Log in

View Full Version : Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Seed the Universe with Life?


Whisper
March 12th, 2010, 07:10 PM
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/rhoophiuchus.jpg

Eventually, the day will come when life on Earth ends. Whether that’s tomorrow or five billion years from now, whether by nuclear war, climate change, or the Sun burning up its fuel, the last living cell on Earth will one day wither and die. But that doesn’t mean that all is lost. What if we had the chance to sow the seeds of terrestrial life throughout the universe, to settle young planets within developing solar systems many light-years away, and thus give our long evolutionary line the chance to continue indefinitely?
Source = http://www.physorg.com/news184915200.html

Michael Mautner of Virginia Commonwealth University says that part of the human condition we enjoy is a responsibility to ensure life continues after our home, Earth, dies. It will happen, someday. And panspermia missions now will fulfill our moral obligation to see that life on other planets gets a fair chance, even if we won’t ever see the results.

As Mautner explains in his study published in an upcoming issue of theJournal of Cosmology, the strategy is to deposit an array of primitive organisms on potentially fertile planets and protoplanets throughout the universe… (he) has identified potential breeding grounds, which include extrasolar planets, accretion disks surrounding young stars that hold the gas and dust of future planets, and – at an even earlier stage – interstellar clouds that hold the materials to create stars.

To transport the microorganisms, Mautner proposes using sail-ships. These ships offer a low-cost transportation method with solar sails, which can achieve high velocities using the radiation pressure from light. The microorganisms could be bundled in tiny capsules, each containing about 100,000 microorganisms and weighing 0.1 micrograms.

The article addresses criticisms such as the possibility of interfering with any pre-existing extraterrestrial life.

First of all, Mautner explains that we can minimize these chances by targeting very primitive locations where life could not have evolved yet. In addition, he argues that, since extraterrestrial life is not currently known to exist, our first concern should be with preserving our family of organic gene/protein life that we know exists.

So what’s the consensus? Are we morally obligated to “keep the ball rolling” as far as life in the Universe goes?
Source = http://www.neatorama.com/2010/02/10/do-we-have-a-moral-obligation-to-seed-the-universe-with-life/



What are your thoughts on this?
Do you agree or disagree?

2D
March 12th, 2010, 07:17 PM
I could care less.

I'd much rather focus on not blowing this planet to shit.

ShatteredWings
March 12th, 2010, 08:43 PM
No, that would be polluting the universe.

The conditions that created Earth would have to exist in some similar form on another rock around a sun. Based on a different mineral, sure.
With all the stars in the universe, heck even galaxy, and that plenty have planets, somewhere has life. Whether or not it's reached a human-like level of intelligence is questionable, since nothing's contacted us yet [how do you we know they're just not a few hundred earth development years behind us though?]


If we start sending earth microbes out, it's not allowing for the natural evolution.

And it's not in our interest anyway. Even starting in the microbial, rather than just amino acid and DNA-like strands, it would still take millions of years for something to evolve.

Perseus
March 12th, 2010, 10:34 PM
We're not moraly obliged to send our race or different species out in space.
I don't see what morals have to do with that at all.

Katrina
March 12th, 2010, 10:38 PM
I don't agree about sending our relatives out in the space. Even the success rate is very less. We should let the universe take its own course. Playing with nature can have really drastic effects.

Zephyr
March 13th, 2010, 12:42 AM
Is it moral to save the human race?
It it moral to take on another planet, and possibly ruin it?
Is it moral to just let nature take it's course?

I can see that on one hand, if you have the intelligence and resources to do it, then why not? But on the other hand, we'd become alien parasites to other planets, depending on whether we learned out lesson or not. Say we do learn our lesson, then finding another planet to occupy wouldn't be much of an issue. But if we don't learn our lesson and go out to occupy other planets, the same thing will just keep happening over and over again, we'll deplete it's natural resources and exhaust it's native species (given if there is no other intelligent life on said planet). And if there was intelligent life on said planet, it would be a matter of being accepted by them, being captured and observed for their scientific purposes, the human race taking over the planet, etc.

There's really a lot to consider when thinking about an answer to this subject, and I haven't even scratched the surface of what I can say. There are so many variables about the situation that it's hard to stick with one opinion. I guess a lot of it depends on one's view of what's more moral: species survival or the natural course of things?

But you can also argue that it's our nature to ensure the survival of our species, therefore it would be the natural course to go to another planet, therefore moral to spread our wings and have humans in other parts of the universe. But it then comes back around to us interfering with the extraterrestrial life, which you could view as immoral.

If other lifeforms didn't exist, then I wouldn't see a problem with it.

However, if there are other lifeforms out there, (which I strongly believe that there are other intelligent lifeforms), that is when I'd have to get the details of the situation since I don't deal well with this type of ambiguity.