A reverse panspermia

[Peterkin]

27 minutes ago, Genady said:

don't know what makes you think that it needs to be as devastatingly expensive as you describe

I didn't describe 'devastating expense'. I mentioned depletion of earth resources to send hardware on 6000+ year journey, never to be heard from again.  The few billion $ is not my main question; I realize we squander far more on weapons of mass destruction. The LHC wasn't exactly a minor project, either, and not without associated non-monetary costs. I'm not mad keen on the idea of making and even bigger one,  but I understand why they want to.

They hope they'll learn something about how the universe works.

Exporting microbes is just blind, blundering interference with how the universe works.  

Quote

“We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life, and even the transfer of human life to other solar systems which can be transformed via microbial activity, thereby preparing these worlds to develop and sustain complex life,” Mautner explained to PhysOrg.com. “Securing that future for life can give our human existence a cosmic purpose.”

That's just another way to do "God's work", or to become gods. No god ever laid on me a "moral obligation" to meddle in the development of other planets, though I feel a certain responsibility to preserve life on this one. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Peterkin

[Danijel Gorupec]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How do you learn it? Even supposing such a hospitable planet is found, how many centuries would it take for the microbes to travel there, and how long before they report back?

My thinking was more down to solar system.

Possible targets don't have to be Earth-like. Perhaps:

- Mars sub-surface

- clouds on Venus

- oceans of Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus

I guess, a simplest type of experiment would be just seed those places with collection of unicellular organisms and observe how things will develop. (Imo, it would be harder than we think).

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Exporting microbes is just blind, blundering interference with how the universe works. 

WTF!!! We ourselves, may be a result of Panspermia...The many catastrophic explosions and such that have already occured on Earth, may also have flung life into space to one day seed another  planet/Moon. Why should we not export microbes etc to a known sterile planet/moon? We basically know how the universe works, we don't know why. Why do you see it as blind, blundering interference? Isn't much of science (to begin with) blind and blundering? 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's just another way to do "God's work", or to become gods. No god ever laid on me a "moral obligation" to meddle in the development of other planets, though I feel a certain responsibility to preserve life on this one. 

Preserving life on Earth is, certainly should be our number one priority...all species of life. Doing science, as per the OP question, is not meddling in the development of other planets, when that planet is known to be sterile. We are special in that we are intelligent advanced species, that are able to contemplate these things and successfully act on them also...nothing to do with any mythical god. Acting in accordance with what knowledge we have, and our capabilities is not being god like...it has nothing to do with the supernatural. Whether we apply that scientific knowledge for good or evil, is the important part. Seeding other sterile planets is not evil.  Our Earth is likewise special, in that it is the only rock we know of supporting life. In the greater scheme of things though, we, and Earth are only a tiny, tiny, insignificant part of our observable universe. 

Space and time evolved, Stars evolved, Planets evolved, Life evolved on at least one of those planets. Science enabled us to understand this. As irresponsible a species that some of us certainly can be, the application of science, can lift us above this irresponsiblity by continuing to do science. The LHC, the ISS, the HST, the new JWST, are there to not only do science, but to apply that knowledge to help with existing problems on Earth. eg: agriculture, meteorology etc, and to take us further afield, out into the universe, and give us further insight and knowledge to understand why it is what it is.  

Edited January 23, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why do you see it as blind, blundering interference?

Because you have no way of predicting the results. Shoot an arrow into the air, it comes to earth... if somebody's in the way - oh well, we didn't see them so that's okay.  

1 hour ago, beecee said:

..The many catastrophic explosions and such that have already occured on Earth, may also have flung life into space to one day seed another  planet/Moon

In that case, it doesn't require this "little project".

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Isn't much of science (to begin with) blind and blundering? 

I wish it were not so! We, and so many other species, have paid dearly for that blundering science.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

when that planet is known to be sterile

And how do we know that? And how do we know the transport missile will find the intended target, and not collide with a moonlet or an asteroid that had some entirely unique life-form until we killed them? 

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Acting in accordance with what knowledge we have, and our capabilities is not being god like.

Did you read the quote? The guy's giving humanity a purpose. 

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Seeding other sterile planets is not evil. 

Fine. I didn't say it was. I asked why.

 

2 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

My thinking was more down to solar system.

Possible targets don't have to be Earth-like. Perhaps:

- Mars sub-surface

- clouds on Venus

- oceans of Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus

I guess, a simplest type of experiment would be just seed those places with collection of unicellular organisms and observe how things will develop. (Imo, it would be harder than we think).

