Jump to content

A reverse panspermia


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, beecee said:

We should also seriously note the less than honest claim made that NASA was suggesting octopuses were "space faring" .

 Science?

  I tried to spoon feed you an honest to goodness example of an actual real science experiment being carried out by real scientists for real scientific reasons.

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/is-space-a-bad-influence-on-good-bacteria

   An experiment to see if zero gravity and radiation has the same effect on beneficial bacteria as it does on harmful bacteria                                   

  NASA made these cephalopods spacefaring, thus allowing real scientists to conduct this real experiment.                                                                                             https://www.sciof.fi/science-fiction-squid-in-space/

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Ignoring the ridiculous suggestions of space faring octopuses by lesser folk,

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Ignoring the ridiculous suggestions of space faring octopuses by lesser folk,

science?

 then you greater folk know all about this  "Scientific Study Concludes Octopuses Could Have Come from Space"    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/scientific-study-concludes-octopuses-could-have-come-from-space/vi-AASf3VJ   

   and of course you greater folk have already read this   "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?"       https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798

 

 

 

Edited by et pet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 1:15 AM, Danijel Gorupec said:

I am supporting the idea (once we are damn sure the target world is sterile). Much to learn about life.

Going back over some of the more intelligent posts, the above of course as stated in all the links given, is the target...a known sterile world, noting that any unknown  deep Earth microbes have probably already filled their niche, understanding of course the scientific notion of probabilty over possibities.

On 1/24/2022 at 1:15 AM, Danijel Gorupec said:

The problem is: who decides what to do and how to proceed. There is no 'world-level scientific government' or similar. 

Good question, probably the experts learned in geology and other life studies. Again also judged on probabilty over possibility.

On 1/24/2022 at 1:15 AM, Danijel Gorupec said:

I understand, we had already some experience with unintentional life spreading on ISS. But ISS is a nice place. So, I still wonder if all this sterilization of Mars rovers is necessary - maybe we wouldn't be able to spread life there even if we try hard.

Another reasonable question. Most scientists are reasonably convinced there is no life on Mars at this time, but experiments continue. Noting all the cephalopods, spiders, mice etc etc etc that we have taken to the ISS for low gravity experiments in the main. It is drawing a ridiculous long bow to suggest  that they are now space faring entities, and rather humouress to boot. 🤭

On 1/24/2022 at 1:15 AM, Danijel Gorupec said:

Thinking to extremes: what if we never ever encounter any sign of life anywhere in the Universe - would we then be morally obligated to spread it out, or should we keep it confined here on one fragile planet?

Another valid point. While I'm preety well convinced that life off this Earth probably does exist somewhere, sometime, I also understand that we still have zero evidence of any of that life. So yes there is a chance that we are the only advanced form within reasonable distances, and subsequently would be morally, and scientifically bound to spread our seed where and when we are able, aligning with the accepted protocol. 

On 1/24/2022 at 5:20 AM, Genady said:

I think I understand the question now. In this case, I think, it is just a question to a preliminary study in economics of the project: how "huge" is the expense.

I don't know what makes you think that it needs to be as devastatingly expensive as you describe. I think it doesn't have to be more expensive than, say, LHC. Maybe less. We already have a range of developed and tested technologies used for JWST, rovers, probes. Searching for a "suitable" planet is not part of this project - these data come from already running exoplanet projects. There are more technical options described in the articles I've linked a few posts back.

Big ticketed scientific projects benefit Earth and our knowledge. How many of the nay sayers, excuse makers and such would vote to live a day without any scientific application. None I suggest. I don't know the projected cost of what the Genesis mission would cost, but I suggest when the time comes when we are ready for it, such costs over the science benefits will be near non existant.

On 1/24/2022 at 5:20 AM, Genady said:

The big unknown rather is, how common is life. If life turns out to be even a bit common, then this project is not needed. If on the other hand it turns out to be extremely rare, like e.g. nowhere to be found, then this project has merit.

