Aliens and FBI

[Markus Hanke]

14 hours ago, DanMP said:

As we evolved we became less prone to mass murder

When I look at the history of even just the 20th century, I cannot help but disagree. But that’s really not the point of this thread.

15 hours ago, DanMP said:

Real-life standard is not only about technology, but also about ethics, morals

That’s true, but unfortunately we cannot speculate on what kind of ethical standards - if any - an alien civilisation may adhere to. It’s easier to speculate about technology.

14 hours ago, DanMP said:

Please don't discuss such things in a science forum, unless you mention it in order for us to be prepared for such an attack.

I mentioned it as one of the many possible solutions to the Fermi paradox, so I think Dark Forest is perfectly entitled to appear on a science forum, especially since it is a direct consequence of game theory. The original impetus for this was the idea that an alien species being advanced and civilised must necessarily imply them being benevolent and moral - while I very much hope for this to be so, there is really no evidence that such an implication necessarily holds true.

Please remember that Dark Forest is not my idea - it’s the mathematical result of some basic assumptions, plus game theory. We can’t just dismiss this only because we don’t like it on moral grounds.

14 hours ago, DanMP said:

Aliens are not an immediate danger.

You cannot know this.

14 hours ago, DanMP said:

You didn't mention anything about how we can defend us. You only mentioned radio silence (but didn't elaborate). Instead you insisted on how to attack ...

This discussion wasn’t about us and our survival specifically; it was sparked by the Fermi paradox, and the question as to the probability of us being visited by alien spacecraft (UFOs and all that). I never suggested that we should attack anyone - the question as to what should be done if we ever did detect an alien civilisation is a different conversation. I simply suggest that it might be unwise to advertise our presence and location too loudly, until we have a better idea what the consequences of such an act might be. I do not think that is unreasonable or paranoid.

[swansont]

19 hours ago, DanMP said:

How can you possible think that a civilized society would allow (and finance ...) mass murder in such a huge scale (planets, with all live on them; and even solar systems, by damaging the stars). This is insane.

Allegedly civilized human societies engage in genocide. It is insane, but we have empirical evidence that it happens.

 

[DanMP]

On 12/17/2022 at 8:54 AM, Markus Hanke said:

I never suggested that we should attack anyone - the question as to what should be done if we ever did detect an alien civilisation is a different conversation. I simply suggest that it might be unwise to advertise our presence and location too loudly, until we have a better idea what the consequences of such an act might be. I do not think that is unreasonable or paranoid.

Really? From this:

On 12/14/2022 at 8:21 AM, Markus Hanke said:

On 12/13/2022 at 9:42 PM, mistermack said:

On the subject of pre-emptive strikes against hopefully all the aliens, the problem of multiple targets might be bigger than we can imagine.

Just aim at the central star then, instead of the individual targets. It will take a larger mass and higher speeds, but it’s still doable.

I understood that you "simply" elaborated on how to actually and effectively strike/kill "hopefully all the aliens".

You never elaborated on how to defend from such a strike. Maybe a space "Patriot" missile system, or some kind of super powerful laser, or particle beam + a large array of detectors?

You also could but didn't elaborate about how to keep radio silence and, closer to the topic, how aliens did it, if they exist close enough to be otherwise detected.

You, and others, didn't elaborate about the possibility that alien civilizations may be much more improbable/scarce that we thought. As far as I know we don't completely understand our brain, and its evolution, so maybe inteligent beings are less probable that we thought.

Also, due to evolution, all the species are more of less prone to fight (for food, for survival, to mate), and this may lead to annihilation, when the technology is powerful enough (like our MAD).

Also, the huge distances are also important, because it would take many lifetimes between departing the home planet and arriving at an uncertain destination. How many would risk such a trip?

And last, but not least important, we humans, as we got more civilized, we reduced the number of off-springs, so it is possible to observe rather a decrease of population, not an urge to fill with humans all the available space in galaxy, as the game theory suggested (otherwise why anyone would eliminate all the aliens?).

