7 ms·

Potentially a much greater filter is going from unicellular to multicellular life, no? If it likely took billions of years to get from unicellular to multicellu

by rekenaut 11mo ago

Potentially a much greater filter is going from unicellular to multicellular life, no? If it likely took billions of years to get from unicellular to multicellular life on Earth, and only (hundreds of) millions of years to get to life that can conduct spaceflight, then perhaps microbes wouldn’t be the best way to attack this problem (I’m assuming you’re talking primarily about unicellular microbes, of course).

ChuckMcM 11mo ago
Well in the talk the presenter was talking things like tardigrades which are multicellular. The challenge with tardigrades (and any multicellular life) is that you want it to be reproducing (and hence evolving) so it has to be able to do so under conditions on the body you drop it on too. Again, since the talk was speculative there were various speculative ideas such as ice penetrators to put them into the liquid under the ice of moons like Enceladus. Evolvable being the key of course. Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason.
- palmotea 11mo ago
  > Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Didn't Carl Sagan (in Cosmos?) or someone propose leaving all of Mars as a nature preserve for the benefit of any microbes that happen to live there? That's just wasting the closest, best off-planet colonization opportunity.
  - arunabha 11mo ago
    > That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Is it? To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to 'The devs are always worried about tech debt and architecture, but they just want to polish their resumes to hold back the product' speech we are prone to hear from PM/MBA types. Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims?
    - palmotea 11mo ago
      > Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) What "random outsider's view"? It's my view. I've heard what they had to say, and I think their priorities are wrong, at least when it comes to keeping places like Mars "pristine." > over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Scientists are not some caste of priests, in tune with the one true POV (though some treat them that way). They're dudes doing a job, and the priorities of that job aren't the only priorities. Stating their POV while watching pictures of galaxies with Vangelis playing in the background doesn't change that. > Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims? Huh? That's a misplaced demand if I ever saw one.
    - Nevermark 11mo ago
      > To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to [...] I am not sure why you are replying to an opinion, with even heavier opinion, but treating yours as if it means more. There are trillions of planets in the galaxy. Uninhabited and highly uninhabitable planets everywhere we look in the sky. Life on the other hand, is apparently incredibly rare. Certainly vastly more rare than uninhabited planets. Not using our closest, most potentially habitable, planet for the continuity of life and civilization, it is by far most suited to over any other location, would be a ridiculous waste. Where would we go instead? Just wall ourselves in? Mars is going to become habitable, by some combination of us adapting simple life to it, adapting ourselves, our life support technologies, and/or Mars. Probably all the above. With the only caveat if humans manage to help themselves into extinction first. But if we go instinct due to AI, or AI survives despite another catastrophe, AI won't hesitate to use Martian resources either. And Mars it turns out, doesn't have an opinion on this at all.
  - bayindirh 11mo ago
    > colonization opportunity. Some things are better left as-is. Not everything is up for grabs. Seeing the grappling effects of "seizing opportunities" on the Blue Marble and thinking that we can continue doing the same everywhere we can touch is... telling.
    - pfannkuchen 11mo ago
      Spreading into new territory is a fundamental human instinct. It’s how we ended up being spread out across the entire planet. Tut tutting ain’t gonna change that, people are still going to follow the instinct. See: religion’s attempts to control sexual instincts in humans. We would at least need to respect the instinct and give it a robust outlet, not just expect people to suppress it for the good of… some rocks?
      - bayindirh 11mo ago
        > for the good of… some rocks? This is a perfect portrayal of what I'm talking about: - Forests: "some" trees. - Water bodies: "some" water. - Agricurtural land: "some" soil. - Causalities: "some" people. - Whole ecosystems: "a couple of" animals. Minimizing our bad influence on our planet and wanting everything for oneself caused the problem we're currently in. Most humans know no moderation, and putting it out as "this is our instinct, innit? We can't do anything about it but to follow it, eh?" is the biggest continuous mistake we're doing as a species. If we assume that we're the most advanced organism on this planet (which I doubt) which is meant to rule it once it for all (which I doubt), we shall do a hell of a better job of not burning it end to end and make it inhabitable for ourselves and everything else living on it. This is shortsightedness, veiled as a god syndrome. A god which cooks itself to death. For more money. A bitter irony.
        throwpoaster 11mo ago
        Space is big. Colonize colonize colonize!
        11mo ago
  - N19PEDL2 11mo ago
    We should consider using Mars as a lifeline to preserve life in case we end up destroying Earth. However, we should also consider the need to avoid contaminating other worlds unless absolutely necessary. One solution for both of these problems could be to launch some probes carrying a selection of extremophile bacteria and place them into Martian orbit. These probes would be capable of landing autonomously and releasing the bacteria onto the surface, but they don't do it as long as they receive a specific command from Earth at least once a year or so.
- WalterBright 11mo ago
  > Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. Their self-loathing of terran life, possibly the most fantastic thing that ever happened in the universe, is sad to see. What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it?
  - bayindirh 11mo ago
    > What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it? How can you know? The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
    - WalterBright 11mo ago
      > How can you know? The same way we know that ghosts don't exist and you have not been abducted by aliens and Superman is a fictitious figure.

