Well, as a principle, anybody may try to claim rights/ownership over anything. The question that follows is how could that (no mater how far-fetched) given claim be further supported. Also, one way of securing good relations with others is to just recognize their claims.
Probably not, especially suitably advanced life, but we don't know. Our world is still very narrow. It's an ethical question that should be discussed before we destroy stuff. If the consensus was to go ahead anyway, that's fine too.
What about native Europeans, I mean the Neanderthals? They were the OG's before homo sapiens wiped them out...
It bothers me why we didn't just sit down on the edge of the world, as it is the Neanderthals, by the virtue of being there first (we call dibs!) who must have had planetary ownership rights to Earth. Not our usurping "natives".
You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag...
You can probably use half the arguments for vegetarianism here [1], and a lot more if there is sufficiently intelligent life (probably not on Venus; the argument is the same for other planets). Of course, not everyone agrees to those. Other extendable arguments include those for the preservation of species on Earth [2].
Your last sentence refers to the anti-copying campaigns, right? Since their analogy is so flawed, I don't see what you mean by that.. (Most people wouldn't steal a car, but they would totally copy one (as soon as they can).) If we could copy planets without disturbing orbit mechanics, there wouldn't be a problem?
[1] I'm talking about the ethics of using another species for one's own gain without dire need.
[2] For it's own beauty, but more importantly as a collection of ideas and examples for what is possible, as an information ressource, so to say. Since our state of knowledge is low, we cannot collect all the information without preserving the found state. Of course [1] also applies.
What ticked me off was this pretentious pseudolegal neologism of "planetary ownership rights". (No offence)
I would agree that humans should think twice - and some more - before damaging or contaminating an alien ecosystem, but that's even if it was only bacterial. Speaking about "ownership rights" in case of bacteria would be downright ridiculous.
Putting the entire moral problem under the category of "ownership" feels imposed to me. Not unlike the narration behind "copyrights" - and that's the association I hinted at. Not the idea of copying planets, although I can think of reasons why that would be your first guess.
If you put it like that, it does sound pretentious, haha.
I see why you might think it feels imposed. At this point it's probably more a problem of (loaded) word choice than ideas behind it. Thanks for clarifying.
Adding your point of view to mine, and taking into account the memes concerning planetary settlements I've aquired, ownership might be a bad word choice indeed.
