4 ms·
I do agree, I certainly don't think there's any life on or near the surface of the moon given our current understanding of it's composition. Seems incapable of
by stolen_biscuit 6y ago
I do agree, I certainly don't think there's any life on or near the surface of the moon given our current understanding of it's composition. Seems incapable of fostering even the hardiest extremophiles, so the chance of astronauts leaving behind biological material, or dehydrated tardigrades trapped in epoxy doesn't concern me too much.
But having said that, I do like to hope we will discover much, much more about our nearest neighbours and who knows? Maybe life is much more versatile than we know it to be now. I never want to see that pursuit muddied or compromised by negligence on our part.
- WalterBright 6y agoIt would also be highly unlikely that native life on some moon would be out-competed by extremely maladapted terrestrial life. It'd be like a dog trying to outswim a shark.
- stolen_biscuit 6y agoI don't agree, nor do I think human beings have a great track record of such predictions (see introduced wildlife around the world). I wouldn't feel confident predicting how an extremophile like the tardigrade would fare (nor any theoretical microbes that they might eat for lunch) if given the opportunity to exist in some "stable island" ecosystem near or under the surface of the moon.
- WalterBright 6y ago> introduced wildlife I thought about that, but they're already 99% adapted to the new ecosystem. Also, if a hippo is introduced to the arctic tundra, it will promptly die, not outcompete reindeer.