Ian Stoner has recently argued that we ought not to colonize Mars because (1) doing so would flout our pro tanto obligation not to violate the principle of scientific conservation, and (2) there is no countervailing considerations that render our violation of the principle permissible. While I remain agnostic on (1), my primary goal in this article is to challenge (2): there are countervailing considerations that render our violation of the principle permissible. As such, Stoner has failed to establish that we ought not to colonize Mars. I close with some thoughts on what it would take to show that we do have an obligation to colonize Mars and related issues concerning the relationship between the way we discount our preferences over time and projects with long time horizons, like space colonization.

中文翻译：

---

太空殖民与生存风险

伊恩·斯通纳 (Ian Stoner) 最近认为我们不应该在火星上殖民，因为 (1) 这样做会藐视我们的原唐托不违反科学守恒原则的义务，以及 (2) 不存在使我们违反该原则的反补贴考虑。虽然我对 (1) 仍然不可知，但我在本文中的主要目标是挑战 (2)：是使我们违反该原则的反补贴考虑是允许的。因此，斯通纳未能证明我们不应该殖民火星。最后，我对如何证明我们做有义务在火星上进行殖民，以及有关我们随时间推移对偏好进行折扣的方式与具有长期视野的项目（如太空殖民）之间的关系的相关问题。