Jump to content

A reverse panspermia


Recommended Posts

If the purpose of seeding another planet with microorganisms of Earth is to give them a chance to evolve into complex life forms, then the idea is perhaps a mistake. The microorganisms we have today have evolved for the 4 billion years just like everything else living on Earth today. And this is the result! This is their evolutionary path. Some other lineage(s) evolved into other forms, including humans, but not their lineage(s). Seeding other planets with our modern archaea and bacteria, if they will not go extinct, will result in these planets being populated by archaea and bacteria for billions of years in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Are you saying those are the only two choices? Invade or stagnate?

You are mistaken. It's stagnate or do science.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 But that's an ideological position and doesn't answer the original question: What's the purpose of seeding other planets with life?  

(1) It's Science, (2) Because we can, (3) because it's imperitive on the off chance that Earth is truly the only planet where abiogenesis has taken hold, to spread life on another planet (4) Because according to the data, the planet being seeded is sterile, and (5) any possibility of any underground microbes fail when compared to the probability and the already undertaken science to reach the conclusion, the planet is sterile.

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It costs nothing. Sending contaminants into space cost plenty.

It's not contaminants. Its life. Science costs plenty, and is justified by the fact none of us can do without it.

54 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, it's an ego thing. OK - that, I comprehend. Why disguise it as science? 

Ego or no ego,we are the only known advanced space faring lifeform on the only known planet to have had abiogenesis take hold.

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

have evolved for the 4 billion years just like everything else living on Earth today. And this is the result! 

That same result probably also holds true for any possibility of the underground microbes on the otherwise sterile planet, that our knowledge and science has decreeded to be sterile. Seeding such a planet would have future applications as to a probable new home for humans, when the time nears for the Sun/Earth use by date. If of course we are still around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Full circle. Fourth time? Fifth? Enough.

Agreed. The main point though is not too many of the nay sayers have actually addressed the links, references, facts and scientific speculations in the many links given.  Do you brush your teeth every morning and night? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Full circle. Fourth time? Fifth? Enough.

 

Since you fail to address relevant points in the many links I have given, I'll give one more assessment for you to practise your philosophy on in an attempt to discredit it.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia#Motivation_and_ethics

Directed panspermia

scroll down to 

Motivation and ethics[edit]

Directed panspermia aims to secure and expand our family of organic gene/protein life. It may be motivated by the desire to perpetuate the common genetic heritage of all terrestrial life. This motivation was formulated as biotic ethics, that value the common gene/protein patterns of organic life,[9] and as panbiotic ethics that aim to secure and expand life in the universe.[7][8]

Molecular biology shows complex patterns common to all cellular life, a common genetic code and a common mechanism to translate it into proteins, which in turn help to reproduce the DNA code. Also, shared are the basic mechanisms of energy use and material transport. These self-propagating patterns and processes are the core of organic gene/protein life. Life is unique because of this complexity, and because of the exact coincidence of the laws of physics that allow life to exist. Also unique to life is the pursuit of self-propagation, which implies a human purpose to secure and expand life. These objectives are best secured in space, suggesting a panbiotic ethics aimed to secure this future.[2][7][8][9]

Objections and counterarguments[edit]

The main objection to directed panspermia is that it may interfere with local life at the targets.[36] The colonizing microorganisms may out-compete local life for resources, or infect and harm local organisms. However, this probability can be minimized by targeting newly forming planetary systems, accretion discs and star-forming clouds, where local life, and especially advanced life, could not have emerged yet. If there is local life that is fundamentally different, the colonizing microorganisms may not harm it. If there is local organic gene/protein life, it may exchange genes with the colonizing microorganisms, increasing galactic biodiversity.[citation needed]

Another objection is that space should be left pristine for scientific studies, a reason for planetary quarantine. However, directed panspermia may reach only a few, at most a few hundred new stars, still leaving a hundred billion pristine for local life and for research. A technical objection is the uncertain survival of the messenger organisms during long interstellar transit. Research by simulations, and the development on hardy colonizers is needed to address this questions.