I would just differentiate slightly...some form of basic microbrial life should be found within the next decade or two, and probably within our own system.eg: Europa, Titan, Enceledus. Advanced life forms able to undertake space faring adventures will of course be a rarer occurence. The project certainly undoubtedly has merit, as currently detailed uner the strict accepted protocols.

On 1/24/2022 at 4:15 AM, Peterkin said:

*Obviously, if life as we know it didn't originate on this planet, but came from somewhere else in the galaxy, then it's already out there and doesn't need a boost. 

The general scientific consensus is that abiogenesis did occur on Earth, I'm sure you agree with that...being the general accepted consensus that is, yes? and of course abiogenesis. yes?

At the same time Panspermia hypotheticals are still talked about and there are a number of different types, and even clubs and orginisations for those favouring Panspermia. No I aint a member of any of them but see the type of Panspermia as detailed in Project Genesis as well worth the probablity risk and a certain undertaking in the course of time. 

Who knows, perhaps one of the Pioneer probes, or Voyager craft, maybe our Panspermia  message to some planet or moon.

Do you brush your teeth morning and night? 😉

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Going back over some of the more intelligent posts

By which, I assume those that agree with you...

4 hours ago, beecee said:

the above of course as stated in all the links given, is the target...a known sterile world, noting that any unknown  deep Earth microbes have probably already filled their niche, understanding of course the scientific notion of probabilty over possibities.

We don't know what lives on our planet, yet; more species are discovered everyday (and that's a fact).

What makes you so sure that we can detect a few billion microbe's on a planet 5 light year's away?

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Advanced life forms able to undertake space faring adventures will of course be a rarer occurence.

Indeed, for instance: do you travel in space??? 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Who is your priest/teacher?

Me.

But I hope it's you, everyday I wake up and read your reply; excited too see that you'll either:

Blow my argument out of the water, and I'll learn something new.

Or.

You learn something new.

I'm, sometimes, disappointed but one day, however improbable, it will happen for someone... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beecee said:

he general scientific consensus is that abiogenesis did occur on Earth, I'm sure you agree with that...being the general accepted consensus that is, yes? and of course abiogenesis. yes?

I lack sufficient information to agree or disagree. My yea or nay is irrelevant, given that one tiny word at the start of my footnote, denoting a full coverage of bases, rather than a stand on the issue. 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you so sure that we can detect a few billion microbe's on a planet 5 light year's away?

They're sure they can. They're sure the chosen target is not only sterile and suitable to sustain life at the moment it's detected, which was between 4 and 50 years ago, but that it will remain in the same orbit and the same condition for all the thousands of years it ill take the mission to arrive there.  They're sure they can aim a space-vessel that far accurately, avoid colliding with anything on the way, and land exactly where they intended. They're sure their cargo will have survived the journey unharmed and unchanged. They're sure ....

And if it doesn't work out that way, and some nascent indigenous life gets wiped out, they don't care. The galaxy is their sandbox and they are entitled to build whatever they want, or do in it whatever they please.

To claim it in the name of Life and Science and The Human Purpose. 

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

By which, I assume those that agree with you...

Or those approaching this from a scientific point of view, rather then a fantasy unworkable philosophy. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We don't know what lives on our planet, yet; more species are discovered everyday (and that's a fact).

Yes, I know that, but strangely in many ways, we are doing more science in determining the atmospheric content of extra solar planets, then our own planet.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you so sure that we can detect a few billion microbe's on a planet 5 light year's away?

If you read the links I have given, you will understand that project Genesis when eventually undertaken, will be under strict protocol, and understanding that any microbrial life 5 kms down, that has been missed on an otherwise sterile planet/Moon, have been evolving their for hundreds of millions of years, and have a low to zero probabilty of becoming anything more substantial, and will probably remain unaffected. Think probability. Do you brush your teeth dimreeper?

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Me.

Hmmm, interesting. So no giants on whose shoulders you can stand and use to see further?

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But I hope it's you, everyday I wake up and read your reply; excited too see that you'll either:Blow my argument out of the water, and I'll learn something new.

Or. You learn something new.

I'm, sometimes, disappointed but one day, however improbable, it will happen for someone... 

