Replacement for Oil or Space Travel

[Dante]

But according to you, nature makes sure to balance everything, so why it cannot set limits for us? And if it can't, why should we?

I already said that we have moved beyond nature's influence. It can no longer balance the force the humanity has become, and so it is up to humanity to enforce this balance upon itself. The alternatives are numerous, and unpleasant.

What is a bigger picture?

One that takes into account more than one opinion, or set of concerns. Preferably many of them.

By you.

By everyone with half a damned neuron left rattling inside their skulls.

Your view.

It would be rather silly if I argued with someone else's, wouldn't it?

I don't need to. It's obvious.

Mm hm? So I'm going to have to trawl through the thesaurus as well as the dictionary then? Very well.

Arrogant: 1- Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2-Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. 3- having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride; "an arrogant official"; "arrogant claims"; "chesty as a peacock."

Egoist: 1- One devoted to one's own interests and advancement; an egocentric person. 2- a conceited and self-centered person [syn: egotist, swellhead] 3- a self-centered person with little regard for others [syn: egocentric].

Arrogant, adjective

Definition: egotistic

Synonyms: aloof, assuming, audacious, autocratic, biggety, bossy, bragging, cavalier, cheeky, cocky, cold shoulder, conceited, contemptuous, cool, disdainful, domineering, ego trip, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, insolent, know-it-all, lordly, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, puffed up, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, sniffy, snippy, snooty, snotty, stuck up, supercilious, superior, swaggering, uppity, vain.

There, is that enough? Or do I have to spell it out even more obviously? Arrogant = egocentric. Egoist = Arrogant person.

I didn't expect you to use generic phrases like "humanity has no right". Who hands out the rights to do things? Think of what you say: "just because something can be taken, it doesn't mean it should be taken". But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken either.

I corrected your quote, since you got it wrong there. The point is that there is more to consider than just "Nobody owns it, it's ours." That kind of attitude has led to nothing but harm.

Clearly you hate humanity. You refuse to see the great potential we have - which is not to destroy.

I don't refuse to see it, I refuse to believe in it.

Well his is a cymek after all, and cymeks want to enslave all humanity

[GUNWOUNDS]

Spectral Paladin wrote:

1.) But according to you, nature makes sure to balance everything, so why it cannot set limits for us? And if it can't, why should we?

2.) What is a bigger picture?

3.) By you.

4.)Your view.

5.) I don't need to. It's obvious.

6.) I didn't expect you to use generic phrases like "humanity has no right". Who hands out the rights to do things? Think of what you say: "just because something can be taken, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken". But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken either.

7.) Clearly you hate humanity. You refuse to see the great potential we have - which is not to destroy.

1.)

[Spectral Paladin]

The alternatives are numerous, and unpleasant.

Yes, there are unpleasant alternatives. You don't take into account the possibility that we might create more than we (or will) destroy.

It would be rather silly if I argued with someone else's, wouldn't it?

Yes it would, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a general view.

Mm hm? So I'm going to have to trawl through the thesaurus as well as the dictionary then? Very well.

Arrogant: 1- Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2-Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. 3- having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride; "an arrogant official"; "arrogant claims"; "chesty as a peacock."

Egoist: 1- One devoted to one's own interests and advancement; an egocentric person. 2- a conceited and self-centered person [syn: egotist, swellhead] 3- a self-centered person with little regard for others [syn: egocentric].

Arrogant, adjective

Definition: egotistic

Synonyms: aloof, assuming, audacious, autocratic, biggety, bossy, bragging, cavalier, cheeky, cocky, cold shoulder, conceited, contemptuous, cool, disdainful, domineering, ego trip, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, insolent, know-it-all, lordly, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, puffed up, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, sniffy, snippy, snooty, snotty, stuck up, supercilious, superior, swaggering, uppity, vain.

There, is that enough? Or do I have to spell it out even more obviously? Arrogant = egocentric. Egoist = Arrogant person.

Gee, stop being so stubborn. You highlighted the word egotistic. Egoist is someone who doesn't care for others, arrogant is someone who considers himself superior to others.