[Markus Hanke]

21 hours ago, DanMP said:

I understood that you "simply" elaborated on how to actually and effectively strike/kill "hopefully all the aliens".

Then you either misunderstood me, or perhaps it is my own fault and I gave off the wrong vibes here.

This thread started off on the topic of UAPs, and how these may or may not be of extraterrestrial origin. We then spoke about how probable and improbable it is that such civilisations exists, followed by some general comments on their possible motivations for coming here to visit us (or not). I then stated that I am personally partial towards the Dark Forest scenario, and this was meant as a possible solution to the Fermi paradox, since, in the absence of further data, it is one of the few conjectures that has at least some scientific grounding (ref game theory). Several aspects of DF were then discussed in more detail, including how pre-emptive strikes across interstellar distances could be practically implemented - my aim here was simply to show that this cannot be ruled out on technological grounds.

Please take careful note of the highlighted bit above. The entire discussion was about DF as a solution to the Fermi paradox, which, in my opinion, is a valid discussion topic on a science forum. I also stated that I am partial to this particular solution, and I meant this in the context of this solution as opposed to other possible solutions of the paradox. I did not imply that, on a personal level, I somehow advocate violence, mass destruction or genocide. Under no circumstances have I ever personally condoned, nor will I ever condone, any such acts - and quite frankly, I am astonished that someone would have understood my posts here as being indicative of my advocating genocide. So, just to make this perfectly clear: on an ethical and personal level, I find the DF scenario to be abhorrent and frightening, and would gladly rule it out as a possibility if I could; this, however, is not a valid argument against this scenario, since a) we can’t know what kind of - if any - ethical systems alien civilisations would abide by, and b) in a scenario such as DF, acting ethically might seriously compromise your prospects of survival, so even a moral civilisation may still choose to prioritise survival over all other considerations. In such contexts we need to be able to have difficult conversations at times, even if they go against our sensitivities; and more importantly, we need to resist our natural tendency to assume that alien species must necessarily be subject to similar psycho-ethical motivators as ourselves.

What I advocate in our present state of ignorance is caution, since we have no way of knowing who or what is out there, and how they might relate to us; hence I find it unwise to loudly proclaim our presence and location through sheer carelessness, which is unfortunately what we are doing right now (and I don’t just mean radio silence, which is only a small part of this). If a direct encounter of some kind does happen (inadvertently or otherwise), then I would advocate every possible effort at peaceful communication - but this may prove extremely difficult, due to the constraints placed upon us by the laws of physics, and also the compatibility problem.

Note again that all of this is purely conjecture.

22 hours ago, DanMP said:

You, and others, didn't elaborate about the possibility that alien civilizations may be much more improbable/scarce that we thought.

We’ve talked about this earlier on this thread.

22 hours ago, DanMP said:

You never elaborated on how to defend from such a strike.

By not advertising your presence, or at least not your exact location. There really isn’t any other effective defence, since you can’t know what precise form such an attack would take. This has already been discussed earlier.

22 hours ago, DanMP said:

Also, the huge distances are also important, because it would take many lifetimes between departing the home planet and arriving at an uncertain destination. How many would risk such a trip?

This has also been discussed already.

22 hours ago, DanMP said:

And last, but not least important, we humans, as we got more civilized, we reduced the number of off-springs, so it is possible to observe rather a decrease of population, not an urge to fill with humans all the available space in galaxy, as the game theory suggested (otherwise why anyone would eliminate all the aliens?).

Population growth is not one of the three basic assumptions in DF. 

22 hours ago, DanMP said:

You also could but didn't elaborate about how to keep radio silence

It’s too late for this, since we’ve been leaking EM signals for the past century or so. On the other hand, as someone has pointed out quite rightly, it would take some extraordinarily sensitive equipment to detect these at distances larger than a few LY.

22 hours ago, DanMP said:

how aliens did it, if they exist close enough to be otherwise detected.

