Confirmed: Life on Mars.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So, with the corrections as given, your post is:

That is debatable. Perhaps the researcher get his name in the book, but often he would never have got to the point of making his/her discovery with out the selfish people driving progress.

Well, first, look at the history of research. Researchers are often the most "selfish" (read that "driven", "single minded", "putting their desires above all else", etc.) people around. Since I was distinguishing between those who were going after knowledge and those who were going after land, "selfish" is a third category which includes many from the two I proposed.

But, consider: pretty much every bit of exploration was made possible by the development of some technology. It seems probable that the "out of Africa" experience came about because someone figured out how to carry enough water to cross some deserts and how to float some logs across some bodies of water (look at a map of Africa, then tell me how a primitive primate can make if from sub Sahara to the Middle East). And *every* conquest at the end of an exploration was made possible by (superior) technology.

Now, looking back on it, it may seem obvious that iron should be smelted, that clinker-built boats were seaworthy, that yew would make a superior bow, that a stirrup would make cavalry king of the battlefield, that with the right adjustments square sails could be used to sail to windward (more or less), that a bit of magnetized iron could be used to guide a ship, and a few million more technological advances. I don't know how many of those technologies were developed by someone wanting to acquire wealth. I do know that every one of them was developed by someone who used his mind.

And, given that the sub topic is colonizing Mars, I think that forgetting the very fact that the ability to do so came from people who wanted to learn more about rocketry, about space flight, about planetology, etc, and that if the terraforming ever does take place it will be because of the people who studied how ecologies come into being and how they evolved because they found the subject interesting is pretty short sighted.

--Pete

[Doc]

Well put Pete...

The current direction of where this thread is headed, I can't help but think of "The Virtue of Selfishness."

On my own, I would like to add, that many times an ignorant brute has ridden to glory on the shoulders of genius. It's the way the world works.

[Guest]

It think its reasonable to say ignorant brutes have generally carried more geniuses to success than they have stolen glory from.

Whether it be industry, art or war, the majority of the ignorant brutes are the least rewarded of all.




But I think brute vs. genius is a false dichotmy in respect to anything mentioned.

[Guest]

I think what I meant by selfish was clear in the context.


I assumed your knowledge vs. research was analogous to your Greeks and Romans, perhaps I was wrong. Taken with a strick interpretation your comparision is just a sort of silliness.

[ShadowHM]

Taken with a strick interpretation your comparision is just a sort of silliness.

I am sure it must be. :D

My dictionary defines strick as a bunch of hackled flax, jute or hemp. All strick interpretations would, to me, turn out to be sorts of silliness.

[Doc]

My dictionary defines strick as a bunch of hackled flax, jute or hemp. All strick interpretations would, to me, turn out to be sorts of silliness.

**Waves fist in the air**

Damn dope smoking granola eating sandle wearing hippies! Get a hair cut and a job!

Er... Wait... Um... Er... Well... Hemp interpretations make you silly?

Go figure. Mayhap an explanation for my behaviour...

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think what I meant by selfish was clear in the context.

No.

I assumed your knowledge vs. research was analogous to your Greeks and Romans, perhaps I was wrong. Taken with a strick interpretation your comparision is just a sort of silliness.

I assumed you were intelligent enough to figure it out, perhaps I was wrong.

--Pete

http://unix.rulez.org/~calver/pictures/6th...tupidpeople.jpg -- Thanks, Shadow :)

[kandrathe]

Hmmm. Just poking at the bear with a sharp stick (or was that strick)? :)

[Guest]

Of course youre right, I misspelled/mistyped strict. Ussually I feel slightly bad for making such an error.

But here I dont, after seeing the responses.

I know most posters here value spelling over substance. But to see 3 responses concerning the spelling, with not even a comment on whether or not paradigms such as Pete's are valid, is humerous from my perspective.

I have to give Pete credit for at least trying to address the issue.





PS I think Ill dig up my old sig from another board, that applies here.

[kandrathe]

Substance? Ok. I think it is wrong to generalize and frame the debate as all the land grabbers "Conquerors" vs all the knowledge seekers "Discoverers". History is replete with incidents of abuse by the greedy, no matter which type they are. Nobility and morality must be tied to harms (minimizing in my book) and goal of the one taking the action. If the action we are attempting is to gain knowledge of Mars, including possible martian life forms, then we need to be careful not to muck it up. But, if our goal is to get a 2nd Earth up and running as quickly as possible, then perhaps the investment in time for the former is not worth it.

