Jump to content

A reverse panspermia


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

We all understand that mathematics is the language of physics, and that the mathematical probabilties of a  sterile planet when "project Genesis " is undertaken will always be considered with the protocol that will be in place. 

It's alway nice being a pacifist dimreeper, but like any "quality" when taken too far, ( like having sympathy for the likes of Hitler or other perpetrators of hideous crimes)  It can become a hindrance to logical reasoning. 

Worth considering also that we already have five probes that are emissaries that have left or are about to leave the solar system, all (bar one) with messages of greetings from Earth, and all probably less then fully santised. Yes, they will already have microbrial passengers, that may or may not seed another planet/moon.

Another question, posed in one of the many links I have given, supporting project Genesis, mentions a variation in seeding planetary accretion disks. You havn't as yet given your view on that? Let's see to what degrees of illogic that your passiveness takes you.

 Essentialy the Genesis experiment has already been undertaken, considering the five previously mentioned probes. Did you protest about that? Will you protest when the next project Genesis is undertaken? Obviously it will take millenia for any multicellular life to develop, so why all the pretentious crap, about morals etc? The main benefit that I see, is that as our Sun approaches its "use by date" a couple of billion years hence, (if of course we are still around) our probable stage of advancement then, could see us, ( humanity) capable of generation type star ships and/or even relativisitic travel, perhaps. We could then have a new probable home to go to. Wishful thinking? Grandeur dreams? No more wishful and grandeur then fabricating reasons about microrganisms that "perhaps" may exist 5 kms down, and that perhaps, we may affect in some terrible way, (do you get moral headaches when brushing your teeth and practising eradication of most of your mouth bacteria?) and not the least, the unsupported moral nonsense, that we have no right to export life beyond our Earth, when we have already likely done it.

You're probably a nice bloke dimreeper, and probably like Peterkin if you ever make it to the land down under, I would be happy to buy you a beer, take you to the greatest game of all, and as a bonus, Maroubra or Bondi beach! despite all our passive differences. 😉

 

 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

t's alway nice being a pacifist dimreeper, but like any "quality" when taken too far, ( like having sympathy for the likes of Hitler or other perpetrators of hideous crimes) 

Is this relevant to a concern for an unknown life-form, minding its own business on its own planet?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another link, that expressed an earlier thought of mine as highlighted and worth noting here...

https://rekearney.com/2017/12/14/the-genesis-project-old-organisms-new-planets/

 

The article starts as follows...

The Genesis Project – Old Organisms, New Planets

Dr. Claudius Gros is the mastermind behind the proposal of the Genesis Project, which plans to seed habitable planets in our galaxy with life.

These organisms began to develop 500 million years ago, on Earth, which was approximately 4 billion years after the planet’s birth. Introducing simple organisms to these planets will cause their development to move at a much quicker pace and, over time, they will become more complex.

in conclusion......

"Even though many people have been supportive of the proposition, there are others that oppose The Genesis Project. Religious groups believe that sending organisms to other planets would be man ‘playing at being God.’ Others maintain that we should not interfere with the progression of these planets, as there is no real benefit to Earth from these experiments. Many scientists believe that more effort should be put into maintaining our planet, and developing space projects exclusively for the benefit of mankind, than concern with the progression of other planets'.

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Is this relevant to a concern for an unknown life-form, minding its own business on its own planet?

I see it as relevent as anything else we have discussed within this thread. Afterall dimreeper is apparently a pacifist, and that may have a bearing on his opinion and bias...just as perhaps your philosophical life beliefs may have a bearing on your opinion and bias.

I also see it as drawing an aweful long bow, to suggest that any microbrial  basic lifeform is "minding its own business" and has any idea about its "home planet'

I see it as science. I see it as progressive. I see it as our duty. I see it as having plenty of reputable scientific support. I also see it as controversial. But then again, many new endeavours, no matter how apparently helpful to mankind, will always be controversial to some. EG: mandatory vaccinations for covid...conspiracy that covid even exists. 