I have stated my position often, and more importantly understand that position as a non scientist. What I do try and achieve is a opinion and thoughts, based on already accepted scientific knowledge....hence my many links. I also believe I have no baggage, other then science and the scientific method, my family and friends, and the family and friends are irrelevant as far as this debate goes. As I have said before, I believe your position is tainted by your unworkable life philosophy.

I also understand that the topic is probably controversial, but I also understand that Hitler was an arsehole, period,  and that sadly prisons are necessary, period. In saying all that, I see project Genesis as a morally acceptable experiment, when done under the stricy protocol mentioned in my links.

You have given me no scientific reason to change that stance.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I lack sufficient information to agree or disagree. My yea or nay is irrelevant, given that one tiny word at the start of my footnote, denoting a full coverage of bases, rather than a stand on the issue. 

 Are you doubting abiogenesis? Scientists (as opposed to I) do understand that abiogenesis is the only scientific methodology for the appearence of life. They also accept that at this time, we do not know the exact pathway/methodolgy that gave rise to abiogenesis.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They're sure they can.

No they are not sure. But the probability is low.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And if it doesn't work out that way, and some nascent indigenous life gets wiped out, they don't care. The galaxy is their sandbox and they are entitled to build whatever they want, or do in it whatever they please.

To claim it in the name of Life and Science and The Human Purpose. 

 Your doing it again Peterkin. Making grandeur like exaggerated pretentious statements. It will all be done in a scientific manner, under strict protocol, in a universe which so far has offerred no evidence whatsoever of any life of this fart arse special little blue orb!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Making grandeur like exaggerated pretentious statements.

Citing statements made either by posters on this thread or the authors of papers that have been extensively quoted.

Quote

It will all be done in a scientific manner, under strict protocol

Of course, nothing done that way has ever gone wrong.

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

in a universe which so far has offerred no evidence whatsoever of any life of this fart arse special little blue orb!

Exactly. If the universe can't or won't mount an adequate defense, it's fair game for human specialness.

Edited by Peterkin
add one quote and remove one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Citing statements made either posters on this thread or authors of papers they have quoted.

? Sorry, I fail to understand.

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I lack sufficient information to pronounce definitively on the subject.

I see. Just curious though, what other possible scientific method for the appearence of life is there other then abiogenesis? Isn't it simply the case that we just don't know the exact pathway?

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion"?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly. If the universe can't or won't mount an adequate defense, it's fair game for human specialness.

? I don't see it as a matter of defence or attack. I see it as the result of the evolution of space and time, with life at the apex, and with knowledge waiting to be discovered/learnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

? Sorry, I fail to understand.

No problem! If I could not clarify in six pages, it just wasn't meant to be.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Just curious though, what other possible scientific method for the appearence of life is there other then abiogenesis?

Not qualified to respond on a science thread.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I don't see it as a matter of defence or attack

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

It will all be done in a scientific manner, under strict protocol, in a universe which so far has offerred no evidence

 

Edited by Peterkin
my bold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No problem! If I could not clarify in six pages, it just wasn't meant to be.

 

Not qualified to respond on a science thread.

You seem to be getting rather coy after six pages? Or just avoiding honestly answering the question?  Why is that?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It will all be done in a scientific manner, under strict protocol, in a universe which so far has offerred no evidence

No evidence of what? Life elsewhere? All the more reason to spread life where we can. 

I'll reiterate after your uncalled for alteration... I don't see it as a matter of defence or attack. I see it as the result of the evolution of space and time, with life at the apex, and with knowledge waiting to be discovered/learnt. It will happen in the course of time...that's progress, that's science.

 

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not qualified to respond on a science thread.

Let me help......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to discuss why I think seeding Earth life on planets around other stars is an unworkable and ethically dubious sci-fi fantasy and is not science - although I am not sure what I would add that I haven't said.

I am also willing to discuss why people are so taken by such unrealistic ideas - the philosophy or ideology or whatever it is that underpins popular belief that expansion into space is some kind of species saving necessity or destiny or inevitability, even when I suspect I will be outnumbered amongst an atypical selection of people who include more enthusiastic and interested optimists than within the broader community. Probably better for another thread.

