Replacement for Oil or Space Travel

[Edric O]

Now back to the original subject of this topic: Space exploration should be a top government priority, and the fact that "we have plenty of other problems to solve here on Earth" is no excuse. If the king of Spain went by that logic and refused to give Christopher Columbus funding for his trip across the ocean on the grounds that "we have plenty of other problems to solve here in Spain", where would we be today? Exploration drives discovery, discovery leads to new technology, and new technology helps us solve our problems - both at the new frontier that we're exploring and back home. It is no coincidence that the civilizations who explored the most were the same civilizations who innovated the most.

Robert Zubrin makes an excellent point in the first chapter of his book, "Entering Space": In the 14th century, some 200 years before the Europeans began to explore the seas, the Chinese built huge fleets, with ships far more powerful and ten times larger than anything the Europeans had at the time. They sailed across the Indian ocean and explored Indonesia, South Asia and the Eastern coast of Africa down to the Cape of Good Hope. If they had continued for a few decades longer, and sailed around the Cape, the Chinese might have discovered Europe - and perhaps colonized it. Chinese civilization would rule the world. But they didn't. Under pressure from isolationist aristocracy, the Emperor recalled the fleets and destroyed the ships, under the argument that the outside world was barbaric and uncivilized, and there was nothing that China could possibly gain by exploring it.

Five centuries later, China was ruined and brought to its knees in the Opium Wars by European powers - who, unlike the Chinese, had spent the previous 500 years exploring and conquering the world.

[Edric O]

I'm thinking that a renewable source of energy would eliminate most of the world's top oil companies' hold on our proverbial balls. Where nuking is probably not an option, economical independence is. There is a chance of space exploration and experimentation to breed new ways of gathering and using the abundant energy found in the Sun.

I agree, and I'd like to add that oil companies are often using their hold on those proverbial balls to make sure no research into renewable energy goes too far. This is a big problem, especially since oil companies offer some of the biggest bribes - I mean "contributions" - to the campaigns of various politicians.

space travel will only gain us ores and such that we probably already have in abundance here on Earth.... i dont think there will ever be an iron shortage, etc, etc.  As we havent even begun to tap 1% of even the earth's crust.  Has man even passed through the crust?  I think we havent (not sure).

Anyways add to the fact that space travel is so damn expensive it totally ruins the profitability of any resource we might find on mars or some such planet.

True enough, space mining is not profitable. In fact, NO kind of human activity in space is profitable. But, you see, exploration in general is not meant to bring in a profit, and it is rarely driven by profit-seeking. That's precisely why all space exploration so far has been government funded, and private attempts at going into space are frankly pathetic (and still unprofitable).

We're not going into space to make money, we're going into space because it is human nature to be curious, to explore and discover, to go where no one has gone before... And more than that, if we are the only intelligent species in the galaxy (which is a high possibility), it is our duty to preserve and spread Life, to terraform lifeless worlds.

Most economists already agree that a one world government's economy would fail rather fast.

Uh, no they don't. I don't know of anyone who makes that argument. Particularly since a "one world government's economy" is a pretty vague description... Everything depends on what kind of economy we're talking about, how it's organized, etc.

[Dante]

But that is the sole reason for us to go into space in the first place! That is the secret program running inside all of us: to survive, to reproduce. That, is our mission.

There is no mission, there is no plan, there is no purpose, there is no meaning, there is no universal law. Given that, there is no reason that we should care about our descendents that far down the family tree.

Why not? What will our existance mean in the endlesness of time to follow after our end?

Very little. That still doesn't mean we have to hasten the process.

18 planets is not big enough?

Nope. We are talking about a truly massive ammount of time, here. It's taken us less than one thousand years to almost exhaust our coal and oil deposits. Minerals will be next, and metals after that. Sooner or later, it will all run out. Sooner or later, eighteen plants of raw material will run out. In order to survive for an infinite ammount of time, which is what you appear to be suggesting, we need infinate resources, which is not possible.

