8 ms·

Yeah, and you want to explain to future generations why we could have had a happy relationship with Mars but no, we gave it a really bad yeast infection and now

Yeah, and you want to explain to future generations why we could have had a happy relationship with Mars but no, we gave it a really bad yeast infection and now it never wants us anywhere near it? Hmmm? :-) I heard an interesting speculative talk about why we should be putting hard microbes on every planet and moon in our solar system because we'll probably cause an extinction event and perhaps the other celestial body could get a head start on evolving a better form of intelligence.

rekenaut 1y ago
Potentially a much greater filter is going from unicellular to multicellular life, no? If it likely took billions of years to get from unicellular to multicellular life on Earth, and only (hundreds of) millions of years to get to life that can conduct spaceflight, then perhaps microbes wouldn’t be the best way to attack this problem (I’m assuming you’re talking primarily about unicellular microbes, of course).
- ChuckMcM 1y ago
  Well in the talk the presenter was talking things like tardigrades which are multicellular. The challenge with tardigrades (and any multicellular life) is that you want it to be reproducing (and hence evolving) so it has to be able to do so under conditions on the body you drop it on too. Again, since the talk was speculative there were various speculative ideas such as ice penetrators to put them into the liquid under the ice of moons like Enceladus. Evolvable being the key of course. Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Didn't Carl Sagan (in Cosmos?) or someone propose leaving all of Mars as a nature preserve for the benefit of any microbes that happen to live there? That's just wasting the closest, best off-planet colonization opportunity.
    - arunabha 1y ago
      > That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Is it? To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to 'The devs are always worried about tech debt and architecture, but they just want to polish their resumes to hold back the product' speech we are prone to hear from PM/MBA types. Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims?
      - palmotea 1y ago
        > Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) What "random outsider's view"? It's my view. I've heard what they had to say, and I think their priorities are wrong, at least when it comes to keeping places like Mars "pristine." > over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Scientists are not some caste of priests, in tune with the one true POV (though some treat them that way). They're dudes doing a job, and the priorities of that job aren't the only priorities. Stating their POV while watching pictures of galaxies with Vangelis playing in the background doesn't change that. > Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims? Huh? That's a misplaced demand if I ever saw one.
      - Nevermark 1y ago
        > To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to [...] I am not sure why you are replying to an opinion, with even heavier opinion, but treating yours as if it means more. There are trillions of planets in the galaxy. Uninhabited and highly uninhabitable planets everywhere we look in the sky. Life on the other hand, is apparently incredibly rare. Certainly vastly more rare than uninhabited planets. Not using our closest, most potentially habitable, planet for the continuity of life and civilization, it is by far most suited to over any other location, would be a ridiculous waste. Where would we go instead? Just wall ourselves in? Mars is going to become habitable, by some combination of us adapting simple life to it, adapting ourselves, our life support technologies, and/or Mars. Probably all the above. With the only caveat if humans manage to help themselves into extinction first. But if we go instinct due to AI, or AI survives despite another catastrophe, AI won't hesitate to use Martian resources either. And Mars it turns out, doesn't have an opinion on this at all.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. Their self-loathing of terran life, possibly the most fantastic thing that ever happened in the universe, is sad to see. What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it?
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      > What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it? How can you know? The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        > How can you know? The same way we know that ghosts don't exist and you have not been abducted by aliens and Superman is a fictitious figure.

rekenaut 1y ago

Potentially a much greater filter is going from unicellular to multicellular life, no? If it likely took billions of years to get from unicellular to multicellular life on Earth, and only (hundreds of) millions of years to get to life that can conduct spaceflight, then perhaps microbes wouldn’t be the best way to attack this problem (I’m assuming you’re talking primarily about unicellular microbes, of course).

ChuckMcM 1y ago
Well in the talk the presenter was talking things like tardigrades which are multicellular. The challenge with tardigrades (and any multicellular life) is that you want it to be reproducing (and hence evolving) so it has to be able to do so under conditions on the body you drop it on too. Again, since the talk was speculative there were various speculative ideas such as ice penetrators to put them into the liquid under the ice of moons like Enceladus. Evolvable being the key of course. Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Didn't Carl Sagan (in Cosmos?) or someone propose leaving all of Mars as a nature preserve for the benefit of any microbes that happen to live there? That's just wasting the closest, best off-planet colonization opportunity.
  - arunabha 1y ago
    > That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Is it? To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to 'The devs are always worried about tech debt and architecture, but they just want to polish their resumes to hold back the product' speech we are prone to hear from PM/MBA types. Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims?
    - palmotea 1y ago
      > Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) What "random outsider's view"? It's my view. I've heard what they had to say, and I think their priorities are wrong, at least when it comes to keeping places like Mars "pristine." > over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Scientists are not some caste of priests, in tune with the one true POV (though some treat them that way). They're dudes doing a job, and the priorities of that job aren't the only priorities. Stating their POV while watching pictures of galaxies with Vangelis playing in the background doesn't change that. > Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims? Huh? That's a misplaced demand if I ever saw one.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      > To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to [...] I am not sure why you are replying to an opinion, with even heavier opinion, but treating yours as if it means more. There are trillions of planets in the galaxy. Uninhabited and highly uninhabitable planets everywhere we look in the sky. Life on the other hand, is apparently incredibly rare. Certainly vastly more rare than uninhabited planets. Not using our closest, most potentially habitable, planet for the continuity of life and civilization, it is by far most suited to over any other location, would be a ridiculous waste. Where would we go instead? Just wall ourselves in? Mars is going to become habitable, by some combination of us adapting simple life to it, adapting ourselves, our life support technologies, and/or Mars. Probably all the above. With the only caveat if humans manage to help themselves into extinction first. But if we go instinct due to AI, or AI survives despite another catastrophe, AI won't hesitate to use Martian resources either. And Mars it turns out, doesn't have an opinion on this at all.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. Their self-loathing of terran life, possibly the most fantastic thing that ever happened in the universe, is sad to see. What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it?
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    > What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it? How can you know? The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > How can you know? The same way we know that ghosts don't exist and you have not been abducted by aliens and Superman is a fictitious figure.