Leaderboard

@beecee - I have never suggested life, intelligent or not, must be rare in the universe - we just don't know - but in fact I do think abiogenesis is likely to be common, and think that is an argument against seeding planets from afar. Sure, I think Mars offers nothing worth sending crewed missions for and that unrealistic hype about it deserves being called out. Looking for life is probably the best reason to want to explore Mars and the capability to do that comes from a grounded economy made up of grounded people who retain curiosity but aren't explorers or colonists or ever expect to live anywhere else, for whom Space is about national pride and infotainment, when they pay attention at all. Looking for evidence of life off Earth is best done with probes. Pretty much everything of value we do in space can be done without astronauts. "Space Faring Species"? Feel good hype imo, not supported by the reality. I really do think the Genesis Project is science fiction parading as science and the goal itself - spreading life beyond Earth - is not science. You can disagree with me. I sure disagree with you.

Just found this thread. Count me as a vote for probes. I lean toward KenF et al. idea that we should be humble learners, be open to other possibilities of abiogenesis and exotic ecologies, or... who knows... planets where exotic crystals spread and have slow piezoelectric thoughts. I find the seeding concept too embedded in a sort of corporate "branding" to trust. It is tainted with Terran biochauvinism.

Someone should start a thread to try and figure out what Dimreepr considers worth fighting for. Or even worth making an effort. ( certainly not lengthy responses on this forum 😄 )

So you are a pacifist ? (So is Putin.He believes in pacifying entire populations,including his own if necessary)

What's funny is, we think a war is worth fighting...

Amount to much what on which scale of values, according to whose metrics? Unless it was evolving under there, ready to emerge when the conditions become favourable - only, by then the surface is already covered by aggressive earth life. And, once more, with scientific detachment: Why? We can't learn anything because of the time-scale. We can't benefit because of the distance. We make an investment of resources.... for what return? If somebody say, just for fun, or to beat the Chinese to an achievement milestone, or to take a few $billion out of the military budget - okay, I can see that. Because we can, or because it's our destiny, or because Life is precious - those, to me, are invalid reasons.

Yes, the possibility that we bio-colonize a non-sterile world is the real ethical problem. And I don't think we are ready to try this experiment yet, not even on (in) the Moon... But after decades of honest and concentrated effort to find life at some world, I guess we should be able to take the reasonable risk. And it seems to me, if the alien life is so much different that we aren't even able to sense its existence after extended efforts, then I guess it is a good chance the clash between life will be delayed - we might have hundred more years between the two start to interfere. So not everything is lost in one single moment of the first colonization... It would be a major scandal, though. On the other hand, I don't feel any ethical problem with colonizing sterile worlds - I am surprised that other people in this thread expressed concerns even with that. And I am only considering colonization within solar system. Near-blind colonization of extra-solar places, that seems to be the focus of this thread, is not exciting to me and indeed might be pointless at this moment of our development. Hmm... can our chemolithoauthotrophs 'infest' Moon or Ceres - an exciting question. Even if they are too slow to show much result in my lifetime. Of course, finding native chemolithoautotrophs there would be even more exciting. Hmm... just thinking... if life ever existed on Mars, then it had to produce chemolithoautotrophs too.... and they must be still alive. For me it is difficult to find reasons not to be so.

Your reasoanble attitude is apppreciated. Seeding probable sterile worlds certainly is science, despite your misgivings. A shame you refelct so much arrogance in your comments agaisnt known professionals. Professor Gros is a reputable scientist and It's more then just Professor Gros. I suggest you read some of the links. Agreed.

OK. I think it's by no means easy to tell what would be a good decision from what would be a really botched operation coming from too bold a move. Suppose there are microorganisms in that planet that we don't know about. Suppose these microorganisms live 5 km underground --as some chemolithoautotrophs we've discovered only as of the 1980's--. Suppose the microorganisms aren't based on the same catalogue of aminoacids that we, and our intestinal bacteria, and our parasites, are. Suppose they don't --even remotely-- have the same sequences of DNA in charge of the most basic functions --cellular respiration, fermentation, production of nucleic acid and proofreading of replication and translation of nucleic acid sequences, to name just a few that we share with many of the most primitive organisms on Earth. Suppose now that setting loose "our" bacteria or archaea from our "Earthly lineage" has the unfortunate result that the planet becomes neither ripe for our guys, nor for theirs --not anymore for them anyway. And as a result, a perfectly viable planet for life --only not our own kind-- ends up being forcibly ruined for their home residents, while we have failed in our attempt to set a foothold. Wouldn't that be a tragedy? We just don't know. I don't know. I'm just trying to plant the seeds of --hopefully-- constructively reasonable doubt. The picture of people thinking you can tell a planet's life content just from orbiting around it, honestly, gives me the chills. Don't get me wrong. I don't have a strong opinion about this one way or the other. Maybe it's worth the risk. I just tend to distrust iniciatives in which I see too much enthusiasm, while little focus on unforseen possibilities.

Indeed, it's always been the same for me; if I'm in charge of a vehicle, I'm not allowed to hit anyone with it...