Well, I would think that they are either too far away, that they don’t use electromagnetism as the basis for their technology, or that they are just far enough away so that their signals are already here, but they are too faint to be distinguishable from the radio background.

Or, perhaps, there just simply isn’t anyone out there who’s on par with or ahead of us. It is at least conceivable that we could, in fact, be the most technologically advanced civilisation in this galaxy - which is another possible solution to the Fermi paradox.

[DanMP]

On 12/19/2022 at 4:21 PM, DanMP said:

Also, the huge distances are also important, because it would take many lifetimes between departing the home planet and arriving at an uncertain destination.

Regarding this, I want to add something important and related to the original topic:

In my opinion, the most probable and viable choice for an advanced civilization is to send inteligent robots in all directions, aiming all the habitable planets. The robots should be able to repair and duplicate themselves and their ship, in order to resist the whole trip and to diverge to multiple "targets" that should appear in their way.

Once arrived at a habitable planet they may "seed" it with DNA from the original planet, in order to make it habitable for the people who sent them, or, if there is already life on the planet, to monitor it, for scientific, defensive and entertainment purposes (data feeds sent home).

Such robots may be sent billion years ago and we may have several observers/"creators"(?) here ...

If the original planet become overpopulated or in some kind of danger, the people may be transported to the "seeded" planets, possibly using hibernation.

 

 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

We’ve talked about this earlier on this thread.

Sorry. I read it (page 4) after I posted my message.

 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Under no circumstances have I ever personally condoned, nor will I ever condone, any such acts - and quite frankly, I am astonished that someone would have understood my posts here as being indicative of my advocating genocide.

Ok, I believe you 😃  but you elaborated too much on the offensive point of view and never mentioned how we could defend from the specific strikes you envisioned. It sounded much of an offensive thinking than defensive. I never expected something like that from you, or from any human involved in science, because when you understand how we get here (theory of evolution + all Earth history), it's hard to even think, not to mention discuss with such ease, about wiping out the whole life, including intelligent, from a planet.

Edited December 20, 2022 by DanMP

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Ok, I believe you 😃  but you elaborated too much on the offensive point of view and never mentioned how we could defend from the specific strikes you envisioned. It sounded much of an offensive thinking than defensive. I never expected something like that from you, or from any human involved in science, because when you understand how we get here (theory of evolution + all Earth history), it's hard to even think, not to mention discuss with such ease, about wiping out the whole life, including intelligent, from a planet.

It is hard to do science, or even function day to day, if you let your emotions interfere with your thought process to such an extent that it makes it hard to think.

[Moontanman]

The idea that planets are important to interstellar colonization is rather weak, IMHO, due to trace elements, existing life forms, allergic reactions to weird proteins, and the gravity well that is part of any planet massive enough to have life. Space habitats would be a far better way to colonize space, a completely controlled environment is just one reason. Here in our own solar system space habitats would be able to support trillions of humans even if we didn't cannibalize the Earth.    

Edited December 20, 2022 by Moontanman

[swansont]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

Once arrived at a habitable planet they may "seed" it with DNA from the original planet, in order to make it habitable for the people who sent them,

How does the DNA make a planet habitable? 

[joigus]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

Once arrived at a habitable planet they may "seed" it with DNA from the original planet, in order to make it habitable for the people who sent them, or, if there is already life on the planet, to monitor it, for scientific, defensive and entertainment purposes (data feeds sent home).

As Swansont points out...

DNA by itself is useless. You need a suite of proteins to read regulatory sequences, beside the protein-coding sequences. Don't forget the former constitute up to 95% of its length or thereabouts. You need proteins to tell DNA when to shut up, and when to start "talking." Otherwise, it's like sending a book to Mars, where there are no potential readers, and with the book saying both "do this" and "don't do this" to those non-existent readers.

When to do this or that is key to DNA's function. The "readers" are proteins and RNA.

Sending organisms --with their ribosomes and proteins-- is more like it.

