Slashdot Mirror
Should We Seed Life On Alien Worlds? (sciencemag.org)
Slashdot reader sciencehabit quotes an article from Science magazine: Astronomers have detected more than 3000 planets beyond our solar system, and just a couple of weeks ago they discovered an Earth-like planet in the solar system next door. Most -- if not all -- of these worlds are unlikely to harbor life, but what if we put it there?
Science chatted with theoretical physicist Claudius Gros about his proposed Genesis Project, which would send artificially intelligent probes to lifeless worlds to seed them with microbes. Over millions of years, they might evolve into multicellular organisms, and, perhaps eventually, plants and animals. In the interview, Gros talks artificial intelligence, searching for habitable planets, and what kind of organisms he'd like to see evolve.
"The robots will have to decide if a certain planet should receive microbes and the chance to evolve life," the physicist explains -- adding that it's very important to avoid introducing new microbes on planets where life already exists.
Science chatted with theoretical physicist Claudius Gros about his proposed Genesis Project, which would send artificially intelligent probes to lifeless worlds to seed them with microbes. Over millions of years, they might evolve into multicellular organisms, and, perhaps eventually, plants and animals. In the interview, Gros talks artificial intelligence, searching for habitable planets, and what kind of organisms he'd like to see evolve.
"The robots will have to decide if a certain planet should receive microbes and the chance to evolve life," the physicist explains -- adding that it's very important to avoid introducing new microbes on planets where life already exists.
If there are in fact other spacefaring civilizations out there in our galaxy, what would they think of us willy-nilly tossing our biologicals at random planets? Would they think we're smart and forward-thinking, or would they look at it as arrogant, self-centered, thoughtless, or hostile? Here on Earth (well, at least here in the U.S.) we expect Environment Impact studies done before real estate is developed, because we've learned that not doing so may cause us to do more harm than good. Why shouldn't we adopt the same policy with regard to exoplanets? Observe-and-report first, then consider carefully whether we do anything to 'develop' anything.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Actually I disagree. At the moment seeding remote worlds would involve firing off a probe blindly containing what, for the planet involved, could be a lethal virus which would wipe out life there. If there were intelligent life this would be effectively declaring war and if there is no intelligent life we have just wiped out what might have been our first chance to study extra-terrestrial life.
...and for what? The possibility to seed a planet so that in a few billion years time (on Earth it took 3 billion years before the first microbes evolved into multi-cellular lifeforms and 100's million for those lifeforms to populate the land) we might have a habitable planet which is too far away to reach with current technology? So on the one hand you are expecting us to develop the technology to be able to travel there while at the same time not developing any technology which can terra-form a planet in less than a few hundred million years at best?
The time to do this is when we develop the technology to travel there. Doing it beforehand is lots of risk with no reward.
Why is it important to NOT seed worlds where life is starting? Is there actually a moral code the universe follows? What's the difference of some random chunk rock that got sheered off a planet with viable DNA or microbes on it chance impacting on a world or our probe? Life just has the impetus to move forward, there's no morality involved with it. Water finds it's own level, does it choose to go around a village? Does electricity make a conscious choice to NOT zap a herd of cows while coming down from a cloud? Does Ebola only kill the bad people? Imposing church influence views on a science program is the wrong thing to do here.
Because one of the fundamental questions of biology / philosophy and science fiction (have I left anybody else out?) is whether or not we're unique little snowflakes or if life just happens any time there is enough light, heat and garbage to get things going. Until we answer that we should be very careful to keep our ugly little biosphere to ourselves.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Once we get sophisticated enough probes etc. we'll probably soon find that life is literally everywhere in the universe. From what's been found already on earth it's clear that microbes can live almost everywhere. And when you get things like tardigrades and the shrimp who live in hydrothermal vents etc. it's clear that multicellular life seems to find a niche almost everywhere.
Personally I think the whole multiverse is teeming with life. It just seems to be a natural part of things There are probably beetles everywhere !
Intelligence on the other hand is severely lacking :)
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Koalas are stupid. Really, really stupid. Even though they don't have a particularly small head relative to their body size, they have a small brain (compared to other marsupials) relative to body size. On top of that, the two halves of the brain aren't connected. Researchers have noted that they're so unintelligent that if you try to feed them eucalyptus leaves (their primary diet) on a platter, they won't eat them because they don't understand it as food if they don't pick it from a tree.
Considering Australia is full of all kinds of deadly shit, it's somewhat amazing that the Koala isn't extinct itself. The only reason that I can think that they're still around is that their food source is so nutritionally worthless they don't have any real competition for food. Otherwise it's the retarded cousin of marsupial family (or order or class or wherever that falls into place in the taxonomy).
Koalas have no reason to have much brain power.
Koalas aren't good eating - they're toxic because they're full of eucalyptus oil. So they don't need to avoid predators. They eat one thing, so all they need the brains for is to find the thing and eat it.
Having a large, metabolically active brain would be a bad thing for a koala because the food they eat is so low on nutrition they'd be wasting energy running it.
There's selective pressure *away* from having brain power.