In esence, what I am saying, is no matter what project or experiment anyone will come up with, there will always be some oppostion...sometimes opposition for opposition's sake.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

I also see it as drawing an aweful long bow, to suggest that any microbrial  basic lifeform is "minding its own business" and has any idea about its "home planet'

What else would it be doing, and where else would it be? Whether it has ideas has no effect on my perception of its place in the universe in relation to my place in the universe.

 

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

I see it as relevent as anything else we have discussed within this thread. Afterall dimreeper is apparently a pacifist, and that may have a bearing on his opinion and bias...just as perhaps your philosophical life beliefs may have a bearing on your opinion and bias.

Suggesting that it's a good idea to refrain harming something that's done us no harm really isn't tantamount to excusing Hitler. It's not even in the same ballpark. Or continent. Nor is speculative psychoanalysis of other posters.  

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue which no one has yet commented on, and which was one of the aspects that got my support.....

https://rekearney.com/2017/12/14/the-genesis-project-old-organisms-new-planets/

"It is believed that there are billions of habitable planets in our galaxy, which could become the target for Project Genesis. These planets are known as ‘oxygen’ planets, and revolve around M-dwarfs. Although oxygen is necessary for the sustenance of life, their oxygen rich atmospheres are the reason why complex organisms cannot develop. Astronomers are focused on finding planets that are around M-stars, which are relatively common but can be very dim, to introduce complex life. The planets have become oxygen rich because of the UV radiation emitted by the star during its cooling phase, which can take between 100 million to 1 billion years, which split the water on the planets into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Hydrogen will then escape the planet’s atmosphere, leaving the oxygen behind. Even though oxygen is necessary for the maintenance of life, this arise from chemical disassociation (not plant life), results in the planet becoming barren. It can, however, sustain life once it has been introduced".

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

Yes, a morally correct decision and undertaking!!!

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What else would it be doing, and where else would it be? Whether it has ideas has no effect on my perception of its place in the universe in relation to my place in the universe.

The same as the bacteria you kill in your mouth every morning and night? My, sorry our place in the universe is having evolved to where and what we are now, able to contemplate these ideas and undertake science to gain knowledge. 

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Suggesting that its a bad idea to refrain harming something that's done us no harm really isn't tantamount to excusing Hitler. It's not even in the same ballpark. Or continent. Nor is speculative psychoanalysis.  

It's all called pacifism taken to a ridiculous degree. So  much so, as to be illogical. I'm also a pacifist, but I am not going to turn the other cheek if some idiot smacks me in the mouth, no matter how poor his upbringing was. I'm pretty sure you do see the relevance. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

My, sorry our place in the universe is having evolved

No, evolution is a process; our place is a planet we call Earth.

 

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

The same as the bacteria you kill in your mouth every morning and night?

No, extraterrestrial life-forms are not the same as terrestrial bacteria. (Ask any of the scientists who devote their professional energies to searching for a sign - any sign! - of life - any life! - elsewhere in the universe.)

My oral flora and I do share a place and must make whatever accommodation we can for survival. Humans also share a a place with all the other species on our planet. Many humans believe that, because they are able to kill, abuse, exploit and displace other species, it is their natural right and the proper thing to do.  Many humans also believe that, if they are more powerful than some other humans, it means they're more evolved and so it becomes their god-given right to kill, abuse, exploit and displace those other people.

  I'm not forced to kill many other species in self-defence, but I would if they attacked me first, just as I would kill another of my own species.  But I don't go one centimeter out of my way to harm something that's no threat to me. I see no reason to go 5 light-years out of my way to do it.

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's all called pacifism taken to a ridiculous degree. So  much so, as to be illogical.

That's what you call it. And in this layman's opinion, you're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, evolution is a process; our place is a planet we call Earth.

So according to your life philosophy, we stagnate on planet Earth, despite obtaing continuing advanced knowledge and technologies that can take us to the Moon and beyond. Are you serious, or just being controversial for controversy sake?

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, extraterrestrial life-forms are not the same as terrestrial bacteria. (Ask any of the scientists who devote their professional energies to searching for a sign - any sign! - of life - any life! - elsewhere in the universe.)

