Virginia Professor: We Have a 'Moral Obligation' to Spread Life Throughout the Universe

Ah, manifest destiny for the 21st century and beyond. No way this could possibly be twisted to justify interplanetary genocide and conquest in the far flung future...

I generaly agree we should do that in future. However I would wait until we know more about worlds we are targeting. If there is life there we could destroy it by ours.

What about the possible contamination of this new world. Very egotistical of man to think that life on another world has followed the same evolutionary path as Earth.

Isn't that saying we are no much better than any parasite, bacteria or virus? Invading a new enviroment and destroying it's old population. Very Darwinism evolution indeed.

@alderman.....I believe it displays, in stark reallity, the arogance of the human species. Isn't this pretty much the same attitude the caused the near genocide of the Native American peoples throughout the Americas?

@cowboy82: Speak of the devil, it's called "manifest destiny": wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

@eidrag

Thats entirely true. We are a virus, that is our nature and no matter how technologically advanced we become we will always be destructive.

What do you all define as growth?

Whether or not we agree with the saying "sacrifice a few to save many," you wouldn't be here without it.

And although I am not saying any of the above comments are wrong, that is one of the two sides. We are capable of doing as much good as we can do evil. Key word is capable.

How can you be certain that life on Earth will one day end?
You cannot be because we are still here.

Most here are babbling about weather it is bad or if it is good. In all kindness, you are all wrong. Nothing is bad or good, everything just is. Meshca pointed this out, but still says "bad" and still says "good." We can't do bad or good for there is no such thing. Even if we do put life on a habitable planet, which is unlikely, and find the planet is home to others, which is next to impossible, it would not matter. For all we know, the same thing brought us to be, why would it be wrong for us to do the same, why would it be wrong to live as human beings?

AI guided Von-Neumann machines with a biological package.

buckrodgers
Once we have the technology to acheive this we may also one day have the ability to travel to the stars. Then we can take our humanity and seed the stars. I think it is more imperitive for us to know if there is other life already out there. If not, then maybe we one day seed the universe. If so, then our existence is not that special and why bother because we are not all that unique. We as a species should try to keep improving ourselves to the point where our species survival is meaningful enough that the universe will be worse off without us. Right now I think we would not be missed very much. We may even distroy ourselves before the universe ever gets a chance. Vanity, vanity all is vanity!! "Who are we that God is even mindful of us?"

I think we will advance our technology to the point where there can be mechanical life that will spread out along side the biological life.

Despite the varying and impreise meanings of "life" there is one thing to be sure. Life may have a meaning of its own, but life GIVES MEANING to the universe. If life did not exist, if lifeforms such as us, capable of thought beyond instict, did not view, inhabit, and marvel at the universe, then it would just be this giant empty space of gas, rock, and fire.

Are we the only lifeforms in the universe? Debatable. However, any moral issues with damaging a planet via our terrestrial bacteria is mute. Its only a big, giant rock with gas around it. The only issue that arises is if the planet already supports life. A planet without life has no meaning, so there can be no harm is granting meaning to an otherwise unnoticed, and inconsequential universe.

Note that the professor did not say "moral obligation to spread humanity". He only said to spread "life". Anyone that has taken biology in highschool sees how complex it is. Once you take college biology classes, dealing with protein arrangment, and the most understood nuts and bolts of life propegation, you can understand how marvelously rare and infinetly unlikely it is for life to develope. So, at the small little blue planet close to a star amongst billions, at the edge of an unnamed galaxy, the impossible of impossibilities occured. *(on that note, the question: Why here? is waited, because it had to happen somewhere, and wherever we happend, we would ask why there*) That potentially only, or one of few occurances where life propegated and evolved to sentience has the ombligation to make sure that life endures, because it may not without conscious action.

Perhaps this is what God realized, and so he created Earth, created in the sense that the rock might as well not of existed, if there was no one around to care. Perhaps God did not create us, and we developed over eons of mutational evolution. I have no idea. I just know that life is necessary, and if it occurs, it should spread.

I fully agree with the mandate to spread life. That's a long term imperative.

