[caption id="attachment_29411" align="aligncenter" width="350" caption="Photo: NASA"][/caption]
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.
The article addresses criticisms such as the possibility of interfering with any pre-existing extraterrestrial life.
So what's the consensus? Are we morally obligated to "keep the ball rolling" as far as life in the Universe goes?
Link
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?
Link
It's a question of wether or not we want to seed LIFE in it's most basic forms, allowing it to progress and evolve into something more complex. It's about wether we want to generate AWARENESS. And I think we should. I do think we need to be careful not to interfere with planets that may already have simple life, but should we seed "dead" empty worlds? Hell yeah! The Universe could use more opportunities to become self-aware, although it does already have mechanisms in place to do this... but we can still help :) Of course, we should focus on our own problems here on Earth first... especially since we're driving ourselves to extinction...
As far as we scientifically know, we're it. "We" meaning everything on this planet that isn't mineral. To seed some primal world with the right conditions to make panspermia work is not arrogant, it's noble.
Think of the possibilities, maybe things would evolve into a Utopia. No religion, no countries, no possessions. Etc.