Seeding moons or planets with life.

[Event Horizon]

We have found water on various moons in the solar system and maybe exoplanets which scientists think may harbour some kind of life. But if we find no life there, why not introduce some organisms from Earth and study how it develops. It's possible we can spread life where no life exists, and depending on what survives it could prove useful as a future resource. It could also ensure life continues when we're dead and gone. Should we actually do this?

[Watson]

NO. All due respect, but we are the poison on this small little rock. At the moment, the virus is contained.

[Event Horizon]

Wow Watson, That's a big reaction.

What if by some unhappy circumstance we are the only life in the universe. What happens when this planet dies when the sun becomes a red dwarf - if not before. Are we to give a chance for life to survive us? Should it not be a responsibility?

[Watson]

Not really that big. I think it is a rather widely held opinion.

More like we have a responsibility NOT to contaminate the rest of the UNIVERSE, with our greedy self interests, hateful prejudices and blindly destructive postures.

Yes you can find beautiful love, caring and kindness, in patches of anomalous human behavior. But for the most part, human life is exploitive in nature and destructive at every level of past development.

So, NO, keep it contained. We are not that special. It would be nice to be able to preserve aspects of human behavior. But on whole? No. Only human arrogance to think otherwise, sir.

[TheVat]

The OP did not suggest seeding with human life,, did it? I took it to mean more along the lines of basic microbes and then let simmer, see what evolves. I doubt it would be necessary though. Where conditions are conducive to life, I think it will appear.

[TheVat]

And if that's already happened, then... Prime Directive.

[Watson]

In that case, sure. Start from scratch.

[Event Horizon]

I was thinking of a kind of frozen cocktail of Algae, phytoplankton Plants maybe and something animal with the potential to develop. Watson is right that using these places as human refuges is not desirable. Hopefully humans will have finally learned to be responsible, but I'm not counting on it.

[zetreque]

Should start this discussion in Asgardia. If you do that then you might even be the person to write the law, policy or plan to do such a feat.

I say this because Space and other planets currently is an unclaimed territory. Who decides who owns it and who can do what with it?

If you are rich enough, who is to stop you from sending a rocket and just doing it? That's where Asgardia seems to come in trying to write rules to govern space so that it has equal access to all humanity in some sort of democratic process...

[Biosapien]

Why people always think about the future and get worried or get into wired idea of life support, instead why can we simply enjoying the present life. We all know at some point of time everything in this universe will be obliterated . What if the moon get destroyed first before the earth?. I also agree with Watson comment "What makes an human life so special when they are primarily evolved from other animal"

[zetreque]

Because if no one thought or cared about the future then the world would be F..(&#@D!!!
Who cares about CO2 emissions or plastic in the ocean.

It's called preventative maintenance so your system doesn't blow up and lasts a long time to give you health and health for your offspring. A parallel argument is why worry about saving any money, the government will just take care of us when we get old. And look at the mess of elderly now struggling that I'm supposed to feel bad for.

[Event Horizon]

We are the most advanced life-form we know of, and it would be better if we had a shelter to run to if needs be.
As for who owns the planets they're mine until someone can prove otherwise. Settled.

It is an altruistic thing. As we are determined to make to make Earth unlivable for everything else as well, it would not seem unreasonable for us to find new homes for them as well. Whole worlds perhaps given over to foster natural preserves. Ensuring that some life survives us matters. Doesn't it?

[zetreque]

Ensuring that some life survives us matters. Doesn't it?

no. Matters to who? Isn't that a relative question?

[Event Horizon]

No. Why is allowing the only life we know of anywhere in the universe die out not important to you?

[zetreque]

It's just not. It's more important to me to enjoy, preserve and make better the life that already exists than to take the pessimistic view that it's already too late on this planet and to go elsewhere.

[Event Horizon]

I think you'll find that, as sad as it is this planet will die. Whether by us or by nature or when the sun gets old and incinerates us. However you cut it, we will have to relocate or die.

I don't particularly care if mankind survives, but we should, I think, give other life who'se world we are destroying a chance to survive somewhere else. I would say prudent sir, not pessimistic. But as you wish.

[zetreque]

I don't particularly care if mankind survives, but we should, I think, give other life who'se world we are destroying a chance to survive somewhere else. I would say prudent sir, not pessimistic. But as you wish.

"other life Who'se"?

You would have to include humans in that definition of life because it's not like you are going to be sending stellar jays to Enceladus. You are just sending a state of evolution which may or may not turn into a stellar jay or human. And what gives you the power to make the choice to send "other life" to another world? It's just a relative opinion and enacting on such power is no different than squashing an ant in the street or moving it to the side of the road. Who said the ant wanted to be moved to the side of the road? Maybe there was a tasty dead bug he was after near by.

[Watson]

I was thinking of a kind of frozen cocktail of Algae, phytoplankton Plants maybe and something animal with the potential to develop. Watson is right that using these places as human refuges is not desirable. Hopefully humans will have finally learned to be responsible, but I'm not counting on it.

