Sure! Let's destroy another planet with our insatiable resource seeking. Anyone know of any sci-fi tomes where humans play the role of an unstoppable galactic virus? If so, whoever/whomever wrote it may be onto something :(
The "destruction of mars" for the purposes of resource exploitation is a major theme in KSR Mars books[0]. Although the actual evil of resource exploitation and terraforming on Mars is highly debated in the books, with many perspectives represented.
Mars does not have a bountiful ecosysem. I would like to establish whether life has ever taken hold there for obvious reasons, but there are other candidates that are equally if not more interesting, such as Europa and Enceladus. Unless we find compelling evidence of life on Mars within the next decade or make breakthroughs in the fields of propulsion and habitation, then I'm all for nudging a few comets/asteroids into it and getting on with terraforming already. I'm not ashamed of our exploratory instincts.
This is not something to answer snappily. It's a question that can stand up to some serious scrutiny. We are used to a default "leave it alone" argument because everywhere we can currently get to is a rich, diverse, vibrant ecosystem, or within easy reach of one. Does our default "be careful" attitude apply where that is not true?
(And don't just dodge out with "Well, what if there's life on Mars?" Best evidence right now is still "no". Let's stick to best evidence for the moment. Failing that, there's certainly other places where there is no life, like the Moon. Who cares what we do to the Moon?)
If the Grand Canyon contained no life, would it be ethical to strip mine it? Should we preserve the Mars for future generations (in terms of science, natural beauty, ethics or economics/resources)? In doing that are we harming people that could be helped today by those resources?
If you find a beautiful rock in the woods is it wrong/amoral to smash it? What about fossils? Is it ethical to burn art for heat?
These are important questions to ask and the answers are non-trivial.
"If the Grand Canyon contained no life, would it be ethical to strip mine it?"
You are implicitly invoking emotional reactions. Make them explicit. Spell them out.
You might find they can't survive such a process. This is a sign.
"Should we preserve the Mars for future generations (in terms of science, natural beauty, ethics or economics/resources)?"
If we are unwilling to land on it and exploit its resources sufficiently to live on it, what future generations? Nobody's there now!
Besides, unless you're living in the Olduvai Gorge right now, congratulations, you live in a place that has been "ruined" for future generations. How do you feel about that? If the answer is anything other than grateful, you need to carefully consider how your own (implicit) answers apply to your own world in the past. Future generations must exist before they can feel anything.
This is just emotion dressed up in spiritualistic trappings, not an argument.
We (not being snarky here) have a very narrow definition of "life" and what is and isn't "alive". Imagine our solar system as an ecosystem as you mentioned. If this is the case, what is done to one will effect all (and in ways we may not yet understand). Oh and the Moon has great effect on our planet and our bodies -we should definitely care about what happens to it.
Wow... I asked you not to dodge out by imagining that Mars could conceivably maybe have life, and you went for near-pantheism. I'm impressed. Not in a good way, mind you, but impressed.
Is it really so hard to imagine that maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with using every resource we can find on Mars or the Moon? Is "NO!!!!" really so deeply ingrained that you are simply incapable of dealing with it on any rational level whatsoever? That's... sad.
Also, "WE DON'T UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT BE DOING" is just another sophomoric ("that which seems wise to a second-year college student but is actually just cleverly-masked foolishness", since few people seem to understand this sense of the word) way of dodging out of an ethics discussion. We never understand "everything" about what we may be doing, but, alas, you must act, even if that act is to not act. Since it applies equally to all positions and all possible actions, it is a null argument.
Your argument could be made about doing anything. "You don't know what could go wrong!" is true about everything, and is therefore a worthless observation.
