47 ms·

Is anyone else tired of hearing about the dangers of interplanetary contamination, particularly from the Earth to Mars? I want to see the whole place terraform

• kamakazizuru 13y ago
  right, this is pretty much the attitude with which colonial powers approached new continents. The universe was not built for humans alone - if there is life there - which in its current form is unable to protect itself - it is our duty to protect it and leave it untouched - not kill it in hordes and put the remaining few in reserves and allow them to open casinos as a consolation prize. EDIT: On the other hand - if it is life that can protect itself - i.e. - attack human explorers or cause unintentional harm to them - then we also need to be able to understand that in an isolated environment before we just touchdown and put up our IKEA stuff..
  • mattzito 13y ago
    Though if we do put martian bacteria in reservations en masse, I call dibs on teaching them how craps works.
  • JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    We're not talking indigenous tribes here; its maybe some (unsuccessful) bacteria. You willfully destroy these every time you use mouthwash. Lets not get all PC about some stains on some dirt on a rock somewhere.
    • bronson 13y ago
      You're implying that the inside of your mouth and the landscape of Mars are more or less equivalent?
      • ceejayoz 13y ago
        Bone dry and dangerous to breathe describes my mouth some mornings.
    • kamakazizuru 13y ago
      I dont see your point apart from trying to sound as nasty as possible? Just because they arent tribes means they're irrelevant? They are indigenous species and should be protected in the interest of science if nothing else. You dont eliminate every bacteria of a certain species when you use mouthwash. In the grand scheme of things we are also just some stains on some dirt on a rock somewhere.
      • JoeAltmaier 13y ago
        You're projecting. I just don't value a few struggling bacteria the same way you do. In the interest of science, you can keep some on your desk in a petri dish. As for the rest of mankind, we'll be using all the resources in our solar system that are available. The future belongs to a system-spanning culture that will terraform, relocate and resurface every available rock we find to make more space for life.
        • wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
          While your techno-optimism is very inspiring, I'd rather not be the victim of a solar system black plague either. On the other hand, since we're speculating, I'm looking forward to the one piece of "dirt on a rock" somewhere that can make me immune to radiation while on my space voyage.
        • kamakazizuru 13y ago
          You're assuming that they'd a few struggling bacteria - and that all of mankind wants to quit earth and spread as far and wide as possible. Both of which is basically bullshit. If anything - our population is heading towards its peak - which will follow with a sinking population. A majority of the developed world is greying - these are people who would have access to plenty of space and resources for their offspring - choosing not to have more. So I guess since you've taken on the role of the spokesperson for the "rest of mankind" - you might want to check in and see if humans are really that eager to go live on every rock in the solar system - or are fine where they are.
          • 13y ago
    • wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
      "The human body contains over 10 times more microbial cells than human cells, although the entire microbiome only weighs about 200 grams (7.1 oz), with some weight estimates ranging as high as 3 pounds (approximately 48 ounces or 1,400 grams)." [0] You would literally not be the same animal you are now had bacteria not helped you along the way. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiome
      • SoftwareMaven 13y ago
        You would be dead without the bacteria you have to help you along. But I'm not sure how this relates to a planet where said bacteria, if they exist, are sitting at the top of the biological pyramid.
        • wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
          Yeah, funny thing "defending" bacteria. I guess my point is that very simple organisms can have large a impact (on us, given the anthropocentric view I'm replying to here). Viruses for instance.
          • JoeAltmaier 13y ago
            In a vibrant ecosystem, sure. But Mars is a dessicated husk of what might once have been a green thriving world. These remaining bacteria/fungi/whatever are like bugs on a corpse. Not an ecosystem; a fragment of a perhaps once-complex ecosystem and worth study. But not anything that should prevent or delay exploration of a planet.
            • wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
              Hopefully :)
• tomp 13y ago
  I agree 100% with you, but it would be pretty embarrassing for top NASA scientists to report they have "found life on mars", only to later realize that it was life that the spacecraft brought from earth... Better to decontaminate the spacecraft, have it take samples/perform measurements, then it can open a can of "life-from-earth" microbes and release them to the Mars surface.
• pron 13y ago
  Why terraform, then? Why not mine the hell out of the place right away? Are you really in such a hurry to get off this planet? Isn't it much more important to learn a bit about the world before we start shaping it in our image?
  • angersock 13y ago
    "Isn't it much more important to learn a bit about the world before we start shaping it in our image?" Gonna have to go with, no. There are over 6 billion monkeys on this planet, and the clock is ticking on what's left of our resources. Either we move some of the monkeys, or we remove some of the monkeys.
    • jlangenauer 13y ago
      Or the monkeys learn to live with what they have.
    • ldh 13y ago
      I highly doubt that colonization of other planets will result in significant numbers of monkeys being moved from earth to somewhere else, and even if that were the case, how long before we now have two planets crawling with monkeys who still haven't figured out how to control themselves?