What right do we have to mine our own moon? Or land exploration-robots on Mars? Or do anything for that matter? Is there a huge, enormous universal "Human Constitution/Law" that forbids us from going to other planets, explore the universe and so on?

A planet in space is just that - a planet in space. No one controls it. The civilization that finds it first, naturally, own it, or administer it - just like every other organic being.

That kind of philosophy has been practiced for centuries, with the result that billions have been killed in wars over territory. Between them, Britain, France, Holland and Portugal have 'discovered' and claimed America, North and South, Australia, Africa, India... The list goes on. Not only did they fight the natives, but they fought each other. And then they proceeded, through ignorance and cruelty, to destroy what they had conquered. Witness the disastrous history of apartheid Africa, the ongoing destruction of natural resources to fuel western desires, the enforcing of foreign cultures and ways of life on peoples and places that had evolved to make the best of what they had. 'Finders keepers' is politically accurate, but enviromentally ruinous.

Naturally, organics are wiped out if they do not have the means to survive - but if they do survive, their mission is to reproduce and survive in any way they see fit - no matter what. Then, of course, if the civilization is kind-hearted and compassionate, they can always respect other beings right of administering their own planets.

'If?' There is no if. You make it sound exactly as the old imperials might phrase it. "Well we feel sorry for the natives, in their filthy ignorance, but the little fellows are just so funny-looking that we thought we'd let them look after themselves, rather than go to all the trouble of conquering them." As I said above, there is no mission. Life is what you make of it. If you want to be ruthless, and say that it is humanity's purpose (manifest destiny?) to survive at whatever the cost, then feel free to do so. But don't try to pretend that this is somehow a good thing.

We're not going into space to make money, we're going into space because it is human nature to be curious, to explore and discover, to go where no one has gone before... And more than that, if we are the only intelligent species in the galaxy (which is a high possibility), it is our duty to preserve and spread Life, to terraform lifeless worlds.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. But I do agree with the first bit. Curiosity and discovery, as opposed to exploitation and conquering.

Now back to the original subject of this topic: Space exploration should be a top government priority, and the fact that "we have plenty of other problems to solve here on Earth" is no excuse. If the king of Spain went by that logic and refused to give Christopher Columbus funding for his trip across the ocean on the grounds that "we have plenty of other problems to solve here in Spain", where would we be today?

Perhaps in a better place, perhaps in a worse, we can't know. But we might have avoided the slaughter of the Native americans, the Aztecs, various other peoples, as well as the enviromental disasters that have been wrought by interference in the Americas.

Exploration drives discovery, discovery leads to new technology, and new technology helps us solve our problems - both at the new frontier that we're exploring and back home. It is no coincidence that the civilizations who explored the most were the same civilizations who innovated the most.

True enough.

Five centuries later, China was ruined and brought to its knees in the Opium Wars by European powers - who, unlike the Chinese, had spent the previous 500 years exploring and conquering the world.

This is a good point, but it also raises the same questions. Exploring yes, that's good. But conquering and colonising? Both of those involved harming something in order to get what the Europeans wanted, and in the end led to even more harm in the wars against China.

[TheRedDuke05]

I say we despartly need a single nation so we can stop this imperialist crap that every country wants. Though in order to enforce that type of government, you need a strong military to prevent nationalism from spreading.

And if all else, even if we don't find anything in space, it will still give humans hope of finding a chance live on.

[Dante]

What you are suggesting is a 1984-like world of oppression and complete government domination. No thank you.

[TheRedDuke05]

When I was refering to nationalism, I was talking more about factions such as communists and nazis so I should of clarified that.

[Dante]

Ha. If anything, communists are the people that you should be working with. Communism, I'm told, doesn't believe in countries either, but in a single state. All the peace, sharing, not fighting so much... sounds very similar.

It doesn't matter what groups you meant, using the military to restrict someone's political ambitions is nothing short of tyranical. And if a government needs the military to keep it in power, then it doesn't deserve power at all.

