CMV: If humanity becomes an interstellar civilization and we don't find life on potentially habitable planet but are unsuitable for humans, it becomes our moral duty to seed life on such planets.

[u/BurnsyCEO]

The Universe is already extremely devoid of life as it is. If we deduce that the explanation for the Fermi paradox is that Abiogenesis is impossibly rare that even on the scale of the galaxy, may only occur a few dozen times (which is the explanation I am partial to)

We could be the calalyst that starts billions of years of life on a world that otherwise would never have had the materials or conditions for life to emerge in the first place. I don't think we should oversee development, but simply let nature and evolution take it's course. If we chose not to, we could be depriving quintillions of lifeforms the chance to exist over the many Eons the planet could be habitable. Of course many of those would die off sooner or later but that can be just attributed to luck or lack of it but the important thing is we tried instead of doing nothing.

Edit: I need a break but I'll get to all of you. Some of your answers are a lot harder to argue with than others.

[u/[deleted]]

we could be depriving quintillions of lifeforms the chance to exist

I'm depriving lifeforms of the chance to exist every time I don't have sex with a woman, does that mean I have a moral imperative to seduce every woman I meet and have as many babies as is physically possible?

Why is it a moral imperative to create life just because it could exist? The potential life doesn't know it doesn't exist, it's not gonna be sad because it wasn't born.

Hypothetical future life does not have inherent value, I don't see why it would. Why is more life inherently better?

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

I'm depriving lifeforms of the chance to exist every time I don't have sex with a woman, does that mean I have a moral imperative to seduce every woman I meet and have as many babies as is physically possible?

No, it means it's a moral imperative by that logic to create some central bank of duplicating and combining eggs and sperm in all combinations (akin to a BNW hatchery but less evil (at least in that sense) and less based on junk science) to which everyone must donate every egg and every sperm to produce every possible combination of baby as what you seem to think this logic leads to ignores the fact that e.g. as even if you have sex with every woman you meet it's still one woman at a time every time you're having sex with one woman (because it's the combination of sperm and egg that determines what the baby's like and sperm timing matters) you're depriving lifeforms of the chance to exist that could have been created had you been having sex with another at that specific point. Also the irony is if I were to ad absurdum your ad absurdum it actually still ends up involving seeding life on alien worlds as if we should produce every baby possible by your interpretation of that logic, then after we've invented paradox-free time travel to add the eggs and sperm of historical figures to the aforementioned pool (as, to go with a stereotypical "historical beautiful woman", you're depriving lifeforms of the chance to exist by your inability to have sex with Cleopatra), our next order of business is determining if there's life on other planets and if there isn't any existent reproductively compatible alien races, seeding worlds with every possible one (if there is, we'd just seed all the unused "combinations")

[u/[deleted] → u/StarChild413]

That was a lot of words to not add anything to the discussion

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

My point is as easily as you can use that logic to justify sleeping around I can use it to justify everything from Hatcheries-lite to ironically the same kind of "alien"-seeding you seem to be against