I corrected your quote, since you got it wrong there. The point is that there is more to consider than just "Nobody owns it, it's ours." That kind of attitude has led to nothing but harm.

So when a rabbit finds a carrot and eats it, who gets harmed?  (there many more examples including humans but I 'm sure you 'd find a way to say that it somehow led to harm).

[Spectral Paladin]

1.)  Perhaps Dante values nature more than humanity and just because we are able to "beat the system" doesnt mean we should.  It could cause more harm than good due to our wicked tendencies and since he operates on logic it would seem illogical to expand into space and spread destruction.

Yes this make sense. What doesn't make sense is the assumption that humanity can only cause harm.

3.) Great one captain obvious.... thanks for pointing out that Dante supports a particular view after he just told us.

4.) Thanks again captain obvious.. thanks for pointing out that its HIS view.. who the hell else's view would it be? ..you're 2 for 2.

I 'm pointing out that this isn't a general view. When he says "it is unacceptable" it's as though it is generally regarded as unacceptable, which is false.

6.)  Dante has said time and time again... that he says "right" and "wrong"  for mere simplicity of semantics.... when he says "humanity has no right" he is saying "it is not logical for humanity to do this" ...  Spectral said: "But it doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken either"..... replace "shouldnt" with "it is illogical to take" then you will understand what he is trying to say.

Again, what he says makes sense only if we accept that it would only cause harm taking it.

7.) Yes all of 1% of humanity has the potential not to destroy.. the rest of humanity is represented by what you see in the Gaza Strip, Zimbabwe, or N. Korea.  Boy we sure want THAT going into space and spreading dont we?  Or is your idea of space exploration to leave all of the dregs of society behind while the elite spread their seed in space?

I believe that it is possible someday nearly all will be like the 1% of today.

[GUNWOUNDS]

1.)Yes, there are unpleasant alternatives. You don't take into account the possibility that we might create more than we (or will) destroy.

2.) Yes it would, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a general view.

3.) Gee, stop being so stubborn. You highlighted the word egotistic. Egoist is someone who doesn't care for others, arrogant is someone who considers himself superior to others.

4.) So when a rabbit finds a carrot and eats it, who gets harmed?

[Dante]

Yes, there are unpleasant alternatives. You don't take into account the possibility that we might create more than we (or will) destroy.

Because it's so unlikely as to be laughable.

Yes it would, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a general view.

Because humanity is a destructive and generally nasty force, yes.

Gee, stop being so stubborn. You highlighted the word egotistic. Egoist is someone who doesn't care for others, arrogant is someone who considers himself superior to others.

The two are synonyms, how many dicionaries do I have to quote? Egoist isn't someone who does not care for others, it is someone who has greater regard for themself than for others, as in the definition I gave.

So when a rabbit finds a carrot and eats it, who gets harmed?

[Spectral Paladin]

1.) Humanity has a nice history and record... its easy to see what our pattern is.

So little faith in humanity

2.)  Since when did "general" views become what is right?  Are you saying anything that is "natural" is "right"?  Cannibalism and murder is natural as well.. but i dont think you would consider it "right"

No and I didn't say so.

3.) It is possible to consider yourself superior to others and still care only for yourself.... one could actually cause the other.. so it goes hand in hand.... stop backpedalling and just admint you were wrong.  Is that so hard?

OF COURSE it is possible to be both arrogant and egoist, and one could cause the other. But not necessarily. Maybe you have problems with the english language. Simple example: There is a poor man that would survive if I gave him money. I believe he's more intelligent than me; I see him as superior. Yet I don't help him and he dies. I 'm selfish but not arrogant.

4.) Dont be a smartass.... most people who value nature (animal activists and vegetarians) will agree that eating organic cellular food from the Plant Kingdom is ok... because you are eating the fruit which is just the repoductive organ of the plant... you arent damaging the plant by eating its fruit.... you are actually helping the plant in a way... because when an animal eat the fruit of a plant he also eats the seeds... then the animal walks a distance and then defecates on the ground thus spreading the seed and giving it a bit of fertilizer.  So dont try to act clever with these little "examples"  cause you only show your ignorance of basic science.