[TheRedDuke05]

But if you don't have a military, assholes like Stalin or Bin Laden would take over and make every thing worse. And what if we are wrong about being the only life in the universe? We would be screwed if we had no army what so ever.

[Dante]

Interesting how you automatically assumne that any visitors would be hostile.

I never said no military at all, I said that using it to restrict ambition is tyranical. And what happens if the military suddenly decides it wants to run the country? Best to have several militaries, balancing each other out. After all, if there was one nation, with one military, this military has no enemy, and no target except the single nation. And who will defend the nation when its own military attacks?

A strong military would not have stopped Stalin, since he used it to come to power. Well, that and some nifty political (and actual) assassinations. A strong military didn't stop Bin Laden.

Personally I've come to the conclusion that it would be better to have a situation where a military force is not needed, rather than one where the military is the deciding factor in disputes. In other words, keep everyone happy.

[TheRedDuke05]

I am begining to care less since the human race will kill each other out of existance even if we have infinate resources. I don't know if a government like Dune had work very well seing as the powers were obvioulsy not equal at all. And the people still got oppressed though Leto seemed to be the only compassionate ruler of the whole series.

[Dante]

You have to think seriously about what you think would work the best. If you want a global police-state where every citizen is monitered 24/7 and the military rules the roost, then you are welcome to believe in that. But would that really help the species survive longer, and would it be worth the cost?

Ironically given the argument, the Imperium funcationed because of the three forces counterbalancing each other; these being the Landsraad, Emperor, and Guild. In today's terms, this would be like three countries existing in peace because each knows that the others have the power to destroy them. If there had been only one power (as there was during the God Emperor's rule), then that power can do exactly as it wants. Which is not always wise.

Compassion? It has no place in politics. Not in terms of mollycoddling the populance, at any rate.

[TheRedDuke05]

Either way humanity will destroy it self unless it has a common enemy, sort of like what happened to a book I am reading where aliens attacked earth during WWII and all the major factions worked together to try to stop them.

Space Travel will give some hope if nothing else as I have said before.

[Dante]

Humanity's common enemy is itself, and always has been. Searching space for another race just so that we can band against them seems a pretty poor ambition.

[TheRedDuke05]

Hey, I only said that we needed a  common enemy besides ourselfs, so why not aliens, or sand worms  ;D

And lets go on the topic of oil, do you think we can find a cheap replacement for it like ketchup or something?

[Dante]

Oil doesn't just provide us with fuels. It provides us with plastic, medicines, cosmetics, additives, structural compounds, detergents, synthetics... Our modern lives just would not function without it. Without oil, we would really be screwed. I can hardly wait. ;D

[Dude_Doc]

Uh, no they don't. I don't know of anyone who makes that argument. Particularly since a "one world government's economy" is a pretty vague description... Everything depends on what kind of economy we're talking about, how it's organized, etc.

On the other hand, I may be wrong. Since the "closest" thing we are to a "global one world government" is basically one of the states that we already have in our time (like the US, UK, France etc) and, of course, with a market economy. A planned economy is another thing... but I think you know what will require for such a thing to happen.

Very little. That still doesn't mean we have to hasten the process.

Why not? Give me a reason.

Sooner or later, eighteen plants of raw material will run out. In order to survive for an infinite ammount of time, which is what you appear to be suggesting, we need infinate resources, which is not possible.

I know that no one inside this universe can survive for an infinite amount of time, because even if we could live "until the universe ends" then the universe would end us. You're saying that we should stay and die here, on this planet, while I say that we should go out into space and extend our spicies "timeframe", because (as I said), any organic lifeform has that duty: to survive, no matter what.

That kind of philosophy has been practiced for centuries, with the result that billions have been killed in wars over territory.

Yes - on one planet, and between human beings. Space is different. If we find a planet in space, without any intelligent life on it, why is it not ours to claim? But naturally, it will also depends on under which political system we're living in by then.