Yes, that would be more in the nature of an experiment,  rather than than mission. They could learn something from the moon, or Mars, or Titan (not Europa!), within a plausible time-frame. It doesn't have to be easy - I just wish it could be done without causing more damage to only the planet we know can still support life. 

[Genady]

After reading and thinking, I'm getting a "third" answer. It is not Yes or No regarding the OP question. My feeling rather is, Doesn't matter because humanity will not do it anyway.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Because you have no way of predicting the results. Shoot an arrow into the air, it comes to earth... if somebody's in the way - oh well, we didn't see them so that's okay.  

 Predicting the results? What are you anticipating?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

In that case, it doesn't require this "little project".

Science is an excersise in never ending progress. We are still testing GR.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I wish it were not so! We, and so many other species, have paid dearly for that blundering science.

Don't blame science and knowledge. Blame the choices some of us have made (as I have already inferred) in implementing that science.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

And how do we know that? And how do we know the transport missile will find the intended target, and not collide with a moonlet or an asteroid that had some entirely unique life-form until we killed them? . 

Yeah I've heard the same argument with octopuses becoming space faring entities...think possibilities against probabilities.

https://www.quora.com/Could-octopuses-theoretically-evolve-to-become-a-space-faring-civilization-If-yes-what-do-you-think-it-could-look-like..

"The problem with the “Is it possible?” class of questions is that our explorations of the world have taught us that it is unwise to put constraints on what is possible. It may be more useful to address the probability of this happening.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Not sure how familiar you are with the Manahtten project, but one of the fears raised before they started, was the "possibility" of igniting the atmosphere and destroying the planet.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Did you read the quote? The guy's giving humanity a purpose. 

So? What's that got to do with supposedly acting god like?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Fine. I didn't say it was. I asked why.

Sorry, all I've been reading is pessimistic driven attitudes with regards to fabricated reasons why we shouldn't do it. Why should we do it? If we can, to promote science to the best of our ability and possibly prepare another planet for life, and possibly human life. eg: should we terra form Mars? I don't see why not, if (1) we are capable, (2) Understand that it would only occur over very extended periods of time. 

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, that would be more in the nature of an experiment,  rather than than mission. They could learn something from the moon, or Mars, or Titan (not Europa!), within a plausible time-frame. It doesn't have to be easy - I just wish it could be done without causing more damage to only the planet we know can still support life. 

Why and how could it damage Earth? 

Experiment or mission, I fail to see any real concrete differences.

Why wouldn't we learn anything from Europa? From memory, a landing mission/experiment to Europa was being considered, but pidgeon holed in favour of the Pluto/Charon New Horizons mission/experiment. I was of the opinion at the time  that they chose poorly. But the New Horizons mission was exciting and gathered plenty of data.

Edited January 23, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Doesn't matter because humanity will not do it anyway.

Interesting. What led you to that conclusion?

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Interesting. What led you to that conclusion?

Investment with no return.

[Peterkin]

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Predicting the results? What are you anticipating?

I'm not. The problem is, you're not, either.

 

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Blame the choices some of us have made

I do. The same kind of people are still making them.

 

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

What's that got to do with supposedly acting god like?

A moral obligation to the continuity of life? It's either a mission or a half-assed atonement. Either way, it's religious fervour.

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why should we do it? If we can, to promote science to the best of our ability and possibly prepare another planet for life,

How does it promote science to send something that already exists to someplace that already exist in a vessel we already know how to make?

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't see why not

That's not a reason.

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why and how could it damage Earth? 

Extraction of metals, energy use and waste products of making and shipping the components. Fuel for propulsion. Blastoff. More space junk orbiting earth. Space exploration has not been a big % contributor to the mess we're in due to all our other innovations and conveniences, but the reserves are depleted with every single wasted rocket, missile and shuttle, and every aspect of the procedure kills native species. 

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why wouldn't we learn anything from Europa?

2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFXtJKaC3A

20 minutes ago, Genady said:

Investment with no return.

That's what I think.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not. The problem is, you're not, either.

Oh I am most certainly, just nothing too  soul destroying.

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I do. The same kind of people are still making them.

Yet we all still embrace science and the overwhelming good it does.

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

A moral obligation to the continuity of life? It's either a mission or a half-assed atonement. Either way, it's religious fervour.

