Jump to content

A reverse panspermia


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

'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. 

Thank you for that correction. It would have created so much confusion!!! 🤣Especially when I said, " We are the only planet known to support life."

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 From this lack of knowledge, we infer that this planet is special among planets

Yes, as I have been saying for yonks. But please keep in mind the mote of dust floating in the sunbeam, when comparing to the vastness of space and the universe.Pale Blue Dot 2020 - YouTube

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

 There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

He was right.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life.

He did put in "so far", but left out "by us".

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Apparently, he was wrong about that. The posturing self-importance bolstered by ignorance not only goes unchallenged, but now the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe reaches out to colonize other planets, while continuing to trash this one - because we're pretty sure nobody lives there and don't care who would like to go on living here. 

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

He did put in "so far", but left out "by us".

Darn!! he forgot to check with you with regards to your pretentious pedant!🥱

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Apparently, he was wrong about that. The posturing self-importance bolstered by ignorance not only goes unchallenged, but now the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe reaches out to colonize other planets, while continuing to trash this one - because we're pretty sure nobody lives there and don't care who would like to go on living here. 

No, he was speaking of cosmological scales. Our privileged position, at this time, from our point of view is obviously we are special for the reasons stated. And I'm sure he would agree with project Genesis, taken with the accepted protocol when eventually we have the conditions to tackle it. 

Perhaps as an extension of this thread, you may like to state what you actually do to reduce trashing this planet, and how you help your less fortunate fellow man. I mean that's far better then unsupported rhetoric, isn't it?

We have in Australia, https://urbanest.com.au/what-is-clean-up-australia-day-and-how-you-can-get-involved/ and I have been an active participant for the last 22 years, 23 years after the next one being in this March. Oh, and I'm 77 by the way. Now you could go on one of your raving rampages about such things should be everyday, and I do my part on that to. Would you like to know what else myself and my Mrs do with regards to less fortunate, instead of just pretentiously blabbering about the wrongs and evils of society? What are you doing to help?

 

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

He was right.

Of course he was right, that's why I respect the man immensley.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course he was right, that's why I respect the man immensley.

There-in lies your bias; I, also, respect the man immensley, but I also recognise that he's just a man; and as many women will testify, men are often wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beecee said:

. Our privileged position, at this time, from our point of view is obviously we are special for the reasons stated.

You respect him so immensely that you twist his words to suit your agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There-in lies your bias; I, also, respect the man immensley, but I also recognise that he's just a man; and as many women will testify, men are often wrong...

Did I say anything about him being more then a man? Are you creating another fragile strawman?  And while like any man, he may at  times be wrong, I'm not aware though. Do you have a reference with regards to him being wrong about a particular brand of science? He was certainly right about extraordinary claims ( as per Alien controlled UAP's/UFO's) requiring extraordinary evidence, and of course his absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. 

46 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You respect him so immensely that you twist his words to suit your agenda.

Or perhaps you just fail to understand? Think relativity. Or is this also another strawman? Perhaps you two pacifists should get a room! 😉 

NB: Oh, and Peterkin, you forgot to answer my previous post about empty rhetoric, and getting down and dirty with regards to us spoiling the planet and caring for those less fortunate. 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

What are you doing to help?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Oh, and Peterkin, you forgot to answer my previous post

I didn't forget.

Ask your questions in the appropriate forum  in the appropriate language, and I will be happy to answer them.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't forget.

Ask your questions in the appropriate forum  in the appropriate language, and I will be happy to answer them.

That's OK, and please note that it is you creating strawmen about how we are trashing Earth, not caring about those less fortunate, and of course your silly unwarranted pedant with regards to Sagan and his excellent narrative. I mean if ever there was any scraping the bottom of the barrel, that was it! You do understand that this thread and the idea of reverse panspermia, has already gone off track many times due to strawmen? And the amount of  possibilty claims, over scientific probabilities is well, quite telling.

The point is that when the time is right, and the engineering is up to reasonable expectations, seeding another body that is sterile according to our data, will happen. In fact as I have stated a couple of times already, there are now 5 craft that have either left our solar system, or are about to leave, that most probably are carrying microbrial stuff to who knows where...planet, moon, planetary accretion disk.

