I see this phenomenon quite a lot, even on HN. Supposing we find a planet that is conducive to life, how can we avoid exporting all of humanity's cultural and biological baggage to that new civilization? Aside from the exploitation and near-genocide that took place in the Western hemisphere, how is it really any different that the opening up of those continents, but with a bigger ocean between? I've seen other discussions try to route around this question by talking about Mars or some other hostile environment as perfect for the type of co-operative commune they imagine humanity could be, one where people must rely on each other or die. I don't see a qualitative difference between that environment and the deserts of the American West, where the climate was harsh and water scarce.
Those migrations didn't bring utopia, either to the participants or the rest of humanity.
I agree that utopian predictions have a long history of failure and should be taken with a Mars-sized grain of salt. However, I would argue that the difference is that there is not likely to be complex life on Mars or any other location in our solar system. This makes it quite a bit different from the North American example, in which immense suffering was inflicted upon the existing inhabitants of the region. If any planet or moon was found to contain life-forms capable of experiencing suffering, I and (hopefully) most people would be against human settlement there.
Comments
I see this phenomenon quite a lot, even on HN. Supposing we find a planet that is conducive to life, how can we avoid exporting all of humanity's cultural and biological baggage to that new civilization? Aside from the exploitation and near-genocide that took place in the Western hemisphere, how is it really any different that the opening up of those continents, but with a bigger ocean between? I've seen other discussions try to route around this question by talking about Mars or some other hostile environment as perfect for the type of co-operative commune they imagine humanity could be, one where people must rely on each other or die. I don't see a qualitative difference between that environment and the deserts of the American West, where the climate was harsh and water scarce.
Those migrations didn't bring utopia, either to the participants or the rest of humanity.
I agree that utopian predictions have a long history of failure and should be taken with a Mars-sized grain of salt. However, I would argue that the difference is that there is not likely to be complex life on Mars or any other location in our solar system. This makes it quite a bit different from the North American example, in which immense suffering was inflicted upon the existing inhabitants of the region. If any planet or moon was found to contain life-forms capable of experiencing suffering, I and (hopefully) most people would be against human settlement there.