Red/Green Mars

[Rhaedas]

For those unfamiliar with Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy, the title addresses the issue of how far should man go in expanding his presense into the universe, particularly if there is already native life present. The methane findings on Mars could be strictly volcanic in nature, but I think (based on the books) that the morality of bringing earth life to even a barren world is still debatable, and certainly is an issue if life is found to exist there.

So...

1) Should earth life be restricted to earth only, including the usage of space resources, even asteroids and the Moon? (a fundie Red Mars belief, keep everything as is, dead or not)

2) If only microscopic life is found, should that still make Mars untouchable by earth life, quarantined to do whatever it'll do in a few billion years?

2a) What if it's found to be previous contamination from earth, via meteorites, just as Mars has done with us? Still off limits to earthers?

3) Certainly we won't find higher forms of life on Mars...but in the debate of extraterrestrial life vs earth life expansion (assuming there can't be coexistence for whatever reasons), where would you draw the line, if not a full quarantine? Would primitive multicellular life be grounds for hands off? How about more advanced creatures?

3a) What if it's possible for coexistence in the same environment (such as a terraformed one that both can adapt to), where's the line drawn then?

[McGargoyle]

As the drive to expand and fill ecological niches (even if they have to be created) is natural, there is hardly a reason to stop at the outer atmosphere.
What exactly is the justification for the stance on dead worlds?
As for the other questions, I think that an attempt to coexist should definitively be made for multicellular life, and that doesn't mean a zoo or laboratory. You have to draw a line somewhere that's true, I would have no problem displacing single-celled life for the benefit of humanity, otherwise you could as well abolish antibiotics.

[American Humanist]

I've read the whole Mars series. Good read. :cool:

1) No. I see nothing wrong with stripmining asteroids and carting the minerals to wherever we need them. If a planet or moon is dead then there is no one to get hurt by whatever we decide to do. However, it would be good to set up "nature preserves" and historical sites (like the Apollo sites on the Moon) to preserve something of the look and feel of the planet or moon before we got there. It the Mars series (I think it was Blue Mars) there was a mention of a project to dome in one of the large craters - Agyre Basin - as a nature preserve.

In any case, any surviving microbes are likely to be deep below groud.

2) Not quarantined but it would make terraforming an issue. We could still build inclosed colonies though.

2a) In this case I would see nothing wrong with terraforming since the microbes share the same origin. also. see above.

3) perhaps bring up a more exterme example would make this one clearer. If we sent a starship to colonize an Earth-like planet that had indigenious advanced life (say like Earth was millions of years ago) then I wouldn't have a problem with introducing Earth species in a limited and controled fashion. Crops could be grown in the open but would be prevented from spreading beyond their fields if possible. Given the inevitible differances in biochemistry the only danger of introducing Terran species to another planet would be that those species could out-compete the local species. This however is unlikely since the Terran species would be adapdted for Earth (under the care of human farmers) at the start and not to the new conditions.

Beyond that we start to get into issues of what to do if the planet happens an intelligent species on it already in which case I would say that it was off limits.

[Rhaedas]

What exactly is the justification for the stance on dead worlds?

I unfortunately don't remember the details of the Red argument, why Mars (and other places) should be left native, even without any signs of life.

However, it would be good to set up "nature preserves" and historical sites (like the Apollo sites on the Moon) to preserve something of the look and feel of the planet or moon before we got there.

I'm reminded of one of the Star Trek books (Crisis on Centauri I think) that begins with two of the characters visiting the museum on the Moon, where they had sealed off the whole landing site to preserve it for posterity.

If we sent a starship to colonize an Earth-like planet that had indigenious advanced life (say like Earth was millions of years ago) then I wouldn't have a problem with introducing Earth species in a limited and controled fashion. Crops could be grown in the open but would be prevented from spreading beyond their fields if possible. Given the inevitible differances in biochemistry the only danger of introducing Terran species to another planet would be that those species could out-compete the local species. This however is unlikely since the Terran species would be adapdted for Earth (under the care of human farmers) at the start and not to the new conditions.

Sci-fi to the rescue again... :)

In The Mote in God's Eye, strawberries are accidently introduced to the alien planet's biosystem. Due to the incompatible organics, they had full reign without any barriers to growth. Evolution unchecked...it's okay to say that we'd monitor to prevent such things, but two biosystems could clash very easily, and it'd be tragic if the native one suffered due to our ignorance.

Beyond that we start to get into issues of what to do if the planet happens an intelligent species on it already in which case I would say that it was off limits.

Certainly agree there, although the "prime directive" can have degrees as well.

Personally, if it's dead, it's usable IMO. Microbe life is a bit iffy, but I don't think we should halt all development if that's all we find. If we were to find more advanced native life on a planet though, I think we should heavily weigh its preservation over our own expansion.

After all, we'd want the same treatment of our planet...what if someone had come across early earth, say in the Cambrian era, and wrote off life here as unimportant compared to their terraform project. Or came across us now, with the same opinion... :eek:

[Rymmie1981]

After all, we'd want the same treatment of our planet...what if someone had come across early earth, say in the Cambrian era, and wrote off life here as unimportant compared to their terraform project. Or came across us now, with the same opinion...

Then, I would have to say 42. :D

[American Humanist]

In The Mote in God's Eye, strawberries are accidently introduced to the alien planet's biosystem. Due to the incompatible organics, they had full reign without any barriers to growth. Evolution unchecked...it's okay to say that we'd monitor to prevent such things, but two biosystems could clash very easily, and it'd be tragic if the native one suffered due to our ignorance.

I;ve read that book (a good one) but I can't seem to remember that happening. The after all is largely about an expedition that is sent out to investigate an alien solar system and has no colonization in it.

As I said, if its just a dead rock like the Moon or an asteroid then I see no problem strip mining it. A;though we should preserve something of the surface of the Moon and other planets for futrue generations.

Microbes are more iffy and advanced life would pose a real problem. I'd be difficult but possible to grow crops in greenhouse structure but perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to genetically engineer terran crops to be somehow dependent on human farmers for reproduction - i.e. they would be able to survive in the wild.

[Rhaedas]

I;ve read that book (a good one) but I can't seem to remember that happening. The after all is largely about an expedition that is sent out to investigate an alien solar system and has no colonization in it.

Just to clarify, IIRC the expedition visits the home world, accidently feeds a few strawberries to the natives. Undigestable, they pass through their system, find themselves in a fertile environment without competition, and (back to the topic) grow unrestricted, due to the combination of lack of disease/pests, and an environment where they do better than native plants.

A worst case scenario of contamination...

[Jabu Khan]

I think the Mars trilogy was more about how we need technology to protect our freedoms but it must not fall in the hands of a few. At the same time it is important to make sure the trechnology does not erase our link to the past or destroy the natural world as it is important to continued understanding.

Are you sure the strawberry thing wasn't in "The Gripping Hand?" The sequel where they find out a black market trade has started with the Moties despite their attempts to seal them off from other solar systems.

[Nectaris]

Oddly enough, I came across an interesting article while searching for articles on the methane discovery.

Terraforming Mars (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/story/0,12976,1179710,00.html)

Which discusses the possibility and some implications of terraforming Mars. As far as the OP, I cannot say I've made up my mind. Part of me, says microbes be damned-nobody cries over the loss of a microbe on earth. On the other hand I can also understand the desire to preserve an ecosystem.

Of course, we don't know if Mars has microbes or not, there is still at least one other viable explanation for the presence of methane in the atmosphere.

Dave