6 ms·

>its possible it could end up impacting something and potentially contaminating it with Earth organisms. I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excit

by pubby 9y ago

>its possible it could end up impacting something and potentially contaminating it with Earth organisms. I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excited if other planets became infested with Earth organisms. I mean, that's kinda the whole reason for space travel in the first place! I understand the argument for sterilized launches, etc. etc. but I can't help but wonder if it's holding terraforming back in the long run.

craftyguy 9y ago
I bet the technologies required for teraforming a planet will hold back teraforming more than a concern for spreading microbes.
- bonesss 9y ago
  Naturally Star Trek style terraforming is off in the far future (if at all), but I wonder if we're not too far away already from some more humble projects... A genetically modified lichen, or fungus, that was designed as a stepping stone towards a better Martian biome, and a launch setup to seed them effectively isn't too far outside the bounds of present day work with genetics, and present day launch & deployment systems. It's far less sexy, but a multi-generation approach to terraforming could yield a usable Mars without too much magic...
dcdanko 9y ago
NASA is only trying to keep Mars sterile for 100 years or so, probably doesn't matter much on the scale of terraforming
- mrfusion 9y ago
  Well for those of us who live less than 100 years it matters a whole lot.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mynegation 9y ago
Understanding if any organisms can appear, evolve, be brought by asteroids and survive Mars conditions is probably even more important for terraforming than polluting the experiment with Earth's lifeforms.
bertil 9y ago
Actually, the real risk is that, by entering in contact with Earth biology, some forms of life incorporate them and develop in a toxic way. The closest equivalent is inter-species infections, like the Avian or the Porcine flus. Having humans near unhealthy ducks or pigs constantly means mutated strains have a higher chance of carrying dangerous behaviour from one species to another. There are a lot more to say around bio-chemistry basins, carbon-based vs silicon-based (or another compound) — but the idea is not exclusively to protect life there.
JoeDaDude 9y ago
Two simple reasons: 1. If there is life elsewhere, we want to make sure terrestrial lifeforms don't drive it to extinction before we get to see it. 2. We want to make sure that if life is found elsewhere that it isn't due to our own contamination of the site.
- XVII 9y ago
  That's what I always thought as well!
spacetravel 9y ago
>I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excited if other planets became infested with Earth organisms. http://reducing-suffering.org/omelas-and-space-colonization/ http://reducing-suffering.org/omelas-and-space-colonization/ http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/ http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multip... >What is almost always ignored is that these animals would have feelings, and many would suffer enormously as a result of being created into Darwinian ecosystems in which predation, disease, and premature death are endemic. Theologians ask why a good God would create so much cruelty in nature. Future humans should likewise ponder whether it's morally acceptable to create new ecosystems containing vast amounts of suffering, or whether they should pause and seek more compassionate alternatives if they embark upon space colonization.
spacetravel100 9y ago
>I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excited if other planets became infested with Earth organisms. http://reducing-suffering.org/applied-welfare-biology-wild-animal-advocates-focus-spreading-nature/ http://reducing-suffering.org/applied-welfare-biology-wild-a... https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/ https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani... http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/ http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multip... What is almost always ignored is that these animals would have feelings, and many would suffer enormously as a result of being created into Darwinian ecosystems in which predation, disease, and premature death are endemic. Theologians ask why a good God would create so much cruelty in nature. Future humans should likewise ponder whether it's morally acceptable to create new ecosystems containing vast amounts of suffering, or whether they should pause and seek more compassionate alternatives if they embark upon space colonization.
- qplex 9y ago
  You are projecting human morality to natural processes. Viruses and bacteria don't have feelings and the vast majority of the biomass on Earth is not even capable of suffering.

by pubby 9y ago

craftyguy 9y ago

I bet the technologies required for teraforming a planet will hold back teraforming more than a concern for spreading microbes.

bonesss 9y ago
Naturally Star Trek style terraforming is off in the far future (if at all), but I wonder if we're not too far away already from some more humble projects... A genetically modified lichen, or fungus, that was designed as a stepping stone towards a better Martian biome, and a launch setup to seed them effectively isn't too far outside the bounds of present day work with genetics, and present day launch & deployment systems. It's far less sexy, but a multi-generation approach to terraforming could yield a usable Mars without too much magic...

dcdanko 9y ago

NASA is only trying to keep Mars sterile for 100 years or so, probably doesn't matter much on the scale of terraforming

mrfusion 9y ago
Well for those of us who live less than 100 years it matters a whole lot.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

mynegation 9y ago

Understanding if any organisms can appear, evolve, be brought by asteroids and survive Mars conditions is probably even more important for terraforming than polluting the experiment with Earth's lifeforms.

bertil 9y ago

Actually, the real risk is that, by entering in contact with Earth biology, some forms of life incorporate them and develop in a toxic way. The closest equivalent is inter-species infections, like the Avian or the Porcine flus. Having humans near unhealthy ducks or pigs constantly means mutated strains have a higher chance of carrying dangerous behaviour from one species to another. There are a lot more to say around bio-chemistry basins, carbon-based vs silicon-based (or another compound) — but the idea is not exclusively to protect life there.

JoeDaDude 9y ago

Two simple reasons: 1. If there is life elsewhere, we want to make sure terrestrial lifeforms don't drive it to extinction before we get to see it. 2. We want to make sure that if life is found elsewhere that it isn't due to our own contamination of the site.

XVII 9y ago
That's what I always thought as well!

spacetravel 9y ago

>I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excited if other planets became infested with Earth organisms. http://reducing-suffering.org/omelas-and-space-colonization/ http://reducing-suffering.org/omelas-and-space-colonization/ http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/ http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multip... >What is almost always ignored is that these animals would have feelings, and many would suffer enormously as a result of being created into Darwinian ecosystems in which predation, disease, and premature death are endemic. Theologians ask why a good God would create so much cruelty in nature. Future humans should likewise ponder whether it's morally acceptable to create new ecosystems containing vast amounts of suffering, or whether they should pause and seek more compassionate alternatives if they embark upon space colonization.

spacetravel100 9y ago

>I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excited if other planets became infested with Earth organisms. http://reducing-suffering.org/applied-welfare-biology-wild-animal-advocates-focus-spreading-nature/ http://reducing-suffering.org/applied-welfare-biology-wild-a... https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/ https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani... http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/ http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multip... What is almost always ignored is that these animals would have feelings, and many would suffer enormously as a result of being created into Darwinian ecosystems in which predation, disease, and premature death are endemic. Theologians ask why a good God would create so much cruelty in nature. Future humans should likewise ponder whether it's morally acceptable to create new ecosystems containing vast amounts of suffering, or whether they should pause and seek more compassionate alternatives if they embark upon space colonization.

qplex 9y ago
You are projecting human morality to natural processes. Viruses and bacteria don't have feelings and the vast majority of the biomass on Earth is not even capable of suffering.