I didn't say they were the same, but it is all life. So you differentiate in chosing to murder bacterial content in your mouth, as opposed to some low probablity presence of bacterial life 5kms deep on an otherwise sterile world.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

My oral flora and I do share a place and must make whatever accommodation we can for survival. Humans also share a a place with all the other species on our planet. Many humans believe that, because they are able to kill, abuse, exploit and displace other species, it is their natural right and the proper thing to do.  Many humans also believe that, if they are more powerful than some other humans, it means they're more evolved and so it becomes their god-given right to kill, abuse, exploit and displace those other people. .

 Yes,I agree, but we are educating people as to the abnoxious killing, abusing, displacing of the other species on this Earth...multicell species of course, I'm not really that concerned (as the genesis project protocol is) with microbrail stuff 5 kms under my feet. And no. I certainly am not more powerful then any of my fellow human beings, some that I despise, (those that kill,abuse, and displace any species)and others that I respect. But what has this to do with seeding sterile planets? (Don't be too concerned, just some returning sarcasm)

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

  I'm not forced to kill many other species in self-defence, but I would if they attacked me first, just as I would kill another of my own species.  But I don't go one centimeter out of my way to harm something that's no threat to me. I see no reason to go 5 light-years out of my way to do it.

You are being overly dramatic again. We are talking about probable sterile planets.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's what you call it. And in this layman's opinion, you're wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. Anything taken to extreme, (including pacifism and opinions on sympathies for Hitler for example, you saw that in another thread) will end up approaching stupidity and fanaticism....and that includes extremes of left and right politics. I could give many examples, but it would be off topic.

Methinks you need that beer badly! 

25 minutes ago, Genady said:

I wonder, why all the references I can find to the Genesis Project discussed here, are from the years 2016-2017 and nothing after that?

Not sure, but maybe waiting for improvements in solar sail technology and other aspects of engineering in slowing the craft down after approaching its target? Maybe pidegeon holed at this time, until such technological improvements eventuate? But in reality, as I have mentioned, we have already sent five craft to leave or approaching leaving the solar system, four with Earth messages. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the list of publications by Prof. Claudius Gros (Prof. Claudius Gros - Publications (uni-frankfurt.de)) he published his proposal of the Genesis Project in 2016 (Developing ecospheres on transiently habitable planets: the genesis project | SpringerLink). This publication caused a series of interviews and articles in popular science magazines. 

He then mentioned "genesis mission" - not a "project" - once again in 2019 (Why planetary and exoplanetary protection differ_ The case of long duration genesis missions to habitable but sterile M-dwarf oxygen planets (uni-frankfurt.de)).

He has published 20 articles after that, but nothing about the genesis missions/project. Hmm...

BTW, in the article of 2019 he says regarding the oxygen rich sterile planets, "It is presently not known if the resulting primordial oxygen atmosphere, which may differ drastically from planet to planet in volume, would inhibit life to originate in first place."

He also says there, "Financing a deep-space mission taking several millennia cannot be justified along the lines of solar system exploration, viz for the advancement of science."

FYI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Genady said:

BTW, in the article of 2019 he says regarding the oxygen rich sterile planets, "It is presently not known if the resulting primordial oxygen atmosphere, which may differ drastically from planet to planet in volume, would inhibit life to originate in first place."

Yes a good point, and one I found as reasons to go ahead. Still worth considering.

52 minutes ago, Genady said:

He also says there, "Financing a deep-space mission taking several millennia cannot be justified along the lines of solar system exploration, viz for the advancement of science."

Yes, he faces the controversy honestly and I can understand that. It is still drawing a long bow to say once it is understaken, that it isn't science, simply because it is going to take millenia as I already mentioned. Have you did any searches on Professor Mautner,  research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.who seems to have far more enthusiasm for the experiment.

http://www.panspermia-society.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_N._Mautner

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31042-8_11

 

 

Your article also concludes, https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/PDF/PAPERS/2019_Gros_ExoPlanetaryProtection_ActaAstronautica.pdf

"Protecting life on exoplanets for the sake of science is in analogy not a valid rational, as it could be studied in any case only on time scales far exceeding standard human planning horizons."