If it appears condescending of me to fail to hold those Grand Space Dreams as self evident and beyond argument - to treat buying into it as a potential human failure rather than noble and glorious - so be it.

That some (maybe most) people here do appear to treat future human expansion into space as self evident and beyond argument seems indicative of something very different going on than scientific curiosity. But I am not sure we can discuss it without personal insults when I suppose just claiming it not entirely rational - and may be driven by primitive biological urges rather than logic and reason - will probably be taken as insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I'm willing to discuss why I think seeding Earth life on planets around other stars is an unworkable and ethically dubious sci-fi fantasy and is not science - although I am not sure what I would add that I haven't said.

I am also willing to discuss why people are so taken by such unrealistic ideas - the philosophy or ideology or whatever it is that underpins popular belief that expansion into space is some kind of species saving necessity or destiny or inevitability, even when I suspect I will be outnumbered amongst an atypical selection of people who include more enthusiastic and interested optimists than within the broader community. Probably better for another thread.

If it appears condescending of me to fail to hold those Grand Space Dreams as self evident and beyond argument - to treat buying into it as a potential human failure rather than noble and glorious - so be it.

That some (maybe most) people here do appear to treat future human expansion into space as self evident and beyond argument seems indicative of something very different going on than scientific curiosity. But I am not sure we can discuss it without personal insults when I suppose just claiming it not entirely rational - and may be driven by primitive biological urges rather than logic and reason - will probably be taken as insulting.

It's called 'pragmatism' and having an awareness of our species, and others, fragility in having all our eggs in one basket, Earth. You may feel a sense of permanence in Earth being, even naturally, hospitable for all time without human effects, but that is a bit naive. As for unrealistic, I  sense a bit of  conservative Ludditism in your approach. There was a time that learned people thought that if you went over 20mph, you wouldn't be able to breathe.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I'm willing to discuss why I think seeding Earth life on planets around other stars is an unworkable and ethically dubious sci-fi fantasy and is not science - although I am not sure what I would add that I haven't said.

And likewise I certainly have given ample reasons and reputable links discussing why it is science and how we are obliged to undertake such a scheme one day. And it will happen. But all that has been said also.

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I am also willing to discuss why people are so taken by such unrealistic ideas - the philosophy or ideology or whatever it is that underpins popular belief that expansion into space is some kind of species saving necessity or destiny or inevitability, even when I suspect I will be outnumbered amongst an atypical selection of people who include more enthusiastic and interested optimists than within the broader community. Probably better for another thread.

That's your belief...My point is I have not really put any fanciful time limit on these grand space dreams, just that they will happen. Such as https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/  I must admit though I find it strange with regards to your dismissfull pessimism on such endeavours. 

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

That some (maybe most) people here do appear to treat future human expansion into space as self evident and beyond argument seems indicative of something very different going on than scientific curiosity. But I am not sure we can discuss it without personal insults when I suppose just claiming it not entirely rational - and may be driven by primitive biological urges rather than logic and reason - will probably be taken as insulting.

I'm not going to insult you, and I hope you don't insult me again. You also seem to have expertise far above mine, but probably so to does Jordan Peterson, whose philosophies I abhore.  What do you believe should be the limitation of human space endeavours? Did you agree with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects to get men to the Moon? I suppose it is off topic, and I may start a thread with those questions in mind and your reaction/s to them. 

We certainly are not going to get any further with the Panspermia Genesis project. I have expressed my views  with that, and supported them with reputable links. Your view is noted, but obviously rejected.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

just avoiding honestly answering the question

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why is that?

Because the answers are both off-topic and personal.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No evidence of what? Life elsewhere? All the more reason to spread life where we can. 

Exactly what the universe was supposed to prove is unclear, but you claim that it has failed to do so: 

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

a universe which so far has offerred no evidence whatsoever of any life of this fart arse special little blue orb!

 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's called 'pragmatism'

Only by those who subscribe to the belief system which includes the tenets:

 Life is inherently good and valuable.

Life as we know it is most valuable of all possible kinds of life.