I 'm not trying to be a smartass and I 'm aware of everything you posted. But Dante made an absolute statement that this attitude ALWAYS leads to harm and my simple example shows that it doesn't.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Simple example: There is a poor man that would survive if I gave him money. I believe he's more intelligent than me; I see him as superior. Yet I don't help him and he dies. I 'm selfish but not arrogant.

hah... you would be arrogant and selfish.... because you would think you were superior since you held his life in your hand...and because of course once the man is dead you will feel even more superior to him... cause most people dont feel inferior to corpses who died because of their actions. You are trying to cut the two words apart and it doesnt work... selfishness and arrogance are meshed... because if you only care for yourself... you are doing that because you feel that your own entity deserves everything you have because your survival is more important than someone elses.... so a selfish person will always be arrogant on some level.  You cant seperate it.

[Spectral Paladin]

Lol if Nema is reading this, please  clarify it. I did everything I could, even gave one nice simple example but some people are just dumb.

Is the carrot poisoned? Is the carrot grower dependant on one carrot to make the difference between profit and loss that year? Was the carrot only left there by a weakened mother rabbit so that she could take her family back to it? As I have said before, nothing is black and white, and there are any number of variables and possibilities to consider. That's the philosophical standpoint.

Consider the carrot not poisoned. Also consider it lost. (so even if someone depended on it somehow he has lost it anyway, whether the rabbit eats it or not). In that case noone gets harmed.

[Dante]

And if the rabbit suddenly discovers an allergy to carrots? You can keep changing the circumstances as much as you want, there will always be something else to consider.

So little faith in humanity

Humanity doesn't deserve it.

OF COURSE it is possible to be both arrogant and egoist, and one could cause the other. But not necessarily. Maybe you have problems with the english language. Simple example: There is a poor man that would survive if I gave him money. I believe he's more intelligent than me; I see him as superior. Yet I don't help him and he dies. I 'm selfish but not arrogant.

See Gunwounds' post.

I 'm not trying to be a smartass and I 'm aware of everything you posted. But Dante made an absolute statement that this attitude ALWAYS leads to harm and my simple example shows that it doesn't.

Except... the example doesn't work.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So little faith in humanity

Oh there is faith..... faith that humanity will repeat itself.... how many wars before you understand that?... even a "dumb" person (your own words) can understand that.

Lol if Nema is reading this, please  clarify it. I did everything I could, even gave one nice simple example but some people are just dumb.

Technology will only make wars easier and more impersonal .. meaning we will have more of them and more frequently.... even a "dumb" person could understand that and i dont even need "Nema" to help me make that point.

[Spectral Paladin]

And if the rabbit suddenly discovers an allergy to carrots? You can keep changing the circumstances as much as you want, there will always be something else to consider.

Yes of course there are many circumstances under which the rabbit gets somehow harmed in the end. But there are certain circumstances under which the rabbit is not harmed by the carrot nor is anyone else affected in a negative way. So the example does work.

You even posted the definitions from the dictionary and still don't see the difference? Sad.

Oh there is faith..... faith that humanity will repeat itself.... how many wars before you understand that?... even a "dumb" person (your own words) can understand that.

Technology will only make wars easier and more impersonal .. meaning we will have more of them and more frequently.... even a "dumb" person could understand that and i dont even need "Nema" to help me make that point.

Yes that's a possibility, that humanity will keep doing what it's doing now. And the most probable too. But it's not absolutely certain.

[Dante]

Yes of course there are many circumstances under which the rabbit gets somehow harmed in the end. But there are certain circumstances under which the rabbit is not harmed by the carrot nor is anyone else affected in a negative way. So the example does work.

And there are certain circumstances where humanity will turn into a benevolent, altruistic species. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

You even posted the definitions from the dictionary and still don't see the difference? Sad.

