Professor: We have a 'moral obligation' to seed universe with life

According to Michael Mautner, Research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, seeding the universe with life is not just an option, it’s our moral obligation. As members of this planet’s menagerie, and a consequence of nearly 4 billion years of evolution, humans have a purpose to propagate life. After all, whatever else life is, it necessarily possesses an incessant drive for self-perpetuation. And the idea isn’t just fantasy: Mautner says that “directed panspermia” missions can be accomplished with present technology

Link to article

Personally, I believe life does not need to be propogated throughout space since it is not only present, but full of life. When will the arogance of some on earth end? To believe we are the only inhabitants of this vast universe seems illogical to me.

The professor goes on to say..

“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 explained to PhysOrg.com. “Securing that future for life can give our human existence a cosmic purpose.”

And later inthe article..

But, some critics might ask, what if extraterrestrial life already exists somewhere else, and we infect it with our own invasive genetic material? 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.

What do you think ATS?

-E-

so he doesnt believe in panspermia?

I agree to an extent that we should go into space and colonize, but he makes it sound as if we'll be the welfare parents of the universe. We just aren't ready or responsible enough as a species to do this yet

and I also believe that we as a species have a moral obligation to ourselves and the universe to stop our destructive ways before we go spreading that throught the galaxy/universe

this of course wont happen

reply to post by Totalstranger


Couldn't agree with you more. Not to mention the Russian's are already on top of this. I posted a thread a while back on the topic
Russian sending "Life" to Martian moon!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f6f767bcc49.jpg[/atsimg]

LIFE on Earth was all neatly packed up inside a pucklike container and ready to blast off on an unmanned Russian mission to a Martian moon this month.

-E-

[edit on 9-2-2010 by MysterE]

I agree with this idea.

In fact I believe this is the only way mankind will be able to continue to thrive as a species.

I believe it was Hawking who said that living on earth is like having all youir eggs in a single basket referencing investment advice in lieu of space colonization.

Of course the idea of spreading the risk has always been a factor in earth colonization.

The main reason behind colonization of the New world being underwritten by investment houses in Europe was not only to spread risk but also to act as a monetary reward toward those who dared to put their lives at risk for the sake of others.

Space colonization will work the same way...Free land...Free Undiscovered riches to be yours if you only dare to...MOVE to MARS!!!

lol

First we need a real big wake up call here on Earth before we decide to colonize Mars or wherever...like some form of Global Catastrophe. This would serve as a shock to alert our first level of consciousness of flight or fight and we will be off to Mars.

lol

reply to post by whiteraven


I guess it is in the nature of a species to do whatever it can to further its existance

-E-

I'm pretty sure the universe is just fine at seeding itself with life. Spending millions upon billions of dollars to "seed" the universe would not only just be a direct waste of time and resources, but it also interferes with nature itself- something humans seem so keen on doing without thinking of the consequences.

reply to post by Monts


Not to mention who or what we might piss off by sending "mankind" out into the universe!

-E-

P.S. I don't know what it is about your avatar, but it cracks me up!

That is our nature.

We are the the development of our biosphere's ability to propagate itself onto other suitable objects in the Universe.

Michael Mautner, may be my new hero.

Originally posted by Monts
I'm pretty sure the universe is just fine at seeding itself with life. Spending millions upon billions of dollars to "seed" the universe would not only just be a direct waste of time and resources, but it also interferes with nature itself- something humans seem so keen on doing without thinking of the consequences.

I agree that we need to learn how to be a productive member of the universe before we go spreading our ideas around. Lets give our planet a few more years to see if we destroy ourselves over greed before we start reaching for any brass rings.

Originally posted by network dude
I agree that we need to learn how to be a productive member of the universe before we go spreading our ideas around. Lets give our planet a few more years to see if we destroy ourselves over greed before we start reaching for any brass rings.

Currently as far as we can determine, we are the ONLY productive members of the Universe.

I refuse to support us being trapped on one hunk of floating rock because you have moral quibbles about floating hunks of rocks.

