beecee Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Peterkin said: Anyone who understands the distances,time periods and variables involved.Even if you artificially speed up the process, by the time ET phones home, there will be nobody here to answer. ET doesn't need to phone.We already are close to deciphering atmospheric content of extra solar planets, and the JWST will certainly add to that. And no mention was made of any advanced species evolving. 53 minutes ago, Peterkin said: is absolutely correct. This is a scientific experiment ( that was ignorantly denied) that may be undertaken...to deny that it is a scientific experiment is silly. "The Genesis mission is furthermore unique in the sense that the actual cruising velocity is of minor importance. It could be launched with the help of suitable beams of directed energy and decelerated at arrival by time consuming passive means like magnetic sails. We hence believe that the Genesis project opens a new venue for interstellar missions and for the unfolding of life in our galactic surroundings." . We do experiments because we need to gain knowledge on the workings of a particular area of science. A scientific experiment is designed to test an hypothesis. In essence, a scientific experiment involves a series of steps to either validate or reject an hypothesis. They are done everyday. That is what science is all about. 53 minutes ago, Peterkin said: is absolutely correct. https://www.universetoday.com/137981/genesis-project-using-robotic-gene-factories-seed-galaxy-life/ extract: What is the purpose of Project Genesis? Exoplanets come in all sizes, temperatures and compositions. The purpose of the Genesis project is to offer terrestrial life alternative evolutionary pathways on those exoplanets that are potentially habitable but yet lifeless. The basic philosophy of most scientists nowadays is that simple life is common in the universe and complex life is rare. We don’t know that for sure, but at the moment, that is the consensus. If you had good conditions, simple life can develop very fast, but complex life will have a hard time. At least on Earth, it took a very long time for complex life to arrive. The Cambrian Explosion only happened about 500 million years ago, roughly 4 billion years after Earth was formed. If we give planets the opportunity to fast forward evolution, we can give them the chance to have their own Cambrian Explosions. What worlds would be targeted? The prime candidates are habitable “oxygen planets” around M-dwarfs like TRAPPIST-1. It is very likely that the oxygen-rich primordial atmosphere of these planets will have prevented abiogenesis in first place, that is the formation of life. Our galaxy could potentially harbor billions of habitable but lifeless oxygen planets. Nowadays, astronomers are looking for planets around M-stars. These are very different from planets around Sun-like stars. Once a star forms, it takes a certain amount of time to contract to the point where fusion begins, and it starts to produce energy. For the Sun, this took 10 million years, which is very fast. For stars like TRAPPIST-1, it would take 100 million to 1 billion years. Then they have to contract to dissipate their initial heat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia#Accidental_panspermia extract: Mathematician Jason Guillory in his 2008 analysis of 12C/13C isotopic ratios of organic compounds found in the Murchison meteorite indicates a non-terrestrial origin for these molecules rather than terrestrial contamination. Biologically relevant molecules identified so far include uracil (an RNA nucleobase), and xanthine.[85][86] These results demonstrate that many organic compounds which are components of life on Earth were already present in the early Solar System and may have played a key role in life's origin. In August 2009, NASA scientists identified one of the fundamental chemical building-blocks of life (the amino acid glycine) in a comet for the first time. In August 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting building blocks of DNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space. [89][90] In October 2011, scientists reported that cosmic dust contains complex organic matter ("amorphous organic solids with a mixed aromatic-aliphatic structure") that could be created naturally, and rapidly, by stars.[91][92] One of the scientists suggested that these complex organic compounds may have been related to the development of life on Earth and said that, "If this is the case, life on Earth may have had an easier time getting started as these organics can serve as basic ingredients for life. In August 2012, and in a world first, astronomers at Copenhagen University reported the detection of a specific sugar molecule, glycolaldehyde, in a distant star system. The molecule was found around the protostellar binary IRAS 16293-2422, which is located 400 light years from Earth.