Just admit that you're wrong. It'll make the debate much easier.

hah... you would be arrogant and selfish.... because you would think you were superior since you held his life in your hand...and because of course once the man is dead you will feel even more superior to him... cause most people dont feel inferior to corpses who died because of their actions. You are trying to cut the two words apart and it doesnt work... selfishness and arrogance are meshed... because if you only care for yourself... you are doing that because you feel that your own entity deserves everything you have because your survival is more important than someone elses.... so a selfish person will always be arrogant on some level.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes that's a possibility, that humanity will keep doing what it's doing now. And the most probable too. But it's not absolutely certain.

It is quite certain i assure you... the United States military is spending billions upon billions to research better weapons INCLUDING SPACE WEAPONS...the accumulation of this research and funding will echo into hundreds of years or even thousands of years into the future, further solidifying our fate.... Mankind has a carnal nature... it would take divine intervention to ever force mankind to consolidate into a utopia.

[Edric O]

Your only counterpoint would be to say that "Perhaps humanity will create more than we destroy" ....but this is flawed.... because it is (and always will be) easier to destroy than it is to create.  Which is easier?.... to demolish a skyscraper or to build one?  Think about that.

As a matter of fact, we have built more skyscrapers than we demolished. How do I know that? Because some skyscrapers are still standing. If every skyscraper ever built were demolished, then none of them would still be standing, would they? And it is impossible to demolish more skyscrapers than we build, because we have to build one before we can take it down.

The thing about space is that there is nothing TO destroy. There is nothing TO kill. Space, as far as we can see, is empty of life, and filled only with inanimate rocks and gasses. Even if you have some sort of unusual affection for rocks, I think we can all agree that Humanity won't go into space and start blowing up rocks for the hell of it.

Because space is empty, because there is nothing for us to kill and destroy at the present time, we will have to CREATE things before we can destroy them. Of course we are a violent species. Of course we will spread quite a bit of destruction into space. But there's a catch: We will only destroy things that we created in the first place. And, unless we completely obliterate everything we ever created in space (which is highly unlikely), the final balance will be positive - we will create more things than we destroy. It's precisely the same thing as with the skyscraper example given above: As long as there are some skyscrapers still standing, we know that, overall, we built more skyscrapers than we destroyed. Under no circumstances can we possibly destroy more skyscrapers than we build.

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

[Dante]

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

How can you say that? That can be reduced to 'the ends justify the means.'

Space exploration can go wrong alright... Destruction of planets, alien ecosystems (if they exist), ourselves...

[Dragoon Knight]

*Dons flame-retardant Still-Suit and jumps into the topic*

As a matter of fact, we have built more skyscrapers than we demolished. How do I know that? Because some skyscrapers are still standing. If every skyscraper ever built were demolished, then none of them would still be standing, would they? And it is impossible to demolish more skyscrapers than we build, because we have to build one before we can take it down.

The thing about space is that there is nothing TO destroy. There is nothing TO kill. Space, as far as we can see, is empty of life, and filled only with inanimate rocks and gasses. Even if you have some sort of unusual affection for rocks, I think we can all agree that Humanity won't go into space and start blowing up rocks for the hell of it.

Because space is empty, because there is nothing for us to kill and destroy at the present time, we will have to CREATE things before we can destroy them. Of course we are a violent species. Of course we will spread quite a bit of destruction into space. But there's a catch: We will only destroy things that we created in the first place. And, unless we completely obliterate everything we ever created in space (which is highly unlikely), the final balance will be positive - we will create more things than we destroy. It's precisely the same thing as with the skyscraper example given above: As long as there are some skyscrapers still standing, we know that, overall, we built more skyscrapers than we destroyed. Under no circumstances can we possibly destroy more skyscrapers than we build.

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

Are you taking into consideration what Dante has been arguing about for some time now?  Other ecosystems are already created, and to expand, humanity may have to destroy them.  Just because we didn't build / create something, doesn't mean we can't destroy it.