And then they proceeded, through ignorance and cruelty, to destroy what they had conquered.

And we can learn from this when we go to other planets. That is what history is for.

As I said above, there is no mission. Life is what you make of it. If you want to be ruthless, and say that it is humanity's purpose (manifest destiny?) to survive at whatever the cost, then feel free to do so. But don't try to pretend that this is somehow a good thing.

To survive is not to be ruthless - but only when it is necessary. Would humans choose to die themselves, or to wipe out another alien spicies instead? The choice is simple. It depends on how we are when we get there. You believe that we will still be in our greedy, kill-them-all phase when we reach the first planet beyond Mars to colonize. I believe that we must indeed change this before we get there.

[Dante]

Why not? Give me a reason.

Give me a reason to hasten it.

I know that no one inside this universe can survive for an infinite amount of time, because even if we could live "until the universe ends" then the universe would end us. You're saying that we should stay and die here, on this planet, while I say that we should go out into space and extend our spicies "timeframe", because (as I said), any organic lifeform has that duty: to survive, no matter what.

No, it doesn't. All things end, and an educated race would recognise that its time had come.

Yes - on one planet, and between human beings. Space is different. If we find a planet in space, without any intelligent life on it, why is it not ours to claim? But naturally, it will also depends on under which political system we're living in by then.

Wht 'ours'? Who is 'we'? What if the French discovered it, would that mean that France can claim ownership of an entire planet? Or if Britain did, would we then own the whole thing, as we did Australia? And what is the definition of 'intelligent life'? Why should it be any different from non-sentient life? An alien planet will have either no ecosystem, or a completely different one. Either way, our interference could destroy a habitat that we know nothing about.

Furthermore, to just waltz onto a different planet and claim it displays a racial arrogence bordering on violence.

And we can learn from this when we go to other planets. That is what history is for.

History doesn't have an innate purpose, just some useful side-effects. And if we are to learn from it, the lesson would appear to be to spend a great deal of time watching, analysing and debating before acting.

To survive is not to be ruthless - but only when it is necessary. Would humans choose to die themselves, or to wipe out another alien spicies instead? The choice is simple. It depends on how we are when we get there. You believe that we will still be in our greedy, kill-them-all phase when we reach the first planet beyond Mars to colonize. I believe that we must indeed change this before we get there.

I don't think we can. And the choice is not simple. Would it be better to die standing or live on one knee? Who has the logical high ground, the physical? Nothing is ever black and white.

[Dante]

By the same logic, we should have never expanded to more than one continent. What right did we have? One wasn't enough? This statement lacks reason.

The first people to spread to other continents worked, for want of a better term, in harmony with them. The native peoples of America and Australia had a far better idea of how to live on their land than the European settlers. The expansionists, on the other hand, had no right to take what wasn't theirs.

Some of the first people to settle in America believed that it was their 'manifest destiny' to claim this land. God had created it specifically for them, it existed for no other reason. You are displaying the same attitude.

That still is no reason not to colonize another planet. Are we worried of appearing arrogant?! To whom?

Ourselves. To have such a swollen sense of self-import is hardly healthy or becoming.

Yes they would. We don't have to find a single replacement that can be used in every instance oil is used (that would be... oil).

Oil = our way of life. Oil = chaos. Other than that, I don't even understand what you're trying to say.

[Dante]

Would you go as far as to point out where I said a similar thing? All of the planets in our solar system and other galaxies were not specifically created for us. But that STILL isn't a reason not to colonize them. Unless you believe their existence actually has a purpose?

I believe that we have enough trouble with one planet, let alone several. Colonisation would mean changing a planet, sculpting it to suit our ends and desires. Even if it is a dead world, with no atmosphere, we have no right to do that. Isolated bases for the purposes of research would be acceptable. Actively altering the structure of a world merely to find living space is not justifiable.