[93][94] Glycolaldehyde is needed to form ribonucleic acid, or RNA, which is similar in function to DNA. This finding suggests that complex organic molecules may form in stellar systems prior to the formation of planets, eventually arriving on young planets early in their formation. In 2013, the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA Project) confirmed that researchers have discovered an important pair of prebiotic molecules in the icy particles in interstellar space (ISM). The chemicals, found in a giant cloud of gas about 25,000 light-years from Earth in ISM, may be a precursor to a key component of DNA and the other may have a role in the formation of an important amino acid. Researchers found a molecule called cyanomethanimine, which produces adenine, one of the four nucleobases that form the "rungs" in the ladder-like structure of DNA Edited January 26, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, beecee said: . We do experiments because we need to gain knowledge on the workings of a particular area of science. If knowledge ever comes back. Otherwise, it's missionary work. Edited January 26, 2022 by Peterkin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Peterkin said: If knowledge ever comes back. Otherwise, it's missionary work. Nup, its still science for the reasons explained. from previous link... "The prime candidates are habitable “oxygen planets” around M-dwarfs like TRAPPIST-1. It is very likely that the oxygen-rich primordial atmosphere of these planets will have prevented abiogenesis in first place, that is the formation of life. Our galaxy could potentially harbor billions of habitable but lifeless oxygen planets. Nowadays, astronomers are looking for planets around M-stars. These are very different from planets around Sun-like stars. Once a star forms, it takes a certain amount of time to contract to the point where fusion begins, and it starts to produce energy. For the Sun, this took 10 million years, which is very fast. For stars like TRAPPIST-1, it would take 100 million to 1 billion years. Then they have to contract to dissipate their initial heat". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simply put, the Genesis project assumes life is good and the more the merrier. Of course as we develop further into a space faring species, I fully support the Star Trek prime directive. 😉 Edited January 27, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 2 hours ago, beecee said: Nup, its still science for the reasons explained. It's science done in the service, not of potential new knowledge, but of ideology. Science is a method, a tool - it can serve whatever purpose people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fabian Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 The Genesis Project sounds like hubris to me. And there are some big assumptions about our ability to tell from afar if the planet is sterile or if there is any native life present or, I suppose, life seeded by other Panspermists. Probes that must be pared down to barest functional minimum to support the mission objective of seeding planets don't sound like they will be capable of the comprehensive planetary survey required to determine if life is present. I don't think we will have failed as a species if Earth life fails to spread beyond Earth or outlive it. Billions of years seems like an extremely generous allotment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 5 hours ago, Peterkin said: It's science done in the service, not of potential new knowledge, but of ideology. Science is a method, a tool - it can serve whatever purpose people want. Simply put, the Genesis project assumes life is good and the more the merrier. Of course as we develop further into a space faring species, I fully support the Star Trek prime directive. 😉 1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said: I don't think we will have failed as a species if Earth life fails to spread beyond Earth or outlive it. Billions of years seems like an extremely generous allotment. Since Earth does have a use by date, and is so far the only planet we know of with life, I see such a project as forward thinking, and the implementation of science at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 18 hours ago, beecee said: Who said you would never see the results? And who said it wasn't science? You understand that science is also about experimentation, as well as observation? Ever heard of the "Genesis Project"? Do you know we have discovered more then 5000 extra solar planets? https://www.universetoday.com/137981/genesis-project-using-robotic-gene-factories-seed-galaxy-life/ Hope that helps. On 1/26/2022 at 12:38 PM, dimreepr said: Insisting anything based on assuming it'll work is nothing more than faith. 😇 You appear rather confused. We do experiments because we need to gain knowledge on the workings of a particular area of science. A scientific experiment is designed to test an hypothesis. In essence, a scientific experiment involves a series of steps to either validate or reject an hypothesis. They are done everyday. That is what science is all about. Faith (as per religious faith) in reality (as you have shown) rejects scientific evidence and facts. I hope that also helps. I'm sorry, but I don't share your faith in such a project. 4 hours ago, beecee said: 5 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: I don't think we will have failed as a species if Earth life fails to spread beyond Earth or outlive it. Billions of years seems like an extremely generous allotment. Since Earth does have a use by date, and is so far the only planet we know of with life, I see such a project as forward thinking, and the implementation of science at its best. You don't seem to understand how big a billion is, and what a small percentage it is, of our* "use by date". * by which I mean humanity. Edited January 27, 2022 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: And there are some big assumptions about our ability to tell from afar if the planet is sterile or if there is any native life present or, I suppose, life seeded by other Panspermists. It would be fun to see them duke it out for food-chain dominance. But what's the point of being a god if you can't see your creations suffer? 