German Students Aim to Put Cyanobacteria on Mars to Generate Oxygen

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

The question is not can we but should we.

http://www.science20.com/astro_watch..._oxygen-151749

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

The 1967 outer space treaty forbids this in my view, read article 7 Section E.

http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf

[JB80 (Jarrod)]

Looks like it could be possible even under the treaty...

" to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose."

...which I assume by destroying the sample at the end of the mission could be considered an appropriate measure. No doubt to be argued about but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

And yes, yes we should.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Joe brought Cane Toads to QLD to eat beetles. Any "locals" could be wiped out... I believe the term for that is genocide.

If Mars is proven lifeless, maybe its a future option but I don't fancy anyone's chances of proving the planet is dead anytime soon.

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Joe brought Cane Toads to QLD to eat beetles. Any "locals" could be wiped out... I believe the term for that is genocide.

If Mars is proven lifeless, maybe its a future option but I don't fancy anyone's chances of proving the planet is dead anytime soon.

The concept of genocide cannot have any meaning in the absence of sentient life forms.

But I find it more than a little amusing that well before we even landed a probe on Mars, and well before we knew one way or the other about life-forms on Mars or the other celestial bodies, we were claiming them for earth and earthlings. The treaty does not contain any provision for the possibility of encountering sentience there or anywhere.


Peter

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Joe brought Cane Toads to QLD to eat beetles. Any "locals" could be wiped out... I believe the term for that is genocide.

I assume you meant Joh, as in Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He didn't introduce cane toads - they were introduced in 1935, and Joh was still working the family property at that time, so we cannot blame him, but rather the misguided- but well meaning - boffins at the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations.

Maybe German students can be considered well-intentioned but misguided also...

Originally Posted by el_draco

If Mars is proven lifeless, maybe its a future option but I don't fancy anyone's chances of proving the planet is dead anytime soon.

I doubt Mars is lifeless, so introducing ANY form of life could be considered invasive and harmful. Bacteria is extremelly hardy, many surviving extremes and still being viable thousands of years later. I am fairly certain bacterium will be found on Mars (they will need to dig deeper than they presently do).

What remains next is do we have the RIGHT to do ANYTHING to Mars?

[astroron (Ron)]

I think we have already introduced bugs to Mars,transported there by the dozen or more space craft landed there over the last 30 years or more.
Cheers

[tonybarry (Tony)]

Hi All,

A good topic to discuss. I saw "Interstellar" last week with a few mates from WSAAG, and the topic was relevant.

I've considered the Greenie position fairly solidly, and in its milder forms it has merit. In its more extreme forms, it amounts to suicide (anything a human can do will be bad, so the best thing we can do is not do anything - which equals "Kill yourself and save Nature").

I am pretty solidly set on the idea that we should not die with our planet; that we have acquired the ability to propagate and our future is off-planet.

Terraforming Mars is a good idea - if we can do it reasonably well. I am not sure that it can be done well, because there are a few items lacking there (e.g. water content is minimal, oxygen pressure is really low, gravity is too weak to hold all the atmosphere we'd need).

But engineering a way past these obstacles is a very worthwhile task. We are due for another global extinction event (they apparently occur every 65 million years or so), and having some way to continue past that is a very good idea.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[N1 (Mirko)]

Humankind as a whole doesn't give a '^%$#@ about what's happening to this planet but worries about finding somewhere else to live. I guess it's one of the great ironies of the anthropocene age.

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by tonybarry

Hi All,

A good topic to discuss. I saw "Interstellar" last week with a few mates from WSAAG, and the topic was relevant.

I've considered the Greenie position fairly solidly, and in its milder forms it has merit. In its more extreme forms, it amounts to suicide (anything a human can do will be bad, so the best thing we can do is not do anything - which equals "Kill yourself and save Nature").

I am pretty solidly set on the idea that we should not die with our planet; that we have acquired the ability to propagate and our future is off-planet.

Terraforming Mars is a good idea - if we can do it reasonably well. I am not sure that it can be done well, because there are a few items lacking there (e.g. water content is minimal, oxygen pressure is really low, gravity is too weak to hold all the atmosphere we'd need).

But engineering a way past these obstacles is a very worthwhile task. We are due for another global extinction event (they apparently occur every 65 million years or so), and having some way to continue past that is a very good idea.