 

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31042-8_11

Abstract:

It is the human purpose to propagate life. This objective can be realized best in space, where life can have an immense future, giving our existence a cosmic purpose.

 

again from the same link...................https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/PDF/PAPERS/2019_Gros_ExoPlanetaryProtection_ActaAstronautica.pdf

. Are oxygen planets sterile? The chemical environments of oxygen planets, that is of planets disposing of a substantial amount of primordial atmospheric oxygen, are expected to differ substantially from the one of archean earth. The origins of life on earth are yet not understood [45], it is however clear that abiogenesis may occur only in microstructured chemo-physical reaction environments [46] that are driven by a sustained energy source [47], as realized within the alkaline hydrothermal vent scenario [48]. Potential birthing places of life such as submarine alkaline vents are conjectured furthermore to be characterized by steep electrochemical concentration gradients [49], as a necessary precondition for the emergence of prebiotic vectorial reaction pathways. Primordial oxygen, when present, could disrupt however the formation of these electronchemical disequilibria [50]. An important point in this context is a well-known relationship between oxygen and cellular energy,1 namely that the synthesis of the chemical constituents of cells, like amino acids, bases and lipids, from glucose and ammonium, demands about 13 times more energy per cell in the presence of O2 than in the absence of oxygen [51,52]. It is hence conceivable that the emergence of life could be preempted on otherwise habitable M-dwarf planets by the presence of primordial oxygen. A substantial amount of future research effort is clearly warranted in order to corroborate, or to disprove this presumption. In case, we would live in a galaxy where habitable but sterile planets abound. Oxygen planets would then be prime candidates for Genesis missions.

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

also under "Planetary protection for human benefit' it concludes..."Protecting the rudimentary biosphere of an exoplanet for science purposes is hence not as relevant as it is for solar system bodies".

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

Most all of that I have already posted on anyway.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

So according to your life philosophy, we stagnate on planet Earth, despite obtaing continuing advanced knowledge and technologies that can take us to the Moon and beyond. Are you serious, or just being controversial for controversy sake?

Oh, I dunno. According to my philosophy, it wouldn't have been so so bad for Europeans to 'stagnate' (read: clean up their own shit) in Europe, when they had the capability to invade and subdue other continents. I think there is some scope for us to make progress on Earth before we take this show on the interstellar road.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I didn't say they were the same

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

The same as the bacteria you kill in your mouth every morning

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Oh, I dunno. According to my philosophy, it wouldn't have been so so bad for Europeans to 'stagnate' (read: clean up their own shit) in Europe, when they had the capability to invade and subdue other continents. I think there is some scope for us to make progress on Earth before we take this show on the interstellar road.

I smell at least some seeds of doubt in that rather pretentious statement. 🤭

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No, extraterrestrial life-forms are not the same as terrestrial bacteria. (Ask any of the scientists who devote their professional energies to searching for a sign - any sign! - of life - any life! - elsewhere in the universe.)

Apologies, I badly worded that. I certainly did not mean the same examples of life as elsewhere. I was making an example of your apparent hypocrisy in caring about uncertain microbrial life 5kms down on an otherwise sterile planet, to murdering (excuse the dramatic word) the bacteria in your mouth.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I didn't say they were the same, but it is all life. So you differentiate in chosing to murder bacterial content in your mouth, as opposed to some low probablity presence of bacterial life 5kms deep on an otherwise sterile world. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably won't be able to make point by point replies and cover everyone - I know I am expressing what is a minority opinion (at least in this forum) and there have already been a lot of comments.

I do think serious questioning of assumptions is in order - but I should also say I feel no special satisfaction from my conclusion that without extraordinary technological advancement that makes living on Mars a trivially easy proposition (and therefore not essential to species survival) it won't happen - and that there is nothing inevitable about that kind of technological progress. It is not a matter of time passing or even time passing whilst maintaining space agencies that have colonising space as a stated objective; that kind of advancement is about the long term health of whole economies and strong support for R&D of all kinds. And because technology is constrained by physical limits that can mean that even where things are possible they can remain uneconomic.