Anyway, we'll try another couple of questions......When life first rose on Earth through abiogenesis, what were conditions like? Would those conditions be able to support life today or would it have been too toxic?

Second question: Why do you believe that if we find a planet that according to the data is sterile, and has no obvious idigenous life to protect, and conditions such that any probablity of abiogenesis is low, that we should not help that process along by means of a project like Genesis? eg: Mars was once "transiently habitable" but obviously not now...https://phys.org/news/2019-01-seeding-milky-life-genesis-missions.html

That article and link concludes thus......."Invariably, the issues of extra-terrestrial life and planetary exploration is a controversial one, and one that we are not likely to resolve anytime soon. One thing is for sure though: as our efforts to explore the solar system and galaxy continue, it is an issue that we cannot avoid".

It just seems to me that your view of humanity is such, that you don't believe we should survive, or that we as a species, should be smited and put out of our misery? You seem to ignore that while we are trashing our planet, being cruel to others,  and ignoring those less fortunate then ourselves, we are doing so less and becoming more aware of our actions, with the first Sunday in March and the clean up Australia inititive, that is becoming more popular, with more active participants. We are improving in other words. Shouldn't you drop the "smiting"and give the only known space faring civilisation another chance?

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.2558.pdf

Seeding Life on the Moons of the Outer Planets via Lithopanspermia:

Abstract:

Material from the surface of a planet can be ejected into space by a large impact, and could carry primitive life forms with it. We performed n-body simulations of such ejecta to determine where in the Solar System rock from Earth and Mars may end up. We find that, in addition to frequent transfer of material among the terrestrial planets, transfer of material from Earth and Mars to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn is also possible, but rare. We expect that such transfer is most likely during the Late Heavy Bombardment or during the next one or two billion years. At this time, the icy moons were warmer and likely had little or no icy shell to prevent meteorites from reaching their liquid interiors. We also note significant rates of re-impact in the first million years after ejection. This could re-seed life on a planet after partial or complete sterilization by a large impact, which would aid the survival of early life during the Late Heavy Bombardment.

Conclusions:

We find that transfer of rock capable of carrying life has likely occurred from both Earth and Mars to all of the terrestrial planets in the solar system and Jupiter, and transfer from Earth to Saturn is also probable. Additionally, we find smaller but significant probabilities of transfer to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn from Earth, and from Mars to the moons of Jupiter. These estimates are dependent on the number of rocks assumed ejected from the planets of origin. Our results indicate that transfer of life to these moons cannot be ruled out, and searches for life on these objects should keep in mind the necessity of determining whether life arose independently or descended from common ancestors to Earth life. Any life found there cannot be assumed to be of independent origin. The probability of life surviving such a journey or finding a tenable environment on arrival is beyond the scope of our research. However, we note that studies of Titan, Europa, and Callisto all indicate significant liquid water oceans beneath the surface (Khurana et al., 1998; Lorenz et al., 2008). Europa currently presents the thinnest surface ice layer, providing less of a barrier for life to eventually find its way through, especially when considering the “chaos regions” that indicate recent partial melting. It appears regions of the ice sheet sometimes break into large chunks separated by liquid water, which later refreezes. Any meteorites lying on top of the ice sheet in a region when this occurs would stand a chance of falling through. Additionally, the moons are thought to have been significantly warmer in the not-too-distant past. Titan currently has a roughly 50 km thick crust, but the moon only cooled enough to form this shell after four billion years (Trobie et al., 2006), before which it had only a few kilometers of methane clathrate over the surface, allowing a significant time in which life could have more easily penetrated into the liquid water ocean. Jupiter's moons are also believed to have been significantly warmer in the past, both due to residual heat of formation and their slow outward migration, making them previously subjected to stronger tidal heating from Jupiter. Ultimately, we conclude that the possibility of transfer of life from the inner Solar System to outer moons cannot be ruled out based on current knowledge. Any planned missions to search for life on Titan or the moons of Jupiter will have to consider whether any biological material found represents an independent origin, rather than another branch in the family tree populated by Earth life.

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

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-335-million-seed-sperm-egg-samples-moon-noahs-ark/

Scientists want to send 335 million seed, sperm and egg samples to the moon to create a lunar Noah's Ark:

Scientists are pulling inspiration from Noah's Ark in a new lunar proposal that they call a "global insurance policy." They hope to send an ark to the moon, filled with 335 million sperm and egg samples, in case a catastrophe happens on Earth.  

Instead of two of every animal, the solar-powered moon ark would cryogenically store frozen seed, spore, sperm and egg samples from some 6.7 million Earth species. University of Arizona researcher Jekan Thanga and a group of his students proposed the concept in a paper presented during the IEEE Aerospace Conference this week.

more at link................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-335-million-seed-sperm-egg-samples-moon-noahs-ark/

Scientists want to send 335 million seed, sperm and egg samples to the moon to create a lunar Noah's Ark:

Scientists are pulling inspiration from Noah's Ark in a new lunar proposal that they call a "global insurance policy." They hope to send an ark to the moon, filled with 335 million sperm and egg samples, in case a catastrophe happens on Earth.  

Instead of two of every animal, the solar-powered moon ark would cryogenically store frozen seed, spore, sperm and egg samples from some 6.7 million Earth species. University of Arizona researcher Jekan Thanga and a group of his students proposed the concept in a paper presented during the IEEE Aerospace Conference this week.

more at link................

I immediately have three non-technical questions regarding this proposal:

1. In what way is it an "insurance policy"? When and how this storage would be used?

2. Why is it better than 'the Svalbard Seedbank in Norway, also known as the "doomsday vault"'?

3. They say, "Because human civilization has such a large footprint, if it were to collapse, that could have a negative cascading effect on the rest of the planet." Negative? I'd think rather positive, if any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

I immediately have three non-technical questions regarding this proposal:

1. In what way is it an "insurance policy"? When and how this storage would be used?

Good question: My guess would be if and when Earth was confronted with an extinction event, that these seeds would be picked up enroute to a new goldilocks planet, capable of supporting life as we know it.

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

2. Why is it better than 'the Svalbard Seedbank in Norway, also known as the "doomsday vault"'?

Yeah, have heard of that, and I understand it isn't the only one. But I also understand that these are specifically plant life and essential crops. Is that correct? 

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

3. They say, "Because human civilization has such a large footprint, if it were to collapse, that could have a negative cascading effect on the rest of the planet." Negative? I'd think rather positive, if any.

I'm probably inclined to agree with you, in the relative short term at least. Would our octopuses friends take over as the new dominant species?☺️ Or would the planet be facing another "Planet of the Apes" like era? Or would things just remain as they are, without humanity forcing its will upon the life that is left. Perhaps a scenario like the words from that song, "Well the bear will be gentle
                                                    And the wolves will be tame
                                                    And the lion shall lay down by the lamb, oh yes
                                                    And the beasts from the wild Shall be lit by a child"    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQS7e27pDw 😉

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2022 at 7:22 PM, StringJunky said:

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

 

On 2/1/2022 at 8:26 PM, beecee said:

Agreed, 

quite telling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beecee said:

The point is that when the time is right, and the engineering is up to reasonable expectations, seeding another body that is sterile according to our data, will happen.

Probably. What for?

3 hours ago, beecee said:

.When life first rose on Earth through abiogenesis, what were conditions like?

Not very nice. Volcanic gases: methane, ammonia; rocks cooling down to where water could stay liquid.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Would those conditions be able to support life today or would it have been too toxic?

Inhospitable for complex life forms, but just right for cyanobacteria and anoxygenic algae. Presumably, they were preceded by chemical processes under close scrutiny but not yet clear.  

Quote

The amino acid tryptophan has been detected deep beneath the seafloor. Its discoverers believe it wasn’t life that created this chemical but geochemical processes. The finding supports the idea that alkaline deep-sea hydrothermal systems could have provided ideal conditions for producing the organic molecules necessary to kick-start life on Earth.https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/evidence-emerges-from-the-deep-of-earths-first-amino-acids-/3009746.article

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Why do you believe that if we find a planet that according to the data is sterile, and has no obvious idigenous life to protect, and conditions such that any probablity of abiogenesis is low, that we should not help that process along by means of a project like Genesis?

Because:

-according to the data doesn't cover any information beyond what you are capable of collecting - which decreases as the distance of the targeted planet from Earth increases (also, you might miss the planet you're aiming for and hit something about which you have zero data)

- has no obvious idigenous life - The earliest beginnings of life are unlikely to have been obvious here, either. (But it would be ironical in the extreme if that 'special' life we so prize had actually been planted here by scientists from another planet and it consumed all the brand new native life that was not obvious to their long-range data collecting equipment.)  

- and conditions such that any probablity of abiogenesis is low - this would mean, so is the probability of the planted seed surviving. Talk about killing a few million bacteria the hard way!

- help that process along   - help what process? You just said abiogenesis wasn't happening, or even likely to happen!

3 hours ago, beecee said:

It just seems to me that your view of humanity is such, that you don't believe we should survive,

How is that relevant? I thought the proposal was to send out microbes in a test-tube, not human specimens in a lifeboat.

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Shouldn't you drop the "smiting"

I never picked it up. Nor do I accept it from you now.

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

and give the only known space faring civilisation another chance?

I have never taken away a chance at anything from any space-faring civilization.

I just don't think it's a good idea to send germs to outer space. The moon, maybe; Titan, maybe. Contaminating other solar systems for an egotistical display, carried out at great (not readily calculable) cost with no expected benefit is potentially irresponsible and bad universal citizenship. 

Edited by Peterkin
afterthought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Probably. What for?

Because we can...because it is science, despite probably never realizing a result within reasonable time scales...also as a future probable home in case Earth meets its demise, and lastly but not leastly, because it is morally acceptable considering protocols.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not very nice. Volcanic gases: methane, ammonia; rocks cooling down to where water could stay liquid.

Inhospitable for complex life forms, but just right for cyanobacteria and anoxygenic algae. Presumably, they were preceded by chemical processes under close scrutiny but not yet clear.

So then imagine the following probable scenario..."The purpose of the Genesis project is to offer terrestrial life alternative evolutionary pathways on those exoplanets that are potentially habitable but yet lifeless… If you had good conditions, simple life can develop very fast, but complex life will have a hard time. At least on Earth, it took a very long time for complex life to arrive. The Cambrian Explosion only happened about 500 million years ago, roughly 4 billion years after Earth was formed. If we give planets the opportunity to fast forward evolution, we can give them the chance to have their own Cambrian Explosions."

The purpose of a Genesis-type mission would therefore be to offer extra-solar planets an evolutionary short-cut, skipping the billions of years necessary for the basic life forms to evolve and moving directly to the point where complex organisms begin to diversify. This would be especially helpful on planets where life could thrive, but not emerge on its own".

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Because:

-according to the data doesn't cover any information beyond what you are capable of collecting - which decreases as the distance of the targeted planet from Earth increases (also, you might miss the planet you're aiming for and hit something about which you have zero data)

- has no obvious idigenous life - The earliest beginnings of life are unlikely to have been obvious here, either. (But it would be ironical in the extreme if that 'special' life we so prize had actually been planted here by scientists from another planet and it consumed all the brand new native life that was not obvious to their long-range data collecting equipment.)  

- and conditions such that any probablity of abiogenesis is low - this would mean, so is the probability of the planted seed surviving. Talk about killing a few million bacteria the hard way!

- help that process along   - help what process? You just said abiogenesis wasn't happening, or even likely to happen!

More strawmen, or just plain old obtuseness. The Genesis project will proceed under strict protocol, and science. JWST may offer even more data and science on a candidate planet. 

If that data is wrong then all we do is help the process along if science has missed something. You see that's the beauty of science...it is forever a discipline in eternal progress. If there are no microbes as per data, then Genesis may help kick start some new evolutionary life or pathway. If there are microbes that have been missed, again we have kick started a probable new evolutionary pathway. Killing a few million bacteria is acceptable if some new evolutionary pathway is fast tracked. Afterall we kill bacteria and microbes all the time...everyday, every moment without a single thought. I fail to see any problem, particularly in the "thought experiment" given, these microbes were 5 kms down. Again the science of probability over possibility.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How is that relevant? I thought the proposal was to send out microbes in a test-tube, not human specimens in a lifeboat.

It isn't relevant. But it was you that raised the spoiling of the planet etc. 😉 I simply agreed but pointed out that we are getting better, and some of us are offering more then rhetoric to help solve our Earth based problems.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I never picked it up. Nor do I accept it from you now.

I was simply pointing out your forever off topic crticism of the human race. That race you and I belong to. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I have never taken away a chance at anything from any space-faring civilization.

That's nice, considering there is only a known example of one.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I just don't think it's a good idea to send germs to outer space. The moon, maybe; Titan, maybe. Contaminating other solar systems for an egotistical display, carried out at great (not readily calculable) cost with no expected benefit is potentially irresponsible and bad universal citizenship. 

That's your prerogative. And as explained, we have probably already  done it. It is still possible for Titan to hold some form of life...and we do have water on the Moon, so it to may possibly have some underground basic life, but I would suggest the probability is low. Just curious, while I accept Titan as a great example within our system,why do you then see it as "contaminating" when it evolves another system. We will be following strict protocol.  Why do you see it as egotistical? Any scientific experiment is generally at great cost. I'm sure we would still have knuckelheads that would poo poo the ISS, or the HST, or LHC, or the new JWST. Do we have to again go through the great benefit science is to mankind, as opposed to the great costs? How much has the current covid accepted protocols and lockdowns and border closures cost us? How many more lives would it have cost us if we ignored the scientific medical advice?

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Because we can...because it is science, despite probably never realizing a result within reasonable time scales...also as a future probable home in case Earth meets its demise, and lastly but not leastly, because it is morally acceptable considering protocols.

I didn't ask 'Why?'. I asked 'What for?' - as in what's aim, the purpose, the payoff?

A future probable home for whom or what? Are you proposing to send extrastellar space-pods full of humans, 5+ light-years away, to a planet that will, by then, maybe have amoeba? 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

If we give planets the opportunity to fast forward evolution, we can give them the chance to have their own Cambrian Explosions."

Do other planets need or want a Cambrian explosion?

 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

But it was you that raised the spoiling of the planet

So did Sagan. From him, you didn't mind, though you misinterpreted both.

 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

considering there is only a known example of one.

There you go with that "known" again.

"Is not known" implies that nobody, anywhere knows it. But since you don't know about anybody, anywhere else, all it really means is "I don't know."

Humans are the only space-faring species that humans know about. (Not that that has any bearing on my depriving them of chances.)

 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why do you see it as egotistical?

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Because we can...because it is science, despite probably never realizing a result within reasonable time scales..

 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

we have probably already  done it.

 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Any scientific experiment is generally at great cost.

Those would not be rational reasons for crossing the road or climbing on the roof or fetching a glass from the kitchen. They are certainly not rational reasons for undertaking a giant project of which you will never see the result, from which you will never learn anything and which will benefit nobody. That isn't reasoning; that is chest-thumping.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't ask 'Why?'. I asked 'What for?' - as in what's aim, the purpose, the payoff?

You have your answer. But why does there need to be a pay off? The purpose, you already know, so again stop being so obtuse. Going over the same thing again and again, when you have been given answers and reasons, does nothing for your  reputation or life philosophy.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

A future probable home for whom or what? Are you proposing to send extrastellar space-pods full of humans, 5+ light-years away, to a planet that will, by then, maybe have amoeba? 

You already have that answer also. 😏 We will do what we can, and what we are capable of.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Do other planets need or want a Cambrian explosion?

Planets don't want...the universe doesn't want. The project is useful, scientific, and morally justified for the many reasons given.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So did Sagan. From him, you didn't mind, though you misinterpreted both.

No I understood Carl as well as yourself. I quoted the whole pale blue dot for a reason, as did Sagan. You chose to take one part out of context, and that part is what you have been running with, and have been smiting  and wringing your hands re the human race for as long as you have been posting, whether relevant or not.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There you go with that "known" again.

"Is not known" implies that nobody, anywhere knows it. But since you don't know about anybody, anywhere else, all it really means is "I don't know."

Humans are the only space-faring species that humans know about. (Not that that has any bearing on my depriving them of chances.)

Really, when will you  understand that I am not in the least troubled or concerned about your rather silly pedant nonsense. Again Earth is the only known planet that contains life, and we are the only known lifeform to be able to undertake space faring and contemplate life, the universe, panspermia, and anything else you care to name. That is fact.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Those would not be rational reasons for crossing the road or climbing on the roof or fetching a glass from the kitchen. They are certainly not rational reasons for undertaking a giant project of which you will never see the result, from which you will never learn anything and which will benefit nobody. That isn't reasoning; that is chest-thumping.

Not for someone who is pretentiously passive and wears it as a badge of honour. For normal folk we do these things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard" to quote JFK. We weren't born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb, and it is within our DNA to seek adventure, do science,  climb mountains, do science, go to the Moon, do science, explore the unknown, do science,  and go where man has not gone before and again, you guessed it, do science. That will continue through scientific undertakings, including protecting the planet and undoing damage already done rather then just rhetoric and talking about it, plus the sheer need for adventure and going where we havn't gone before. We need to spread our seed, and will undertake that when conditions are right and we find a suitable known sterile planet. That's about the size of it, (thankfully) and will certainly continue. And again, all that has been answered and dealt with in detail, more than once.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://phys.org/news/2010-02-professor-moral-obligation-seed-universe.html

(PhysOrg.com) -- Eventually, the day will come when life on Earth ends. Whether that’s tomorrow or five billion years from now, whether by nuclear war, climate change, or the Sun burning up its fuel, the last living cell on Earth will one day wither and die. But that doesn’t mean that all is lost. What if we had the chance to sow the seeds of terrestrial life throughout the universe, to settle young planets within developing solar systems many light-years away, and thus give our long evolutionary line the chance to continue indefinitely?

According to Michael Mautner, Research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, seeding the universe with life is not just an option, it’s our moral obligation. As members of this planet’s menagerie, and a consequence of nearly 4 billion years of evolution, humans have a purpose to propagate life. After all, whatever else life is, it necessarily possesses an incessant drive for self-perpetuation. And the idea isn’t just fantasy: Mautner says that “directed panspermia” missions can be accomplished with present technology.

“We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life, and even the transfer of human life to other solar systems which can be transformed via microbial activity, thereby preparing these worlds to develop and sustain complex life,” Mautner explained to PhysOrg.com. “Securing that future for life can give our human existence a cosmic purpose.”

more.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Did I say anything about him being more then a man? Are you creating another fragile strawman?  And while like any man, he may at  times be wrong, I'm not aware though. Do you have a reference with regards to him being wrong about a particular brand of science? He was certainly right about extraordinary claims ( as per Alien controlled UAP's/UFO's) requiring extraordinary evidence, and of course his absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. 

Way to miss the point, yet again; or are you being deliberately obtuse?

That's just cheating at solitaire... 😉

3 hours ago, beecee said:

“We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life, and even the transfer of human life to other solar systems which can be transformed via microbial activity, thereby preparing these worlds to develop and sustain complex life,” Mautner explained to PhysOrg.com. “Securing that future for life can give our human existence a cosmic purpose.”

Essentially, we have a moral obligation to plan for a purpose; a purpose you insist doesn't exist...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Way to miss the point, yet again; or are you being deliberately obtuse?

That's just cheating at solitaire... 😉

I leave being obtuse to you, along with your other known qualities. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Essentially, we have a moral obligation to plan for a purpose; a purpose you insist doesn't exist...

