|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 20, 2007, 2:24 pm
>>
>>
>> > Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>> >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5853/1054/DC1
>>
>> > That's reminiscent of terraforming about which I wrote an essay for one
>> > of
>> > my environmental-studies class awhile back.
>>
>> ...and of a Star Trek episode IIRC.
>
> Yes, that's true.
> My initial interest in it was based on my early exposure to science
> shows or miniseries, like Nova, Cosmos or The Nature of Things, that
> sometimes depicted hypothetical stuff like that.
> I still enjoy "hypothetical pseudodocumentary science", which has
> included Walking With the Dinosaurs (I think that's the title) and two
> others of similar, computer-3D-animated style, where one was about
> future of life on earth and what it might look like, as well as a
> hypothetical alien planet.
> On some levels, I think these kinds of shows are preferred over the
> regular Hollywoody sci-fi fare.
>
> In my essay, I mention McKay:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McKay
Thanks for that. I note the developing ethical debate in the event of
finding any life on prospective targets for terraforming. What's curious to
me is that it doesn't appear that anyone has taken issue with the position
that, just because we can, we should impose life on lifeless places. Maybe
that will come later. It seems a bit 'life-ist" to me ; )
I'm imagining that this question will become *the* ethical question of the
next millennium:
"Should we, just because we can?"
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap