Terraforming - Species Transport

[crubs]

By some estimations there are over 8 million species on planet earth. Given that another earth-like planet is available for colonization, how exactly do we get all those species there?

Say we thicken Mars' atmosphere or discover an earth-like planet around Alpha Centauri and are capable of going to 40% light speed for a few trillion dollars (assuming the vessel is no larger than two ISS combined). What would be the most effective way of transporting all those species to the new world? How would we ship a blue whale? Keep in mind that we may have to ship several from the same species to copy over as much genetic diversity as possible.

[QuesoExplosivo]

If we have that level of technology, we could just recreate the species there from the DNA sequences and local resources. No need to actually transport organisms.

Also, 8 million seems too low, and in any case, why would we need to transport all the Earth species?

[NFUN]

Easy.

[crubs]

Queso you've quickly ruined this discussion with a very simple, straightforward, cost effective solution. I was hoping for a more overcomplicated kerbal-esque response such as some sort of interplanetary/interstellar ark. Just as NFUN posted, an overloaded bathtub in space. Actually, the Biblical Noah had it easy, but I won't go there since that gets on the border with religion...

The human genome would easily fit onto a thumb drive, one could have many species stored in digital form, and transport many more via radio. But yes, one would probably want a few "seed" species to bring along just so one has something to work with. Reconstruction of prokaryotic genomes can be done with modern technology. We've been able to reconstruct a simple eukaryotic yeast chromosome. Extend that technology and you could clone multiple species and grow them via inter-species pregnancy.

Why transport them all? Gee, I guess we could simply have a bare-minimum ecosystem just complex enough to support a farm world. But wouldn't that be a little boring? Isn't our culture better off with more biodiversity? Not to mention that we often find new uses for a given species even after having known about them for a long time.

[MockKnizzle]

I don't think we would transport anything more than bacteria, fungal spores, seeds, and maybe some fish and insect eggs or something. Transporting full-grown organisms seems like a huge waste of space and weight.

[SargeRho]

As with every time you have to get a large population from one planet to another: Seed and Sleeper ships. In the case of animals you can use pure seed ships probably, if you can master artificial uterii.

[AngelLestat]

if you can terraform a planet, then send all animals to there is easy.

[cantab]

I'd say the short answer is that you wouldn't. You'd take select species, chosen for usefulness to humans or for support of the ecosystem. To deliberately take pests, weeds, and diseases would be outright silly. The planned makeup would have been tested in a facility on Earth designed to simulate the extraterrestrial conditions.

For plants and fungi seeds and spores are pretty compact, and bacterial and viral samples would likewise not take up too much space. Insects and similar wouldn't be too bulky, especially as only a tiny fraction of the zillion insect species will be useful. For larger animals with current technology genetic diversity can be provided by sperm and egg samples, though we would still need living animals to lay the eggs or bear the foetuses.

Of course those animals would need looking after during the trip. And considering the timescales required for terraforming, the ship would need to maintain its own ecosystem for centuries at least while the planet is prepared.

And then why bother with the terraforming? Live in space, in an environment compact enough to be tractable and controllable, and mine asteroids for resources. And save on all the rockets you'd need to go to and from a planetary surface.

[-Velocity-]

I think we're all in agreement about the best way to do this.

However, if the world already has life of its own, then we should question if it's right to do it. If we find a habitable planet with life, and kill off all that life to make way for our own, that makes us the evil, xenocidal alien invaders of our worst science fiction nightmares. The question would be, how dead does a world have to be before we'd be justified in supplanting its life with our own? Does the world have to be completely dead? If we discovered microbes on Mars, does that morally preclude us from terraforming it?

[Geneborg]

Something else to think about: as we probably wouldn't finda 2nd earth, we would want animals/plants to adapt to the new conditions, so why take 1:1 copies of earth species? We would probably engineer what we need specifically for the planet/ecosystem in question.

Even if there is no 2nd earth, but "only" a terraformed mars, there wouldn't be a 1:1 atmosphere, soil, magnetic field or gravity. So better to engineer a plant that is optimally suited for those conditions.

[NFUN]

I think we're all in agreement about the best way to do this.