Life as we know it must not end.

Life is the property, not of the creature that experiences it, or to the planet that engendered it, but of the species most capable of manipulating and disposing of it.

Such a species has a mission to propagate its chosen kind of life, when and where it possibly can.

The destiny of such a species is to carry out any and every project that it is capable of, regardless of known costs and unknown consequences.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

There was a time that learned people thought that if you went over 20mph, you wouldn't be able to breathe.

And, after thousands of pragmatic decisions,  here we are, dying by the millions....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

Because the answers are both off-topic and personal.

 

Exactly what the universe was supposed to prove is unclear, but you claim that it has failed to do so: 

 

 

Only by those who subscribe to the belief system which includes the tenets:

 Life is inherently good and valuable.

Life as we know it is most valuable of all possible kinds of life.

Life as we know it must not end.

Life is the property, not of the creature that experiences it, or to the planet that engendered it, but of the species most capable of manipulating and disposing of it.

Such a species has a mission to propagate its chosen kind of life, when and where it possibly can.

The destiny of such a species is to carry out any and every project that it is capable of, regardless of known costs and unknown consequences.

And, after thousands of pragmatic decisions,  here we are, dying by the millions....

 

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Only by those who subscribe to the belief system which includes the tenets:

 Life is inherently good and valuable.

Not necessarily, it can be ill-intentioned  but still have a collective urge to proliferate.

Life as we know it is most valuable of all possible kinds of life.

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive.

Life as we know it must not end.

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive.

Life is the property, not of the creature that experiences it, or to the planet that engendered it, but of the species most capable of manipulating and disposing of it.

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive, as a collective.

Such a species has a mission to propagate its chosen kind of life, when and where it possibly can.

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive.

The destiny of such a species is to carry out any and every project that it is capable of, regardless of known costs and unknown consequences.

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive.

And, after thousands of pragmatic decisions,  here we are, dying by the millions....

All the more reason to look for other places to  live... we are legion, and Earth is not big enough.

I will agree that one should attack the argument and not the poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Life is inherently good and valuable.

Not necessarily, it can be ill-intentioned  but still have a collective urge to proliferate.

Does that oblige/entitle an individual of a more complex evolutionary form, to boost the inherent proliferative capabilies of microbes beyond the solar system of their origin?

 

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive.

 Only, Mautner and Matloff, et al, are not defending their own lives or promoting their own survival, nor yet that of their offspring. 

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive, as a collective.

We are to form a collective with the life-forms we have been extirpating with great deliberation, ingenuity and industry on the planet of their origin, so that they may carry "our collective" to other planets.

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Self-preservation as in hard-wired to survive.

While some humans are incapable of keeping their amino acids inside their atmosphere, other member of the same-wired species are capable of practicing homo-, geno-, specie- and suicide, as well as conscious self- and birth-control.

Having trashed one planet is

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

All the more reason to look for other places to  live...

That's not what the discussion was about. It was about seeding, not fleeing.

 

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Because the answers are both off-topic and personal.

OK, I will accept that, along with of course you would be brushing your teeth each morning and night. My point is sometimes people do have philosophical and/or  religious agendas.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly what the universe was supposed to prove is unclear, but you claim that it has failed to do so: 

No, I claim the universe doesn't give a stuff, it evolves/expands, probably according to laws instilled at the instant of the BB and before, with the hypothetical quantum foam. We, life (abiogensis) is just a part of that.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 Life is inherently good and valuable.

Life as we know it is most valuable of all possible kinds of life.

Life as we know it must not end.

Life is the property, not of the creature that experiences it, or to the planet that engendered it, but of the species most capable of manipulating and disposing of it.

Such a species has a mission to propagate its chosen kind of life, when and where it possibly can.

The destiny of such a species is to carry out any and every project that it is capable of, regardless of known costs and unknown consequences.

And, after thousands of pragmatic decisions,  here we are, dying by the millions....

(1)  That is why  murder is a crime.

(2) Most all life on Earth is valuable, yes.

(3) Who said that? Smells like more dramatism.

