Who has Better Instant Teraforming-Star Trek or Ar Tonelico?

[Vehrec]

Genesis Device vs Metafalica and Rebirthia Protocol. Genesis can be used on different scales, in small or large areas, so I included both of Ar Tonelico's instant terraforming effects. But obviously, we're talking about magical methods of teraforming here, aren't we? I mean, one of them can make a planet, and the others.

For those who don't know what the Rebirthia protocol involves, it fires a special shell from a kilometer high railgun into the planet's core to transplant in a Heart of Gaia-there's some mystical stuff about healing the world-soul and restoring it, and then the shell releases an escape pod containing the crew who supervised the process to ascend back to the surface. The upshot of this is that a planet that was formally more hellish than Venus becomes fertile and life-bearing within minutes. It had a toxic atmosphere that corroded human flesh and bone within seconds and magma seas, that's how bad it was.

So given the known effects and costs of the methods, which would you rather use? And which would be more likely to overwrite the other if you used them both at the same time.

[Ahriman238]

Genesis. Assuming it can be stabilized. Almost anything to do with Ar Tolenico is so weird, so dependent on effects that only exist in-universe (and not always there) that almost any means of creating the same effects would be better.

How on earth did you come up with this one?

[Vehrec]

I like Ar tonelico-and come on, how many instant terraforming effects are there in popular fiction? Or even unpopular fiction?

Stabilizing Genesis is the rub here-there's no proof it can be done without massive investment of smaller stations scattered across a planet like the one little garden inside that Asteroid. Whereas the Rebirthia Protocol is a known successful method.

[Enigma]

If perfected, Genesis would also make an excellent weapon. Why bother fighting a huge battle to conquer a planet when you can use the genesis device and wipe out your opponents and turn the planet into something you like.

Even as is, it could wipe out your opponents and then the planet goes bye bye.

[Batman]

Genesis has so many unknowns that it's almost impossible to tell. For all we know it would've worked like a charm if it had actually been used as intended as opposed to under circumstances it was never designed for. Conversely, the destructive effects seen may simply not happen if it is used on an already lifebearing planet. Given we know jack all about how the damn thing works it's entirely possible the Genesis effect simply fizzles if there's organic life already present. We know that organic life already being present is a problem and that's it, we have no clue why it's a problem.

[Keevan_Colton]

I'm pretty sure that it's actually stated by the creators of the device that it would wipe away life if used on an life bearing world and then replace it with the life created by the device. I've not got the film on hand here, but I think it's Kirk's son that actually says about this.

[Batman]

Now that you mention it I remember something along those lines too. Which of course raises the question of why there being life on Ceti Apha VI was such a big deal. If the Genesis matrix just flattens them anyway, who cares if a few insects or squirrels or whatever get overwritten in the process?
In the words of Dr Marcus the elder, 'There can't be so much as a microbe or the show's off', indicating that any presence of life somehow interferes with the Genesis process.

[The Cooler King]

Now that you mention it I remember something along those lines too. Which of course raises the question of why there being life on Ceti Apha VI was such a big deal. If the Genesis matrix just flattens them anyway, who cares if a few insects or squirrels or whatever get overwritten in the process?
In the words of Dr Marcus the elder, 'There can't be so much as a microbe or the show's off', indicating that any presence of life somehow interferes with the Genesis process.

I always interpreted Carol's statement as a moral objection, not a scientific one, but I admit that that may be a minority opinion.

[Vehrec]

Genesis might have needed an absolutely lifeless rock because they wanted a clean test-not for moral reasons. But to get a pure result from a sterile inorganic sample.

[Batman]

I could buy a moral objection if we were talking about an established ecosystem with flora and fauna that exists nowhere else in the galaxy ('You don't understand! This is the only planet that has the three-headed monkey and the purple tentacle! We'd be eradicating two sentient species!'). That's not what Dr Marcus says. Again, microbes and the show's off. Last I checked they still kill off germs in the TOS era (heck, they still do by TNG).
I also fail to see why a test on a sterile planet would have been all that important if the presence of life weren't a problem. If it works on planets with bits of life on it, that already allows them to terraform a fuckton of planets that are otherwise only marginally (if at all) habitable.
Plenty of time to worry about making Genesis work on completely lifeless planets later.