https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8399
This article is about the existence of methane on Mars. Although the title of the article indicates that the meteorites that hit the surface of Mars have methane in them, the content of the article actually explains that the impact of the meteorites releases methane that is believed to be in the Martian soil. According to the article, methane can be a source of energy for certain microbes. This begs the question of whether Mars does have life that we have not discovered yet or whether the current conditions are too hostile to seed with Earth-based life. However, methane is a greenhouse gas. Mars as of right now is too cold to support life (among other issues). If enough methane could get released, it is possible that it would develop an atmosphere to guard against cosmic radiation and to help the planet warm up. This would allow microbes to survive better, and possibly lead to unique forms of Martian life. However, some might see it as a repeat of the discovery of the New World to go to Mars after it has been made habitable and take the planet for our own. In this hypothetical, however, it would be for the sole purpose of making the planet habitable, so there is an argument to be made.
Questions:
Are there ethical implications to seeding Mars with life and then coming in once the planet is habitable, in a similar vein to the New World?
Should we seed Mars with life at all?
This article is about the existence of methane on Mars. Although the title of the article indicates that the meteorites that hit the surface of Mars have methane in them, the content of the article actually explains that the impact of the meteorites releases methane that is believed to be in the Martian soil. According to the article, methane can be a source of energy for certain microbes. This begs the question of whether Mars does have life that we have not discovered yet or whether the current conditions are too hostile to seed with Earth-based life. However, methane is a greenhouse gas. Mars as of right now is too cold to support life (among other issues). If enough methane could get released, it is possible that it would develop an atmosphere to guard against cosmic radiation and to help the planet warm up. This would allow microbes to survive better, and possibly lead to unique forms of Martian life. However, some might see it as a repeat of the discovery of the New World to go to Mars after it has been made habitable and take the planet for our own. In this hypothetical, however, it would be for the sole purpose of making the planet habitable, so there is an argument to be made.
Questions:
Are there ethical implications to seeding Mars with life and then coming in once the planet is habitable, in a similar vein to the New World?
Should we seed Mars with life at all?
Among the greatest threats to humanity’s survival is its confinement to a single celestial body: Earth. If nuclear war, a meteor impact, climate change, or some other catastrophe were to occur on the planet Earth, it would result in either the extinction or near-extinction of the human species. This would have massive moral implications assuming human life has inherent value, as the end of humanity would not only mean the end for all humans alive, but also all future humans. Thus, I would consider for the sake of preserving the human species, that expanding the reach of humanity be a moral imperative.
ReplyDeleteThis brings up the matter of seeding Mars with life: a process that would no doubt take countless years of continuous dedication. While the means of seeding life on Mars in the way shown in the article are dubious at best, it does raise an interesting ethical dilemma as to how we as a species ought to go about interacting with a planet filled with life of our own creation. Would this be unfair exploitation reminiscent of the Age of Exploration, or would it be justified in the name of furthering the interests of our species? As I mentioned before, I believe in the latter. If humanity ever does acquire the means to successfully terraform Mars in a reasonable manner, it should be done to preserve the species. Ideally, special care would be taken to ensure that the animal life is treated humanely. Hopefully by the time complex life does form as a result of the seeding on Mars, humanity will have become ethically mature enough to treat its fellow creatures with the respect that it would to its own kind.
The question of whether the terraforming and inhabiting of Mars is ethical is indeed fascinating. However, I do not believe that it would be against human morals to pursue this course of action, as, as far as we know, Mars is not home to sentient life. Because few to no lifeforms inhabit Mars, as far as we know, there would be no potentially harmful effects of these actions. Because of this, I believe that we should, and must, seed Mars with life, as overpopulation and other environmental concerns plague our planet. If Mars were to become habitable, then many people of Earth would be able to have a new home, and thus many of our issues would be solved.
ReplyDeleteI think comparison between Mars possibly being habited like the “New World” is an interesting concept. I don’t think we would be causing significant damage to the possible life there. Like West said, Mars isn’t home to sentient life, unlike the Americas which were inhabited by humans. My main concern with this possibility of habiting Mars is not if we would treat the environment of Mars fairly, but he implications of what this would mean for life on Earth. I feel like knowing that we have a “safety net” planet could cause humans to not be as serious about taking care of the Earth. Looking at how we badly we treat our environment now when we know there is only one, imagine how we would treat it if we knew there was a backup. I definitely think that we should focus on how to help the Earth instead of looking at ways we could potentially move to other planets so as to not deal with the consequences of the problems that we have created on Earth.
ReplyDeleteI do feel the need to acknowledge like Jacob and West, that like the article states, this is habitation of Mars is unlikely as of right now. The authors state, “the hostile Martian surface is probably less habitable than the subsurface.” This points out how difficult the transition to actually having life on Mars would be, especially if the scientists don’t see a way for microbial life to even survive on the surface.
I am actually a strong believer that there was life on Mars, but that life no longer exists. Be it the life was burnt out from the Sun, or that the world underwent extreme mass extinction. My opinion on colonizing Mars is very indeterminate. In one instance, I believe that human beings must leave the earth if we have any chance of the species surviving the mass extinction that the earth is undergoing. However, I feel as though the issue with colonizing Mars is that we are interrupting a different planet's ecosystem, and (knowing our current state) will likely recreate the issues we are dealing with here on Earth. We are not at a point where we know enough about Mars to even consider seeding it, let alone colonizing it. Not to mention, on a biological premise we have to consider the issues that our organisms might cause. First of all, animals are not the only creatures that carry disease/destructive organisms. Plants are capable of destroying the soil of Mars, because it has no adaptive traits to protect it. Not to mention if there are living organisms (which is ENTIRELY possible because, as much as we believe we are aware about the universe, we cannot begin to comprehend how wild life may develop on an entirely different planet with a different chemical environment), we could encroach on creating an invasive species that wipes away the native life. Every idea of colonizing Mars, lacks enough insight on that biome in order to make a decision that could be catastrophic to yet another planet.
ReplyDelete