Regards,
Tony Barry

I don't agree with you Tony,
If there were a higher form than Humans, they would definitely get the Bagon out and exterminate the most destructive creature that ever walked this planet, Us.
To want to take our destructive ways to other parts of the Solar System, or even further is in my opinion is plain vandalism.
I see mass extinctions as a form of rejuvenation and by golly this planet and the major life form that inhabits it surely needs rejuvenating, even if that means going the way of the Dinosaurs.
Cheers

[astroron (Ron)]

Billions of dollars are spent trying to get to an almost sterile planet and if that German or other ideas get to fruition terraform it is to me a complete waste of money when we have a perfectly good planet here where we are all on that needs some good management.
Cheers

[Xtjohn]

Unfortunately it appears mankind is on a dead end branch of evolution.
We would have to undergo major changes to every aspect of our beings to become anything like sustainable, on Earth or anywhere else for that matter. Personally, I can't see how that could happen.

[pmrid (Peter)]

It seems to me that until we are able to say why Mars lost it's atmosphere in the first place, there isn't much point trying to give it another one.

Peter

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by pmrid

It seems to me that until we are able to say why Mars lost it's atmosphere in the first place, there isn't much point trying to give it another one.

Mars lacks the mass (and therefore gravity) to permanently retain a gaseous atmosphere.

[hobbit]

Originally Posted by Zaps

Mars lacks the mass (and therefore gravity) to permanently retain a gaseous atmosphere.

Wouldn't that have prevented it from developing an atmosphere in the first place?

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Xtjohn

Unfortunately it appears mankind is on a dead end branch of evolution.
We would have to undergo major changes to every aspect of our beings to become anything like sustainable, on Earth or anywhere else for that matter. Personally, I can't see how that could happen.

It's really quite easy, read up on Permaculture.

The hard part is to get everyone to agree to go down that path.

Cheers

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by hobbit

Wouldn't that have prevented it from developing an atmosphere in the first place?

I understand the presence of an atmosphere depends on its composition of and its rate of replenishment. Any atmosphere is subject to erosion by cosmic radiation and while gravity obviously essential for one to exist, it won't ensure a sustainable atmosphere just by itself. Likewise, less gravity than Earth doesn't necessarily mean no atmosphere. Consider Titan.

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by N1

I understand the presence of an atmosphere depends on its composition of and its rate of replenishment. Any atmosphere is subject to erosion by cosmic radiation and while gravity obviously essential for one to exist, it won't ensure a sustainable atmosphere just by itself. Likewise, less gravity than Earth doesn't necessarily mean no atmosphere. Consider Titan.

Insufficient mass results in the loss of atmospheric gases and can only be offset by relatively constant replenishment.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by tonybarry

Hi All,

A good topic to discuss. I saw "Interstellar" last week with a few mates from WSAAG, and the topic was relevant.

I've considered the Greenie position fairly solidly, and in its milder forms it has merit. In its more extreme forms, it amounts to suicide (anything a human can do will be bad, so the best thing we can do is not do anything - which equals "Kill yourself and save Nature").

I dont see it as a "greenie" issue. Basic ethics should cover it quite well. Most "Greenies" are not against "development", they are against the wholesale destruction of the one planet we know can sustain us, and the multitude of other species that inhabit this rock. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. We are the only species here that seems intent on destroying itself in the name of self interest and greed.

Before we really go off-world, and I sincerely hope we make it that far, we ought to get over the idea that we can do whatever we want with impunity; its a complete fallacy anyhow; our own history demonstrates it plainly.

I personally take great comfort in knowing that even if we reaped havoc beyond earth for a hundred million years, it wouldn't even register on the scale of the Milky way, let alone the rest of the universe.

[Xtjohn]

Originally Posted by Ric

It's really quite easy, read up on Permaculture.

The hard part is to get everyone to agree to go down that path.

Cheers

Not quite so easy as that Ric, sustainability would mean totally ending the kind of life mankind has now. No civilisation would be possible, no industry of any kind. Artificial and ecosystem-degrading means of producing food has resulted in a population explosion. At present population levels, If the world were to go totally organic for food production tomorrow, you could expect two out of every three of your loved ones and friends to die of starvation. There is no sustainable way of maintaining mankind as we are.
Living as hunter gatherers and remaining at a very low population is just not the kind of animal we are!
And you have hit the nail right on the head -(the hard part is to get everyone to agree to go down that path)-. Who amongst us is willing to go back to living in trees while watching most of the other people around them starve to death?
The changes required to render Homo sapiens sustainable are not only concerned with our physical existence and environment-destroying needs (wants) but also what is going on between our ears! We are driven to push our boundaries beyond our environments breaking point and therefore simply not the kind of animal that the planet can sustain.