I don't think it is arrogant to move to other planets. If you think it is unhealthy to think thus, I couldn't care less. How do you define healthy thinking?

Colonisation requires a belief that the colonisers are somehow better than the enviroment that they are colonising, or that they deserve it, or require it. This is arrogent, as it does not take into account such considerations as what would be best for the planet in question, whether there is an ecosystem there already, or what effect the colony could have on the stability of our society. And arrogence is never healthy. It inevitably leads to anger and suffering.

It's quite clear what I am saying. I believe we can replace oil wherever we use it (plastic, medicines, cosmetics, additives, structural compounds, detergents, synthetics...). It doesn't have to be a single replacement though.

What with? Perhaps there's another plentiful source of hydrocarbons lying around? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have a bit more metal and wood around as much as anyone. But some things just won't work. Not with the resources at our disposal.

[Dante]

All the more reason to explore space for more resources.

One of many options.

Yes, we are all aware that resources are finite. But for now we can't even count the planets in the universe. If we manage to establish a satisfactory expanding pace, we will have resources for a very very long time.

True. That still doesn't justify the situation.

Could you please define what is good for a planet? Last time I checked, planets were not concious about what is happening to them. As for what would good for the ecosystem - that depends on the ecosystem. If we are to find bacteria in other planets, I consider myself superior to them and if colonization would exterminate them, so be it. The only thing that makes sense is concern about our society.

Society can go rot. If bacterial life stands in the way of taking over a planet, than that planet is off limits. Causing a species, any species, to become extinct is unacceptable. And before you mention that humans are a species, I point out that there is a different between 'causing' an extinction, and letting one happen.

There are many things that are more important than human society. Other species, for example. Why should we taint out planets with our destructive presence? To survive? If we must destroy to survive, without creating to make up the balace, then we shouldn't live at all.

When the bear moves from one cave to another because the previous one collapsed, it isn't being arrogant, it is merely trying to survive.

Believing that its survival is more important than the survival of, say, the wolf cubs in the new cave it occupies. Arrogence.

It is apparent you are defending a poor position. You - of all people - would care about the ecosystem of another planet, or what is right and justifiable? Could you please define the latter?

Justifiable: to prove correct by a given set of rules or terms. Given that we are working from different rules, perhaps the phrasing was not entirely wise.

What I care about, in this instance, is preservation of everything. Nothing to be destroyed, nothing to be lost. Humanity is currently a very strong force, and is destroying far more than it is creating. The concept of it moving elsewhere to destroy even more in a neverending quest to dominate is... distressing. If humanity were on the recieving end, i.e. was being destroyed by some external force, then I would be more sympathetic to its plight. Given that it is not, I choose to side against my own species. Better that we should die than continue to destroy.

Of course now we move more into the realm of theoretical than practical... After all, I have my own best interests to consider.

[Edric O]

Clarify the basis for your arguments, Dante. You seem to be arguing from a nihilist point of view ("human life and life in general don't really matter, so we have no reason to care about these things or the fate of humanity"). But then you go around and make statements like "", which contradict your own ideas. If life is worthless, then lifeless rocks are obviously even more worthless, so you have no reason to care about what humans might do to them, either. In fact, as I pointed out some years ago, one of the biggest inconsistencies in your philosophy of life is that, if everything is ultimately worthless, then you have no grounds on which to choose one action over another. When a person makes a choice, he or she makes a value judgement (i.e. "I choose to eat apple pie because this action is better - it has greater value - than eating pizza"). If both apple pie and pizza are worthless, how do you choose between them? You can't simply choose the one you like best, because that would be a value judgement. You would be saying that things have value if they make you feel good. In other words, you would be adopting hedonism.

To use a more serious example: How do you choose between living and commiting suicide? You say you have no reason to commit suicide. But you have no reason to live either. So a choice cannot be made. The same applies to every other choice in life. If you applied your principles consistently, you would not be able to make any choices or take any actions whatsoever.

