Is It Humanity's Obligation To Seed The Universe With Life?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

Topic started on 20-3-2010 @ 11:13 PM by Hadrian

MysterE posted an interesting and provocative item on February 9 about Michael Mautner, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, who has achieved a little notoriety due to his belief that we have a "moral obligation" to send out the materials of life to distant locations in an effort to "seed" the universe with life.

As Mautner explains in his study published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Cosmology, the strategy is to deposit an array of primitive organisms on potentially fertile planets and protoplanets throughout the universe. Like the earliest life on Earth, organisms such as cyanobacteria could seed other planets, digest toxic gases (such as ammonia and carbon dioxide on early Earth) and release products such as oxygen which promote the evolution of more complex species. To increase their chances of success, the microbial payloads should contain a variety of organisms with various environmental tolerances, and hardy multicellular organisms such as rotifer eggs to jumpstart higher evolution. These organisms may be captured into asteroids and comets in the newly forming solar systems and transported from there by impacts to planets as their host environments develop.

Physorg.com News Item
Audio Interview with Dr. Mautner

I kinda find this subject fascinating and wanted to throw it out there again with some quasi-ethical questions to see how and what people think about this concept.

Do you believe that humans have a "moral imperative" to try and "seed" the universe with life?

Or, does the possibility (and perhaps, likelihood) that life already exists somewhere within the universe make the point moot?

Is it too easy to dismiss this idea because we (humans) are such horrible examples, "look at how we've wrecked our own planet," "we suck" and yada, yada? Look at the negative effects of colonialism/imperialism on our own planet, how do we have any right to try and "colonize" space?

Should we expect ourselves to, at the least, colonize multiple worlds so that we have severely minimized the risk of humanity ending ... but avoid sending out "life starter kits" to unknown worlds?

Is the risk that we could contaminate already-existing life too large?

Does it matter if we were to believe, based on firm evidence, that there is no life "locally" (in other words, if we were relatively sure we were doing no evil)? Would it then be not only a good idea, but an obligation?

Should we really just not make an effort to open up the possibility for millions of lives and opportunities for, potentially, other living things given our opportunity and the technology that we have or will have imminently?

Would it at all matter were it the case that humanity on Earth began this way?

Would it matter if we were actually the only life in the universe? Although it seems impossible we could ever know that, were it to be true, would that change ideas?

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 11:20 PM by platipus

i think that is optional, but we do have an obligation to survive and avoid becoming extinct.

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 11:26 PM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by Hadrian

No, it is the obligation of aliens to stop us from seeding the Universe with our species.

In some ways it would be cool, shoot a couple billion microbes to Mars and see if they manage to survive, heck we could genetically engineer microbes to be better suited to a Martian environment and then shoot em up.

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 11:53 PM by hhcore

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I think we desperately need to clean our own back yard, before messing with other backyards. Wouldn't you agree? This is not a slight to you, just a written observation - Like in the OP's starter thread, humans are not the best example.

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 11:59 PM by Hadrian

yeah, but what if we were the only life in the entire universe (impossible to believe, i know), and just prior to global annihilation (whether by our own hands or not), we shoot off some life-starter-kits to a couple of star systems a gagillion light years away ... at least that's where they wind up ... and they start life? maybe they start good life, maybe it's the same ol' life that spawned us. is it narcissistic to believe that life in the universe is better than a barren universe?

reply posted on 20-3-2010 @ 11:59 PM by platipus

reply to post by hhcore

i agree. we need to improve ourselves as a species and the planet we are taking for granted first before trying to screw with other worlds.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 12:12 AM by SaturnFX

Oh, I dont think its a obligation, but I imagine if we ever do get out there, it will be a pretty common past time...first with colonies, then with genetic experiments of our own to make frogmen friends or bunny people or whatnot.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 12:13 AM by Exuberant1

We should do a proof of concept test on Mars.

I'm sure we could find something here that would survive there.

All we have to do is rocket some hardy lifeforms to Mars and then directed panspermia will no longer be a theory.

We have the means to send life to Mars and so we should.

*Some people will disagree with this and whine about Humans, but that's just their indoctrination talking.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 12:44 AM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by hhcore

I totally agree, hence the first line of my post, that perhaps aliens should think about stopping us when we start to ruin other planets. But I see no harm in launching microbes in an attempt to spark evolution on another planet, it'd be interesting to see the different paths that evolution might take and it'd certainly give us a glimpse of what might have happened on Earth a few billion years ago.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 12:58 AM by Nostradumbass

Why would our government want to purposely have to worry about life on another planet?

You people do realize whether they already have already made contact with extraterrestrial life or not, they would never want us to know. The only good that could come from outside life is technological advances, but whats the point of seeding a different race...so that in 100,000 years they can whipe off the last reminents of the human race? Or maybe so they can occupy our most closely related planet when the Earth has finally had enough of us?

