Quote from: Jim Davis on 05/15/2013 07:59 pmQuote from: Warren Platts on 05/15/2013 07:26 pmAnd yes, I fully admit that causing extinctions of any kind is an intrinsic moral wrong...The eradication of smallpox was an intrinsic moral wrong?I just don't know how Warren manages to brush his teeth in the morning. Millions are dying
Quote from: Warren Platts on 05/15/2013 07:26 pmAnd yes, I fully admit that causing extinctions of any kind is an intrinsic moral wrong...The eradication of smallpox was an intrinsic moral wrong?
And yes, I fully admit that causing extinctions of any kind is an intrinsic moral wrong...
Quote from: Warren Platts on 05/15/2013 07:26 pmThe more likely scenario is that there is life, but it is microbial life confined to briny aquifers below the surface. If these organisms are able to exist in Mars's perchlorate-infested, poisonous ecosystem, then they are going to be very hardy creatures and unlikely to be displaced by microbes brought in accidently from Earth. After all, it's likely that there has been occasional transfers of life between the two planets in the past. I answer that in the article actually. Think about Australia. There has been a lot of exchange of life, after all not so long ago geologically speaking all our continents were part of one big super continent (200 million years ago as Pangea). The life there is ideally adapted to its environment, as far as it goes, but for some reason placental animals never developed there. So the introduced life from Europe, although the Australian conditions were new to them, were able to thrive there and e.g. the Tasmanian wolf driven extinct, and many habitats and species under threat.
The more likely scenario is that there is life, but it is microbial life confined to briny aquifers below the surface. If these organisms are able to exist in Mars's perchlorate-infested, poisonous ecosystem, then they are going to be very hardy creatures and unlikely to be displaced by microbes brought in accidently from Earth. After all, it's likely that there has been occasional transfers of life between the two planets in the past.
The Australian analogy doesn't hold. Australia is a paradise compared to Mars. A better analogy would be Antarctica. Has the endolithic algae been displaced by algae brought by humans? Nope. Similarly, we should not expect Mars microorganisms to be displaced.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 05/16/2013 03:27 pmThe Australian analogy doesn't hold. Australia is a paradise compared to Mars. A better analogy would be Antarctica. Has the endolithic algae been displaced by algae brought by humans? Nope. Similarly, we should not expect Mars microorganisms to be displaced.Sorry, the analogy is that Australia is for higher animals like rabbits, as Mars is for micro-organisms.Yes of course, it is easy for micro-organisms to spread around the world, ...But other micro-organisms are found everywhere. You don't have one group of micro-organisms in Australia, another in Antarctica, ...
BTW I've never engaged in a discussion forum where there is quite so much throwing about of personal remarks about the motivations of the posters and personal allegations about ones moral integrity as here
I am acting in good faith, describing things as best I can, explaining my POV, and I have no hidden agenda, the reason for these posts is just because I care about these things.
When they do things like accuse others of being an eco-extremist
For forward contamination then it is pretty clear that on current knowledge of Mars, if there are habitats for life there as seems quite likely, then the risk is high of those getting contaminated if you introduce loads of Earth micro-organisms to Mars.So there you are talking about reasonably high probability events, when you bring humans into the equation.
For backwards contamination, then you are talking about low probability events. ...And the consequences if we get it wrong are high indeed....everyone would agree it is almost certain that nothing will happen. But that is not the same as being sure it won't happen beyond any reasonable doubt.Those who worry about backward contamination want to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt.
if there are any Mars organisms, most likely they are in deep, underground aquifers. Meanwhile, humans will be occupying the surface in self-contained, sealed habitats. Instituting some sort of decontamination procedure, like spraying down your spacesuit before you step outside would be easily doable. And if a bit of E. coli managed to get outside anyhow, it wouldn't last long in due to the UV radiation and perchlorates.
Quote from: robertinventor on 05/16/2013 05:58 pmWhen they do things like accuse others of being an eco-extremistI am sure eco-extremists don't think that they are extreme What's wrong with this nice idea of living in caves in peace and harmony with nature? I admit that I was wrong here: you indeed have a bit extreme views, but so far they weren't about ecology - they were about science. You think that gaining knowledge about past life on Mars trumps just about anything else, that losing some bits of it is a gigantic loss. You are scientist-extremist
Looks like few appreciate the extraordinary value and uniqueness of a colonized Mars.Throwing away political correctness, I'd classify people who want to ban Mars colonization as eco-nazis.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 05/16/2013 06:55 pmif there are any Mars organisms, most likely they are in deep, underground aquifers. Meanwhile, humans will be occupying the surface in self-contained, sealed habitats. Instituting some sort of decontamination procedure, like spraying down your spacesuit before you step outside would be easily doable. And if a bit of E. coli managed to get outside anyhow, it wouldn't last long in due to the UV radiation and perchlorates. That is what everyone thought about five years ago. Not any more though.The thing is that dormant states of micro-organisms have been shown capable of surviving for MONTHS on Mars surface in full sunlight.
Near the equator less likely but even there there is the fairly recent surprising discovery of probable sub surface ice deposits in equatorial regions - which may be geologically ancient and gradually sublime and recondense on their way up to the surface and could provide habitats for life even near the equator.
I think it would be hard for someone to argue convincingly that humans can visit the Mars surface in a biologically reversible way today, as they used to a few years back. Because those spores are going to be spread in the wind and at least spread over many kilometers around the landing site, and won't be sterilized and many will still be viable months or years later. You can't reverse something like that.
most recent evidence from Mars and the most recent published research.
I am in process of getting together an article on contamination issues for Mars sample return for wikipedia. It just pulls together and paraphrases or summarizes some of the things that have been published on this, including publication on the legal aspects of it, break down of the risks of the proposed mission, and so on.Ican post it for comment if anyone is interested in a separate thread
As I said in my initial post, you are an eco-extremist. You are going to buzz here repeating your POV ad nauseum, impervious to any arguments to the contrary.
> The thing is that dormant states of micro-organisms have been shown capable of surviving for MONTHS on Mars surface in full sunlight.Who says this? You're long on unnamed sources and very short on links. If you're going to be writing articles for Wikipedia, you're supposed to cite legitimate sources.
Post a link to it when you've got it in rough shape... heck, even if it's just a subpage of your user space and not yet in article space. I'll take a look.