6 hours ago, beecee said: Simply put, the Genesis project assumes life is good and the more the merrier. Earth ideology imposed on other planets, the way European powers imposed Christianity on the savages of the New World, because they believed that it was good. 6 hours ago, beecee said: Of course as we develop further into a space faring species, I fully support the Star Trek prime directive. Once you've contaminated the galaxy with plagues and pestilences, you'll establish a policy of non-interference (unless it's a tactical exception, or there's science to test.) How magnanimous! Remember, one of the many variables you cannot predict is whether there is already developing life elsewhere - maybe not on your target planet, but on a neighbouring moon, or solar system - another is whether your messenger microbes will evolve into virulent pathogens that hitch rides on comets, travel to other inhabited planets and wipe out the native species, who will not have developed a resistance to them. Life can be brutish and nasty. Edited January 27, 2022 by Peterkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, dimreepr said: I'm sorry, but I don't share your faith in such a project. Likewise, I certainly do not share your faith/philosophy in many things. 6 hours ago, dimreepr said: You don't seem to understand how big a billion is, and what a small percentage it is, of our* "use by date". * by which I mean humanity. Sure I understand, do you? The universe has an expected lifetime measured in hundreds of trillions of years. How does a billion compare to that? A great man once said words to the effect, "Sit on a hot stove for 1 minute and it seems like an hour: Sit with a hot blonde for an hour, and it seems like a minute; That's relativity. 4 hours ago, Peterkin said: Earth ideology imposed on other planets, the way European powers imposed Christianity on the savages of the New World, because they believed that it was good. Your obsession with Earth based ideologies are clouding your sensibilities. As a species, and in our exploratory efforts, we have done many terrible/aweful things. We have just celebrated Australia Day, mainly the success of a great nation in a short space of time (nationhood was achieved in 1901) At the same time, we also acknowledge the nation's first people, the oldest known existing culture in the world, and the forceful displacement of many of them, including outright murder and extinction in some areas. But as wrong and as distasteful as their displacement was, it was another time, and much has been done to repare that damage, while recognising there is still more to do... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iOMy9Tg9Bg That's not what project Genesis is all about. What is the purpose of Project Genesis? "Exoplanets come in all sizes, temperatures and compositions. The purpose of the Genesis project is to offer terrestrial life alternative evolutionary pathways on those exoplanets that are potentially habitable but yet lifeless". What worlds would be targeted? "The prime candidates are habitable “oxygen planets” around M-dwarfs like TRAPPIST-1. It is very likely that the oxygen-rich primordial atmosphere of these planets will have prevented abiogenesis in first place, that is the formation of life. Our galaxy could potentially harbor billions of habitable but lifeless oxygen planets". ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Edited January 27, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 43 minutes ago, beecee said: Your obsession with Earth based ideologies are clouding your sensibilities. Your obsession with Earth based ideologies are clouding your sensibilities. I don't believe either of has been exposed to any ideologies that are not Earth-based. Where we differ is in our views on priority, responsibility and entitlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Peterkin said: Once you've contaminated the galaxy with plagues and pestilences, you'll establish a policy of non-interference (unless it's a tactical exception, or there's science to test.) How magnanimous! Your excuses and your views are going from the silly to the ridiculious. Contaminating the galaxy!!!😅 We are space faring species, and as long as we survive, we'll go further and further, and through projects like Genesis, plant microbrial seeds on otherwise sterile planets. 5 hours ago, Peterkin said: Remember, one of the many variables you cannot predict is whether there is already developing life elsewhere - maybe not on your target planet, but on a neighbouring moon, or solar system - another is whether your messenger microbes will evolve into virulent pathogens that hitch rides on comets, travel to other inhabited planets and wipe out the native species, who will not have developed a resistance to them. Life can be brutish and nasty. We can predict many things generally via the wise methodology of probability over possibility, and of course even now, we are starting to probe extra solar planets atmospheres (if present) and the JWST will surely add clarity and certainty to that. Remembering of course that this is a new science....... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0148 https://www.seti.org/exoplanetary-atmospheres-and-how-understand-them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_atmosphere#:~:text=There is evidence that extrasolar,and atmospheric chemistry and dynamics. Yep, life certainly can be brutish and nasty, but by the same token we are talking about sterile planets, and would certainly have some idea as to the conditions on neighbouring planets and moons, based on many things. The chances of life for example on a "hot Jupiter"extra solar planet is probably non existent. (remember the possibility over probability lesson?) As yet we know of no life existing beyond Earth, and when we finally have some confirmation of that existing (possibly within our own solar system) it will almost certainly be microbrial, certainly no space faring octopuses! 12 minutes ago, Peterkin said: Your obsession with Earth based ideologies are clouding your sensibilities. I don't believe either of has been exposed to any ideologies that are not Earth-based. ???Obviously. So? 12 minutes ago, Peterkin said: Where we differ is in our views on priority, responsibility and entitlement. Science's priority is protecting life and extending it when and where possible. Science's responsibility is doing that via the scientific method. On entitlement.... https://www.aaas.org/programs/scientific-responsibility-human-rights-law/resources/article-15/about#:~:text=Article 15 of the International,indispensable for scientific research%2C and Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) requires states to: recognize the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications conserve, develop, and diffuse science respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research, and recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific field. As a program devoted to mobilizing science and scientists to advance human rights, SRHRL is committed to promoting Article 15 (ICESCR) and engaging scientists in that effort. The premise of the “Article 15” Project is that, just as governments are expected to adopt measures to respect the rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial, so too are they obligated to uphold the right to the benefits of scientific progress. To date, however, governments have largely ignored their Article 15 obligations and neither the human rights nor the scientific communities have brought their skills and influential voices to bear on the promotion and application of this right in practice. SRHRL believes that the realization of Article 15 requires that scientists take up this neglected right. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope that meets with your approval. Edited January 27, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 32 minutes ago, beecee said: Science's priority is protecting life and extending it when and where possible. Science's responsibility is doing that via the scientific method. None of the above. Science has no priorities, no responsibility, no will, no purpose and no consciousness. Science is nothing more than a methodology, a set of tools, wherewith humans - imperfect, subjective humans - achieve whatever aim their needs, wants, ideals and ambitions demand from moment to moment. Their injudicious, selfish, shortsighted, (not to mention downright evil and sometimes even the best-intentioned) applications of the scientific tool-kit has ended or blighted billions of lives, extinguished many thousands of entire species, committed genocide on groups of its own species and done irreparable harm to the only planet we know for certain to be habitable. I, as a human being, rather than a spokesman for Science or any other lofty Concept, am of the opinion that any meddling on our part has the potential of doing harm to other potentially habitable planets. Edited January 27, 2022 by Peterkin hasty typing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 4 minutes ago, Peterkin said: None of the above. Science has no priorities, no responsibility, no will, no purpose and no consciousness. Thankfully, most would disagree vehemently with you. 5 minutes ago, Peterkin said: Science is nothing more than a methodology, No, science is the discipline encompassing the systematic study of the universe and all in it through, observation and experiment. The scientific methodology itself is the set of tools you mention. 10 minutes ago, Peterkin said: The injudicious, selfish, shortsighted, unreflecting (not to mention downright evil and sometimes even the best-intentioned) applications of the scientific tool-kit have done irreparable harm to the only planet we know for certain to be habitable. No, it's the humans that chose to use the scientific knowledge for evil that is faulty. With regards to the planet, science has actually reversed much of the harm done by man, in many sciences such as meteorology, satellites surveillance, improved agriculture, climate change recognition, general biodiversity, electric cars, solar panels, the list is endless and I'm less than impressed that you chose not to recognise such irrefutable examples of the benefits of science, in favour of your questionable pessimism, based on your questionable philosophy. 