I saw on tv these sciencetist conducted lab rat experiments where mice were unable to successfully bread and give birth in zero-G. The offspring could not orient themselves to "up". We would probably get some strange mutations from experiments along these lines and it would no doubt be risky to the offspring. The say the zero-G offspring would most likely have to remain in zero-G because their bodies would not adapt. The survival rate for mammals on an uninhabited planets would have to be pretty bad.

It would seem we would have a better shot at terraforming a planet, and that would perhaps be a prerequisite for survival of animals/humans. Oxygen and CO2 being a huge necessity for our species.

I am sure any motivation for humans to be a self-preserving species is beyond our capability in terms of resources. Seems that we need mother earth for food and water. It is a logistical nightmare. I had always hoped the would build something on the moon, but seems Obama is hell bent on nixing that effort.

We can't take care of the problems on Earth, these guys want a virus to spill over other planets? Lol.

The moon and even Mars will not be useful for colonization. Both are only currently useful as bases, and perhaps industrial work.

Because they would have to rely on Earth to be their breadbasket.

Biosphere creation isn't optional. It is a requirement.


Examining the science and engineering aspects of using the asteroid belt to bombard Mars would be useful for water, resources to mine on the surface (giving a resources and therefore monetary reason to be there), and inducing a green house effect in the atmosphere.

There are NO other planets in this solar system that can, as they are, support colonization by our biosphere.

However, they might support enough human endevours for resource extraction to fund further technology to get us out of this system.

[edit on 2010/2/9 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Equinox99
We can't take care of the problems on Earth, these guys want a virus to spill over other planets? Lol.

Oh no. We might give asteroids a cough. Dear Goodness No.

reply to post by Aeons


Somehow I've got the feeling by virus the poster doesn't mean the viruses in/around us but us, as in: we are the viruses.

That goes to show that there are people who hold the exact opposite belief:

That they are morally obligated to hinder us from "seeding" space.

Ah, people. So diverse.

I worry about the ability to "target very primitive locations where life could not have evolved yet", as stated in the OP.

If you believe that abiogenesis is possible (that life could have spontaneously began independently on Earth), then at one time the Earth was one of those "very primitive locations where life could not have evolved yet". Therefore, if life on Earth did begin here independently, another race's "directed panspermia" attempts could have forever changed the course of life on Earth, and we humans (and everything else on Earth) may not exist, and life would be very different here. This is true even if the panspermia seeding of Earth occurred before life arose spontaneously due to abiogenesis.

...And before you say "perhaps abiogenesis is not possible, and the Earth WAS in fact seeded with life", I would respond by saying "well, where did THAT life come from -- life had to start spontaneously somewhere". I can believe in the possibility of panspermia and still believe in the possibility of abiogenesis on Earth.

Perhaps the Earth was seeded sometime before the Earth itself spontaneously created its own life -- which subsequently mixed with the seeded life. Perhaps life on Earth today is totally different than it would have been without panspermia. I doubt we will ever know.

The bottom line is: Wouldn't it be morally wrong to mess with a "primitive" planet that may someday beget life, and in effect change what that life would have been without our "meddling"?

Can we ever be sure that life would not have spontaneously arisen on a planet on its own without our involvement?

We may end up being like the 16th century European colonists who thought that life in the Americas was so primitive that they had the moral obligation to bring European "civilization" to the "savages " in the new world.


[edit on 2/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Monts


In one way billions of dollars or whatever denomination of trade is needed to further the exploration of the universe by mankind should be beyond question.

The earth has finite resources.

The universe has infinite resources.

We will soon be on our way if we as a species live that long.

"Moral obligation"? I think that we have enough mess we cannot handle down here, failing all possible moral obligations to our-self and next generations.
So universe will have to wait until we will be able to take care of us first. Sorry. Yes, i know - i am horribly immoral.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


You want to discuss the ethics of colonizing ROCKS. Big Floating Rocks.

To preserve the moral integrity of things that DO NOT EXIST.

Worthwhile subject.

Sure. Let us talk about the moral conundrum of my thinking disrupting quarks - how dare I. Or how about the ethical dilemma of our activities as they are currently impacting non-existent storybook characters. The moral obligations we have to figments of a schizophrenic's hallucinations.

[edit on 2010/2/9 by Aeons]