Pete's original statement; "But, you know, the people going after knowledge have historically contributed a hell of a lot more than the people going after land." seems valid. Knowledge can be posessed by many simultaneously, is reusable and extendable, and the mere acquisition of it does no harm. Historically, taking land displaces it former occupants and there are limits to how it can be shared. The misuse of knowledge on the other hand has also had profound consequences. But, as he indicated the alternative is to remain ignorant. If you don't care if life existed on Mars prior to our invasion, then we may muck it up and remain ignorant of the prior life on Mars.

I think there are many goals in a Human endeavor to Mars. Paramount for the success of continued human interest in Mars will be to examine whether it is worth it. That is, are there exploitable mineral deposits and is it possible to build a self sustaining habitation. Terraforming is a fantasy, IMHO. Mars has roughly 1/3 gravity of Earth, which means that an atmosphere will not be the same as Earths, and any humans staying for any length of time will need to work hard to keep from losing bone mass.

Here are the opinions of some scientists at NASA:

On August 7, 1996, a team of scientists lead by David McKay at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, announced their discovery of microscopic evidence of possible Martian fossil life in a meteorite recovered from Antarctica. How might this affect future Mars exploration and settlement? What are the practical and ethical issues of the discovery of life on Mars? What should our course of action be toward possible Mars life? How much time and effort should we make towards searching for life before we declare Mars to be lifeless? Martian life could be almost anywhere.

We will need to decide, as a planet, how long we should spend searching Mars for evidence of life. What about contamination if life does exist on Mars? Humans on Mars will be exposed eventually to any Martian life that exists. Returning spacecraft and astronauts could also introduce alien organisms to Earth. Many scientists think it is unlikely that independently evolved Mars life would have enough in common with life on Earth to cause harm; but it is impossible to know for certain.

What about our contamination of Mars? People and unsterilized robots will contaminate Mars with terrestrial organisms. Even if we are willing to risk our own lives, what about the rights of the Martians? If we did contaminate Mars with terrestrial microbes, that could complicate studies of any life that was found later on Mars.

The author Mark Lupisella, in 1997, wrote in an issue of Space Policy, "Could we forgive ourselves if we caused the extinction of the first extraterrestrial species we came into contact with?".
aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov -- Terraforming Mars

[Occhidiangela]

"Could we forgive ourselves if we caused the extinction of the first extraterrestrial species we came into contact with?".

If that life form were a microbe whose killing power amongst humans was the equivalent of ebola or the bubonic plague, absolutely. Kill it before it propagates.

Otherwise, folks will have us arguing civil rights for cancer tumors. :P

[kandrathe]

Ha! I know I would get over it.

It is an interesting scientific endeavor, but I think there are bigger questions in a bigger universe of problems. For example, "How can we preserve the life on our own planet which is well suited for life?" If there are vast sums of money to be invested, I would prefer we start by taking care of "Earth" first.

[Griselda]

Ghostiger,

Drop it. Your posts have been sloppy, and I'm glad Pete has pointed it out in this case. If you want to debate something, you'll need to take the time to type coherent arguments that others can follow. If you don't have time to do that, then it's probably best to leave the debate for another time.

-Griselda

edit- typo

[ShadowHM]

Of course youre right, I misspelled/mistyped strict. Ussually I feel slightly bad for making such an error.

But here I dont, after seeing the responses.

If mis-spelled words in a post made you feel bad, you would never post here again, since you have not managed to post an error-free message yet. :P I can only conclude that you do not care to take the time to make your communication clear. And I can only reply in response to what you do post, not what you meant to post.

Further, if this were actually true....

I think what I meant by selfish was clear in the context.

Then you would not have gotten the responses you did, would you?

Good ideas are only of value if they can be communicated to us. You whine that we value form over substance, but the fact is that without form, the substance cannot be communicated.

[Guest]

The I wasnt going on about Pete. Despite my disagreement with him, I didnt complain at al about his correcting my error.

It was reasibale for me to comment on the 3 other posts aimed at my misspelling or "strict". They were all made by people who did not even comment either Petes or my statment.

[Griselda]

You're missing the point, though. I think that ShadowHM explained it much more clearly than I did. Please listen to what she says.

-Griselda

[Guest]

I did not not "whine" about Pete wanting clarity, for at least he was interested in the substance as much as it concerned him.

You on the other hand only dropped by to annoy me.

[Griselda]

Ghostiger,

You've been banned for 24 hours. I'm tired of dealing with your constant attacks of other posters here. You have had countless warnings, but you've chosen to ignore all of them.

In 24 hours, I will remove the ban. If you continue to argue, it will be made permanent.

-Griselda

Edit- I also closed this thread, since there wasn't much actual discussion happening. If anyone still wants to talk about microbial life on Mars, or Uma, feel free to start another thread.