Slashdot Mirror
The Indirect Case For Life On Mars
Deinhard writes "Space.com is reporting that '[a] pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.' It is all based on methane signatures and not direct observation. Now plans for using the Genesis Device on Mars are out ... unless this is just a particle of preanimate matter caught in the matrix."
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
IIRC, Mars is geologically (or "areologically," if you prefer) dead -- obviously it had significant volcanic activity a long time ago, as evidenced by Olympus Mons, but none that we've ever detected going on now or in the recent past. So fluctuating methane levels, while they don't demand a biological explanation, certainly seem to point that way.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"Because know any sort of possibility of life on other planets is a hot button, we'll pull this theory out so that we can beg for funding."
It's all about getting more funding, and justifying what they have.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Cor.
Don't assume for a moment that we won't colonize and terraform Mars. It may take 100 years and start with little research outposts like those on Antarctica, but soon enough it'll all be plowed up and paved over and we'll bring all the plagues of earth, litter included.
I suppose there will be an environmentalist coalition of some sort and some fine parks will be set aside, i.e. Olympus Mons, but when competing national iterests pit India and China against any other comers, it'll be a race to colonize it and damn the environment and anyone who pipes up to protect it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This would contaminate the planet with human life, and as a result, if we find life, it'll be difficult to determine if it was as a result of our visit or not.
Proof of life on Mars is becoming strikingly similar to commercial fusion or anti-balistic missile defences - always just another contract down the road. It's not that I have anything against the exploration of Mars, nor do I not appreciate the difficulty of understanding an alien environment, but every time NASA hypes to the public I feel like I'm watching/reading politics, not science.
In the long run no, I think it would be rather silly to allow a few bacteria to deny us an entire world.
In the short run absolutely yes. Investigating a possible completely alternate abiogenic event? From a scientific standpoint that would be *more* than worth holding off the colonization for a century or two. The value of that information for understanding the distribution of life in the universe is incalculable.
On the other hand if it's just Earth gunk transported to Mars, away with it.
Is it just that I'm a cynic? They haven't even found liquid water and now there's "strong evidence" of life on Mars? Come on, I would be happy at the news just as much as the next guy but let's not jump the gun here...believing something is true does not make it true, not here, nor on Mars.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
but none that we've ever detected going on now or in the recent past.
You mean other than puffs of methane in the atmosphere?
Seriously. To claim trace amounts of methane in the atmosphere is a signature of life is a huge stretch. Methane is naturally all throughout the solar system. This could be nothing more than a subterranean fissure opening into a methane pocket in the crust of Mars and venting periodically.
Heck, the amounts they are talking about are so small, it could be the remnants from a comet impact ten thousand years ago.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.