First I would choose a planet with magnetosphere. Then I would send archaea/bacteria that produce the desired metabolic waste --hello, oxygen. Easier said than done though.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

As Swansont points out...

DNA by itself is useless. You need a suite of proteins to read regulatory sequences, beside the protein-coding sequences. Don't forget the former constitute up to 95% of its length or thereabouts. You need proteins to tell DNA when to shut up, and when to start "talking." Otherwise, it's like sending a book to Mars, where there are no potential readers, and with the book saying both "do this" and "don't do this" to those non-existent readers.

When to do this or that is key to DNA's function. The "readers" are proteins and RNA.

Sending organisms --with their ribosomes and proteins-- is more like it.

First I would choose a planet with magnetosphere. Then I would send archaea/bacteria that produce the desired metabolic waste --hello, oxygen. Easier said than done though.

Maybe this very simple computer example will make clear how useless is DNA by itself.

Let's take this "DNA" code:

60 00 00 80 A4 00 00 00 60 01 00 84 A4 01 01 00 60 02 00 00 60 03 00 04 60 04 00 00 60 05 00 01 08 00 00 02 20 00 00 03 20 04 04 05 11 20 04 01

and "seed" it somewhere. Nothing meaningful will happen unless it is "seeded" in a very specific place in memory of a very specific computer, in which case a number of zeroes will be written starting at a memory location, where the starting location is given at the memory address 0x80 and the number of zeroes is given at the memory address 0x84.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Genady

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

As Swansont points out...

DNA by itself is useless. You need a suite of proteins to read regulatory sequences, beside the protein-coding sequences. Don't forget the former constitute up to 95% of its length or thereabouts. You need proteins to tell DNA when to shut up, and when to start "talking." Otherwise, it's like sending a book to Mars, where there are no potential readers, and with the book saying both "do this" and "don't do this" to those non-existent readers.

When to do this or that is key to DNA's function. The "readers" are proteins and RNA.

There is even more to it. You need basically a kind of cellular environment for it to its proper thing. You can (to some extent) throw together RNA, ribosomes, enzymes, amino acids and the proper buffer together to produce proteins, but those would not do much. They need other proteins, all kind of metabolites membranes etc. to sustain function. So it is exactly right that we actually need functional cells to actually do something.

Quote

Sending organisms --with their ribosomes and proteins-- is more like it.

First I would choose a planet with magnetosphere. Then I would send archaea/bacteria that produce the desired metabolic waste --hello, oxygen. Easier said than done though.

 

[DanMP]

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

It is hard to do science, or even function day to day, if you let your emotions interfere with your thought process to such an extent that it makes it hard to think.

I don't have such a problem because my work+life does not involve plotting genocide or any harmful activity. I pity you if yours does.

And it's not about emotions. I simply skip such subjects. I have plenty much better subjects to dwell on.

 

17 hours ago, swansont said:

How does the DNA make a planet habitable? 

I wrote, for brevity:

22 hours ago, DanMP said:

they may "seed" it with DNA from the original planet, in order to make it habitable for the people who sent them

and I meant that the robots would make the planet habitable, using DNA from their planet of origin, not the raw DNA spread on the ground 😄.

The robots would use DNA from the home planet to reproduce ancient/primordial microorganisms, the first microorganisms on the original planet, and then multiply and spread them on an unoccupied planet with the right conditions, including magnetosphere, water and/or whatever substances were present on their planet in the beginning, in order to start a natural "terraforming" process. If there are many such planets, they may let the process go without any more intervention, mostly for scientific purposes.

If the planet is really needed for colonization, they would survey it and make the necessary corrections and/or additions, this meaning that they would eliminate undesirable organisms and add microorganisms and later seeds and organisms from the planet of origin. In this way the planet would be perfectly suited for the people who sent the robots. On the other hand they may choose a completely artificial, more rapid, "terraforming" process.