[Dante]

Reason to colonize other planets - survival

Reason not to - none. Unless you consider the fact some people deem it unacceptable a valid reason.

Situation justified in my opinion.

Some things are more important than the survival of a destructive species.

No. The bear would still do what is needed for its survival, even if it considered itself inferior to the wolf.

If it considered itself inferior to the wolf, it would leave it well alone, and try to survive elsewhere.

Why not? Why sacrifice ourselves to preserve those we would destroy? From their viewpoint, they will be destroying us. And on what basis is it unacceptable causing a species to become extinct?

I can't think of a basis where it is acceptable to cause extinction, with the possible exception of pure profit. And I didn't say sacrifice ourselves, I said don't sacrifice others.

In your mind we humans are the destructive force because "we destroy without creating", upsetting the balance, while other organisms do not. You fail to see though that any organism would do what we are doing in order to ensure its survival. This is the way it is in nature.

Nature stops when it has had enough. Humans do not, they just keep taking until there is nothing left.

We won't be replacing oil with oil. Here is an example of what I mean: we can power up our cars with sun. We can replace plastic with another material. etc until we don't need oil anymore.

And what will make the solar panels? The tyres, the seats, the bumpers, the radio, what will they be made of? Wood and wool? Is that what you plan to replace plastics with?

Clarify the basis for your arguments, Dante. You seem to be arguing from a nihilist point of view ("human life and life in general don't really matter, so we have no reason to care about these things or the fate of humanity"). But then you go around and make statements like "", which contradict your own ideas. If life is worthless, then lifeless rocks are obviously even more worthless, so you have no reason to care about what humans might do to them, either.

It's not that life doesn't matter, in fact the opposite is true. Humans destroy life. This single species is responsible for thousands of extinctions. Thus in order to preserve life, it makes sense that the single destructive species be removed. In the absence of that, it is clear that humanity is currently on a 'winning streak' compared to any other species. Therefore attempts or arguments to preserve humanity will have less merit or import than those attempting to preserve something (anything) else. In other words, life matters, but some life matters more than others. Were there only five humans left in a world full of giant insects then the argument would also apply to their preservation.

On a related note, this is one of the primary reasons that I don't like human rights groups. They whine on and on and on about human rights abuses, the numbers being killed, maimed, imprisoned, blah blah blah, when there are billions of us around. And they think that their mission is somehow more important than a smaller (and certainly less well funded) group attempting to preserve a species that might only have a few tens of individuals left. One of Amnesty International's latest slogans is "Save the human," obviously modelled on "Save the whale" or "Save the Panda." I find that offensive. Pandas and whales, for example, are under quite serious threat. Humans, on the other hand, have a population surplus. I mean really, prioritize people!

In fact, as I pointed out some years ago, one of the biggest inconsistencies in your philosophy of life is that, if everything is ultimately worthless, then you have no grounds on which to choose one action over another. When a person makes a choice, he or she makes a value judgement (i.e. "I choose to eat apple pie because this action is better - it has greater value - than eating pizza"). If both apple pie and pizza are worthless, how do you choose between them? You can't simply choose the one you like best, because that would be a value judgement. You would be saying that things have value if they make you feel good. In other words, you would be adopting hedonism.

'Things,' for want of a better term, are valued differently by different people. From this two conclusions are possible. That there is a given value and that those who do not believe it are wrong, or that there is no given value and all that matters is perception. I favour the latter. Everything may be worthless, but it is percieved to have worth, depending on which value judgement a person choses to use, and how they use it. Argument, therefore, is not a method of convincing someone of what is right, but convincing someone to agree with you. And decision is not knowing what is more important, but believing what is more important.

To use a more serious example: How do you choose between living and commiting suicide? You say you have no reason to commit suicide. But you have no reason to live either. So a choice cannot be made. The same applies to every other choice in life. If you applied your principles consistently, you would not be able to make any choices or take any actions whatsoever.