A third argument against engaging in directed panspermia derives from the view that wild animals do not —on the average— have lives worth living, and thus spreading life would be morally wrong. Ng supports this view,[37] and other authors agree or disagree, because it is not possible to measure animal pleasure or pain.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

There we have some pros and cons. I stand convinced, along with Professor Mautner and others, that we are morally obliged to attempt such a mission, when we can, and that the pros far outweigh the cons.

You could also address this paper if you like.....

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beecee said:

There we have some pros and cons. I stand convinced, along with Professor Mautner and others, that we are morally obliged to attempt such a mission, when we can, and that the pros far outweigh the cons.

You stand convinced that your priest/teacher is better than mine, I'm just asking why.

For instance, aren't we morally obliged (the federations 'prime directive' and various Bible's) to cause no harm?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

Since you fail to address relevant points in the many links I have given, I'll give one more assessment for you to practise your philosophy on in an attempt to discredit it.......

I'm not trying to discredit it. Its Biological Imperialism under a missionary banner.

 

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, beecee said:

You could also address this paper if you like.....

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf

what is the paper about?

have you read the paper?

what do you want addressed about the paper?

 

you could address what I posted :

On 1/29/2022 at 7:53 PM, et pet said:

after reading these Posts, anyone suppose it may be that Space Faring Cephlopods (Octopuses?) Panspermized the Earth?

it may be that hundreds of milions or even billions of years ago Octopuses were a "Space Faring Species" that somehow gave "the old reverse panspermia a go" and the Earth got seeded

it just may be

could be

maybe a theory

Edited by et pet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with empire, if you are moving into an empty space. A dead rock in the void counts as that as far as I'm concerned. 

I've very concerned about extinctions here on earth, but I don't extend that concern to bacteria. And certainly not to bacteria-like basic forms of life on another planet. That's bordering on the plain silly in my opinion. Apart from the fact that it would be virtually impossible to wipe out primitive life living in rocks, it would probably take billions of years to accomplish, and you could easily preserve some if you wanted, at practically no cost. 

As far as it not being scientific, that's rubbish. Science is about learning, and there's a lot to learn about how life adapts to a new home. And the practical gain for me, is knowing that life has two chances of survival, not just one. Even though that's of no benefit to me personally, it's something that I would like to know, and I would therefore vote for it, if given the choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I've very concerned about extinctions here on earth, but I don't extend that concern to bacteria.

... on which all other life depends...

Quote

And certainly not to bacteria-like basic forms of life on another planet.

Right. You are entitled to destroy whatever kind of life is unworthy in your sight. You own all the universe and make all the value judgments. 

Quote

That's bordering on the plain silly in my opinion.

In mine, that's bordering on megalomania. 

It's also, I suspect, an invitation to some Vogon rezoning project.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, et pet said:

what is the paper about?

It's certainly not about the highly improbable evolution of space faring octopuses! 😆

4 hours ago, et pet said:

have you read the paper?

Enough of it to know what it is essentially about.

4 hours ago, et pet said:

what do you want addressed about the paper?

All the relevant salient  points that would be obvious if you at least attempted to read the paper.

4 hours ago, et pet said:

you could address what I posted :

If you say so. Essentially there is no concrete evidence to show that octopuses are Alien, and the vast majority of scientists reject that scenario. Yes I read that suggestion also, but prefer facts. Just as essentially, they are evolutionary constrained after 300 million years of evolution.

 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not trying to discredit it. Its Biological Imperialism under a missionary banner.

Philosophical nonsense. We are talking about sterile planets/moons.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You stand convinced that your priest/teacher is better than mine, I'm just asking why.

For instance, aren't we morally obliged (the federations 'prime directive' and various Bible's) to cause no harm?

Who is your priest/teacher? I have made mine known, at least three of them. Are you going to shrink away from that question also? If you took the time to read the links, you would understand that the equivelent to Star Trek's prime directive is considered in all aspects, and I support that. You though remained confused over your silly possiblity scenarios over the more scientific application of probabilities. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

... on which all other life depends...

You didn't answer my previous question: Do you brush your teeth morning and evening? 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Right. You are entitled to destroy whatever kind of life is unworthy in your sight. You own all the universe and make all the value judgments. 