However, if the world already has life of its own, then we should question if it's right to do it. If we find a habitable planet with life, and kill off all that life to make way for our own, that makes us the evil, xenocidal alien invaders of our worst science fiction nightmares. The question would be, how dead does a world have to be before we'd be justified in supplanting its life with our own? Does the world have to be completely dead? If we discovered microbes on Mars, does that morally preclude us from terraforming it?

Well, for a not-quite dead planet with minimal bacterial life, We would most likely try to collect whatever hereditary the organisms had and preserve them somewhere else. More complex life would be tricky, but a relatively thorough collection might just be enough.

[magnemoe]

Easy.

http://picture-book.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Noahs-Ark-.jpg

Liked how the artist got the gender difference on the lions (and elephants) right, Noah should have gone for the one pigeon solution who is shown (all statues the last 2500 years agree with me)

More seriously, yes the genesis probes is a standard payload to launch against suitable planets who could support life but don't have decent with oxygen in the atmosphere. Payload is an mix of bacteria who is dispersed over huge areas.

Real teraforming is different, it involves introducing species over time, you want plenty of grass and good soil before introducing grass eating animals, then they are common you introduce predators. An slow process it has never been any problems getting the required stocks even for outlying systems.

Edited October 4, 2014 by magnemoe

[Scotius]

As one very smart man once said: "Life will find a way."

You can leave all "pest" species on Earth, but you can't stop transplanted organisms from evolving. With time they will fill any available niche in their new environment - including ones currently taken by mosquitoes, tapeworms, rats and weeds.

[magnemoe]

As one very smart man once said: "Life will find a way."

You can leave all "pest" species on Earth, but you can't stop transplanted organisms from evolving. With time they will fill any available niche in their new environment - including ones currently taken by mosquitoes, tapeworms, rats and weeds.

One major cool thing in Ringworld was how humanoids took the big scavenger role. But yes insects would adapt far faster, we can eve measure insect adaptability during history.

Would be smarter to introduce versions who did not caused all the problems, an mosquito who did not like humans would close the niche.

Weeds is other plants growing in a mono culture, its nothing you can leave out as you like them other places.

You don't want monocultures as they can easy been taken out by diseases, yes monocultures make lots of sense economically.

[KerikBalm]

an mosquito who did not like humans would close the niche.

#1) No it wouldn't, there would still be an open niche for parasites of humans

#2) As if it were so easy, like organisms have a written code and you can just change a line "feed on humans = True" -> "feed on humans = False"

The human genome would easily fit onto a thumb drive, one could have many species stored in digital form, and transport many more via radio. But yes, one would probably want a few "seed" species to bring along just so one has something to work with. Reconstruction of prokaryotic genomes can be done with modern technology. We've been able to reconstruct a simple eukaryotic yeast chromosome. Extend that technology and you could clone multiple species and grow them via inter-species pregnancy.

If we have that level of technology, we could just recreate the species there from the DNA sequences and local resources. No need to actually transport organisms.

Not neccessarily, we had the technology to split the atom before we even knew the structure of DNA.

While we can synthesize DNA, we cannot make cells de-novo, nor can we synthesize functional Eukaryotic genomes.

If you want to do whole genome replacement in Eukaryotes, ie, like with cloning of mammals, you need your DNA to already by properly packed, ie wound around histones and the like.

Besides... sythesizing DNA is hard... you don't want your machine to break after the first 2 billion basepairs synthesized...

While you can store the ATCG code on a thumbdrive... you could store dozens of frozen fertilized eggs in the same space. You could store even more purified DNA. No need to send the information via "radio" (laser is more likely at those distances, methinks).

We can't freeze and revive entire humans, but we can freeze human cells (using a freezing medium that is generally something like 90% FBS, 10% DMSO). We simply need some sort of birthing chamber technology (no, we don't already have that with "test tube" babies). This could of course take the form of genetically modified animals to use as wombs for birthing a variety of related species.

For plants, we'd have the easy and simle task of just bringing compact and light seeds.

Microbial stocks would generally just be frozen in a solution containing ~10% glycerol, and thawed on arrival.

[Kulebron]

To deliberately take pests, weeds, and diseases would be outright silly.

I think this will be a necessity for a stable ecosystem. If there are no viruses or bacteria, it will take little time for them to evolve. Just remember about bacteria getting immune to antibiotics.

Isolated sterile life will have catastrophic consequences if any virus or predator comes in. We can't really estimate how that sort of colonization may happen, but if this will be made for humanity to come, viruses or bacteria will eventually get there too.

Watch a documentary on a family who lived as hermits for some decades. Those who were born in the forest were lacked any sort of immunity to normal diseases. 3 of 4 them died of pneumonia, and the younger sister is still alive, but when she travelled to relatives, she got very sick every time, just of eating any usual food.

[crubs]

Not neccessarily, we had the technology to split the atom before we even knew the structure of DNA.

While we can synthesize DNA, we cannot make cells de-novo, nor can we synthesize functional Eukaryotic genomes.

If you want to do whole genome replacement in Eukaryotes, ie, like with cloning of mammals, you need your DNA to already by properly packed, ie wound around histones and the like.

Besides... sythesizing DNA is hard... you don't want your machine to break after the first 2 billion basepairs synthesized...

While you can store the ATCG code on a thumbdrive... you could store dozens of frozen fertilized eggs in the same space. You could store even more purified DNA. No need to send the information via "radio" (laser is more likely at those distances, methinks).

We can't freeze and revive entire humans, but we can freeze human cells (using a freezing medium that is generally something like 90% FBS, 10% DMSO). We simply need some sort of birthing chamber technology (no, we don't already have that with "test tube" babies). This could of course take the form of genetically modified animals to use as wombs for birthing a variety of related species.

For plants, we'd have the easy and simle task of just bringing compact and light seeds.

Microbial stocks would generally just be frozen in a solution containing ~10% glycerol, and thawed on arrival.

Species may not need to be genetically modified, they grew panda fetuses in a cat womb (wiki interspecies pregnancy). Ectogenesis chambers would probably be unnecessary except in specific cases. Your right about the need for epigenetic mechanisms in place to get from DNA to an organism, in part that what makes cloning difficult, but that understanding has resulted in improved technique. E.g. one method, that has been developed is to transfer a somatic cell into an oocyte, then repeat the nuclear transfer from the embryo to a new oocyte. In theory, the DNA has gone under much epigenetic reprogramming which makes development far easier for the second embryo.

What if you forget a species at home? It seems quite inevitable actually. Besides, storing billions of cells in isolated chambers could not only be expensive, but the weight could begin to add up. Besides, species are 99% identical in sequences so a lot of the information is going to be redundant. This won't be a problem if the information is stored digitally. We could simply tell the computer which sequences have allelic variance, and in theory, we could document every single SNP in the human population on a thumb drive.

Beaming the genetic code across the stars would be not only faster, but far more cost effective then having to load them onto an interstellar ship. Synthesizing DNA might not be easy, but I wouldn't be surprised if we gain the technology to synthesize entire animal genomes within the next few decades. We could clone the mammoth as a proof of concept.

[gamowin]

The tricky part is not getting them there, but actually creating a self-sufficient ecosystem that could also support extra humans.

[KerikBalm]

Species may not need to be genetically modified, they grew panda fetuses in a cat womb (wiki interspecies pregnancy). Ectogenesis chambers would probably be unnecessary except in specific cases.

I think it would be more neccessary than you think, particularly if you want to get to full term. Basically you'd just want one similar ot "nude mice" to ensure there is immune response.

I'm not even talking about histone modifications and DNA methylation/etc. I'm talking about more basic modifications

You can't just put DNA for an entire into a Eukaryotic cell, it won't work. Even if you first put it in one cell type, and then another. It needs a minimum sort of packaging to be functional. If you remember old VHS tapes... it would be like trying to stuff the magnetic tape directly into the tape player, without having it wound around the spools.

It won't work

What if you forget a species at home? It seems quite inevitable actually.

Then you may try to synthesize it with some time if you really want it... but you'd test the combination you're taking before you'd leave. There's no way we'd get every species on Earth. As it is many go extinct before we even name them, let alone sequence them.

Besides, storing billions of cells in isolated chambers could not only be expensive,

Billions? only about 10 million. Then lets say we store them in 384 well plates... thats about 23k 384 well plates... Thats a stack of plates 29x29x29... it would fit in a cryogenic suitcase.

You could have many different germ cells in each well and separate them with a cell sorter.

Compare that to the DNA synthesis machinery you'd need... it would cost tens of billions with today's technology to synthesize just 1 eukaryotic genome... and then you still need additional technology to turn that into a living cell.

but the weight could begin to add up.

To far less than your DNA synthesis machine

we could document every single SNP in the human population on a thumb drive.

It would be far easier to take 1 functional genome, and do directed mutagenesis on it, than to try synthesizing them denovo

Beaming the genetic code across the stars would be not only faster, but far more cost effective then having to load them onto an interstellar ship. Synthesizing DNA might not be easy, but I wouldn't be surprised if we gain the technology to synthesize entire animal genomes within the next few decades. We could clone the mammoth as a proof of concept.

Beaming the code is useless without the machines to make use of it, and those will weight more than all the embryos you'd need, and those would go at the same speed or faster.

BTW, we already have to technology to synthesize entire genomes, its just ridiculously expensive, and you need more than just naked DNA to make use of it in Eukaryotes.

[Albert VDS]

If we have that level of technology, we could just recreate the species there from the DNA sequences and local resources. No need to actually transport organisms.

If we have the capability of terraforming Mars, reaching Alpha Centauri within a decent amount of time then that doesn't mean we are capable of recreating species.

It's like saying that if you learned how to paint a photo realistic oil painting then you can fix a broken down car.

I would suggest the bare minimum of species to start an ecosystem. This selection could be made easier by exclude species which can't survive on the new world, so no whales if the seas are only a few meter deep.

[-Velocity-]

Do we have an idea what the minimum amount of information required create a species from "scratch" is? Say we HAVE the ability to make artificial wombs, and molecularly assemble DNA and cell structures. Do we only need to know the information necessary to describe a generic mammal embryo cellular structure, into which we can just insert the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA for each individual for that species that we want to grow?

Also, we need to remember that for each species, we need the sequences for thousands of individuals for a healthy population. Perhaps a reasonable way to compress that data would be to have a "template" sequence for each species, with each individual member of the species represented by only the differences between its sequence and the template sequence.

[DeepOdyssey]

Why would you want to transport ALL species. We could have transport only useful ones, like livestock.

[Mr Shifty]

This should probably go without saying, but Earth-based ecosystems are only robust here on Earth. Clearly if you transport even bacteria to a sterile environment, they won't survive. I'm curious, though, how well Earth-bacteria could survive on a world with its own native ecology of differing metabolisms which might use ammonia as a solvent or arsenic as an energy source or silicon as a biomolecular basis or a different chirality for organic molecules or a different set of amino acids.

[Kryten]

Do we have an idea what the minimum amount of information required create a species from "scratch" is? Say we HAVE the ability to make artificial wombs, and molecularly assemble DNA and cell structures. Do we only need to know the information necessary to describe a generic mammal embryo cellular structure, into which we can just insert the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA for each individual for that species that we want to grow?

Unfortunately, there's a lot more information needed for your average eukaryote than just the DNA sequences. There are a lot of gene-regulating mechanisms necessary for proper development, most of which we barely understand. As far as we can tell, you'd at least need to copy the patterns of DNA methylation and histone modification.

This should probably go without saying, but Earth-based ecosystems are only robust here on Earth. Clearly if you transport even bacteria to a sterile environment, they won't survive.

Given the right nutrients and environmental conditions, any bacterium will survive in a sterile environment, apart from a few obligate intracellular parasites. That's exactly what happens in your average petri dish.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Kryten

[Mr Shifty]

Given the right nutrients and environmental conditions, any bacterium will survive in a sterile environment, apart from a few obligate intracellular parasites. That's exactly what happens in your average petri dish.

I'm actually curious about this, and I have only glancing knowledge about biology. I'm probably using terminology wrong when I say 'sterile'. I guess I'm referring to environments with a lack of non-biologically occurring organic molecules. Could autotrophic terrestrial bacteria survive on Mars? Or on a sterile Earth-like planet with a nitrogen-CO2 atmosphere?