18 minutes ago, Peterkin said: I, as a human being, rather than a spokesman for Science or any other esoteric concept, am of the opinion that any meddling on our part might equally well harm other potentially habitable planets. I as a human being and a non spokesman for science, (it speaks for itself) am of the opinion, that we are obliged to spread microbrial seeds to other potential habitable worlds, on probable sterile worlds, that as yet have not, and may not experience Abiogenesis, other then with our help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 Just now, beecee said: No, it's the humans that chose to use the scientific knowledge for evil that is faulty. No, what? Of bleeding-course it's the humans! Who else?? Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Conclusion: all people should own guns. 2 minutes ago, beecee said: science, (it speaks for itself) "It" doesn't speak; it doesn't breathe; it doesn't bleed; it doesn't breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 5 minutes ago, Peterkin said: No, what? Of bleeding-course it's the humans! Who else?? Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Conclusion: all people should own guns. 🥱Or more sensibly, no person should own a gun. 7 minutes ago, Peterkin said: "It" doesn't speak; it doesn't breathe; it doesn't bleed; it doesn't breed. Is that all you have? ☺️ Stop being so obtuse. https://www.britannica.com/science/science science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws. Most of us know what science is...therefor science speaks for itself. https://www.mmm-online.com/home/opinion/letting-the-science-speak-for-itself-how-scientists-are-holding-our-virtual-hands-through-the-pandemic-fear-and-confusion/ Letting the science speak for itself: How scientists are holding our virtual hands through the pandemic fear and confusion https://www.icr.org/article/letting-science-speak-for-itself Letting the Science Speak for Itself: "Geology will survive creationist undermining," according to a recent commentary by Steven Newton in New Scientist. Newton is Programs and Policy Director for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit advocacy group based in Oakland, California, that is dedicated to censoring academic freedom and promoting evolution-only teaching in public schools. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fabian Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 4 hours ago, beecee said: I as a human being and a non spokesman for science, (it speaks for itself) am of the opinion, that we are obliged to spread microbrial seeds to other potential habitable worlds, on probable sterile worlds, that as yet have not, and may not experience Abiogenesis, other then with our help. "Obliged" how? If you are trying to put the question and your answer onto a science footing I think you are not succeeding. To me "Probable sterile worlds" is a lot different to "sterile worlds" but the practicalities of how panspermia might be done deliberately are a side issue when it isn't clear why we should devote resources to it. Calling it human destiny or any kind of inevitable doesn't really do it. 5 hours ago, beecee said: We are space faring species, and as long as we survive, we'll go further and further, and through projects like Genesis, plant microbrial seeds on otherwise sterile planets. Space faring species is a bit of - a lot of - an exaggeration or maybe hyperbole. We'll go further and further sounds like a marketing slogan. To me the more you try to defend panspermist ambitions as based in science the more like belief, ideology, religion it sounds. A psychological or perhaps that should be slight-illogical problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: "Obliged" how? If you are trying to put the question and your answer onto a science footing I think you are not succeeding. Since at this time, this planet is the only known one to harbour life, and since we certainly know of others that are probably condusive to life, I see it as reasonable to conduct the Genesis experiment, when we are able. 29 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: To me "Probable sterile worlds" is a lot different to "sterile worlds" but the practicalities of how panspermia might be done deliberately are a side issue when it isn't clear why we should devote resources to it. Calling it human destiny or any kind of inevitable doesn't really do it. I'm trying to instill the knowledge of the difference between what is possible and what is probable. As I mentioned earlier, (here or elsewhere) one of the possibilities when the Manhatten project was starting, was igniting the atmophere. The probablity was extremely low though, as opposed to possibility, and that has been borne out thousands of times now. 29 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: Space faring species is a bit of - a lot of - an exaggeration or maybe hyperbole. We'll go further and further sounds like a marketing slogan. Any journey starts with baby steps, and we have achieved that with six Moon landings, countless robotic craft sent to all corners of the solar system and some now beyond, not to mention, having a presence in space everyday for the last 23 years. I put it to you, that you are being rather uneccessarily pedantic by seemingly assuming that those facts dont count as "space faring" and that we will not in time go further when technology allows. eg: boots on Mars in the near future and then beyond and in the course of time, who knows? stellar travel etc. But I understand that also fails to gel with you. 