Which is better? A dead mars or a Mars with life?

Cainkane1

Philosopher
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
9,011
Location
The great American southeast
I've read two different theories as to whether life is on mars or not. All the chemicals are there that are essential to life and Mars once had water on its surface. However this water was very saline and some scientists say that just as salt in high concentrations prevent meat from rotting so would extremely saline water keep life from developing. Of course other scientists believe life may very well still be there in resoviours of liquid underground water.

Ok so humans land there. Which would be more convenient for us? If no life is there we could put life there via hydroponics and such. We would not be competing with small organisms whom it might not be wise to ingest. So which situation is better suited to human colonization. Life there or a dead planet?

I'm sure scientists would love for life to be there so that they could study it.
 
So which situation is better suited to human colonization. Life there or a dead planet?

For colonization? A dead planet.

If Mars already has life on it, colonizing the planet would be tantamount to wiping out untold species of life- whatever it is. You can argue about the ethics of allowing a species on Earth to go extinct, but to kill off an entire planet...the second planet discovered to have life...the only other example to date of independent abiogenesis and evolution to have been discovered....

That would be like finding a living stegosaurus, and immediately butchering it for sausages.
 
There was someone who once said "If there is life on Mars, best to leave it to the Martians" or something like that (I think it was Carl Sagan). I happen to disagree with this statement, mostly from the point that Mars may have once had biodiversity in its environment, or it may in the future, but at this time, without any interference from us, it does not seem to. And since it currently seems to be the best place for Humanity to go from here (other then Luna), it seems like a good stepping stone to go further out in the solar system.
 
Let's see, taking a hint from St. Anselm, a Mars with life that existed would be better than a Mars with life that didn't exist. So if Mars is nearer to perfection than not, . . .

Oh sorry--wrong subforum! I was getting all religious and philosophical.

But seriously, I think one needs to define "better" in this context. If you do that, I should imagine the answer will be obvious.
 
Life emerges from dead stuff, so dead stuff has lots of life-like potential.
 
Life on Mars, still living, would be outstanding. Robotic sample return. No human landing. Ever. Risk of contamination is too great. Let's go straight to the asteroids and start mining.


...the only other example to date of independent abiogenesis .....

Not neccessarily. Abiogenesis may have happened on either Earth or Mars or elsewhere and the subsequent life transported.

If we discover life on Mars, current or extinct, the next question would probably be 'Are we related?' Whatever answer, yes or no, leads to even more fascinating questions. Though I would prefer separate abiogenesis because then we would know for certain that life could be anywhere and everywhere out there.
 
Life - at its simplest - has a tendency to terraform. On Earth, life made oxygen abundant in the atmosphere.

If there were abundant oxygen in the Martian atmosphere, it would be a lot easier for us to colonise. But Mars is smaller than Earth, with less gravity. Would Mars even be able to retain an oxygen-rich atmosphere? I don't know.

What? Oh, sorry. I was just musing to myself.
 
Life emerges from dead stuff, so dead stuff has lots of life-like potential.
I think you're right there. I think the line between life and not-life is going to get fuzzier and fuzzier.

A self-replicating polymer (purely chemistry), usually isn't considered "life" but in a pre-biotic environment, I think selection would already start to work at that stage. In any given sample of water, you'd find more of these polymers than others. When you get a simple membrane bubble, you're more likely to have these molecules inside than molecules that don't make copies of themselves. When that vessicle elongates into a tubule and breaks off (again, through chemistry and mechanical processes), those self-replicators are more likely to be present in the new vessicles. Where is the line between something living and something not living?
 
Bastardized Saganism:

"If mars has life, even microscopic life, we should do nothing to it, it belongs to the martians."

So dead mars. Strip mine the galaxy.
 
Life on Mars, still living, would be outstanding. Robotic sample return. No human landing. Ever. Risk of contamination is too great. Let's go straight to the asteroids and start mining.


Why worry about contamination? The conditions on Mars are so very different from the conditions on Earth that worrying about Mars being contaminated by Earth life is like worrying about a wheat field being contaminated by seaweed.

Sure, a few Earth extremophiles might be able to survive the conditions, but they would be competing with organisms that have had millions or billions of years head-start in adapting to that particular environment.
 
We may have started much further back than that.
If meteorites can reach Earth from Mars, there seems no reason in principle they can't go the other way- though there are several reasons why it would be rather more difficult.
 