(4) Life is the property of who is experiencing that life, yes. Sorry for my lack of philosophical banter, I prefer a non complicated simple answer where possible.

(5)Yes, being the only known advanced form of life in the universe, most certainly yes, that is our moral responsiblity and duty...until we find our equal.

(6) With regards to science, yes. Do you not see the benefit in other high cost projects? eg ISS, LHC, JWST, Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programmes. Would you prefer that science simply stops? 

(7) We are a somewhat weird and at the same time interesting species ( Alien to Ellie Arroway) We are improving though, you agree. I mean such things as slavery the inquisition of the church etc etc, improved agriculture and virus vaccines etc etc.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

 

I will agree that one should attack the argument and not the poster.

Agreed, 

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Does that oblige/entitle an individual of a more complex evolutionary form, to boost the inherent proliferative capabilies of microbes beyond the solar system of their origin?

 Only, Mautner and Matloff, et al, are not defending their own lives or promoting their own survival, nor yet that of their offspring. 

(1) Under the strict protocol, there is nothing morally wrong with the Genesis Mission.

(2)No, they are promoting life in a universe that as yet, has not revealed any other life elsewhere.

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's not what the discussion was about. It was about seeding, not fleeing.

You have a weird strange way of expressing things.Fleeing? ☺️ We are doing science and exploring, and just as seeding a known sterile planet is within our rights, so to is finding another Earth or similar. What have you against extending our species for as long as we can?

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

My point is sometimes people do have philosophical and/or  religious agendas.

Do they? huh!

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

5)Yes, being the only known advanced form of life in the universe, most certainly yes, that is our moral responsiblity and duty...until we find our equal.

Yes, that's the one. The Earth Imperial Doctrine.

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Would you prefer that science simply stops? 

I would prefer the people who direct and fund scientific endeavour to stop short of self-immolation. But I think that's a forlorn hope, given the hard-wired pragmatism of one's species.

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

We are improving though, you agree.

No, but that discussion is so far off-topic as to belong on a whole different board.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

2)No, they are promoting life in a universe that as yet, has not revealed any other life elsewhere.

It should have offered, but failing that, the universe should at least reveal. In any case, the onus is on the universe to show why we shouldn't, not on us to show why we should. Check.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

You have a weird strange way of expressing things.Fleeing?

There was a context:

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

we are legion, and Earth is not big enough.

to which I respond: "we" are not leaving the planet we overpopulated; only a handful of microbes get away.

Lucky microbes!

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/iss-space-junk-sensor-4324/ 

P: the doctrine which includes the tenet "Life as we know it must not end."

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Who said that? Smells like more dramatism.

 

All of you, in one way or another: the world will end; use-by date; must make sure it continues after we're gone, eggs in one basket - all that tedious we're-too-precious-for-the-universe-to-get-by-without dramaticals. I didn't make them up - I don't give a stuff is life ends here. 

 

Edited by Peterkin
prepositions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Do they? huh!

Yes, along of course with personal grudges which is why for the first time ever, I have someone on ignore. Obviously it aint you, you lucky bloke you! 😉

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, that's the one. The Earth Imperial Doctrine.

No, simply a morally correct protocol which when undertaken will be adhered to, to the best of our abilities.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I would prefer the people who direct and fund scientific endeavour to stop short of self-immolation. But I think that's a forlorn hope, given the hard-wired pragmatism of one's species.

 really Peterkin, your dramatisation borders on amazing....fleeing, now immolation. 🤕

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There was a context:

Damn!  I keep missing those.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

All of you, in one way or another: the world will end; use-by date; must make sure it continues after we're gone, eggs in one basket - all that tedious we're-too-precious-for-the-universe-to-get-by-without dramaticals. I didn't make them up - I don't give a stuff is life ends here. 

You take it eay and look after yourself. remember when you make it to Oz, you'll have a schooner waiting and tickets to the greatest game of all! 😁

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, beecee said:

If you read the links I have given, you will understand that project Genesis when eventually undertaken, will be under strict protocol, and understanding that any microbrial life 5 kms down, that has been missed on an otherwise sterile planet/Moon, have been evolving their for hundreds of millions of years, and have a low to zero probabilty of becoming anything more substantial, and will probably remain unaffected.

