to fall low enough on Mars to cover all the land. 1Million years is long enough to build an artificial one. They are small, solar-powered and could even be made today! The issue of 1/3 G on humans is an unknown. The latest research states that its 0 G that harms - Any G is healthy.

I would as a scientist and as a person be loathe to eradicate even local microscopic life, but we wont know if even that is there until people and robots go out and scan the world very thoroughly. I suspect Mars once had life, possibly even imported from Earth from a meteor fragment but they died out long ago, or if it did survive, it must be a lithophage, many kilometers under the surface. At least just going there to check wont harm anything. As a forum member pointed out, we Environmental Scientists do follow a precautionary principle.

Moving on, I’ll assume there is no life and Terraforming can take place.

Semantics/other

I saw a lot of talk about the implications of the word “colonization”. This is understandable, but I did mean it in a Biological manner. The introduction of specie’s and their flourishing in a new environment though ecological succession. I agree, we must be wise and not repeat the mistakes of the past, (Lucky unlike Australia, there are no intelligent locals on Mars - Sorry H.G Wells) however there is no economic argument for extracting resources and shipping it back to earth, even with Elon’s super-rockets the money just does not balance out. Asteroid-mining however is another subject. Same with Corporate, National and personal/ethnic pride. Its far more likely that after a few years those who stay on Mars will think of themselves as ‘Martian’. No nation can plant flags there and claim it, no corporation can make money there (besides intellectual research) and the journey is open to all who want to go. $230,000US for a return ticket. Works out about the same as the old days when emergrating to “The New World”. People being the ultimate resource working to maintain a city for eath other with the uniting goal of making the world outside habitable.

There where three smaller points brought up by yourself and others that I think where interesting:

1. The ethics of Terraforming in general.

This is more speculative, but have a look at Isaac Arthers YouTube channel. Its pointed out that “Classical” terraforming can only really take place on Mars and Venus, and its not the most efficient use of energy/space/matter. The comparison is imagine a mountain with a cave. Mankind lives in the cave. Terraforming is digging a new cave. Dyson Swarming habitats around the Sun is dismantling the mountain into bricks and building houses. Now that is a expanded topic!

2. Deva.

This reminded me of a guy who told me about Kami and Shino. How permission would be needed before Terraforming began as it would, like chopping down (or urinating on) a tree disrupt them. However more Kami would follow mankind to Mars, so things would be O.K.

3. Sujato’s 'cultures’

This quote struck me “The more that time goes on, the more it becomes clear that the cultures of real worth are those who never wanted to colonize anyone else. Those who are true visionaries, whose morality is that of an actual livable future for humanity, are not imposing their will on the skies; they are growing their roots in the earth.” Perhaps this is the moment then to correct this error? While I would disagree with " imposing their will on the skies" having those who could illuminate a path on the rocket, and help guide others to a more ‘good’ path in life may be a way to get the new nation of the Martians off to a good start.

I realize this has gone on too long, if you want to edit and post sections to the forum please feel free to do so. Its been great to collect my thoughts in one place, as I do try to think carefully before committing any actions.

Yours,

Ollie

2 Likes
37

Yeah, that’s exactly my concern. While we’re all day-dreaming about (impossible) science fiction, the planet we actually have is collapsing. It strikes me as a dangerous palliative to even talk about it.

So yeah, is what Elon is doing better than what the Koch Brothers are doing? Obviously. But is that even the conversation we should be having? Why accept that we have to have billionaires in the first place?

Precisely what we, the citizens of a democracy, should be talking about and fighting for, not simply rolling over and accepting that it “is not going to happen.”

Why is it easier for us to imagine a fricken’ mars colony than a functional public transit system?

5 Likes
38

Every winter here in suburban Toronto I see women, men, young and old, in strollers, wheel chairs, walkers etc… waiting for a bus. Temperature with wind chill can get to -25 to -30 C or lower.

Having done the commute myself, and after many years of giving public transportation a chance, I bought a car after having kids. It just was too much having to wait for a city council to come around to deciding how to extend the transit system which is centralized in the downtown/ more affluent areas. This is VERY commonplace in poorer neighborhoods. If this is the case in western nations, you can imagine what the situation is in developing countries!

And let’s not forget the homeless shelters having their funding cut while tax breaks are given to people buying Tesla’s! :exploding_head:

By not addressing Income, racial and gender inequality etc… we can maintain control over resources in the hands of a select few.

I find the view that resources on Mars will help lower costs on earth ridiculous! We will be paying out of our pockets for clean air and water by the time that happens!
Net gain < ZERO!

Colonies on other planets are a rich man’s fantasy , IMHO. A chance to enrich the select few :roll_eyes:…both pockets, and Egos.
Not exactly very Buddhist…

7 Likes
39

If you massively increase the supply then the price will fall, as long as there is competition. Colonising Mars or even mining the asteroid belt would massively increase the supply of raw materials, which in turn can lead to lower prices. This is assuming a more efficient method of space travel than what we currently have at the moment.

40

Has anyone here read Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series?
He addresses many of the ethical questions surrounding the conquest of Space in his books… interestingly enough, his early books depict Man going out ‘doing his thing’, colonizing 50+ planets with those left behind on Earth being derided and discriminated against by the Spacers, the formation of a Galaxy wide Empire, its fall, the Renaissance etc. etc… BUT by the end of the series, the books take a much more philosophical note. Having gleefully described the terraforming and conquest of planets using Robotic machine probes in his early career, Asimov ends up by imagining what it was like for the sentient life on those planets ‘when one of those monsters showed up in their formerly peaceful sky’.
Though Asimov’s robots were always designed to follow the three laws of robotics and were thus nominally ethical, that does not include non human sentient life. To his credit, Asimov seems to have realized this lapse and his later books have the civilization of Man being replaced by Gaia- an interlinked intelligence spanning humans, robots and aliens.
:nerd_face:

3 Likes
41

Honestly, this discussion was one of the last things I read before going to sleep yesterday and my mind kept ruminating it for quite some time! And I couldn’t help but think of the Aggañña sutta’s story of alien beings from Brahma worlds ‘colonising’ and ‘terraforming’ the primordial Earth ! :laughing:
I’m aware that this sutta is too mythological to compare with modern understanding of human evolution, and I am generally wary of connecting Buddhist theories with scientific ones, so please take it lightheartedly!

2 Likes