Directed Panspermia: Moral Obligation or Bio-Pollution?

By Ian O'Neill | Wed Feb 10, 2010 03:24 PM ET


The speculative mechanism of panspermia could explain how life formed on Earth and how it might exist elsewhere in our solar system and beyond. Hitching rides on chunks of rock blasted into space by meteorite impacts or gliding through space on a comet, it turns out that "life as we know it" has an astonishing knack of surviving in the most extreme environments.

But what if mankind could purposefully launch space probes packed with little biological "starter kits" toward star systems that appear to have the potential to nurture life? We have lots of life down here, isn't it our duty to spread our seed amongst the stars?

Yes, says Michael Mautner, Research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, in a paper submitted to an upcoming issue of the Journal of Cosmology. Before the rich biosphere of Earth is dead, Mautner believes that we need to ship Earth Brand™ biology to suitable adopted homes so our evolutionary line has a chance to gain a foothold elsewhere in the universe.

"We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life, and even the transfer of human life to other solar systems which can be transformed via microbial activity, thereby preparing these worlds to develop and sustain complex life," Mautner said. "Securing that future for life can give our human existence a cosmic purpose."

more:

http://news.discovery.com/space/directed-panspermia-moral-obligation-or-bio-pollution.html

there goes the neighborhood

with seeding it. When you start replacing existing biospheres with your own...then we have an issue.

What the fuck is that based on?

IF we assume for a moment that life is either extremely rare or even that we are it, and I dont think it's the latter but it could be the former...then you do have a duty it seems to me to spread that life, because sooner or later, it will die here on Earth, completely and utterly.

Now of course you shouldn't do so to other places that already have life so you should be darn sure wherever you are trying to spread life is already lifeless.

Kind of the Genesis Project approach..."there can't so much as a microbe or the deal's off."

But you know, the longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear this phrase 'sanctity of life'. You've heard that. Sanctity of life. You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of shit. Well, I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realise that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other 'cuz God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the land, veangence is mine. Millions of dead motherfuckers. Millions of dead motherfuckers all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. 'You believe in God?' 'No.' *Pdoom*. Dead. 'You believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'You believe in my God? 'No.' *Poom*. Dead. 'My God has a bigger dick than your God!' Thousands of years. Thousands of years, and all the best wars, too. The bloodiest, most brutal wars fought, all based on religious hatred. Which is fine with me. Hey, any time a bunch of holy people want to kill each other I'm a happy guy.

But don't be giving me all this shit about the sanctity of life. I mean, even if there were such a thing, I don't think it's something you can blame on God. No, you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. You know why? 'Cuz we're alive. Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don't see Abbott and Costello running around, talking about this shit, do you? We're not hearing a whole lot from Musolini on the subject. What's the latest from JFK? Not a goddamn thing. 'Cuz JFK, Musolini and Abbott and Costello are fucking dead. They're fucking dead. And dead people give less than a shit about the sanctity of life. Only living people care about it so the whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view. It's a self serving, man-made bullshit story.

It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble. Life is sacred. Makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you this: if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. 'Cuz, I mean, even with all this stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it. We don't practice it. Look at what we'd kill: Mosquitos and flies. 'Cuz they're pests. Lions and tigers. 'Cuz it's fun! Chickens and pigs. 'Cuz we're hungry. Pheasants and quails. 'Cuz it's fun. And we're hungry. And people. We kill people... 'Cuz they're pests. And it's fun!

And you might have noticed something else. The sanctity of life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says 'Save the tumors.'. Or 'I brake for advanced melanoma.'. No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, E. Coli bacteria, the crabs. Nothing sacred about those things. So at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up! Made it up! The same way... thank you.

-- George Carlin

the sanctity of life is what makes us think about maybe treating animals better, stopping species from being decimated by our own actions, etc. The anti-abortion debate is a whole nother kettle of fish, and I'm pro-choice by the way. Just because one group has co-opted a turn of phrase does not render said turn of phrase meaningless or no longer valid in another context.

I'm agnostic so not sure where you've factored me into the whole God thing. That sounds like your own issues, not mine.

But I mean hey, if you are so against the concept of the sanctity of life, then let me come over and eat your pet, after all, not like life is sacred or anything.

As to the philosophical question of whether we should actively attempt to "knock up" some other planets, I'm sure there's room for an interesting and lively debate there.

But I question the assumption that it's a moral obligation. That's a much stronger statement than, say, calling it a rare and precious opportunity or something like that.

to protect and preserve life on this planet, and I think it's pretty clear we do. I mean few argue we don't, so not sure it's really all that open for debate...

then why would that moral argument not extend to ensuring it survives post Earth's destruction?

Some people buy into the whole "God's plan" thing, in which case if God didn't put life there who are we, etc, etc.

Some would still argue that without any plan or planner, we still don't own the universe and don't need to clutter it up with our DNA.

If we wouldn't touch any planet that already had life, then there might be other, more advanced races that want to populate new planets only to find that we've already taken them.

And so on and so on.

In my mind, the only moral obligation to life on this planet is not to waste what's already taken so long to reach its current complexity and semi-equilibrium. And of course not to be cruel to living things.

Look at it this way: If I had a child I would certainly have a moral obligation to take care of it. But I definitely do not have a moral obligation to have a child in the first place.

you are reaching quite a bit here.

Why is there an obligation not to waste what's already taken so long? Why should we not be cruel to living things?

I didn't say you, personally, had an obligation to have a child, I said we collectively have an obligation to protect and extend life.

I personally don't have an obligation to feed all of the poor of America, but we collectively sure do.

Who knows what STDs might lurk out there in the universe?

;-)

Perhaps seeding other planets with maple trees and squirrels would be cool.

But I'm pretty sure they want to import us. The almighty human genome already seems to spell doom for any biosphere.