OK then, what makes you think depth (not that I mentioned life at depth) has any bearing on their ability to evolve onto the surface?

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Hmmm, interesting. So no giants on whose shoulders you can stand and use to see further?

I can and have learned from giant's (that doesn't make them my teacher/priest), some of them are members of our forum, but I use my eyes to see beyond them. That doesn't diminish their contributions, it highlights them.

Quote

 I also believe I have no baggage, other then science and the scientific method

Then you're fooling yourself, we all labour under the baggage of 'our/individual/unique' life, sometimes it light enough that we don't notice we're lugging it around; strict adherence to a method of lugging it around, doesn't mean you're not lugging baggage...

17 hours ago, beecee said:

You have given me no scientific reason to change that stance.

But I have given you a mathematical reason, perhaps that will change the odds...

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-58347-1_2

Quote

The presence of a bias in each image data collection has recently attracted a lot of attention in the computer vision community showing the limits in generalization of any learning method trained on a specific dataset.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2022 at 6:33 PM, beecee said:

You read the entire paper? 😉

The paper was only 13 pages, real science examines all evidence in its entirety, right?

and Objectively, right?

On 1/31/2022 at 6:33 PM, beecee said:

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

From the introduction of : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf

   "Long-term collaborative efforts, like the ITER fusion reactor [4], are nevertheless more often than not accompanied by continuous controversies concerning the ultimate effort to utility ratio, with a central reason being the rational to discount future rewards [5]. It is hence unlikely that explorative space missions taking centuries or even millennia to complete would ever survive the initial cost-to-benefit evaluation. The situation may however change for endeavors not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values. This will be the case, as we argue here, for Genesis missions aiming to establish an ecosphere of unicellular lifeforms on potentially habitable but hitherto barren exoplanets."

Let me get this straight, the author, Claudius Gros,  actually states that he sees the "Genesis missions" as "endeavors not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values" 

Your take is "I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds.", right?

Peterkin, dimreepr, Ken Fabian and others, including the author, Claudius Gros, have examined the evidence critically, objectively, in essence Scientifically and have concluded that the "Genesis missions" are "not designed for their usefulness in terms of science data or other return values", 

you claimI also believe I have no baggage, other then science and the scientific method" , yet you Post this "I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds.", right?

   Science, right?

   "no baggage, other then science and the scientific method"

dimreepr seems to be onto something : "Then you're fooling yourself, we all labour under the baggage of 'our/individual/unique' life, sometimes it light enough that we don't notice we're lugging it around; strict adherence to a method of lugging it around, doesn't mean you're not lugging baggage..." 

Edited by et pet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Arthur Smith said:

One data point is what we have. I suspect one data point is all we will ever have.

Yep. And no amount of tinkering with Bayesian probabilities will change this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

OK then, what makes you think depth (not that I mentioned life at depth) has any bearing on their ability to evolve onto the surface?

Think probabilty over possibility, and facts like they have already probably been down their for 400 billion years, and simply found their niche. You know, like our real smart intellgent octopus friends.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I can and have learned from giant's (that doesn't make them my teacher/priest), some of them are members of our forum, but I use my eyes to see beyond them. That doesn't diminish their contributions, it highlights them.

Likewise, yet it was you who raised the teacher/priest analogy (which I don't really object to) For example,  I respect the writings and "teacher" values of the likes of Richard Feynman just to name one. My observations though of yourself is that your efforts to see beyond are curtailed somewhat.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But I have given you a mathematical reason, perhaps that will change the odds...

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-58347-1_2

I don't believe I have a bias. In fact I havn't really given much thought to the idea of a "project Genesis" until Genady raised it. After researching the data on the reality of such a project, and reading the pros and cons, my reasonings for its moral and scientific acceptance outweigh the nay sayers and doom sayers reasonings and arguments, as rather improbable.

Have you by chance considered the possibility of your own bias?

Let me say that like Peterkin, I find you an interesting species. 😉

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.