 

20 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The idea that planets are important to interstellar colonization is rather weak, IMHO, due to trace elements, existing life forms, allergic reactions to weird proteins, and the gravity well that is part of any planet massive enough to have life.

As I wrote above + yesterday the planets destined for colonization are originally unoccupied (no life on them) and then "terraformed" to perfectly match the conditions required for the colonists. So, there would be no "existing life forms" and "allergic reactions to weird proteins". On the other hand, an advanced civilization should be able to manage such things + "the gravity well". 

 

20 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Space habitats would be a far better way to colonize space

Better in the beginning, yes. I also proposed it:

On 12/14/2022 at 5:14 PM, DanMP said:

if we want to increase our chances of survival we should first stop fighting each other and then use the saved money/resources to expand, at least/first in orbital stations, in our solar sistem

 

19 hours ago, joigus said:

Sending organisms --with their ribosomes and proteins-- is more like it.

First I would choose a planet with magnetosphere. Then I would send archaea/bacteria that produce the desired metabolic waste --hello, oxygen.

Very good points. Thank you!

 

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

So it is exactly right that we actually need functional cells to actually do something.

Yes, and that is how I envisioned it also, see above. Thank you for your explanation.

 

It seems that all of you missed my attempt to return to the original topic:

On 12/20/2022 at 3:44 PM, DanMP said:

[...] if there is already life on the planet, to monitor it, for scientific, defensive and entertainment purposes (data feeds sent home).

Such robots may be sent billion years ago and we may have several observers/"creators"(?) here ...

This may explain some UFO sightings ...

And by them having an array of stations/robots very far around the original planet, we cannot detect the planet (being very far away), nor their transmissions (because they don't need to broadcast directly to/from home planet, they may communicate with lower energy and highly directed from one station to the next ...).

Another implication is that our planet may be "seeded" as I described above ... Also, the dinosaurian extinction may be arranged by our creator/protector/watcher robot. And we may be next, if considered dangerous or a dead end.

Personally, I don't think that our existence was/is "engineered" by some extraterrestrial civilization, nor that we are watched by one (or more), but it is not impossible.

Also, I think that this deployment of intelligent robots is a better option for us than the one discussed earlier, because it doesn't imply to destroy innocent life, nor to risk being destroyed, not to mention that it offers new habitable planets and so much invaluable information about life and evolution. On the other hand, it depends very much on the robots/A.I. ... (see Alien: Covenant or Terminator movies).

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I don't have such a problem because my work+life does not involve plotting genocide or any harmful activity.

Again, you are letting your emotional response to the topic interfere with your understanding of what is going on here. No one is plotting genocide, and to suggest otherwise shows you are not able to participate in this discussion.

28 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I pity you if yours does.

I do however wish to thank your for your pity. That's very thoughtful of you. 🥰

[DanMP]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

you are not able to participate in this discussion

I am able. I wrote on the subject/topic. You, instead, seem to be more interested in me and my emotions. Please let me be however I am and write on the topic.

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I am able. I wrote on the subject/topic. 

Yes, I've noticed some of what you had to say on the topic...

 

Quote

Pre-emptive attack?  How can you people even consider something like that?!? We don't deserve to survive, as a species, if we consider such a thing.

 

On 12/16/2022 at 9:37 AM, DanMP said:

 

I wonder why moderators are allowing that.

Please don't discuss such things in a science forum...

 

 

On 12/20/2022 at 7:44 AM, DanMP said:

...it's hard to even think, not to mention discuss with such ease, about wiping out the whole life, including intelligent, from a planet.

 

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

 I simply skip such subjects. I have plenty much better subjects to dwell on.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

The robots would use DNA from the home planet to reproduce ancient/primordial microorganisms, the first microorganisms on the original planet, and then multiply and spread them on an unoccupied planet with the right conditions, including magnetosphere, water and/or whatever substances were present on their planet in the beginning, in order to start a natural "terraforming" process.