Overall I've been disappointed that no commercial opportunities in space besides communications and Earth observation have emerged - but then, I was a child in the 1960's (with The Space Race) who was a keen reader of SF that almost universally promoted Grand Space Dreams, sometimes quite deliberately, eg leaving memes like low gee will be good for people's health and longevity to survive to this day. I was once an optimist and expected at least some zero-gee commercial manufacturing to have emerged that made space stations self supporting well before the turn of last century. I thought Moon bases would be a sure thing and the bootstraps principle - just go there (it being cheap and easy) and we would find and build the ways to make it work after. I've revised my views.

I read and delighted in stories like Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress (space travel so cheap and easy Earth could dump convicts there, with echoes of Australia's convict colony heritage and subsequent successes) and I didn't question the practicality and economic viability of dirt poor people farming in tunnels - even managing to having pasture for milking cows as well as large scale agricultural exports.

It never occurred to me just how much tunnel and supporting infrastructure, equipment and outside supply doing so would really require. Heinlein's positivity about going ungoverned - cool, no laws or cops - also got revised too. Turns out it is very difficult to do agriculture under such conditions, with costs that are somewhere well beyond extreme. Unfortunately we have been primed by fiction to believe it will (eventually) be easy and the costs won't be prohibitive.

We will achieve the tech advancements that are achievable - a real question here about beliefs people have that progress is unending, in exponential style (I rather think it has to be an S-curve) or inevitable. I think it depends more on whether wealthy and Earth economies can encourage and afford doing open ended R&D than in having these Grand Space Dreams as explicit goals. It isn't simply a matter of time - the enduring health and wealth of Earth economies is far more crucial to those goals than maintaining focus on those specific goals. We can revive those grand goals in light of positive developments. We can't assume it is better to maintain them in the face of impossible odds rather than retreat and regroup and rethink.

----------

It sounds like the most fundamental belief is here is expansion into space is an expression of a biological (or perhaps social) imperative for long term survival of our species that includes by default some other species - with concern for the survival of other species probably determined by the extent of their usefulness rather than any overarching philosophy.

But I don't see that we have been all that serious about addressing long term survival and avoiding or escaping global catastrophes or we would be seeing a lot more efforts put into lesser (but still very serious) risks, including into improving the good governance and priorities that would address them. The immortality of the species isn't on most people's radars - more of them will be coming at it as about individual immortality from a religious perspective than species/humanist, but I do see parallels; it gives a sense of security to believe there will be life after death. Human expansion into space - currently not much better than dipping toes in the water, but constantly hyped as desirable and inevitable - gives people a sense of security, a comforting belief that the human race will go on forever.

The dedicated agencies we do have that are assessing our existential risks and developing responses are few and limited - and from that perspective expanding into space as a principle response starts looking like it kicks that can down the road rather than faces up to those risks, which include serious issues that need urgent attention and resources in the present. Switzerland is the only nation I can think of that can house it's whole population in bunkers - in part I suspect because they have cut so many tunnels, it meant adapting them rather than starting from zero. It isn't about saving a select few at the expense of the rest - which is how other nations appear to do bunkers.

There is no suggestion the Suisse nation could expect to live permanently like that, yet if these concerns about existential risks (that supposedly drive space ambitions) were any kind of priority isn't that what the (nearer term) goal would be? Surviving the less than total catastrophes is essential to any goal of species immortality - a healthy, wealthy advanced Earth economy being the necessary requisite to achieving ongoing improvements to the space capabilities that are viewed by our space optimists as the ultimate insurance.

I think it takes other less noble motivations to keep space agencies well funded and that colonies are not strongly supported goals in and of themselves. Without those other motives the whole space as the route to species immortality thing would be harder to sustain.