"Principles only mean something if you stick by them when they are inconvenient."

- Laine Hanson (played by Joan Allen) "The Contender"

And I don't stick to my principles when they are inconvenient. Not often, anyway. So it could be argued that I have none. Or on the other hand, since my stance is that there is percieved worth if not real worth, it could be that I make my own value judgements on that basis.

Commiting suicide requires an action. Remaining alive would be inaction. Therefore when unable to make a choice (as in the given example where there are no reasons for or against suicide), the only available choice is inaction, which leads to continued life. A choice has not been made, but an outcome has been reached all the same. The same applies to all other decisions.

I do have a habit of not following an argument through from basis to conclusion; I tend to assume that others will just see the gaps and know what I used to cross them. This isn't often the case so yes, I do need to go back and clarify things sometimes.

[Dude_Doc]

Give me a reason to hasten it.

You will automatically hasten it if you don't try to survive, just like the human species. If we do not spread to other worlds, then we will simply die out. To survive you must expand.

No, it doesn't. All things end, and an educated race would recognise that its time had come.

And how does that species recognize that time? When huge alien ships are hovering over our cities? An educated species would look for other ways to survive. I wouldn't believe it one day that a we would not find another way to survive if we were faced with extinction - no matter what the threat.

Wht 'ours'? Who is 'we'? What if the French discovered it, would that mean that France can claim ownership of an entire planet? Or if Britain did, would we then own the whole thing, as we did Australia?

I don't know how things will look like when we come to that stage, as I said, it is up to humanity to realize that humans are humans, not different spicies living on the same planet. I would much rather see that colonized planets would be "owned" by the whole of humanity, and not a country or a corporation. But to do that, we need a change in the world systems we have - or, yes, that might be the situation.

What country has jurisdriction over the moon?

And what is the definition of 'intelligent life'? Why should it be any different from non-sentient life?

The definition of intelligent life is that one that can communicate with each other, one that knows that it exists. If you mean we would have the right to kill and plunder all kinds of "alien animal" life on other planets as soon as we get there, I would say that is not the case. It is not only in our being to explore, it is in us to take care of those environments and life-forms should we decide to colonize such a planet.

Intelligence doesn't mean that we are free to do whatever we want to any lifeform that do not have intelligence.

An alien planet will have either no ecosystem, or a completely different one.

Thus the reason for colonization. If that planet has a completely different ecosystem, then we would probably leave it alone, I don't really know. But of all the stars in the universe, some of them just have to have other habitable or semi-habitable planets. The hard part is to get there.

Either way, our interference could destroy a habitat that we know nothing about.

That we don't know anything about now. It seems to me like you're thinking that when we find, and get to that planet, we will still be at our current technological capabilities, which I doubt.

But you are also thinking in a dystophical way. Why is it so impossible to just live side-by-side on that planet?

Furthermore, to just waltz onto a different planet and claim it displays a racial arrogence bordering on violence.

Yes - if that planet has it's own inhabitants. As I said before, it all depends on how humanity will be when we get there. If we seek minerals and money, then sure, it would probably be one of the biggest massacres humanity will commit. But you must also take in account that other alien civilizations most probably also colonize space, when they get to that stage. If so, it would mean that the whole universe is filled with "racial arrogant and violent aliens", which would make the whole question of existance even more meaningless.

Society can go rot. If bacterial life stands in the way of taking over a planet, than that planet is off limits. Causing a species, any species, to become extinct is unacceptable.

That is just like saying we shouldn't research a cure to cancer - since that is an organism, and we shouldn't mess with it. Or HIV/AIDS, or any other deceases.

[TheRedDuke05]

I say if we do see aliens, try to make some sort of peace gesture, or at least a non-agression act at first. If that doesn't work, then my idea of a centralized army would probably pay off.

[Acriku]

As far as aliens go, I really can't argue against Edric's argument of improbability against aliens existing... despite how much my childlike imagination wants there to be.