Stop being so pretentiously melodramatic. We are talking about sterile planets, decided after research, any probability of microbes existing 5 kms down, have already probably found their evolutionary niche.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In mine, that's bordering on megalomania. 

Thankfully, its the relevant scientific opinion, based on data after research that decides the necessity of the Genesis experiment.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's also, I suspect, an invitation to some Vogon rezoning project.

I suspect its more about upholding your societal sanitised philosophical agenda.

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

I have no problem with empire, if you are moving into an empty space. A dead rock in the void counts as that as far as I'm concerned. 

And as most reasonable scientists agree.

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've very concerned about extinctions here on earth, but I don't extend that concern to bacteria. And certainly not to bacteria-like basic forms of life on another planet. That's bordering on the plain silly in my opinion. Apart from the fact that it would be virtually impossible to wipe out primitive life living in rocks, it would probably take billions of years to accomplish, and you could easily preserve some if you wanted, at practically no cost. 

Facts are we kill bacteria every day, even on Earth. The position being argued by the nay sayers, is essentially pretentiously melodramatic and unworkable. Again, more an argument from them of possibilities over scientific derived probabilities.

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

As far as it not being scientific, that's rubbish. Science is about learning, and there's a lot to learn about how life adapts to a new home. And the practical gain for me, is knowing that life has two chances of survival, not just one. Even though that's of no benefit to me personally, it's something that I would like to know, and I would therefore vote for it, if given the choice. 

 The silly claim that it is not scientific, was as you say silly, and literally scraping the bottom of the cesspool barrel. 

In time, and as we develop further into space faring, I'm pretty sure experiments like this will take place...probably more then once. 

 I stand convinced, along with Professor Mautner, (and yourself) and others, that we are morally obliged to attempt such a mission, when we can, and that the pros far outweigh the cons.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

You didn't answer my previous question

Correct! And I wasn't answering you in that quote, either.

49 minutes ago, beecee said:

scraping the bottom of the cesspool barrel. 

Nice One!

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

Facts are we kill bacteria every day, even on Earth.

Try killing all of them and see what happens. Just as a scientific experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Peterkin said:

Correct! And I wasn't answering you in that quote, either.

Nice One!

So, as usual nothing but opinions? And we know all about thoughs!🤮

Do you brush your teeth every morning and evening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, beecee said:

The main objection to directed panspermia is that it may interfere with local life at the targets.[36] The colonizing microorganisms may out-compete local life for resources, or infect and harm local organisms. However, this probability can be minimized by targeting newly forming planetary systems, accretion discs and star-forming clouds, where local life, and especially advanced life, could not have emerged yet.

Looking in again.  To be clear, I was not really "naysaying" this scenario, which is somewhat different from what was proposed earlier in the thread.  Truly pristine barren planets could be seeded, and extend the reign of DNA life and its survival chances.

Any such world will, of course, diverge from our biota as it develops, and could well become quite hostile to humans over time.  So it would not really be something that could serve as a backup for humans in case of terrestrial disaster.

Having a biotically similar backup Earth, a quite different feat of planetary bioengineering, seems reasonable if it has fully developed ecosystems that would be compatible with human colonization.  However, it's hard to see this project working out well on a newly formed planet, and we wouldn't likely have several billion years to bioengineer it the slow old-fashioned way, building up an Earth Two from stromatolites and cyanobacteria while we just hang out in space arks.

So how would you get a mature planet and make it Earth Two, without squashing indigenous life?  I would think you would he limited to planetary systems near recent supernovae which had been completely sterilized by an intense gamma burst and proton shock wave.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Try killing all of them and see what happens. Just as a scientific experiment.

Stop avoiding the issue Peterkin. We don't need to kill, nor should we kill all of them. The point again is that we are obliged to spread life to areas that we see scientifically devoid of it, not withstanding your apparent abhorance to the only known advanced species in all the universe...that be you and me old Son.

Here's another interesting paper, and I don't believe I have posted it before, so it should meet with your approval.

http://www.astro-ecology.com/Book.pdf

Synopsis

“It is the human purpose to propagate life” 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. This 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 further expand life in the galaxy. Filling the universe with life will give then our human existence a cosmic purpose.

