111–120 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i think it's safe to assume it doesn't. And a few plants in a tiny section of mars will hardly ruin the evidence anyway.
What makes you think it’s safe to assume that Mars has no life?
b) we should have found something by now. There clearly isn't a whole lot happening on the surface of mars at any rate
I know, it may sound absolutely irresponsible, but have the scientists considered practical benefits of sending in some bacterial life from Earth to let it try to colonize the remote destinations ahead of sending in humans for the same purpose? Supposedly, micro-life has better chance to adapt to new environments, as long as the basic resource is available. In case of Mars, humans lack the basic resources - water and…
Life will optimize itself to fit harsh conditions at Mars, then return back to Earth, and outcompete original life forms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We would never find out if life developed outside of earth.
And Jack and Jill won't contaminate space when they're sent to start Earth 2?
(And if you meant space itself, rather than the objects within, could reasonably be described as ‘contaminated’, then panspermia is both very likely how life got started on Earth and a reason to expect it everywhere else too).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More irresponsible than letting the human race exhaust and suffocate itself on this planet? At some point we need to realise colonizing another planet is going to be necessary, and it is going to cause lots of damage.
we'll have exhausted this planet a thousand years before we'd have the technology to make Mars habitable. It just isn't going to happen for numerous reasons. The biggest are the lower gravity and the very weak magnetosphere.
Lack of water, low atmosphere, they’re a bit further out of our range.
Fixing the lower level of sunlight is way out of our current league.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think it’s safe to assume that Mars has no life?
a) simple maths; what are the chances? b) we should have found something by now. There clearly isn't a whole lot happening on the surface of mars at any rate
b) we’re still guessing at bio-signatures; all we are confident of is there isn’t “a lot of stuff like us”, but that’s a compound claim and we can’t rule out “a small quantity of stuff like us” or “as much life as a desert but very different to us”.
What happens when we'd put some microbes there now?
I know, it may sound absolutely irresponsible, but have the scientists considered practical benefits of sending in some bacterial life from Earth to let it try to colonize the remote destinations ahead of sending in humans for the same purpose? Supposedly, micro-life has better chance to adapt to new environments, as long as the basic resource is available. In case of Mars, humans lack the basic resources - water and…
Life will optimize itself to fit harsh conditions at Mars, then return back to Earth, and outcompete original life forms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We would never find out if life developed outside of earth.
Mars and Earth send surface rocks to each other via meteor impacts that would almost certainly contain live bacteria spores. Life could have started out on Earth or Mars or both, but finding life on Mars won't answer your question on its own. There are even theories that life on Earth was seeding from life from other solar systems, but that is much more unlikely and an in solar system transfer. Check out scholar.goog…
I know, it may sound absolutely irresponsible, but have the scientists considered practical benefits of sending in some bacterial life from Earth to let it try to colonize the remote destinations ahead of sending in humans for the same purpose? Supposedly, micro-life has better chance to adapt to new environments, as long as the basic resource is available. In case of Mars, humans lack the basic resources - water and…
Life will optimize itself to fit harsh conditions at Mars, then return back to Earth, and outcompete original life forms.