If these were organisms adapted to the home planet, they would not be adapted to a planet that needed terraforming.

(also, it might be a great story for the planted organisms to evolve into some intelligent species that fears “aliens” and repulses the erstwhile parents)

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

As I wrote above + yesterday the planets destined for colonization are originally unoccupied (no life on them) and then "terraformed" to perfectly match the conditions required for the colonists. So, there would be no "existing life forms" and "allergic reactions to weird proteins". On the other hand, an advanced civilization should be able to manage such things + "the gravity well". 

But wouldn't a planet similar enough (in its surface environment and solar wind protection) to be terraformed also be a planet likely to have developed its own biome?  It might take a lot of searching to find sterile planets that also happen to be in our Goldilocks zone.  This is all highly speculative, of course, but maybe survey projects like the JWST can gather more data on Earthlike planets and biosignatures. (Like certain ratios of oxygen and methane, and traces of phosphine, et al). 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

also, it might be a great story for the planted organisms to evolve into some intelligent species that fears “aliens” and repulses the erstwhile parents)

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov's classic story, Breeds There a Man?

 

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

As I wrote above + yesterday the planets destined for colonization are originally unoccupied (no life on them) and then "terraformed" to perfectly match the conditions required for the colonists. So, there would be no "existing life forms" and "allergic reactions to weird proteins". On the other hand, an advanced civilization should be able to manage such things + "the gravity well". 

What would you propose to do about trace elements, trace elements might seem like a trivial problem but they could actually be a deal breaker quite easily. Trace elements such as mercury and arsenic pose threats even here on earth contaminating groundwater and oceans to the extent of making some places dangerous to live or consume foods from. Such minor constituents of a nebula could vary wildly in various locations and there is no reason to assume they would be the same as earth and as i pointed out even earth has problems with them.    

[DanMP]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

If these were organisms adapted to the home planet, they would not be adapted to a planet that needed terraforming.

I wrote:

21 hours ago, DanMP said:

The robots would use DNA from the home planet to reproduce ancient/primordial microorganisms, the first microorganisms on the original planet, and then [...]

Instead of reproduce read re-produce, re-create or recreate. My ideea was that the robots/aliens would use the existing DNA/RNA information to re-create the first cells, the ones that "terraformed" the original planet, and let them spread and evolve on the new planet. The problem is that the evolution outcome would probably differ, so:

21 hours ago, DanMP said:

If the planet is really needed for colonization, they would survey it and make the necessary corrections and/or additions, this meaning that they would eliminate undesirable organisms and add microorganisms and later seeds and organisms from the planet of origin. In this way the planet would be perfectly suited for the people who sent the robots. On the other hand they may choose a completely artificial, more rapid, "terraforming" process.

 

Last night I thought that extremophiles may also be a good "seed" for an uninhabited planet. Again, that would need survey and intervention.

Another possibility is to create new microorganisms, designed to fulfill the task of terraforming the specific planet. Also, the highly evolved civilization would be able to make accurate computer simulations, before acting on site (the planet).

 

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

But wouldn't a planet similar enough (in its surface environment and solar wind protection) to be terraformed also be a planet likely to have developed its own biome?  It might take a lot of searching to find sterile planets that also happen to be in our Goldilocks zone.

I'm not sure about that. In our solar system there are/were 3: Mars, Venus and Earth before first cell appeared. Also, if the civilization is highly advanced and motivated, they may even change the orbit of a planet (by the way, the crush that allegedly formed our moon did't cause a change in speed/orbit?) in order to have the right conditions. Also, they may place mirrors/screens in space in order to increase/decrease the radiation that reach the planet. By the way, in the (near?) future we may place screens on orbit around the Earth, in order to influence the climate/weather, using materials from asteroids or even from Earth (we shoot/launch on orbit "projectiles" with the materials needed, using rail-guns).

 

17 hours ago, Moontanman said:

What would you propose to do about trace elements [...]