Rather than have this seen as a simple "Yes-Man" post, I'd just like to clarify my own view regarding this issue.  I believe that humanity is - for want of a better term - the most superior race that we know of.  This isn't due to arrogance (which, I'm afraid, is exactly the same as egotism or "being an egoist :P) but simple empirical evidence.  The fact that we alone (in the absence of any evidence of alien cultures) seem to have developed advanced intelligence gives us the "right" to expand and survive, in my opinion.

Having said that, I do not believe that we have the "right" to destroy or interfere with other ecosystems.  I do believe that mining "dead" planets for minerals or metals is alright; if there is no life there, then I see no reason why the resources held within can't be used to benefit ourselves.  But in the end - or about 2 billion years :) - humanity is going to have to find another planet to live on.  This planet will have to be able to support human life, and therefore will most likely have an ecosystem in place already.  We're going to have to interfere with it to survive.

The only other option I can think of is terraforming a "dead" planet.  I know it's an improbable example, but has anyone seen "Total Recall"? :P

Anyway, that's my opinion on the whole matter.  General support for Dante, Gunwounds and Edric, and to some extent American Cyborg and Spectral Paladin; but with my own views mixed in. :)

*Takes cover*

[GUNWOUNDS]

As a matter of fact, we have built more skyscrapers than we demolished. How do I know that? Because some skyscrapers are still standing. If every skyscraper ever built were demolished, then none of them would still be standing, would they? And it is impossible to demolish more skyscrapers than we build, because we have to build one before we can take it down.

The thing about space is that there is nothing TO destroy. There is nothing TO kill. Space, as far as we can see, is empty of life, and filled only with inanimate rocks and gasses. Even if you have some sort of unusual affection for rocks, I think we can all agree that Humanity won't go into space and start blowing up rocks for the hell of it.

Because space is empty, because there is nothing for us to kill and destroy at the present time, we will have to CREATE things before we can destroy them. Of course we are a violent species. Of course we will spread quite a bit of destruction into space. But there's a catch: We will only destroy things that we created in the first place. And, unless we completely obliterate everything we ever created in space (which is highly unlikely), the final balance will be positive - we will create more things than we destroy. It's precisely the same thing as with the skyscraper example given above: As long as there are some skyscrapers still standing, we know that, overall, we built more skyscrapers than we destroyed. Under no circumstances can we possibly destroy more skyscrapers than we build.

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

The skyscraper example was used to illustrate how much easier it is to destroy than it is to create...of course whether we do so is up to us....also it is possible to go negative if you destroy skyscrapers that dont belong to you...it doesnt necessarily have to be on a global mankind level...it can be national.. if china builds skyscrapers on the moon and America destroys them.. then the Chinese will definately have their pocketbooks go into the red.... also it is possible to go negative when you factor in natural habitats like rainforests and such.

[TheRedDuke05]

Anyway, that's my opinion on the whole matter.

[Dragoon Knight]

A single nation?  One, all powerful leadership?  A mega-army prepared to fight off hostile aliens?

Sorry; it might make a semi-decent fan fiction, but there's very little in your arguments that isn't illogical or impractical, hence the lack of support for them. :)

[Dude_Doc]

If humans become too powerful by working together, there will be virtually no limit to what they could achieve. I fear for exactly what those 'achievements' would consist of.

But you believe that humans are an evil force. We have never cooperated on a global scale, ever, in our history. How can you know that this will be a bad thing, once achieved? Our whole history is filled with death and suffering, butchering each other on the battlefield. We only know this - and if we break away from this trend, we will tread into a new prospect - "a new age" - of cooperation and understanding.

Because you believe that humanity deserves it, and that there is nothing more that the planet could achieve. I do not.

I never said humanity deserved anything. I'm saying that this is a way of life. Every known organism expands in any way, may it be at a slow pace or a fast one. If animals could expand into space and live on other planets, they would. And if every known organism on one single planet do this, then I'm sure other organisms in the universe shares the same destiny.

We are ourselves. Society reflects what is put into it, and what is put into it is done by individuals.

But not by all, or the majority, of the induviduals in society. It required one intellectual speaker to create one of the bloodiest mass-murderers in the previous century. It required one very good "dreamer" to create one of the world's biggest religions.