Life - at its simplest - has a tendency to terraform. On Earth, life made oxygen abundant in the atmosphere.

If there were abundant oxygen in the Martian atmosphere, it would be a lot easier for us to colonise. But Mars is smaller than Earth, with less gravity. Would Mars even be able to retain an oxygen-rich atmosphere? I don't know.

Mars has a negligible atmosphere. It is, off the top of my head, about 0.3% the density of Earth's atmosphere.

The reason for this starts with the inverse square law. Mars is approximately half the diameter of Earth. It's composed of roughly the same material ( lots of iron ) and formed about the same time in the emergence of the solar system. Being smaller though, it has lost it's core heat faster, cooling enough that its crust is considerably thicker than Earth's. This has one consequence that Mars has a single solid surface, without tectonic plates - so there are no earthquakes on Mars.
The effect on atmosphere is that this means Mars has a weak magnetosphere, which in Earth is caused by the rotation of the molten iron core ( and why magnetic north is not exactly the same as axial north ). This has robbed Mars of protection from the solar wind. On Earth, it is the magnetosphere that draws the magnetically charged solar wind towards the poles, causing it to burn brightly as it falls through the atmosphere - the aurora. On Mars, the solar wind has been free to strip the atmosphere over geological time, leaving it with barely a wisp today. It also means solar radiation is a bigger problem on the surface of Mars because it has neither a strong magnetosphere nor thick atmosphere to protect it.
What little atmosphere Mars has is more than 95% carbon dioxide, with oxyegen being less that 1%.

The problem with terraforming any planet is that whatever natural phenomena exist to have caused the planet to be in the state it is currently will persist against any effort to change the surfae conditions. There is no feasible way to increase Mars' mass or endow it with a magnetosphere. Even a major ( really major ) long-term engineering project to manufacture a thicker, never mind more earth-like, atmosphere would be constantly up against the very forces that stripped the original atmosphere away in the first place.

And even if it were possible to manufacture an Earth-like atmosphere, because Martian gravity is only about one third of Earth's, the atmosphere would need to be substantially more massive ( I haven't done the math ) so that it resulted in the same Earth-like pressure at the surface.

Overall, not really looking feasible.

I remember seeing a Horizon documentary back in the 80s or early 90s about terraforming Mars, and one engineer advocated a 'best compromise' solution of creating a gigantic Eden Project type enclosed space, covering a substantial portion of the planet, as the only realistic goal.

The recent photo of a cavemouth on Luna prompted some articles to mention the idea of using Martian caves for colonisation, at least in the short term.

And anyway, it's all pretty much moot. If we were going to contaminate Mars, we already have. Starting with Viking.

Not true. NASA has made special effort to prevent the contamination of Mars by even the slightest biological material from earth, because it might irrevocably destroy any chance of answering the life-on-mars question conclusively.

Here is an essay about exactly that, relating to the Viking and other missions:

http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/skimchap.cgi?recid=11381&chap=11-21

Preventing The Forward Contamination Of Mars said:
which affirms that the search for extraterrestrial life is an important objective of space research, that the planet of Mars may offer the only feasible opportunity to conduct this search during the foreseeable future, that contamination of this planet would make such a search far more difficult and possibly even prevent for all time an unequivocal result, that all practical steps should be taken to ensure that Mars be not biologically contaminated until such time as this search can have been satisfactorily carried out, and that cooperation in proper scheduling of experiments and use of adequate spacecraft sterilization techniques is required on the part of all deep space probe launching authorities to avoid such contamination.

Landing a sterilised object made of plastic and metal does not contaminate Mars. It merely litters it :p
 
For colonization? A dead planet.

If Mars already has life on it, colonizing the planet would be tantamount to wiping out untold species of life- whatever it is. You can argue about the ethics of allowing a species on Earth to go extinct, but to kill off an entire planet...the second planet discovered to have life...the only other example to date of independent abiogenesis and evolution to have been discovered....

That would be like finding a living stegosaurus, and immediately butchering it for sausages.
Would this necessarily happen? If life does exist on Mars it will be bacteria like life. How would a human presence cause them to go extinct? If Mars is ever terraformed it may even help the life if it exists there. More liquid water for instance.
 
Mars lacks heat and mass, lets add some asteroids.

You know, I'm 100% in favor of that... once we find out if there's life on Mars or not. I'm still in favor either way, just want to know if we get bonus points or not.
 

Back
Top Bottom