Advertisement

The Aesthetic Objection to Terraforming Mars

  • Sean McMahonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Space and Society book series (SPSO)

Abstract

An obligation to preserve the beauty of Martian landscapes is often cited in opposition to terraforming Mars. Nevertheless, many popular images of these landscapes are artificially embellished with features of Earth’s natural beauty that cannot presently be found on Mars. The popularity of these “terraformed images” suggests that the scenic beauty of Mars is commonly—if not consciously—valued more highly in proportion to its resemblance to the more familiar beauty of Earth. On balance, do aesthetic considerations therefore support terraforming Mars, making it more Earth-like? One argument to the contrary is that Mars may offer distinctively Martian forms of beauty arising from atmospheric and geological (and perhaps biological) patterns and processes unparalleled on Earth. Such unearthly aesthetic qualities may be underappreciated and under-represented in popular imagery at present, but will be brought more fully into public consciousness by the future exploration of Mars. In this chapter, I argue that recognition of this beauty would provide at least a defeasible reason for caution about terraforming.

Keywords

Mars Terraforming Aesthetics Beauty Recognition Obligation 

References

  1. Cockell, C. S., & Horneck, G. (2004). A planetary park system for Mars. Space Policy, 20, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hepburn, R. W. (1966). Contemporary aesthetics and the neglect of natural beauty. In B. Williams & A. Montefiore (Eds.), British analytical philosophy (pp. 285–310). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. Herschel, W. (1784). On the remarkable appearances at the polar regions on the planet Mars, the inclination of its axis, the position of its poles, and its spheroidal figure; with a few hints relating to its real diameter and atmosphere. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 74, 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McKay, C. (1990). Does Mars have rights? An approach to the environmental ethics of planetary engineering. In D. MacNiven (Ed.), Moral expertise: Studies in practical and professional ethics (pp. 184–197). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. (1991). October 4, 1991. 30 ILM 1461.Google Scholar
  6. Robinson, K. S. (2001). Red Mars. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  7. Rolston, H, I. I. I. (1986). The preservation of natural value in the solar system. In E. C. Hargrove (Ed.), Beyond spaceship earth: Environmental ethics and the solar system (pp. 140–182). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  8. Schiaparelli, G. (1888). Ueber die beobachteten Erscheinungen auf der Oberfläche des Planeten Mars. In M. W. Meyer (Ed.), Himmel und Erde, 1 Jahrgang (pp. 1–17). Berlin: Hermann Paetel.Google Scholar
  9. Schwartz, J. S. J. (2013). On the moral permissibility of terraforming. Ethics and the Environment, 18, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sparrow, R. (1999). The ethics of terraforming. Environmental Ethics, 21, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sparrow, R. (2015). Terraforming, vandalism and virtue ethics. In J. Galliott (Ed.), Commerical space exploration (pp. 161–180). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Viking Lander Imaging Team. (1978). The Martian landscape. Publication SP-425. Washington, D.C.: NASA History Office. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-425/cover.htm
  13. Wells, H. G. (1898). The War of the Worlds. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeophysicsYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations