Why haven't we seeded a planet or moon yet?

[Sirrobert]

So, learning how bacteria on our planet would adapt, or manipulate their new environment to thrive wouldn't be interesting or potentially useful? Not all forms of evolution take millions of years to form. Just a few generations and we can see significant qualities. I'm sure scientists wouldn't just throw random bacteria out there to see what happens. I would assume they have some grasp of the chemical make-up of the atmosphere and choose appropriate specimens. Seriously.. The things people say. lol

I would think that scientists had enough intelligence to be assured that their experiments wouldn't ultimately ruin any potential findings. Or, perhaps sent these bacteria to a planet or moon that they have concluded has no lifeforms. Isn't this obvious?

Concerning Extremophile's: Yeah, I said I had very little knowledge of them. Only that they might be potential candidates.

I have yet to see any good reason as to WHY you think we should do this, other than 'we could learn so much'

That's not how science works.

Scientists start with something they want to know. A theory about how something works. Than they devise ways to find out if the theory is correct.

So in your example, the theory would be "X microbe can adabt and thrive in Y envirioment"

Now WHY exactly would we spend countless fortunes, and potentially ruin envirioment Y to find that out, when we could simply recreate the conditions of envirioment Y in the lab, for a tiny fraction of the cost?

And YES you'll ruin envirioment Y if your theory were true. Just look at the COUNTLESS examples of humans introducing forgein lifeforms in new envirioments. Like rabits in Australia.

Also: You can't exclude the fact that there are lifeforms on a planet. Hell, we are still discovering lifeforms on our OWN planet, in places we think we know very well.

You can basicly never prove that something doesn't exist. Just because you haven't found proof of something yet, doesn't mean you never will. So you either prove something exists, or you conclude that you haven't found proof of something existing yet.

[Jas1126]

Jas, your experiment would work exactly the same in a low pressure chamber with UV lamps and the right soil and gas mixtures-and probably for a good bit less money than sending this stuff to Mars with the equipment to monitor it, even if you disregard the ethical implications. This approach also means you can scale the conditions up to Martian conditions, as anything being immediately able to survive all of the various challenges of Mars initially (peroxide radicals, UV, temperature, pressure, et.c.) are extremely slim.

I had actually considered this but then tried to imagine just how many random occurrences we'd have to artificially simulate. Wouldn't that ultimately be just as costly? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of variable we'd have to simulate. Wouldn't there be?

[vger]

Simple. Knowledge. Why do scientists do anything? To see if there's a reaction or useful outcome.

I think it's ridiculous that people jump onto the topic of morality when quite a few scientists only care about morals when they're caught.

*jots down on a pad* 9/10 times, humans seem to explode when strapped to a device that explodes.

Alright, we're done with this one. Bring in the next batch of subjects, and the acid.

[Kryten]

I had actually considered this but then tried to imagine just how many random occurrences we'd have to artificially simulate. Wouldn't that ultimately be just as costly? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of variable we'd have to simulate. Wouldn't there be?

Not many of these variables are likely to actually have a significant effect on microbial survival, so there wouldn't be much point.

[Sirrobert]

I had actually considered this but then tried to imagine just how many random occurrences we'd have to artificially simulate. Wouldn't that ultimately be just as costly? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of variable we'd have to simulate. Wouldn't there be?

Again, that's not how science works.

You want to know of Lifeform X survives under condition set Y.

That's lab work.

Than you slowly add more variables. So when Lifeform X does die, you know WHY it died. Wouldn't you want to know WHAT part of the Martial envirionment just killed your Microbe?

[Jas1126]

*jots down on a pad* 9/10 times, humans seem to explode when strapped to a device that explodes.

Alright, we're done with this one. Bring in the next batch of subjects, and the acid.

Funny you should mention explosions when considering that they had people sit near nuclear explosion test sites to see the effects. <-- Look at all those ethics. =D

[Sirrobert]

Funny you should mention explosions when considering that they had people sit near nuclear explosion sites to see the effects. <-- Look at all those ethics. =D

And now you're just sprouting bullcrap because people don't agree with you.

Ethics is a nonfactor in your example, because those people WANTED to be there. And not only didn't people NOT know radiation was as dangerous as it is, they actually thought those explosions were SAFE outside of the direct blast radius.

So at the time, it was a perfectly ethical thing to watch a nuclear test. Infact, it was concidered a fun day out with the family

[Jas1126]

Again, that's not how science works.

You want to know of Lifeform X survives under condition set Y.

That's lab work.

Than you slowly add more variables. So when Lifeform X does die, you know WHY it died. Wouldn't you want to know WHAT part of the Martial envirionment just killed your Microbe?

/facepalm By "Random Occurrences" I meant that they are random in the natural environment. Surely the scientists would not actually throw in random variables. lol

And now you're just sprouting bullcrap because people don't agree with you.

Ethics is a nonfactor in your example, because those people WANTED to be there. And not only didn't people NOT know radiation was as dangerous as it is, they actually thought those explosions were SAFE outside of the direct blast radius.

So at the time, it was a perfectly ethical thing to watch a nuclear test. Infact, it was concidered a fun day out with the family

If they had known just how dangerous it was I'm sure they wouldn't "want to be there".

[Sirrobert]

/facepalm By "Random Occurrences" I meant that they are random in the natural environment. Surely the scientists would not actually throw in random variables. lol

Random or just 'a crap ton of variables', the result is the same.

To many variables at once, and you don't know what it is that killed your Microbe.

So you start with the things that are always there, and once you confirmed that your Microbe can survive that, only THAN is it worth anything to stimulate your potential 'random events that could happen in the environment.

If they had known just how dangerous it was I'm sure they wouldn't "want to be there".

How is that an argument? NOONE knew at the time. So 'if they had known' doesn't matter. THEY DIDN'T KNOW

What are you going to do with your suburb knowledge? Go back in time and tell them, because letting people watch a nuclear blast is unethical NOW?

[Jas1126]

How is that an argument? NOONE knew at the time. So 'if they had known' doesn't matter. THEY DIDN'T KNOW

What are you going to do with your suburb knowledge? Go back in time and tell them, because letting people watch a nuclear blast is unethical NOW?

The scientists involved knew what radiation did. They were merely testing the distance. I'm curious if they actually told people what they were potentially being exposed to.

[Sirrobert]

The scientists involved knew what radiation did. They were merely testing the distance. I'm curious if they actually told people what they were potentially being exposed to.

Great, so if you believe that, they did a very unethical thing.

How is that relavent again?

EDIT: Here you go, ethical. Eat your heart out

Edited May 11, 2014 by Sirrobert

[Jas1126]

Not many of these variables are likely to actually have a significant effect on microbial survival, so there wouldn't be much point.

I was under the assumption that every little thing involved with life in general played some part, even if minor.

[Kryten]

I was under the assumption that every little thing involved with life in general played some part, even if minor.

Smaller variables will be involved in survival, but not many will be too relevant to the question of 'can life survive on Mars, in general'. Peroxide levels, temperature, composition of the atmosphere are all general, but if you try to go deeper than that you're looking at stuff that would vary significantly between locations anyway. If the question was 'can life survive at Galle crater' or something like that you'd be able to meaningfully include amount of dust storms or exact spectrum of charged particle radiation or whatever, but it isn't.

[Jas1126]

Smaller variables will be involved in survival, but not many will be too relevant to the question of 'can life survive on Mars, in general'. Peroxide levels, temperature, composition of the atmosphere are all general, but if you try to go deeper than that you're looking at stuff that would vary significantly between locations anyway. If the question was 'can life survive at Galle crater' or something like that you'd be able to meaningfully include amount of dust storms or exact spectrum of charged particle radiation or whatever, but it isn't.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[Seret]

Ultimately no, you can't stimulate reality with prefect accuracy. But you can stimulate it with enough to fund it what you want to know.

Your question was: "Why aren't we doing this?". People have answered your question. You don't seem to like the answer, but it's the only one you're going to get.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Seret

[Jas1126]

Ultimately no, you can't stimulate reality with prefect accuracy. But you can stimulate it with enough to fund it what you want to know.

Your question was: "Why aren't we doing this?". People have answered your question. You don't seem to like the answer, but it's the only one you're going to get.

Yet another person with a poor attitude. lol I never claimed to dislike the answer. I'm simply enjoying the conversation. If that's a problem for you then kindly take your negativity elsewhere. Thanks.

[sojourner]

Good luck mini-modding a topic you created on an open forum. They don't generally work that way. If you didn't want dissenting posts you should have used blog where you can disable comments.

[Jas1126]

Good luck mini-modding a topic you created on an open forum. They don't generally work that way. If you didn't want dissenting posts you should have used blog where you can disable comments.

Who's mini-modding? I simply offered a suggestion.

[Ralathon]

Who's mini-modding? I simply offered a suggestion.

Your post is easily interpreted as "agree with me or GTFO my thread". Since this is an open forum people aren't likely to heed your 'suggestion'.

[Jas1126]

Your post is easily interpreted as "agree with me or GTFO my thread". Since this is an open forum people aren't likely to heed your 'suggestion'.

I didn't imply that at all. Such a negative outlook you have there. I just don't want the negativity (hence the reason I pointed it out specifically). XD People can disagree/debate all they like. I'd just prefer it be civil. Nothing wrong with that.

[shynung]

I didn't imply that at all. Such a negative outlook you have there. I just don't want the negativity (hence the reason I pointed it out specifically). XD People can disagree/debate all they like. I'd just prefer it be civil. Nothing wrong with that.

What they were saying can be boiled down to this:

We don't seed other planets with Terran microbes to see whether said microbes would survive, because simulating the planet's surface conditions in a lab is much cheaper, yet generates enough data to say whether survival is possible, without contaminating said planet, thereby changing its conditions significantly, rendering any search for ET life pointlessly hard, because one now needs to distinguish it from Terran-based life, which would have evolved differently from their Earth-bound counterparts, and could very easily be mistaken as ET life.

TL;DR: It's not a good idea.

Then, from this point:

Simple. Knowledge. Why do scientists do anything? To see if there's a reaction or useful outcome.

I think it's ridiculous that people jump onto the topic of morality when quite a few scientists only care about morals when they're caught.

I'd bet everything I own and will earn that, if given the chance (and no chances of getting caught), at least a few scientists would jump at the opportunity to contaminate a planet. I would even go so far as to say that some of those "accidents" were intentional. A group of scientists are not a hive mind. As with most groups, there is a bad apple.

Face it, people seeking knowledge and power will put morals on the back-burner if needed (and if they think they can get away with it).

The argument goes off-rails from technical difficulties to ethical matters. Chaos ensues.

[lajoswinkler]

I have yet to see any good reason as to WHY you think we should do this, other than 'we could learn so much'

That's not how science works.

Scientists start with something they want to know. A theory about how something works. Than they devise ways to find out if the theory is correct.

So in your example, the theory would be "X microbe can adabt and thrive in Y envirioment"

Now WHY exactly would we spend countless fortunes, and potentially ruin envirioment Y to find that out, when we could simply recreate the conditions of envirioment Y in the lab, for a tiny fraction of the cost?

And YES you'll ruin envirioment Y if your theory were true. Just look at the COUNTLESS examples of humans introducing forgein lifeforms in new envirioments. Like rabits in Australia.

Also: You can't exclude the fact that there are lifeforms on a planet. Hell, we are still discovering lifeforms on our OWN planet, in places we think we know very well.

You can basicly never prove that something doesn't exist. Just because you haven't found proof of something yet, doesn't mean you never will. So you either prove something exists, or you conclude that you haven't found proof of something existing yet.

Correction: put hypothesis instead of theory.

And now you're just sprouting bullcrap because people don't agree with you.

Ethics is a nonfactor in your example, because those people WANTED to be there. And not only didn't people NOT know radiation was as dangerous as it is, they actually thought those explosions were SAFE outside of the direct blast radius.

So at the time, it was a perfectly ethical thing to watch a nuclear test. Infact, it was concidered a fun day out with the family

It was safe. The gutter shields you from the initial blast of gamma rays, glasses from blinding light, and you won't be spending enough time there waiting for the fallout to approach. I'd go and watch it anytime, but I'm glad those experiments are a thing of the past.

Edited May 11, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Sirrobert]

Correction: put hypothesis instead of theory.

You are right ofcourse, my bad

It was safe. The gutter shields you from gamma rays, and you won't be spending enough time there waiting for the fallout to approach. I'd go and watch it anytime, but I'm glad those experiments are a thing of the past.

Really? The only pictures I ever saw were just a group on a podium with a mushroom cloud in the distance. What exactly do you mean with gutter?

[peadar1987]

I'd say mainly because of ethics. If there is Martian/Europan/Enceladean life, it's unethical to introduce earth life that might outcompete it, or at the very least, muddle the evidence of hat would be possibly the greatest scientific discovery ever.

Of course, if there is proven to be no life on Mars, I would be all in favour of genetically engineering bacteria for the purposes of terraforming, that would be incredible!

[vger]

Funny you should mention explosions when considering that they had people sit near nuclear explosion test sites to see the effects. <-- Look at all those ethics. =D

Yeah, good luck with getting away with that now.

Of course, if someone is cool with submitting to whatever they're being tested for, I'm not going to say they can't.

I somehow doubt we'd get the same consent from critters on another planet.

And before you go comparing it to animal testing, we do that in a LAB. If we want to know what the Andromeda Strain does to a mouse, we can do it under controlled conditions. We don't try it by releasing it into an entire population and risking mass extinction.

Ultimately, if there's something out there, we can learn a LOT more by studying THEM, than we can by throwing germs at an alien world.

Edited May 11, 2014 by vger