Did we all agree to create countries? To have kings who ruled us? Corporations that squeeze money out of poor countries?

The fact that we alone (in the absence of any evidence of alien cultures) seem to have developed advanced intelligence gives us the "right" to expand and survive, in my opinion.

I agree with this, because I think that if there are life on other planets, they will behave in a similar way. Organisms need a form of energy. If they are developed enough, they will go into space and seek out more energy.

[Dante]

But you believe that humans are an evil force. We have never cooperated on a global scale, ever, in our history. How can you know that this will be a bad thing, once achieved? Our whole history is filled with death and suffering, butchering each other on the battlefield. We only know this - and if we break away from this trend, we will tread into a new prospect - "a new age" - of cooperation and understanding.

Mm hm. And you think this will ever happen? If humanity ever unites, it will be because of a common enemy that is even worse. And once (if) that enemy is defeated, we'll go right back to killing each other. Just look at the Cold War following World War Two.

I never said humanity deserved anything. I'm saying that this is a way of life. Every known organism expands in any way, may it be at a slow pace or a fast one. If animals could expand into space and live on other planets, they would. And if every known organism on one single planet do this, then I'm sure other organisms in the universe shares the same destiny.

Why? Why would an alien species, by definition completely different from anything we know, behave in a similar way? And Destiny? What kind of idea is that? 'Destiny' is even more ridiculous than fate.

But not by all, or the majority, of the induviduals in society. It required one intellectual speaker to create one of the bloodiest mass-murderers in the previous century. It required one very good "dreamer" to create one of the world's biggest religions.

And could they have done that without soliders and deluded fools believers? Someone had to agree with them, someone had to make their ideas work. The fact that many people did indicates that an individual would be very ineffective on their own.

Did we all agree to create countries? To have kings who ruled us? Corporations that squeeze money out of poor countries?

We let it happen, didn't we?

I agree with this, because I think that if there are life on other planets, they will behave in a similar way. Organisms need a form of energy. If they are developed enough, they will go into space and seek out more energy.

On what do you base this? Has it ever happened before? We have all the resources we need on this planet, if only they would be used correctly. As for having the right to expand due to 'intelligence,' well I question what kind of enlightened race can still manage to be so careless and harmful.

[TheRedDuke05]

A single nation?

[nemafakei]

On egoism and arrogance, it's unhelpful to define from a lexical point of view whether they're identical or not, because you're trying to prove or disprove that two concepts are identical. A thesaurus and a dictionary might give you ideas on where to start, but you've got to think of words as you mean them in context rather than subject them to the rounding error of classification.

If we define egoistic as 'centring one's attention around oneself and one's own intersts', then for a race to try to spread itself into space for its own survival purpose is probably egoistic.

Now you could say 'what I mean by arrogant is that you assume that others should look up to you, and therefore space travel is egoistic but not arrogant'. Of course, what you mean by arrogant may not be what others mean by the word.

Different words can be used to make distinctions or they can be used to emphasise parallels, and a dictionary can't tell you how a word is being used in all contexts - get to the essence of the word, and get to the essence of what you mean. Then try to express what you mean by defining it. You may find that your definition acheives what your attempted equations could not so clearly show.

[Edric O]

How can you say that? That can be reduced to 'the ends justify the means.'

No, it can be reduced to "life is better than non-life".

Space exploration can go wrong alright... Destruction of planets...

Even if we do destroy a dead planet, how would that be wrong? Would it harm anyone, or any kind of lifeform? No, because it's a dead planet.

...alien ecosystems (if they exist)...

There is not an ounce of evidence that alien ecosystems exist. When people argued that human beings could all become peaceful, benevolent and utopian, you called it wishful thinking. Well, guess what? Believing in the existence of alien ecosystems is an even greater case of wishful thinking.

Your argument seems to be that "oh, humans shouldn't go into space, because we might eventually somehow end up hurting some lifeforms that may or may not exist". I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic.

...ourselves...

If we don't go into space, we will die out. We have nothing to lose.