😉 We were not born to stagnate in this fart arse little blue orb! 29 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: To me the more you try to defend panspermist ambitions as based in science the more like belief, ideology, religion it sounds. A psychological or perhaps that should be slight-illogical problem? The reverse may also apply, with your own beliefs, in this and of course other areas. Let's be clear...yes I see project Genesis to be a useful scientific endeavour, when we are capable of it, and the time is right. Probably on a known sterile planet that is capable of supporting life but where Abiogenesis has not as yet taken hold, as it obviously did on Earth. To class the support of such a scientific project as psychological and/or illogical, is bordering on psychotic and illogic reasonings. Edited January 28, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, beecee said: Since at this time, this planet is the only known one to harbour life, and since we certainly know of others that are probably condusive to life, I see it as reasonable to conduct the Genesis experiment, when we are able. That's what zealots of Beetlejuice told the skeptics before they launched that black glass brick full of corona virus. It was intended for Europa, but overshot - just like the first time they tried it, 3 million years ago. Edited January 28, 2022 by Peterkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) https://phys.org/news/2019-01-seeding-milky-life-genesis-missions.html "Invariably, the issues of extra-terrestrial life and planetary exploration is a controversial one, and one that we are not likely to resolve anytime soon. One thing is for sure though: as our efforts to explore the solar system and galaxy continue, it is an issue that we cannot avoid". https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf Why planetary and exoplanetary protection differ: The case of long duration Genesis missions to habitable but sterile M-dwarf oxygen planets: Abstract: Time is arguably the key limiting factor for interstellar exploration. At high speeds, flyby missions to nearby stars by laser propelled wafersats taking 50-100 years would be feasible. Directed energy launch systems could accelerate on the other side also crafts weighing several tons to cruising speeds of the order of 1000 km/s (c/300). At these speeds, superconducting magnetic sails would be able to decelerate the craft by transferring kinetic energy to the protons of the interstellar medium. A tantalizing perspective, which would allow interstellar probes to stop whenever time is not a limiting factor. Prime candidates are in this respect Genesis probes, that is missions aiming to offer terrestrial life new evolutionary pathways on potentially habitable but hitherto barren exoplanets. Genesis missions raise important ethical issues, in particular with regard to planetary protection. Here we argue that exoplanetary and planetary protection differ qualitatively as a result of the vastly different cruising times for payload delivering probes, which are of the order of millennia for interstellar probes, but only of years for solar system bodies. Furthermore we point out that our galaxy may harbor a large number of habitable exoplanets, M-dwarf planets, which could be sterile due to the presence of massive primordial oxygen atmospheres. We believe that the prospect terrestrial life has in our galaxy would shift on a fundamental level in case that the existence of this type of habitable but sterile oxygen planets will be corroborated by future research. It may also explain why our sun is not a M dwarf, the most common star type, but a medium-sized G-class star. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2197 Seeding Biochemistry on Other Worlds: Enceladus as a Case Study: Abstract: The Solar System is becoming increasingly accessible to exploration by robotic missions to search for life. However, astrobiologists currently lack well-defined frameworks to quantitatively assess the chemical space accessible to life in these alien environments. Such frameworks will be critical for developing concrete predictions needed for future mission planning, both to determine the potential viability of life on other worlds and to anticipate the molecular biosignatures that life could produce. Here, we describe how uniting existing methods provides a framework to study the accessibility of biochemical space across diverse planetary environments. Our approach combines observational data from planetary missions with genomic data catalogued from across Earth and analyzed using computational methods from network theory. To demonstrate this, we use 307 biochemical networks generated from genomic data collected across Earth and “seed” these networks with molecules confirmed to be present on Saturn's moon Enceladus. By expanding through known biochemical reaction space starting from these seed compounds, we are able to determine which products of Earth's biochemistry are, in principle, reachable from compounds available in the environment on Enceladus, and how this varies across different examples of life from Earth (organisms, ecosystems, planetary-scale biochemistry). While we find that none of the 307 prokaryotes analyzed meet the threshold for viability, the reaction space covered by this process can provide a map of possible targets for detection of Earth-like life on Enceladus, as well as targets for synthetic biology approaches to seed life on Enceladus. In cases where biochemistry is not viable because key compounds are missing, we identify the environmental precursors required to make it viable, thus providing a set of compounds to prioritize for detection in future planetary exploration missions aimed at assessing the ability of Enceladus to sustain Earth-like life or directed panspermia. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150827111652.htm Interstellar seeds could create oases of life: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Summary: Astrophysicists now show that if life can travel between the stars (a process called panspermia), it would spread in a characteristic pattern that we could potentially identify. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222394696_Glaciopanspermia_Seeding_the_Terrestrial_Planets_with_Life Glaciopanspermia: Seeding the Terrestrial Planets with Life? Abstract: The question whether life originated on Earth or elsewhere in the solar system has no obvious answer, since Earth was sterilized by the Moon-forming impact and possibly also during the LHB, about 700 Ma after the formation of the solar system. Seeding by lithopanspermia has to be considered. Possible sources of life include Earth itself, Mars, Venus (if it had a more benign climate than today) and icy bodies of the solar system. The first step of lithopanspermia is the ejection of fragments of the surface into space, which requires achieving at least escape velocity. As the velocity distribution of impact ejecta falls off steeply, attention is drawn to bodies with lower escape velocities. Ceres has had, or still has, an ocean more than 100 km deep, with hydrothermal activity at its rocky core. The possible presence of life, its relative closeness to the terrestrial planets and Ceres' low escape velocity of 510 m/s suggest that Ceres could well be a parent body for life in the solar system.Icy impact ejecta – hence glaciopanspermia – from Ceres will be subject to evaporation of volatiles. Spores may be loosened by evaporation and enter the atmospheres of the terrestrial planets as micrometeorites.The seeding of the terrestrial planets from Ceres would result in (1) detection of life in the crustal layers of Ceres; (2) a commonality of Cerean life with Terran and possible Martian and Venusian life and (3) biomarkers of Cerean life, which might be found in the ice at the Moon's poles and on the surface of other main belt asteroids. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, I ignored the comedy routine in a previous post.... Edited January 28, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 Another Physorg article on the subject........................ https://phys.org/news/2010-02-professor-moral-obligation-seed-universe.html Professor: We have a 'moral obligation' to seed universe with life: (PhysOrg.com) -- Eventually, the day will come when life on Earth ends. Whether that’s tomorrow or five billion years from now, whether by nuclear war, climate change, or the Sun burning up its fuel, the last living cell on Earth will one day wither and die. But that doesn’t mean that all is lost. What if we had the chance to sow the seeds of terrestrial life throughout the universe, to settle young planets within developing solar systems many light-years away, and thus give our long evolutionary line the chance to continue indefinitely? According to Michael Mautner, Research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, seeding the universe with life is not just an option, it’s our moral obligation. As members of this planet’s menagerie, and a consequence of nearly 4 billion years of evolution, humans have a purpose to propagate life. After all, whatever else life is, it necessarily possesses an incessant drive for self-perpetuation. And the idea isn’t just fantasy: Mautner says that “directed panspermia” missions can be accomplished with present technology. “We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life, and even the transfer of human life to other solar systems which can be transformed via microbial activity, thereby preparing these worlds to develop and sustain complex life,” Mautner explained to PhysOrg.com. “Securing that future for life can give our human existence a cosmic purpose.” more at link........................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.astroethics.com/ Principles of Life-Centered Astroethics: "It is the human purpose to propagate life” Life-centered ethics are based on the unique value of life in Nature; our unity with all fellow biological life; and our power to expand life in space. These ethics value biological life itself, and its core gene/protein processes that propagate life. These principles are extended to space as panbiotic ethics, that can secure an immense future for life in the universe. Why Life? Principles of Life-Centered (Biotic) Ethics Life is unique in Nature, and for us, it is precious. Life is unique in its complex patterns, and in its purposeful self-continuation. We belong to life and share its drive for self-propagation. Belonging to life then implies a human purpose to secure, expand and propagate our family of gene/protein life. Advancing Life in Space: Panbiotic Ethics Our purpose is best achieved in space, where life has an immense