Seeding the Universe with Life - Securing Our Cosmological Future:

Michael Noah Mautner, Ph.D. Cover Photo: The first extraterrestrial plant, grown on meteorite extracts, rides toward new suns. Life planted in new worlds will flourish on such materials and stellar energy throughout the galaxy.

extract:

Life is unique because the laws of physics coincide precisely to allow life to exist. Nature came to a unique point in life.

Life creates complex patterns, whose effective purpose is selfpropagation. Where there is life, there purpose.

We belong to life and share its purpose. It is the human purpose to forever protect and propagate life.

The human purpose implies biotic ethics: What promotes life is good, and what harms life is evil. Further, panbiotic ethics seeks to maximize life in the universe.

The astro-ecology of meteorites shows that asteroid and comet materials in this Solar System, and others, are fertile. We can now proceed to seed new solar systems with our family of gene/protein life

Our seeds in new worlds can advance into intelligent beings who will further expand life. Astro-ecology and cosmology allow an immense future for life. Our remote descendants may then seek to extend life to eternity.

Guided by life-centered biotic principles and panbiotic ethics, we can now start to fill the galaxy with life. In our descendants through time and space, our human existence will find a cosmic purpose.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Quite a lengthy summary paper that essentially shows why we (humans) despite our checkered past, and at times violent nature, are still obliged to carry out scientific experiments as we are able, the Genesis project being one of those.

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Looking in again.  To be clear, I was not really "naysaying" this scenario, which is somewhat different from what was proposed earlier in the thread.  Truly pristine barren planets could be seeded, and extend the reign of DNA life and its survival chances.

Understood, no problems. 

Most, such as yourself and joigus ( and a couple of others early in the thread) have approached the subject honestly and devoid of baggage. 

Others have approached it imo, in a pretentiously melodramatic and nonsensical philosophical position, obvious by that passive aggressive approach, and their countless possibility scenarios, while ignoring the scientific probabilites. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned earlier......a probable variation....

http://astro-ecology.com/PDFDirectedPanspermia3JBIS1997Paper.pdf

DIRECTED PANSPERMIA. 3. STRATEGIES AND MOTIVATION FOR SEEDING STAR-FORMING CLOUDS:

ABSTRACT:

Microbial swarms aimed at star-forming regions of interstellar clouds can seed stellar associations of 10 - 100 young planetary systems. Swarms of millimeter size, milligram packets can be launched by 35 cm solar sails at 5E-4 c, to penetrate interstellar clouds. Selective capture in high-density planetary accretion zones of densities > 1E-17 kg m-3 is achieved by viscous drag. Strategies are evaluated to seed dense cloud cores, or individual protostellar condensations, accretion disks or young planets therein. Targeting the Ophiuchus cloud is described as a model system. The biological content, dispersed in 30 µm, 1E-10 kg capsules of 1E6 freeze-dried microorganisms each, may be captured by new planets or delivered to planets after incorporation first into carbonaceous asteroids and comets. These objects, as modeled by meteorite materials, contain biologically available organic and mineral nutrients that are shown to sustain microbial growth. The program may be driven by panbiotic ethics, predicated on: 1. The unique position of complex organic life amongst the structures of Nature; 2. Self-propagation as the basic propensity of the living pattern; 3. The biophysical unity humans with of the organic, DNA/protein family of life; and 4. Consequently, the primary human purpose to safeguard and propagate our organic life form. To promote this purpose, panspermia missions with diverse biological payloads will maximize survival at the targets and induce evolutionary pressures. In particular, eukaryotes and simple multicellular organisms in the payload will accelerate higher evolution. Based on the geometries and masses of star-forming regions, the 1E24 kg carbon resources of one solar system, applied during its 5E9 yr lifespan, can seed all newly forming planetary systems in the galaxy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

It's certainly not about the highly improbable evolution of space faring octopuses! 😆

Enough of it to know what it is essentially about.

All the relevant salient  points that would be obvious if you at least attempted to read the paper.