No just human nature and need to want and need for adventure, competition,  to go further, explore more, achieve that which was once impossible etc etc etc. It's what makes us what we are.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

How does it promote science to send something that already exists to someplace that already exist in a vessel we already know how to make?

The same reasons we take flies, spiders, and all manner of experiments to the ISS...to observe, to collect data, to learn...the same reasons we search for extra solar planets, check their goldilock potentials, atmospheric contents, size, parent stars, etc etc.

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's not a reason.

There's a multitude of reasons why we all embrace science. Most of it is common sense.

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Extraction of metals, energy use and waste products of making and shipping the components. Fuel for propulsion. Blastoff. More space junk orbiting earth. 

And that will stop the extraction of metals and such from Earth? I don't think so. And of course we still have some way to go yet before we need to consider such Earth extractions, but by then we will be mining the Moon and asteroids comets etc.

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

. 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFXtJKaC3A

While the "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the follow up 2010, are among my top sci/fi movies of all time, I did think we were being serious. Any future mission/experiment to Europa, would entail all the protection necessary to probe its icy structure, which appears to be cracking and changing all the time. A shame though they have not as yet made the movie of the third installement, 2063.

 

[Ken Fabian]

On 1/23/2022 at 8:04 AM, Genady said:

This question appeared in another thread, but it was OT there, so I post it anew.

When we find a promising but sterile world, shouldn't we throw some archaea there with a purpose to spread life? After all, if / when we all go extinct here on Earth, then 4 billion years of evolution will go down the drain. This way we would be instrumental in saving the life. Nobody on Earth but us is capable of doing so.

Were this readily achievable, perhaps it would be something to consider in detail. As long as it isn't, I would say no. I wouldn't say yes even as a hypothetical because, hypothetically, there would be a lot of considerations, including that it closes off opportunities for life apart from Terrestrial. That might even include closing it off to other Panspermist inclined species or upsetting species that might object to Panspermia. I don't see it as anything like sailing ship era practices of leaving animals like goats in anticipation of later visits - it won't be about humans and preparing worlds for future visits or colonisation; it offers nothing that tangibly benefits those doing it.

If it primarily about introducing extremophile micro-organisms it won't save the great diversity of Earth life from extinction - and if people cared enough about that we'd be doing a lot more to preserve and protect them a lot nearer to home.

For all that it would seem to be noble and uplifting in ways people would support I suspect most people most of the time won't really care that much and I'm not sure those commenting here are going to be representative of attitudes at large. A sustained effort to convince people that it is worthwhile might be needed - and more likely aimed at evoking crude emotional responses (like with promoting colonisation of Mars) rather than based in deep reasoning.

I do wonder if there are likely to even be worlds capable of sustaining life that fail to develop it (as a possibly inevitable consequence of being capable of it plus billions of years of opportunities). Capable of sustaining life but not having any could be exceptional - but we don't know.

It would be a difficult process to determine if a world capable of supporting life is in fact lifeless - check every undersea vent and artesian resevoir? Sending automated probe/seeders with limited capabilities to assess - working on too simplistic assessment criteria, eg gross atmospheric indicators - seems unwise.

I suppose nations or coalitions might consider such things if they become capable of it and it is popular and widely supported. It isn't something normally within the duties of care or scope of governments as we have them.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Ken Fabian

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Yet we all still embrace science and the overwhelming good it does.

Obviously, you do. Uncritically. Sure, why not?

2 hours ago, beecee said:

There's a multitude of reasons why we all embrace science.

Yes. Only, that wasn't the question. What I asked was: Why send germs into outer space, if you can never know what they might become?

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Obviously, you do. Uncritically. Sure, why not?

Try again. If I did it uncritically, it would be religion or ID.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. Only, that wasn't the question. What I asked was: Why send germs into outer space, if you can never know what they might become?

I know what the question was...Since you chose to be obtuse, because we can, and because it is science. You need to critically examine what I linked for you before...regarding possibilities and probabilities.

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

If I did it uncritically, it would be religion

Yes, it might well be interpreted that way.

ID is not the same thing as religion; it's just one recent product of religious PR.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

because we can, and because it is science

Yeah. That always works out for the best. After all, the atmosphere didn't burn off - that time.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, it might well be interpreted that way.

