i have created this thread as the title on my last one didn't quite fit the bill, and i have called for that thread to be locked and now this lies in
i was just watching tv and i saw an advert/commercial and it was advertising an up coming documentary about the making of synthetic life here on earth
and how it could affect us.
so i thought for a while, and then i thought again, then i thought, wouldn't it be safer, if these projects were taken else where? ok, maybe it could
be done far underground or what not (i know they are trying to make bacteria to do good, but if it goes wrong, it could really go wrong).
it could also be stolen, and then used for the whole wrong reasons.
as i remembered that i had read a thread a few days ago about japan planning a moon space station, and other countries already planning to do so.
wouldn't the moon be a safer alternative to build this organisms in the future? for the time being it's not possible, but it wouldn't even have to
be humans up there, since it could be done by machinery, we could easily do it if we had buildings up there.
i also distinctly remember that the russian's displayed interest on building a station on mars, although this is way out of the question at this
point in time, mars would be a much better alternative than the moon, because it seems that mars is capable of maybe holding life there and as the
scientists said that in many years to come it will be possible to make synthetic plants and in theory also animals, is it not possible to make these
for conditions on mars? it would be much easier than getting them to live on the moon since it is more or less unhabitable and the life would have to
be inside a dome.
imagine building life forms to live on mars and to reproduce without our help, if we could start this in say, 100 years time, imagine how we could
watch it as it all develops, without damaging our own planet.
here are some limitations that i have found to be on mars, The lack of a magnetosphere and extremely thin atmosphere of Mars are a greater challenge:
the planet has little heat transfer across its surface, poor insulation against bombardment and the solar wind, and insufficient atmospheric pressure
to retain water in a liquid form (water instead sublimates to a gaseous state). Mars is also nearly, or perhaps totally, geologically dead; the end of
volcanic activity has stopped the recycling of chemicals and minerals between the surface and interior of the planet, i'm not sure if this would
completely stop us from having artificial life on there that could live, but i'm not too sure, we could maybe have things that could adapt to a
certain level. i'll let you decide that one.
the Mars Lander has shown that the soil has a very alkaline pH and it contains magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride, which has the nutrients
which may be able to support life but unfortunately mars has very strong ultraviolet light, but could still be shielded, and if there is a chance life
could live in these conditions, i'm sure life could be made to suit these conditions.
NASA aims to put a man on Mars by 2037.
ESA hopes to land humans on Mars between 2030 and 2035.
in the very, very, very, very distant future, where we will be able to go much further into space, other places where we could possibly put life are
some of the moons of jupiter and saturn (the moons europa, enceladus and titan in particular), gliese 581 c and gliese 581 d, some even say venus, but
i think this is probably a bit far fetched as it is 480 degrees and has poisonus gas clouds.
quotes from other thread:
Life has survived and thrived there so I think you are onto something good doctor.
When the Apollo missions went there a tech did a bodge job sterilising and microbes went up trapped in a gap in a camera lens. Upon return it had
Why do you say it's not possible? Been a few decades, but we landed men on the moon, so no reason we couldn't build a space station on it's
surface. There's even speculation (nearing confirmation) that water in the form of ice can be found there. Certainly, it wouldn't be too difficult
(easier than a manned mission) to ferry supply drops there. I'm actually kind of miffed we didn't strike while the iron was hot way back then. Can
you imagine the kind of space superiority we'd have now, if we did it then?
in theory, they could create cows and pigs that suit the habitat of mars, then we could use their milk and meat, the world would never go
~to add something else (this may be a bit far fetched of me, but i'll still say it), i have a theory, i call it the "seed theory", this theory is
of that, a "seed" is planet by a species on a planet other than their own, this seed then grows into a "plant" (we are now nearing the "plant
stage" in our technology), then this "plant" puts its own seeds into the next planet, and so on and so on.~
IF we did do this (i don't think we will as i'm trying to think outside of the box and i'm not sure our governments and space companies think like
this) we would become the "elohim", the "god", the "creator" and we could instill what we wanted into these creatures. i feel we should not
intervene with their course, but if we were to make artificial intelligent life, we should stop them from developing the technology to get to us, or
to fire anything at us, or even have wars between themselves OR another option would be to have them peaceful.
thank you for reading, i personally don't think it's too far fetched, although it may seem to you! i'm guessing there are probably flaws in what i
have wrote and i would be grateful if you would state them, but if not, thats great! thanks for your time, please S&F (if you found it interesting)
to add to what you think of this idea, answer this question, would support a move to put life on mars?
leave your comments and i will try to reply to them.
EDIT: spelling on one of the quotes (and the adding of another quote)
[edit on 4-6-2010 by Dr Slim]