ChuckMcM 11mo ago

Well in the talk the presenter was talking things like tardigrades which are multicellular. The challenge with tardigrades (and any multicellular life) is that you want it to be reproducing (and hence evolving) so it has to be able to do so under conditions on the body you drop it on too. Again, since the talk was speculative there were various speculative ideas such as ice penetrators to put them into the liquid under the ice of moons like Enceladus. Evolvable being the key of course. Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason.

palmotea 11mo ago
> Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Didn't Carl Sagan (in Cosmos?) or someone propose leaving all of Mars as a nature preserve for the benefit of any microbes that happen to live there? That's just wasting the closest, best off-planet colonization opportunity.
- arunabha 11mo ago
  > That's the scientific community being parochial and self-interested, though. Their priority is writing more papers, and if that means holding the rest of us back, they're fine with it. Is it? To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to 'The devs are always worried about tech debt and architecture, but they just want to polish their resumes to hold back the product' speech we are prone to hear from PM/MBA types. Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims?
  - palmotea 11mo ago
    > Why would you prefer to believe a random outsider's view (scientists are holding us back) What "random outsider's view"? It's my view. I've heard what they had to say, and I think their priorities are wrong, at least when it comes to keeping places like Mars "pristine." > over people who have built professional careers working in the field(a.k.a scientists)? Scientists are not some caste of priests, in tune with the one true POV (though some treat them that way). They're dudes doing a job, and the priorities of that job aren't the only priorities. Stating their POV while watching pictures of galaxies with Vangelis playing in the background doesn't change that. > Especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims? Huh? That's a misplaced demand if I ever saw one.
  - Nevermark 11mo ago
    > To me, this sounds awfully similar in construction to [...] I am not sure why you are replying to an opinion, with even heavier opinion, but treating yours as if it means more. There are trillions of planets in the galaxy. Uninhabited and highly uninhabitable planets everywhere we look in the sky. Life on the other hand, is apparently incredibly rare. Certainly vastly more rare than uninhabited planets. Not using our closest, most potentially habitable, planet for the continuity of life and civilization, it is by far most suited to over any other location, would be a ridiculous waste. Where would we go instead? Just wall ourselves in? Mars is going to become habitable, by some combination of us adapting simple life to it, adapting ourselves, our life support technologies, and/or Mars. Probably all the above. With the only caveat if humans manage to help themselves into extinction first. But if we go instinct due to AI, or AI survives despite another catastrophe, AI won't hesitate to use Martian resources either. And Mars it turns out, doesn't have an opinion on this at all.
- bayindirh 11mo ago
  > colonization opportunity. Some things are better left as-is. Not everything is up for grabs. Seeing the grappling effects of "seizing opportunities" on the Blue Marble and thinking that we can continue doing the same everywhere we can touch is... telling.
  - pfannkuchen 11mo ago
    Spreading into new territory is a fundamental human instinct. It’s how we ended up being spread out across the entire planet. Tut tutting ain’t gonna change that, people are still going to follow the instinct. See: religion’s attempts to control sexual instincts in humans. We would at least need to respect the instinct and give it a robust outlet, not just expect people to suppress it for the good of… some rocks?
    - bayindirh 11mo ago
      > for the good of… some rocks? This is a perfect portrayal of what I'm talking about: - Forests: "some" trees. - Water bodies: "some" water. - Agricurtural land: "some" soil. - Causalities: "some" people. - Whole ecosystems: "a couple of" animals. Minimizing our bad influence on our planet and wanting everything for oneself caused the problem we're currently in. Most humans know no moderation, and putting it out as "this is our instinct, innit? We can't do anything about it but to follow it, eh?" is the biggest continuous mistake we're doing as a species. If we assume that we're the most advanced organism on this planet (which I doubt) which is meant to rule it once it for all (which I doubt), we shall do a hell of a better job of not burning it end to end and make it inhabitable for ourselves and everything else living on it. This is shortsightedness, veiled as a god syndrome. A god which cooks itself to death. For more money. A bitter irony.
      - throwpoaster 11mo ago
        Space is big. Colonize colonize colonize!
        11mo ago
- N19PEDL2 11mo ago
  We should consider using Mars as a lifeline to preserve life in case we end up destroying Earth. However, we should also consider the need to avoid contaminating other worlds unless absolutely necessary. One solution for both of these problems could be to launch some probes carrying a selection of extremophile bacteria and place them into Martian orbit. These probes would be capable of landing autonomously and releasing the bacteria onto the surface, but they don't do it as long as they receive a specific command from Earth at least once a year or so.
WalterBright 11mo ago
> Many, if not most, folks I've met in the scientific community are intensely opposed to this sort of open ended experimentation. NASA has a whole team that insures things we send to other bodies are not carrying any organisms (single cell or otherwise) for this very reason. Their self-loathing of terran life, possibly the most fantastic thing that ever happened in the universe, is sad to see. What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it?
- bayindirh 11mo ago
  > What is the point of a universe if there is no life to appreciate it? How can you know? The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
  - WalterBright 11mo ago
    > How can you know? The same way we know that ghosts don't exist and you have not been abducted by aliens and Superman is a fictitious figure.