I wouldn't say it is a pragmatic course to look to expansion to space as our way to species immortality - to me pragmatism would look at all our options, short and medium and long term and admit the gap between what is required and what we are capable of is extremely large and focus on nearer term goals using other options. Whilst we can count on improvements to technologies in the near term there are none in the offing that makes a self reliant Moon or Mars colony an achievable goal. We should not pretend it is, no matter that the idea of species immortality has a feel-good quality and we want it to be achievable -part of why I think the support for grand space ambitions like that has little real bearing on what space capable nations are doing.

International rivalries and military considerations have more to do with keeping NASA and others well funded, which funds contractors like SpaceX in turn. SpaceX hype about Mars keeps public interest and support for space agencies high, which comes back around as further contracts. 

But I maintain that without clear commercial viability no private company will do more than token Mars missions (where they won't risk ongoing company viability). I think no amount of taxpayer funded Mars ambition can compensate for the absence of profitability, irrespective of how the idea of humans expanding beyond Earth is comforting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I probably won't be able to make point by point replies and cover everyone - I know I am expressing what is a minority opinion (at least in this forum) and there have already been a lot of comments.

Minority or not you have the right to express it but I fervently, along with the majority disagree with that pessimisitc assessment. It certainly isn't moving as fast as predicted, or as hoped for, but that's poor reason to seemingly imagine a lid being slammed on it.

But Ken, with all due respect, this is essentially about Panspermia, and seeding probable sterile planets, which we obviously also disagree on. (even if it was I that first raised the issues you mentioned, to make a point) )

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Minority or not you have the right to express it but I fervently, along with the majority disagree with that pessimisitc assessment.

That fervency is a concern; fervency is a function of strong belief you are invested in rather than a question to be answered. In this case it is belief in something that is currently not achievable. I'm interested in what makes it seem so compelling to support it with fervency.

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

But Ken, with all due respect, this is essentially about Panspermia, and seeding probable sterile planets, which we obviously also disagree on.

Well, I did say it probably should be discussed independently - questioning why came out of the discussion and was not a deliberate attempt to hijack the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

I was making an example of your apparent hypocrisy in caring about uncertain microbrial life 5kms down on an otherwise sterile planet, to murdering (excuse the dramatic word) the bacteria in your mouth.

I know. I answered that, as well as pointing out the difference between maintaining a balance between a host and its population of known, well established bacterial culture and potentially eradicating an, independent, unknown life-form that's just getting started on a distant planet; the difference between defending my life against invasion and invading those who pose no threat to me. If that's too dramatic and pacifist for logic, SBI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Have you did any searches on Professor Mautner,  research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.who seems to have far more enthusiasm for the experiment.

http://www.panspermia-society.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_N._Mautner

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31042-8_11

His enthusiasm seems to run out in about 2010. After that, he contributed two chapters in somebody else's books on astrobiology, in 2014 and 2017. The rest is chemistry.

His society's website seems not to be refreshed also since some time in the first decade of this century.

That's what I've found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

That fervency is a concern; fervency is a function of strong belief you are invested in rather than a question to be answered. In this case it is belief in something that is currently not achievable. I'm interested in what makes it seem so compelling to support it with fervency.

Fervency? I hadn't ever really considered it until genady raised the topic. I have also always "fancied"  panspermia as a viable reason for Earth based abiogenesis.

Why do I find it compelling? Let's see, (1) The proposers seem to understand the protection protocol regarding known life and were always going to go on those grounds, (2) On those premises, the probabilty of any unknown microbes 5kms down is low, (3) If there was any microbrial lifeform, it would likley have been in that state of evolution for millions of years and found its evolutionary niche, as per our octopus friends and the silly notion they could possibly evolve into space faring entities (4) The liklelyhood of affecting it anyway would also have a low probability, (5) So far we Earth is the only planet known to harbour life,(6) we/Earth do have a "use by date "(6) Therefor it is ( as Mautner puts it) our duty and right to spread that life around the galaxy as per the accepted protocol, (7) I reject totally that we shouldn't be spreading bacteria to otherwise sterile regions of space, as we actually have done it at least five times before, (8) despite the misgivings from the doomsayers and nayers, I see it as science and worthwhile, irrespective of the fact that the results may never be known, (9) The seeded planet could also presumably be a second home, for humans in the distant future, when the planet reaches its "use by date" and we have the technology to build viable space ships, and (10) I absolutely see nothing immoral or wrong about the whole project, along with the reputable support it already has, and find some of the so called opposition expressed as rather pretentious.