If you say so. Essentially there is no concrete evidence to show that octopuses are Alien, and the vast majority of scientists reject that scenario. Yes I read that suggestion also, but prefer facts. Just as essentially, they are evolutionary constrained after 300 million years of evolution.

 

 

 

What do you suppose it is "essentially about"?

I actually read the ENTIRE PAPER

seems the Authors consider the "Genesis missions" as "endeavors not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values."  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf

 

you do realize that there are "spacefaring cephalopods", right?

you know that there are Scientists that Theorize that "spacefaring cephalopods" may have arrived on Earth Hundreds of Millions or even Billions of years ago, right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The point again is that we are obliged to spread life to areas that we see scientifically devoid of it,

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Filling the universe with life will give then our human existence a cosmic purpose.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The human purpose implies biotic ethics: What promotes life is good, and what harms life is evil.

True scientific objectivity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

True scientific objectivity!

That's what it is all about, not withstanding your unworkable philosophically  sanitised society.  Oh and late edit Peterkin, there were many other points to comment on also. Are the big red words supposed to infer something or other?

34 minutes ago, et pet said:

What do you suppose it is "essentially about"?

I actually read the ENTIRE PAPER

seems the Authors consider the "Genesis missions" as "endeavors not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values."  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf

You read the entire paper? 😉 I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds.

34 minutes ago, et pet said:

you do realize that there are "spacefaring cephalopods", right?

you know that there are Scientists that Theorize that "spacefaring cephalopods" may have arrived on Earth Hundreds of Millions or even Billions of years ago, right?

Nonsense, and as already mentioned previously and reproduced below, I have read those hypotheticals, as oppossed to scientific theories, which most reputable scientists reject. It is nonsense to suggest that octopuses who have had more then 300 million years of evolution will ever be space faring entities, and we have no evidence to suggest they are Alien, and which most reputable scientists reject.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

If you say so. Essentially there is no concrete evidence to show that octopuses are Alien, and the vast majority of scientists reject that scenario. Yes I read that suggestion also, but prefer facts. Just as essentially, they are evolutionary constrained after 300 million years of evolution.

But et pet, I must now ignore you for reasons known by yourself and myself regarding past interactions elsewhere and your reputaion. Hope you understand.

Thank you.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, they're supposed to highlight the attitude of the author.

My attitude is OK. I'm sticking with the science, rather then proping up some unworkable sanitised system.

Another......

http://astro-ecology.com/PDFAsteroidAstrobiology2002Paper.pdf

Research Paper Planetary Resources and Astroecology. Planetary Microcosm Models of Asteroid and Meteorite Interiors: Electrolyte Solutions and Microbial Growth— Implications for Space Populations and Panspermia:

MICHAEL N. MAUTNER :

ABSTRACT:

Planetary microcosms were constructed using extracts from meteorites that simulate solutions in the pores of carbonaceous chondrites. The microcosms were found to support the growth of complex algal and microbial populations. Such astroecology experiments demonstrate how a diverse ecosystem could exist in fluids within asteroids and in meteorites that land on aqueous planets. The microcosm solutions were obtained by extracting nutrient electrolytes under natural conditions from powders of the Allende (CV) and Murchison (CM2) meteorites at low (0.02 g/ml) and high (10.0 g/ml) solid/solution ratios. The latter solutions, which simulate natural extractions of asteroids and meteorites by water during aqueous alteration, were found to contain 3 mol/L electrolytes and 1 mol/L organics, concentrated solutions favorable for prebiotic synthesis. The solutions and wet solids, inoculated with diverse microbial populations from a wetland, were found to support complex self-sustaining microbial communities for long periods (8 months), with steady-state populations on the order of 4 105 CFU/ml algae and 6 106 CFU/ml bacteria and fungi. Planetary microcosm experiments based on meteorite materials can assist in assaying the fertilities of planetary materials and identifying space bioresources, targeting astrobiology exploration, modeling past and future spacebased ecosystems, and evaluating sustainable populations in the Solar System. The results also suggest that protoplanetary nebulae can be effective nurseries for microorganisms and useful targets for directed panspermia. Key Words: Astroecology—Asteroids—Comets—Meteorites—Microorganisms—Panspermia. Astrobiology 2, xxx–xxx.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

You read the entire paper? 😉 I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds.