      • justncase80 13y ago
        Long enough to get to a 3rd planet.
    • Ar-Curunir 13y ago
      Interesting, your view of extraterrestial lifeforms is very similar to the approach of colonists in the 18th and 18th centuries - that the people/lifeforms being invaded were inferior to the colonists, and hence could be mistreated/mutilated/wiped out for the benefit of the invaders. Thankfully, scientists are not of this mindset.
• Crito 13y ago
  We basically have one shot, per body in the solar system, to find an example of life with an independent abiogenesis point. Right now biology only gets to work with a single example; the impact that finding another would have on the field really cannot be understated^W overstated. Now, you may not be particularly interested in biology, preferring space travel, but you should be. Any realistic attempt to terraform Mars will require a lot of skill with genetic engineering. Furthermore, the discovery of life that can only be properly studied on Mars would provide a major boost to any colonization effort. The more 'kinds of science we use to justify the initial expenditure, the better.
  • danielweber 13y ago
    The one shot for Mars may have been missed, millennia ago, when rocks blasted from Earth landed on Mars. On the geologic scale things get knocked around a lot.
    • Crito 13y ago
      Even if we suppose that panspermia is likely, it is still important that we avoid cross-contamination ourselves. Discovering that panspermia took place through natural processes would tell us a lot about how prevalent and resilient life may be in the universe. Furthermore, two instances of life with the same abiogenesis point, isolated and diverged sometime in the past, would be very valuable for biologists.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      • ehsanu1 13y ago
        Furthermore, two instances of life with the same abiogenesis point, isolated and diverged sometime in the past, would be very valuable for biologists. Isn't this something you can basically get on Earth? Perspermia doesn't really seem to be required.
        • 13y ago
• simias 13y ago
  Before we terraform the planet don't you think it might be interesting to learn about martian history before it cannot be recovered? If you dig the foundation of a parking lot and you find the vestiges of an ancient civilisation don't you take the time to study what you've found before your send the steamrollers in?
  • Xdes 13y ago
    No, you usually just steamroll the dirt.
    • vyrotek 13y ago
      In the US, yes. But I know Italy and other places in Europe have laws that require an excavation to be done to look for historical stuff. It can end up cancelling entire projects if they discover something important which can't be extracted.
      • robbiep 13y ago
        Well Europe has thousands of years of productive civilisation (not to denigrate the achievements of mesoamerican civilisations) - but density and continuous habitation of cities is different in Europe. It seems madness to suggest we should mount an archological expidition to Mars before a colonisation mission but I hope efforts are made to explore it scientifically. M
      • DougWebb 13y ago
        We have those laws in the US too, and I'm sure Europe has its fair share of developers trying to cover up archeological finds to avoid derailing a development project.
    • mathattack 13y ago
      Of course the Avatar example. :-)
  • pavelrub 13y ago
    I think we will learn MUCH quicker and MUCH more and about the history of Mars once we'll get serious about colonizing it, and not "exploring" it at the the crawling pace it's currently happening at.
• mongol 13y ago
  Why the hurry? Let's explore it for 100 years before terraforming it. I am not tired of it all, it is much more valuable to figure out what is there first before changing it. EDIT. Terraforming it in a hurry feels like building a shopping mall on top of the remains of an ancient civilization before it has been properly researched
  • billmalarky 13y ago
    There is a strong argument to be made that there is a deadline at some point where we will need to have colonized other planets before we extinct ourselves through war. Though sadly interplanetary warfare seems much easier than extraterrestrial colonization.
    • angersock 13y ago
      Warheads only have to survive re-entry, and they care very little about a prepared landing site.
    • Houshalter 13y ago
      It would be far cheaper just to build strong bunkers than to build a long-term self-sufficient colony on another planet. Not that a nuclear war would be anywhere near enough to cause extinction in the first place. I'm all for colonizing other planets because it's cool, but lets not pretend there is any practical reason to do it.
    • benihana 13y ago
      Please, humans destroying themselves through war is nothing compared to a large rock from space hitting the planet at 20,000 miles per hour. The amount of energy in the entire world's nuclear stockpile would be dwarfed by the energy of that happening. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2004 tsunami in the South Pacific contained more energy than the sum of all of earth's weapons. The point is if you're going to talk about the threat of extinction, at least provide a plausible case for the argument. The negativity of "humans are going to extinct themselves" isn't inspiring. If we're going to kill ourselves, why even bother? If you want to make a case for us getting off this death trap of a rock, one of "we should work together to fight things out of our control" is much more inspiring than "I want to get off the planet before all you other idiots kill yourselves."
• coldtea 13y ago
  >but I think the more important one is when will we expand life on Mars? Because we've done so well with Earth it's time to take our success to another planet?
  • jakobsen 13y ago
    Basically, yes.
• wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
  This is very shortsighted. What is "interesting"? With all the knowledge Alexander Flemming had about bacteria in the 1920's, it was an accident that he discovered penicillin (by contamination from a neighboring lab, while on vacation). Assuming you know the absolute value, or even the best case scenario when it comes to biology is one way to only rely on accidents for important discoveries. Probably not the smartest thing to do.
• ChuckMcM 13y ago
  I think it amusing that the one place where we would most likely find life on Mars, we may be specifically forbidden from going to. Kinda puts a crimp in the 'seek out new life' mission doesn't it :-)
• algorias 13y ago
  While I have no strong opinion on this, it's interesting from a game theoretical perspective that the only way Mars doesn't get contaminated requires the consent of pretty much all of humanity, as a single entity deciding to send some antarctic lichens (or whatever) can't easily be stopped by the others. An entity interested in this could be the space program of a country or even a privately backed kickstarter project; such an undertaking doesn't take nearly as much resources as one would initially estimate.
  • CWuestefeld 13y ago
    send some antarctic lichens I know what novel you read - and I recommend the series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
    • cesarbs 13y ago
      Summary of Mars trilogy: go to Mars, become a hippie. Ok, I know there's a lot more to the book, but the whole hippie-ish thing blew it for me. I stopped reading halfway through Green Mars when Hiroko shows up naked and the conference for the future of Mars becomes a huge pagan ritual/festival.
      • Morgawr 13y ago
        If I wasn't interested before, now I definitely want to read this
        • dalke 13y ago
          As I recall, it confused Hiroko as well. Apparently it was translated as an artistic statement against the confines of rigid structure, or something like that. It's been a while since I read the series. Once it got to the political debates, including on how the future school system might be set up, I started skimming.
• a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  My understanding is Mars can never host earth-like life because it doesn't have a magnetic field. There's too much radiation.
  • Crito 13y ago
    If you teleported an earth-like atmosphere to Mars, it would last somewhere in the neighborhood of upper thousands, low millions of years. That would give us a good chunk of time to figure out the whole "create a magnetosphere" problem. Of course we don't get to just magic an atmosphere out of thin air, but there are a few more realistic proposals.
• Houshalter 13y ago
  The fear is pointless in the first place. Life that has been living on mars for millions of years is going to be far more adapted to the climate than anything from Earth.
• colanderman 13y ago
  sigh human memory is so short. It was only a few hundred years ago we last managed to wipe out several advanced civilizations due to inadvertent organic contamination. While Mars likely doesn't host sentient life, we ought at least show restraint exploring this new frontier until we are able to investigate and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no such life existing in these regions of Mars.
  • saraid216 13y ago
    Pft. Which part of "manifest destiny" was unclear about Mars?
• Havoc 13y ago
  >Is anyone else tired of hearing about the dangers of interplanetary contamination The risk is real - humanity is still learning to deal with it though - people overreacting & under-reacting is inevitable. Damage will be done - such is life. At this stage I think that space exploration as a whole should take priority. Perhaps we screw over a planet. So be it. Mistakes are inevitable & I can deal with that. Space exploration & humanity's long term survival being screwed with by republican vs democrats debates...that is a serious problem for me...and I'm not even an American. Humanity as a whole suffers.
• qq66 13y ago
  What? Don't you think that any life existing on Mars has the most to teach us about how to successfully live on Mars?
• jotm 13y ago
  I say we just dump a few tons of various vegetation all over Mars and see what happens :-). There's plenty of space to do archaeological research, it's not like Mars is the size of Machu Picchu or something...
• wheels 13y ago
  This comment really makes no sense. We have no idea where we'd start on terraforming or if it's even possible. It'd probably take a century or two just to come up with a tenable plan if we started throwing an unlimited amount of money into it now. And then it would take tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Terraforming is, at best, a game for those with impossibly long attention spans, not those who become impatient on the time scale of decades.
• yodsanklai 13y ago
  Why do you want to see mars terraformed? I agree it sounds cool, but what would be the point? if we want more comfort, it would be much much easier to control our population growth and preserve our resources.
  • epaladin 13y ago
    I'd be okay with just having a colony there. In the long term, the sun will go boom and we're not going to want to be there when that happens. Of course that's super-mega-long-term, but the only way we'll ever be able to move from Earth is if we start taking small steps in developing what we'll need for that. Creating a colony on one of our closer neighbors seems like a pretty good next step to me. Why not start sooner rather than later? I agree it would be great to fix the problems we have on this planet first, but even with adequate allocation of resources, it might take less time to put humans on Mars than it will to eradicate poverty, end war, and reduce population growth.
• justncase80 13y ago
  Discovering life on another planet would be an incredibly significant historic event. Frankly, it would change everything. It may be the most important first goal as well. I believe that we would find that answering that question would usher in a whole new era of science and exploration.