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Well, I did say it probably should be discussed independently - questioning why came out of the discussion and was not a deliberate attempt to hijack the thread.

I didn't say it was deliberate, as I believe I raised the issue first to make a point.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I know. I answered that, as well as pointing out the difference between maintaining a balance between a host and its population of known, well established bacterial culture and potentially eradicating an, independent, unknown life-form that's just getting started on a distant planet; the difference between defending my life against invasion and invading those who pose no threat to me. If that's too dramatic and pacifist for logic, SBI. 

Yes you did, but the point I make is its still all life and the little germs in your mouth are only doing the what comes naturally. Plus I see your reasoning as flimsy.

39 minutes ago, Genady said:

His enthusiasm seems to run out in about 2010. After that, he contributed two chapters in somebody else's books on astrobiology, in 2014 and 2017. The rest is chemistry.

His society's website seems not to be refreshed also since some time in the first decade of this century.

That's what I've found.

With all due respect, the project was never going to be easy, and as an example a couple of the IMO important scientific projects undertaken in recent times, were not always updated, even on science sites.eg: GPB, New Horizons. Perhaps there busy actually working out the pros and cons, who knows?

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

That fervency is a concern; fervency is a function of strong belief you are invested in rather than a question to be answered.

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

Fervency? I hadn't ever really considered it until genady raised the topic. I have also always "fancied"  panspermia as a viable reason for Earth based abiogenesis.

While I have already answered that, I would like to add to it. Perhaps you are mistaking my efforts in answering all genuine questions put to me, (some irrelevant, some cryptic ) as this so called fervency. That will continue of course and is always my intention.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yes you did, but the point I make is its still all life and the little germs in your mouth are only doing the what comes naturally. Plus I see your reasoning as flimsy.

I had a feeling you might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's hard to argue with those kinda street smart's.

Are you a Holden or a Ford guy?

Let's put it this way old Son, any bias I do have, ( and as mentioned to you before) is that of science and the scientific methodology and my family and friends. 

First car ever when I was a 17 year old, hairy arse brat was a '38 oldsmobile I picked up for $25. First proper car was a Mazda 800. I once had a Holden Cruz.

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I had a feeling you might.

I didn't expect you to feel any different either.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Let's put it this way old Son, any bias I do have, ( and as mentioned to you before) is that of science and the scientific methodology

Let me put it this way, no one is free from bias until they recognise that bias is part of every thinking thing; as I mentioned before:

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

It seems we're not as special as your bias would suggest... 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Let's put it this way old Son, any bias I do have, ( and as mentioned to you before) is that of science and the scientific methodology and my family and friends. 

Do you never worry that Atlas might shrug?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Let me put it this way, no one is free from bias until they recognise that bias is part of every thinking thing; as I mentioned before:

It seems we're not as special as your bias would suggest... 😉 

Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? (an old biblical passage or words to that effect)

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It seems we're not as special as your bias would suggest... 😉 

Facts actually support my claim of speciality: We are the only planet known to support life. And until we find the extraordinary evidence of Alien life, that speciality holds.

And before you as usual, take me out of context, I certainly understand and agree that in the great scheme of things, (the universe as a whole) we are nothing more then a mote of dust floating in a sunbeam.

See Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" imo one of the 20th century's greatest educators.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

We are the only planet known to support life

'We' are not a planet. We are one of millions of the species living on a planet. We don't know (yet) of any other planets that support life. From this lack of knowledge, we infer that this planet is special among planets, and since we happen to live on it through no merit of our own, assume that we are the species a very few privileged individuals of whose large membership, is rightfully empowered to be representatives and decision-makers for the entire planet, unilaterally spreading our special brand of specialness throughout the universe. 

Edited by Peterkin
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.