And you would be wrong. Science and the scientific method simply put, makes one assumption, based on observational evidence....that the universe, obeys known rules. And vice versa...That's it, pure and simple. To say one must take science on faith, is gross ignorance and dishonesty.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

ID is not the same thing as religion; it's just one recent product of religious PR.

Religion is based on myth, so to is ID. They both assume some magical spaghetti monster.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yeah. That always works out for the best. After all, the atmosphere didn't burn off - that time.

Nor the countless number of times since. Like I said, think probability instead of possibility...should be easy for a philosopher! 🤭

Edited January 24, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

I know what the question was...Since you chose to be obtuse, because we can, and because it is science.

Because we can is why we climb a mountain, because it's science is why we expect an answer... 😉

6 hours ago, beecee said:

You need to critically examine what I linked for you before...regarding possibilities and probabilities.

Ok, I'll be critcal; if it's possible, then given enough time, it'll probably happen.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because we can is why we climb a mountain, because it's science is why we expect an answer... 😉

You've got your answer....because it's science. And obviously because we can. You probably fail to understand that science is a discipline in eternal progress.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Ok, I'll be critcal; if it's possible, then given enough time, it'll probably happen.

And the universe does have a "use by date" particularly when we talk about probability of nonsensical claims like space faring octopuses. 😉 Is that what's troubling you?

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

You've got your answer....because it's science. And obviously because we can. You probably fail to understand that science is a discipline in eternal progress.

What's the point of an experiment that will never yield results?

That's not science, that's pissing in the wind, because you can.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

And the universe does have a "use by date" particularly when we talk about probability of nonsensical claims like space faring octopuses. 😉 Is that what's troubling you?

 

17 hours ago, beecee said:

You probably fail to understand that science is a discipline in eternal progress.

😇

[mistermack]

Luckily, we do what we do, in spite of all of it being pointless. You can find short term reasons to do things, that are pointless in the long-term wider picture. If people like the idea, than that is the point. Even if they are wrong. 

What's the point of looking at images of the universe just after the big bang? It doesn't get you any tangible reward. Even though it's academic, we would still like to KNOW. 

It might be pointless to seed another planet, it will never benefit us, but people would just like to know that life has a second chance. It's pointless in absolute terms, but it's nowhere near as pointless as other stuff we spend money on. In some cases, the silly amounts of money spent IS the point. Very few people would give the Mona Lisa a second look, if it wasn't for the fact that it's probably worth a billion in today's money. 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What's the point of an experiment that will never yield results?

Don't be silly, who said it would never yield results?

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's not science, that's pissing in the wind, because you can.

 

Actually, its your 'life philosophy" that's pissing into the wind. I prefer science. 😉

[Ken Fabian]

I think the question probably belongs in Psychology or perhaps Religion - Panspermia as a matter of naturalistic rather than strictly religious belief in human destiny to spread themselves and terrestrial life into space or something. Why we might support it is only tangentially about expanding knowledge. I don't think entertaining such ideas is really about doing science.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Don't be silly, who said it would never yield results?

If you'll never see the results, then it'll never yield results; you'll never know if the experiment worked or not science.

Insisting anything based on assuming it'll work is nothing more than faith.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Actually, its your 'life philosophy" that's pissing into the wind. I prefer science. 😉

😇

[John Cuthber]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you'll never see the results, then it'll never yield results;

Maybe; maybe not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you'll never see the results, then it'll never yield results; you'll never know if the experiment worked or not science.

Who said you would never see the results? And who said it wasn't science? You understand that science is also about experimentation, as well as observation? Ever heard of the "Genesis Project"? Do you know we have discovered more then 5000 extra solar planets?  https://www.universetoday.com/137981/genesis-project-using-robotic-gene-factories-seed-galaxy-life/

Hope that helps.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Insisting anything based on assuming it'll work is nothing more than faith.

😇

You appear rather confused. We do experiments because we need to gain knowledge on the workings of a particular area of science. A scientific experiment is designed to test an hypothesis. In essence, a scientific experiment involves  a  series of steps to either validate or reject an hypothesis. They are done everyday. That is what science is all about.  Faith (as per religious faith) in reality (as you have shown) rejects scientific evidence and facts.

I hope that also helps.

 

 

On 1/26/2022 at 3:24 AM, mistermack said:

Luckily, we do what we do, in spite of all of it being pointless. You can find short term reasons to do things, that are pointless in the long-term wider picture. If people like the idea, than that is the point. Even if they are wrong. 