I don't know, maybe remove them from the water you use (both at home and in farming), by water distillation, and/or "adapt" (using genetics) to tolerate them. Or "seed" extremophiles (if the planet is uninhabited) or just ignore those planets.

Among other benefits, a planet with atmosphere and magnetosphere would offer protection from radiation and meteorites, protection that a space station/habitat would not have ... How would you propose to deal, on a space station, with radiation and meteorites? And how would you remove the trace elements from the materials you use in/for the station?

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, DanMP said:

nstead of reproduce read re-produce, re-create or recreate. My ideea was that the robots/aliens would use the existing DNA/RNA information to re-create the first cells,

That does not work. DNA/RNA does not provide information on the cellular environment as such. I.e. you cannot use genetic information to create cells. You will have to start with whole cells to begin with (if we want to ignore some sci-fi element that makes it magically possible that is).

 

[DanMP]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That does not work. DNA/RNA does not provide information on the cellular environment as such. I.e. you cannot use genetic information to create cells. You will have to start with whole cells

Ok, so what if "you" take the most primitive living cell you can find on your planet, change its DNA, as I wrote, plus whatever is needed (remember, "you" are much more advanced and knowledgeable than we are now), making it viable and suited to be used to terraform the planet and to evolve in the way you want? Remember, you can use sophisticated computer simulations in order to make it (the cell) right.

Also, what would happen if you just release/"seed" extremophiles?

[mistermack]

30 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Also, what would happen if you just release/"seed" extremophiles?

That would make more sense, so long as you could carry the right ones, and find the place where they would be able to survive and reproduce. 

But what would be the point? Why would you go to that trouble, for a payoff that will take billions of years to arrive? 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

I don't know, maybe remove them from the water you use (both at home and in farming), by water distillation, and/or "adapt" (using genetics) to tolerate them. Or "seed" extremophiles (if the planet is uninhabited) or just ignore those planets.

I would think space habitats would be easier but I guess your way is doable. 

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Among other benefits, a planet with atmosphere and magnetosphere would offer protection from radiation and meteorites, protection that a space station/habitat would not have ... How would you propose to deal, on a space station, with radiation and meteorites? And how would you remove the trace elements from the materials you use in/for the station?

A space habitat could be moved out of the way of large objects and smaller objects could be vaporized with a laser point defense system.

Mass is the best way to protect from radiation and left over mass ie rocks and such could be attached to the outside of a space habitat surrounding it to the point the habitat would exist inside a hollow shell of left over debris. Or a rotating habitat could be built inside an asteroid. 

Trace elements could be controlled simply by not using materials that contain them or by refining them out as the build continues.  

[Markus Hanke]

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

But what would be the point? Why would you go to that trouble, for a payoff that will take billions of years to arrive? 

The other problem is that, even if the environment of the planet is only slightly different than that of the home world, evolution will take its very own cause as soon as you got it going - so after a sufficiently long time, you’ll end up with something that doesn’t resemble your home world very much.

[DanMP]

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

But what would be the point? Why would you go to that trouble, for a payoff that will take billions of years to arrive? 

My ideea was to "seed" and "breed" on those planets something compatible with me and my plants, animals, etc., something that will produce the same proteins, sugars, etc. that we have on the home planet. It would be cheap and very interesting but it would consume a lot of time. To speed up the process and obtain better results we may add more organisms when conditions become right.

Alternatively we may artificially produce oxygen, bring more water if needed, etc. and then "seed" more evolved microorganisms, able to thrive and prepare the planet in the way we want it when we go there.

 

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

so after a sufficiently long time, you’ll end up with something that doesn’t resemble your home world very much

Yes, but it would be nice/interesting to see the outcome 😃. Maybe we are such an outcome.

As I said, many times, if we really need to colonize the planet, we can make adjustments or just choose a different terraforming process.

 

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

A space habitat could be moved out of the way of large objects and smaller objects could be vaporized with a laser point defense system .......

I hope it would work, because space habitats is definitively our first choice/step.