2 hours ago, et pet said:

you do realize that there are "spacefaring cephalopods", right?

you know that there are Scientists that Theorize that "spacefaring cephalopods" may have arrived on Earth Hundreds of Millions or even Billions of years ago, right?

Nonsense, and as already mentioned previously and reproduced below, I have read those hypotheticals, as oppossed to scientific theories, which most reputable scientists reject. It is nonsense to suggest that octopuses who have had more then 300 million years of evolution will ever be space faring entities, and we have no evidence to suggest they are Alien, and which most reputable scientists reject.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

If you say so. Essentially there is no concrete evidence to show that octopuses are Alien, and the vast majority of scientists reject that scenario. Yes I read that suggestion also, but prefer facts. Just as essentially, they are evolutionary constrained after 300 million years of evolution.

But et pet, I must now ignore you for reasons known by yourself and myself regarding past interactions elsewhere and your reputaion. Hope you understand.

Thank you.

"I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds."                                                      seriously? 

It may be that you need to practice real Science, and carefully read the entire Paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf You know, like actually look at the evidence, objectively   Just maybe?

 

and this is just pushing a STRAWMAN ?    -                                           "suggest(ing) that octopuses who have had more then 300 million years of evolution will ever be space faring entities".                                                                                                        that is merely a poor attempt at erecting a STRAWMAN, that is not Science!

it may be that you should try and practice some real science and look into the reality of "space faring cephalopods" maybe even check with NASA

actually discuss science and possibly learn something or continue to be ignorant of real science, that is entirely up to you

Edited by et pet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read enough of the links to be impressed with the amount of effort Gros has put in and disappointed in the value judgements that are fundamental to his promoting this a good thing to do. In discussing the ethics (which there was not much of) we get what I think are shallow lines like - "In contrast one may note that the microbes living on old earth, being them bacteria or eukaryotes, have never enjoyed human protection." I don't get the impression that Gros is actually open minded about whether this is a good and wise goal, rather that he is promoting it as a good and wise goal. Just not doing a good job of it imo.

It may be written up in science paper style and contains sound science based examinations of what such goals might require but it is all very much promoting a Grand Space Dream in the unquestioning style of an enthusiast, which impresses other enthusiasts.

It involves science but the why of it - the very core - is not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting conclusion of the previous paper, http://astro-ecology.com/PDFAsteroidAstrobiology2002Paper.pdf is as follows.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

The previously reported studies on carbonaceous chondrites (Mautner, 1997a; Mautner et al., 1997) have been extended here to natural aqueous conditions of high solid/solution ratios. The main experiment-based conclusions are: 1. Planetary microcosms, based on actual extraterrestrial materials in meteorites, are useful tools in experimental astroecology. 2. Based on microcosm studies, the interiors of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites can contain highly concentrated solutions of electrolytes, nutrients, and organics (i.e., 3 mol/L electrolytes, 1–10 mol/L organics). 3. The interiors of asteroids during aqueous alteration, or meteorites landed on aqueous planets, are therefore suitable for potential biogenesis. 4. Microorganisms can grow in the interior solutions of meteorites. 5. The biomass-like ratios of macronutrients in extracts from both meteorites, and the high sulfate content in Murchison, are consistent with past biological activity in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites (i.e., soil fertility properties of Murchison are similar to those of biologically developed soils; organic polymer is similar to coal; ratios of soluble N, P, K, C, Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, and S are comparable to those in bacterial biomass). 6. Complex recycling communities of algae, bacteria, and fungi develop and survive for substantial periods in solutions prepared from extracts of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites (i.e., algal populations of 105 and microbial populations 106 CFU/ml of six species surviving over 8 months on wet Allende and Murchison). The experiments described here provide a means to examine separately the nutrient contents and the microbial populations in the microcosms. In real ecosystems, microbial activity and available nutrients are interdependent and should be monitored simultaneously. Theoretical calculations based on the results of this study suggest: 1. Carbonaceous asteroids containing nutrient solutions could distribute micoorganisms during a period of collision-mediated panspermia in the Solar Nebula and in the early Solar System (i.e., available nutrients allow a biomass of 1018 kg in a population 1032 microorganisms in the asteroid belt). 2. Similarly, comets could be used as vehicles, and protoplanetary nebulae used as targets and incubators in directed panspermia missions for seeding new planetary systems with microbial life (i.e., the nutrients in the Oort belt comets could allow a biomass of 1021 kg containing 1035 microorganisms, sufficient to seed all new solar systems in the galaxy). 3. Carbonaceous chondrites provide suitable soil resources for planetary terraforming and space colonization (i.e., based on the limiting nutrients NO3-N and PO4-P, the total asteroid material could support a population of 1014 humans). In combination, the results of planetary microcosm studies and theoretical considerations have a wide range of applications that include assaying the fertilities of planetary materials; targeting astrobiology exploration; identifying bioresources and estimating sustainable populations in the Solar System; and modeling ecosystems for terraforming, space colonization, and directed panspermia.

