I just think that it shouldn't be all forbidden.

Humanity can preserve sections of it for aesthetic or scientific purposes,but if it's more cost effective than building an orbital arcology,then I would be in favor of that. I see it like this,we should prioritize the needs of human society first over preserving natural landscapes in the case where it would help us develop technologically. Again,with the caveat that all necessary precautions are taken first.

I understand your point about the value of things as they are to human science and society, but I personally think our needs should be put first in the purely hypothetical scenario where we can interact with with foreign planetary bodies. Also, wouldn't terraforming offer valuable scientific data about how to curate and develop an ecosystem from the ground up? The Earth and other potentially habitable planets offer plenty of information, but wouldn't some direct practice be also needed to create proper orbital ecosystems?

I would also like to point out that I am no where near an expert in biology or geology and I'm merely expressing the perspective I have with the limited information I have. I take full ownership of any lapses in my judgement and I will be the first to admit that whatever discrepancies there are in my beliefs are most probably caused by the limited knowledge I possess.

Don't get me wrong,I'm no Muskite,and I wouldn't lose any sleep over Mars staying the same,but if it's deemed more efficient to terraform Mars over building orbital arcologies,I would back that policy.

My apologies for misinterpreting your sentiment,I just have a dislike for the people who act like we should swear off all development in the name of some idealistic notion of us being "caretakers" or "guardians" of nature because it just seems to be full of hubris. I see now that is not your position,and I want to clarify I didn't intend to come off in a hostile way.

I can see your point,but that doesn't seem enough to just not settle any planetside areas because we'd "upset the natural scenery".

I mean,I won't oppose anyone who would want to live on Mars in the far future just because the environment would change.

I dunno,I never jived with the perspective that humans are supposed to just not interact with foreign environments and keep them in some sort of glass case only out of some weird quasi religious deference to "Mother Nature".

Obviously,if we have the means,we should exercise extreme caution,but to flat out refuse to settle any planet other than this one seems silly in my opinion.

That would imply the rich have empathy

Well,I have a limited knowledge on the state of socialist organizations in America,so I'll leave that discussion to be had by the American commrades

Not American,so no,but I get your point

Honestly,I don't see what those organizations would do that would advance theory without direct action

Debates?Intra organization discussions?I mean,don't they do those already?

No,they do,but I'm in the same boat as you are and I disagree with the premise

I certainly sympathize with this way of viewing things,but it seems a bit undeveloped on account of you being so young

Still,maybe you're right and this way of viewing things will be more effective in the future,but even I,as a fellow young'un myself,I find it to be a erroneous way of viewing things

WHAT WAS SHALL BE WHAT SHALL BE WAS