future. We can start now to secure this future, by seeding with life new solar systems. New species can develop there into intelligent beings who will expand life futher. Filling the universe with life will give our human existence a cosmic purpose. Life-Centered Panbiotic Ethics: Principles and Implications Human survival, and expanding life in space, are cosmic human endeavors. They will require human cooperation on cosmic scales of space and time, based on compassion, truth, justice, peace, and a firm respect for life. They can be secured by these priciples: "Love Life; Respect Reality; and Honor Human Dignity". Life-centered biotic ethics define the human purpose: to forever safeguard and propagate life, and to elevate life into a major force in Nature. Can we in fact implement these principles? How can we assure that our family of gene/protein life survives and expands in the galaxy? What are the prospects for life in the Solar System and far beyond? What cosmological future will this new panbiotic astro-ethics secure? These questions are addressed below, and further in the e-book "Seeding the Universe with Life: Securing Our Cosmological Future" (free download) The basic principles are summarized also in Bioethics 2009, 23, 433-440: "Life Centered Ethics and the Human Future in Space" (free download). more at link................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 23 hours ago, Peterkin said: It's science done in the service, not of potential new knowledge, but of ideology. 6 hours ago, Peterkin said: Your obsession with Earth based ideologies are clouding your sensibilities. These two remarkable quotes deserve a reply...🤭 Unlike the comedy one. It's certainly not me pushing some idealistic philosophical ideology, theist, or ID nonsense. I'm simply agreeing with an aspect of science, as science, and with regards to the probability of such. You disagree, that's your opinion and we all understand opinions. I've given numerous articles and scientific opinions on the genesis process, perhaps you need to invalidate those points made, with more then just rhetoric. yes, I also understand that some of the points are still speculative...all the more reason why continued experiments and observations should continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 17 minutes ago, beecee said: I've given numerous articles and scientific opinions on the genesis project, not process You've given a remarkably one-sided and ideological view, yes. 19 minutes ago, beecee said: "It is the human purpose to propagate life” This is not scientific; this is a creed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Peterkin said: project, not process I'll stick to process thank you, in the manner I was using to describe it. But your silly pedant noted. 13 minutes ago, Peterkin said: You've given a remarkably one-sided and ideological view, yes. No. I've given ample scientific opinion and views on such an intended process. You, as usual are applying your world ideological/philosophical view, which is also obvious in the vast majority of your posts. 13 minutes ago, Peterkin said: This is not scientific; this is a creed. Nup, wrong again. It is a reason to propagate life whenever and whereever we can, due to the scientific facts that everything does have a use by date. In summing again, It's certainly not me pushing some idealistic philosophical ideology, theist, or ID nonsense. I'm simply agreeing with an aspect of science, as science, and with regards to the probability of such. You disagree, that's your opinion and we all understand opinions. Yes, I also understand that some of the points are still speculative...all the more reason why continued experiments and observations should continue. This obviously has now developed into a science v's philosophy argument. No wonder notable physicists such as Lawrence Krauss and others have chose to criticise some philosophical aspects and that which some philosophers deem as exempt from criticism. "Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic". Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From a previous link, two sensible statements.... "Our purpose is best achieved in space, where life has an immense future. We can start now to secure this future, by seeding with life new solar systems. New species can develop there into intelligent beings who will expand life futher. Filling the universe with life will give our human existence a cosmic purpose". "Human survival, and expanding life in space, are cosmic human endeavors. They will require human cooperation on cosmic scales of space and time, based on compassion, truth, justice, peace, and a firm respect for life. They can be secured by these priciples: "Love Life; Respect Reality; and Honor Human Dignity". Edited January 28, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) OK then. If Human Destiny demands it, the scientific tool-kit must serve it. Edited January 28, 2022 by Peterkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Peterkin said: OK then. If Human Destiny demands it, the scientific tool-kit must serve it. You interprete it the way you like. Your "OK then", says plenty about your intent. ☺️ Edited January 28, 2022 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 28 minutes ago, beecee said: Your "OK then", says plenty about your intent. It says I have no intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now