What's the point of looking at images of the universe just after the big bang? It doesn't get you any tangible reward. Even though it's academic, we would still like to KNOW. 

It might be pointless to seed another planet, it will never benefit us, but people would just like to know that life has a second chance. It's pointless in absolute terms, but it's nowhere near as pointless as other stuff we spend money on. In some cases, the silly amounts of money spent IS the point. Very few people would give the Mona Lisa a second look, if it wasn't for the fact that it's probably worth a billion in today's money. 

Well said.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10509-016-2911-0.pdf

Developing ecospheres on transiently habitable planets: the genesis project:

Abstract:

It is often presumed, that life evolves relatively fast on planets with clement conditions, at least in its basic forms, and that extended periods of habitability are subsequently needed for the evolution of higher life forms. Many planets are however expected to be only transiently habitable. On a large set of otherwise suitable planets life will therefore just not have the time to develop on its own to a complexity level as it did arise on earth with the cambrian explosion. The equivalent of a cambrian explosion may however have the chance to unfold on transiently habitable planets if it would be possible to fast forward evolution by 3–4 billion years (with respect to terrestrial timescales). We argue here, that this is indeed possible when seeding the candidate planet with the microbial lifeforms, bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes alike, characterizing earth before the cambrian explosion. An interstellar mission of this kind, denoted the ‘Genesis project’, could be carried out by a relatively low-cost robotic microcraft equipped with a on-board gene laboratory for the in situ synthesis of the microbes. We review here our current understanding of the processes determining the timescales shaping the geo-evolution of an earth-like planet, the prospect of finding Genesis candidate planets and selected issues regarding the mission layout. Discussing the ethical aspects connected with a Genesis mission, which would be expressively not for human benefit, we will also touch the risk that a biosphere incompatibility may arise in the wake of an eventual manned exploration of a second earth.

 Conclusions:

Today’s scientific environment is made up by a diverse mix of emerging and mature fields, characterized respectively by swift and lackluster rates of progress (Gros 2012). The sluggish progress of traditional space launching technologies (Ragab et al. 2015) contrast here, e.g., with the rapid advances in synthetic biology (Stano and Luisi 2013; Caspi and Dekker 2014). Transformative concepts are hence critical for reigniting innovation in science and technology time and again. It has been proposed in this context(Benford 2013), that robotic interstellar missions of low-weight crafts accelerated by beams of directed energy will become realizable, both on technical grounds and financially, in the near future (Gilster 2015; Worden et al. 2016). At the same time we are discovering that planetary habitability isn’t an all-or-nothing feature characterizing exoplanets (Güdel et al. 2014). Our galaxy is expected in particular to teem with planets which are in part habitable, but for which the clement conditions do not last long enough for higher life forms to evolve on their own. Reversing the argument we have pointed out in this study that complex life may emerge also on transiently habitable exoplanets whenever the extraordinary long time it took earth to develop eukaryotic cells could be leapfrogged. We have argued furthermore that this endeavor could be achieved by a light-weight interstellar craft using a robotic gene laboratory for the seeding the target exoplanet with a brew of in situ synthesized microbes. By the end of the mission, which we call the Genesis project, a precambrian and hopefully thriving biosphere of unicellular organisms would flourish on the candidate planet. Complex life in the form of multicellular animals and plants will evolve autonomously at a later state once the photosynthetically produced oxygen has had the time to accumulate in the atmosphere. One of the key issues remaining to be settled at this stage regards the selection procedure for target planets. Remote sensing of exo-planetary biosignatures from earth is possible (Des Marais et al. 2002), albeit only to a certain degree. An even more daring task would be to actually prove that a world is uninhabited (Persson 2014). It is hence clear that the final decision to go ahead must be taken autonomously by the on-board artificial intelligence. This may seem an imprudent strategy nowadays, but possibly not so in a few decades. The Genesis mission is furthermore unique in the sense that the actual cruising velocity is of minor importance. It could be launched with the help of suitable beams of directed energy and decelerated at arrival by time consuming passive means like magnetic sails. We hence believe that the Genesis project opens a new venue for interstellar missions and for the unfolding of life in our galactic surroundings.

Edited January 26, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Who said you would never see the results?

Anyone who understands the distances,time periods and variables involved.Even if you artificially speed up the process, by the time ET phones home, there will be nobody here to answer.   

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

which would be expressively not for human benefit,

is absolutely correct.