I think the government is more worried about keeping control of what they started.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Nostradumbass]

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:02 AM by Faiol

reply to post by Nostradumbass

lol

u are crazy

its not like it would take 100 000 years for them to evolve, its a much bigger process, they will seed life, they wont seed a intelligent being, life out there would need to evolve, and its not like we wouldnt be able to evolve (in a tech sense) too

the only way for us to not evolve would be death ... so, no worries

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Faiol]

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:24 AM by theyreadmymind

I find it morally reprehensible to seed other planets/solar systems with life. The only reason we want to do it is because we have an instinctive need to reproduce and multiply. Ultimately, we know what will happen. We'll create an environment on other planets where the strong eat the weak, endless pain and suffering; a bloodbath ensues. That's even before hominoidal man comes along and starts enslaving and destroying each other. Sometimes when I think about how many worlds there might be like ours, how many wars may be going on, how many "people" might be tortured or murdered right now or suffering, I go into a really dark place just thinking about it. There's absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. And if we start seeding planets with life, that's one pandora's box we can never, ever close.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:28 AM by Exuberant1

Originally posted by theyreadmymind
I find it morally reprehensible to seed other planets/solar systems with life.

Awwww, that's too bad.

...Because one day us humans are going to send life to another planet and there is nothing you can do about it.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:38 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by Hadrian

No, we do not have an obligation to 'seed the universe with life'.

Kick that professor.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:49 AM by Hadrian

Originally posted by theyreadmymind
We'll create an environment on other planets where the strong eat the weak, endless pain and suffering; a bloodbath ensues. That's even before hominoidal man comes along and starts enslaving and destroying each other.

Do you believe that the only reason why we shouldn't is because of our inherent nature? On the other hand, if we were not so "bad," then maybe we should adopt this project as our destiny?

What would it matter if (though it's impossible) we were to find out that all life was similar to humanity (i.e., "strong eat the weak," "endless pain and suffering")? Would it matter or would we determine that life, as it is, is, in and of itself, a negative virus with respect to the remainder of the universe?

... and in a universe without life, save the kind that is like us, would it be more admirable to extinguish life or make every effort to salvage any kind of lifeforce that we can?

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:57 AM by Hadrian

C'mon guys, I love each and every one of your comments, but frankly, I think it's taking the easy road to do the ol' "we suck, we should mind our own business" route. What if whatever it is that makes you think twice about humanity is incumbent upon life? In other words, what if life, by its nature, is indistinguishable from humanity ... i.e., we can be absolved from all of our faults as a species because whatever our faults, it's in our nature ... and the nature of life? Would it matter? Would it be okay to seed a planet in some system were we to find that in 9 times out of 10, life in other systems was more selfish, violent, patricidal and destined for failure than ours (assuming, of course, that ours is)?

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 02:58 AM by SpartanKingLeonidas

reply to post by Hadrian

Is it our obligation?

No.

Will it happen whether I agree with that?

Yes.

Will humankind willfully destroy other planets because of greed?

Yes.

Are our planetary explorations going to fuel more knowledge?

Yes.

Will humankind evolve because of it through knowledge?

Yes.

In order for this to happen though first a few things need to happen.

1) Humankind needs to accept the R.F.I.D., which it will not, at least not without being lied to, tricked into, and forced into.

2) The United Nations has to actually do a damn thing they set out to do.

3) Technology needs to be upgraded significantly over what we have now.

We cannot explore other planets until we unite as a planet, something which will not happen, until our species is near the brink of extinction, and those in World Government will push us to the brink of extinction, and or cause us to believe that.

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 03:00 AM by Faiol

I think we should seed other planets with very primitive life, so they could evolve and someday maybe be able to evolve to some complex creatures, then maybe, just maybe intelligent life

people here think we would send a human adapted to the life of that planet, we are not yet there, we cant do that ... we will be able in the future to create a intelligent being with capacity to survive, but thats another topic

I forgot: I believe it is our obligation to seed primitive life in the universe, because our planet could end at any moment and as we all know, life is not something that happens at every planet, it needs special condition to be able to survive, but dont get me wrong, there should be a lot of life out there, since our universe is infinitely big

plus: to complex life to survive in a planet, it needs a lot of special condition, so, yes, our planet is special, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist in every galaxy; the problem about life, is that is hard to primitive organism to evolve into intelligent beings, and its even harder for these beings to dominate tech enough to survive all the dangerous of our universe

another thing: I believe life may exist in our own solar system in some moons, but I believe its very hard to life to get complex in these places, since most planets are very active places

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

I agree with the part of the united planet, you are very correct about that, the only way for our society to evolve to the next lvl is to unite everyone, but that only happens in the brink of extinction

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Faiol]

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Faiol]

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Faiol]

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 03:12 AM by Exuberant1

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Humanity does not need to "accept the R.F.I.D." in order to send some lifeforms to another planet.....

reply posted on 21-3-2010 @ 03:22 AM by DjSharperimage

I think it is a good idea;
mars would be a good first step;
the comet idea is also great

I heard that life is a way for Source to explore itself;
and if all life in the universe/multiverse disappeared then Source would have to start all over again from the very beginning

and i think life has to believe in a higher purpose or be inspired in order for it to evolve;
like a person who believes in psychic powers are way more likely to become psychic compared to those who dont believe in it.
or like people who believe in seeding life on other planets.....

its also the same way with civilizations;
if the people dont have a higher purpose or a project or arent inspired;
then the civilization will stagnate and the people will become sick of it and the civilization would eventually crumble from lack of evolution

[edit on 21-3-2010 by DjSharperimage]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^