Sorry if I took your thought in the wrong direction, but even this line of thinking may be regarded as invasive life species. If there is nothing there and no future potential on this new host rock, then fine, plant away. But there could be an unknown potential life already there killed off or displaced by our experimental spreading of life. I think, if what we have here on earth is so special, that we should share it with the UNIVERSE, you would think we would take better care of it here, on earth.

And recall, they sanitized Curiosity so as not to contaminate Mars with any earth germs.

[Watson]

Yes. I seem to have missed that last comment as I was replying. Yes since we did it, maybe a small single cell ark would be appropriate, under the circumstances. If we can safely blast it to a suitably sterile rock, with water.

[zetreque]

I volunteer my fecal matter or skin cells to be sent. I always wanted several billion children.

I also nominate the tardigrade.

[Watson]

Tardigrade, interesting. Sounds like we could just put them into an open, in the un-pressurized baggage hold and they'll be fine? Good. More room for the other stuff.

[Event Horizon]

I volunteer my fecal matter or skin cells to be sent. I always wanted several billion children.

I also nominate the tardigrade.

And in 3 bn years they'll, what? Butt-people? Haaha!Made me think of the aliens in the film "Bad Taste" If you have seen it, you'll know what I mean! Now look what you started!

[Event Horizon]

Recently, researchers were saying that the climate is edging closer to a climatic tipping point. Sending frozen "starter packs" to potentially habitable planets , moons and exoplanets may become key to the survival of life.
I was thinking of making 40 ton planetary starter kits that may enable us to live elsewhere. I don't think the prime directive as it is called applies when it comes to global extinction.

Thoughts?

[Event Horizon]

If water on exoplanets is as prevalent as suggested by this article, it may be exolife is more likely to exist. If we find no life on an exoplanet, but it's otherwise inhabitable, it might not be such a bad thing to prepare it to help preserve life in this galaxy as best as possible.
No exolife has ever been found. Until then we have to assume life here is unique. And we have no contingency if we are alone. We can't stay here forever.

https://www.space.com/41575-alien-plane ... tification

[Event Horizon]

I am sorry so few people are interested in the continuation of life. It will take millions of years for a "Starter pack" to make an exoplanet habitable. We need to be getting our collective shit together before it's too late. The clock is running.

[SciameriKen]

I am sorry so few people are interested in the continuation of life. It will take millions of years for a "Starter pack" to make an exoplanet habitable. We need to be getting our collective shit together before it's too late. The clock is running.

I can think of no "non-selfish" reasons for doing this. Ultimately as suggested above all existence will be destroyed whether the universe collapses, expands, or all energy dissipates. If humans are not around to marvel at the life we created then what's the point? Its all going...

That being said I have no problem with being selfish. Humans should try to keep this thing going as long as we can -- perhaps we can settle next to a red dwarf somewhere for Trillions of years--- I think terraforming planets is an absolute necessity - assuming the best we have maybe a billion years before we tidally couple with the sun, and that is a big assumption considering the chance of asteroid, gamma burst, other aliens getting us, or who knows. So yeah let's terriform! - I'd prefer it to be on planets that do not already have life on it - but whatever - manifest destiny!

[Event Horizon]

It would seem the height of arrogance and stupidity to think we can stay here indefinitely. We can't.

It's the height of scientific irrationality to ignore the matter like so many kids with their hands over their ears yelling, "La La La..I'm not listening to you!"

It's a shocking dereliction of scientific duty, and you can quote me on that.

[SciameriKen]

It would seem the height of arrogance and stupidity to think we can stay here indefinitely. We can't.

It's the height of scientific irrationality to ignore the matter like so many kids with their hands over their ears yelling, "La La La..I'm not listening to you!"

It's a shocking dereliction of scientific duty, and you can quote me on that.

I think one thing to keep in mind though is with the rate of our technological advancement we do have time - assuming we don't kill ourselves with nukes - but could you imagine where our technology will be in 100 years time? in a thousand? I think putting more focus on our earth is the priority, though that doesn't mean we have to put this stuff aside either... we can do both :)

[Event Horizon]

What I am suggesting can be done now. Spacecraft carrying starter packs of stuff like algae, plankton and phytoplankton, insect and mollusc eggs, simple plants and so-on could be built and launched right now. I feel the sooner life is introduced, the sooner terraforming will begin. It may take multiple targets to provide one habitable planet, and the timescale is huge.
Some people are very anti this idea, but its a matter of expediency in reality.

[Event Horizon]

Let's look at a simple reality. All life on Earth will dead. This is inevitable. We will need a new home.
Some people say, no. Life should be die out. Should that prevails, there is only futility and folly in our endeavours.
And who gave us the right to arbitrarily condemn what could be the only life in the universe to oblivion there is.
We can't terraform planets, but nature can. We need to prepare candidate planets which will take millions years to prepare, and some of those will fail.

At least using my way holds a chance for us and other organisms to survive.
The alternative is all life is condemned to die. To my mind, we can and should persue the development of alternatives, and a select by debate what organisms to freeze for deployment.
And just a nod to the nay-sayers I hear your "do nothing" cry, but I am fundamentally opposed.

Life may be the most precious thing tn the universe. Letting it all die for misguided or arbitrary reasons is neither reasonable or rational and offends me as a scientist.