23 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I read enough of the links to be impressed with the amount of effort Gros has put in and disappointed in the value judgements that are fundamental to his promoting this a good thing to do. In discussing the ethics (which there was not much of) we get what I think are shallow lines like - "In contrast one may note that the microbes living on old earth, being them bacteria or eukaryotes, have never enjoyed human protection." I don't get the impression that Gros is actually open minded about whether this is a good and wise goal, rather that he is promoting it as a good and wise goal. Just not doing a good job of it imo.

It may be written up in science paper style and contains sound science based examinations of what such goals might require but it is all very much promoting a Grand Space Dream in the unquestioning style of an enthusiast, which impresses other enthusiasts.

It involves science but the why of it - the very core - is not science.

And I have certainly had your thoughts on "grand space dreams" 😉 You do accept that the reasonable "grand space dreams' I have, all are predicted without any real specific time frame. Where do you believe we will be as space faring entities in say 500 years, a reasonable time frame considering...colony on the Moon? Boots on Mars?

Ignoring the ridiculous suggestions of space faring octopuses by lesser folk, we have far more then Gros, championing the idea. 

And with all due respect, while you suggest that Gros is less then open minded about whether or not it is a good idea, couldn't the same accusation be made about you? 

I have also if you are interested, and I believe mentioned in my post to you last night, some reputable thoughts by Professor Muatner. The facts are when this is undertaken, ( and I believe it certainly will be, and more then once) it will all be done under some strict protcol as discussed and mentioned. 

I'm don't in any way shape or form, have any superiority quality  opinion re the human race, other then we are certainly the only advanced form of intelligence that is known to be space faring, and in fact the only advanced life form to be known in the universe. That certainly at  this time makes us special. What is wrong with accepting that fact? Likewise Earth is the only planet so far known to support any life form at all. Doesn't that make Earth special? Yet the real close minded see that as being meglomaniac.  😊 Yet you certainly know my thoughts as optimistic with regards to other Alien life forms, that as yet we are ignorant of. And I know your own pessimitic thoughts relative to  mine with regards to Alien life.

Again I see the Genesis project, when undertaken, to be within our moral and scientific rights to do...No qualms about that at all.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

So how would you get a mature planet and make it Earth Two, without squashing indigenous life?  I would think you would he limited to planetary systems near recent supernovae which had been completely sterilized by an intense gamma burst and proton shock wave.   

Some of the Panspermia methodologies, suggest seeding planetary accretion disks. I see that as very interesting.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

We should also seriously note the less than honest claim made that NASA was suggesting octopuses were "space faring" . They don't, they aren't  and they didn't. What NASA has done, and what the less than honest claim was made from, was that octopuses, squids etc, have been taken to the ISS by (wait for it! ) humans for experimental research. 

https://jalopnik.com/nasa-to-kick-off-squid-uprising-with-latest-spacex-payl-1847032282

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/spacex-22-research-highlights

So relax Ladies and gentleman, octopuses will not any time soon or ever, be building their own space ship to ferry them to some distant unknown octopus run planet! 🤣

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.