There you go again with your obtuseness qualitiy! 🤣 I have never said a purpose does not exist. Project Genesis has a purpose...to seed an otherwise barren, sterile planet. That is science, irrespective of the likelhood of the results never being known within a reasonable time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, beecee said:

I leave being obtuse to you, along with your other known qualities. 

At least I know I'm stupid and freely admit the limits of my ability; pretending I'm clever just leads to someone like @joigus posting what he did (no hard feelings BTW)...

17 hours ago, beecee said:

I have never said a purpose does not exist.

I'm sure you have, somewhere, maybe in the evolution thread... 

But that's beside the point, because the answer is "42" or if you prefer "what's 6*7?"

 

Quote

For what is modesty but hypocritical humility, by means of which, in a world swelling with vile envy, a man seeks to beg pardon for his excellences and merits from those who have none? For whoever attributes no merit to himself because he really has none is not modest, but merely honest.- Arthur Schopenhauer 

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

At least I know I'm stupid and freely admit the limits of my ability; pretending I'm clever just leads to someone like @joigus posting what he did (no hard feelings BTW)...

Don't put yourself down, but being hypocritical is not a good look. And I also answered joigus, the same way I answer any reasonable member whether they agree with me or not. I also have supported everything I say with reputable links, as I understand and accept my own limitations. You simply rattle off your life philosophy and expect others to swallow it. That's the great divide separating us.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm sure you have, somewhere, maybe in the evolution thread... 

Yes, certainly with regards to the universe per se. Not with regards to our moral obligation re spreading life in an otherwise  universe where we have no evidence of any life off this Earth, at least at this time.  

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving all other aspects of this discussion out, I have a scientific / technical question: How would we ever know that an inhabitable world is sterile? We don't have a way to know what was / is an evolutionary path of life there. Thus we don't have a way to know where and how to look for it. Can we program a robot to do something that we ourselves don't know how? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Genady said:

Leaving all other aspects of this discussion out, I have a scientific / technical question: How would we ever know that an inhabitable world is sterile? We don't have a way to know what was / is an evolutionary path of life there. Thus we don't have a way to know where and how to look for it. Can we program a robot to do something that we ourselves don't know how? 

Our means of delving into the atmospheres of extra solar planets, is improving all the time, and JWST will certainly add to this data. Plus of course as mentioned many times, the strict protocol under which this mission will be undertaken, will make reasonable probabilty assessments. But if as per the "thought experiment" microbes exist 5 kms down, would they at all ever be affected, and wouldn't they most probably be comfortable in their evolutionary niche after existing there for a few hundred million years.  

36 minutes ago, Genady said:

Leaving all other aspects of this discussion out,

Also as mentioned, we most likely have already started the probable process of spreading Earth life beyond our solar system, and probably also within. Mars for example. Examples of other places of interest within our own system that potentially may also contain life exist and are/will be explored....Europa, Enceledus, Titan, just to name three.

On 1/23/2022 at 8:04 AM, Genady said:

This question appeared in another thread, but it was OT there, so I post it anew.

When we find a promising but sterile world, shouldn't we throw some archaea there with a purpose to spread life? After all, if / when we all go extinct here on Earth, then 4 billion years of evolution will go down the drain. This way we would be instrumental in saving the life. Nobody on Earth but us is capable of doing so.

To your OP, an emphatic yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they live underground, underwater, inside caves, any other difficult to access places, it would take very long time and huge effort to find them and even more so to make a reasonable conclusion that nothing is anywhere. By robots? We are still discovering new species and new ecosystems on Earth that we didn't know about. On the other hand, they sure depend on environmental conditions which would be affected by newly seeded life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Genady said:

If they live underground, underwater, inside caves, any other difficult to access places, it would take very long time and huge effort to find them and even more so to make a reasonable conclusion that nothing is anywhere. By robots? We are still discovering new species and new ecosystems on Earth that we didn't know about. On the other hand, they sure depend on environmental conditions which would be affected by newly seeded life.

All we can do is exersise scientific probabilty over possibilities. I see nothing immoral in that, considering as previously mentioned, we kill millions of microbes everyday on Earth. 

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.