It's always funny seeing people who understand the truth of evolution, but water it down and mix it with modern politically correct/anti-human BS like alderman and cowboy82. Manifest Destiny was natural. A more advanced culture at the time overtook another one, and created a nation where Florida could be used for liftoff of rocket ships to be tracked across the continent by people in another location, such as Houston. It's only in the comfort of the society that manifested (no pun intended) from Manifest Destiny that they could ridicule it, and they don't even see the contradiction. Humans are more valuable than ants only so far as we increase intelligent life in the universe.

If some groups or beliefs produce a higher state of existence, they should dominate. The morality of survival is the highest, above any religious superstition or political correct niceties. If we can make this clear divide between tiny organisms and humans, it can also be applied to primates in general, as well as modern humans.

A long term goal that is very admirable ... and good for planning purposes.

Ok ... fine evaluate practically how it can be achieved, discuss it fully and openly. Get binding agreement on the exact scope ...... before even contemplating leaving orbit.

.... How many thousands of years of "humanity" has it taken us to reach where we currently are ? .... and we're still nowhere near perfect enough to inhabit another planet. Here on this planet we have many different nations/cultures, ceaseless wars, crimes and disease. We can't even guarantee introducing a species on this planet won't upset others .... and we certainly aren't doing a good job at looking after this planet either.

Humanity is (and has been) far too ignorant to allow itself to indulge in the privilege of replication elsewhere before it matures substantially. That includes (but is not limited to) taking full responsibility for it's actions wherever they may be in this universe.

lol. Nothing has any meaning until a conscious entity gives it meaning, what ever that meaning may be. Humans only are meaningful because they choose to believe that they are. lol.

I believe we should do this, but only to deserted planets that could harbor life. If there is no life on a habitable planet, egg it.

If it's inhabited, let the lifeforms there grow.

We also have a moral obligation, and I do believe one that holds greater precedence, to improve the lives and welfare of those already in existence.

You don't spend time and money giving birth to more kids when you already have a dozen toddlers that you can't feed.

I just giggle whenever a naturalists talks about having a moral obligation to do anything.....naturalism is such a bizarre religion. It claims to have no law giver, and yet magically can pull morality out of thin air when it's convenient. Not that they can ever give a good foundation for it though. Yeah, if we ever do spread to the stars...I think it would be best to leave naturalism behind on earth. It's already killed so many.

Why shouldn't we send out life to other worlds? It's nature: survival of the fittest. If there is native life wherever we send them, it either dies off or destroys our package. Like someone said above, there's no right or wrong, there only is. (And besides, we'll all be long dead by the time a biopackage gets anywhere. Who cares?)

I am going to be taking a few shots at every negative small minded prick to post on this, so bear with me.

Um, what is with all the cynicism? From what i have read so far, it seems like a vast amount of you are entirely uneducated, or at least didn't pay attention in school enough to grow up to have anymore than a third-rate opinion n the subject matter.

Calling humanity a virus, saying humans are arrogant... hello you egotistical prick, you are part of that system no matter what path you take, you might as well make most of it. The idea of possibly contaminating a new world is silly and utterly small. For one, a new world likely can barely support life, based on the planets being discussed here, they would be inhabitable by intelligent life, we'd be doing the planet a favor by placing the life forms necessary to establish higher tier evolution.

And as far as genocide goes cowboy82, I am 1/4 cherokee and my ancestors died because of natural selection, survival of the fittest... In case you haven't noticed, life feeds on life and a natural part of survival and evolution has always been killing what is weaker or has something you want, it is inevitable, life isn't gum drops and rainbows, luckily today, socially, we have surpassed the flaws we once encountered in ourselves during those times, get over it. Sure the europeans and americans and the french who all took part in the mass slaughtering of 97% of an entire race, but it was inevitable at the time with the radical views of people with religion and the lack of understanding of life and how it forms then, manifest destiny, genocide, to people back then, seemed like the right thing to do, even to the native americans. Hell, some places today there are worse problems than that happening, like Africa, lets worry about current events rather than argue semantics on the past.

And as far as us always being destructive, if you are an avid reader of this site, popular science in general... I am very surprised you would make such a comment, if you haven't noticed, nearly every single nation across the globe are making huge efforts to reducing the amount of destruction we leave behind entirely... Eventually, we will be running of sustained power that doesn't require burning anything.... we will travel in space, we will eventually inhabit more than one planet, we have the ability to adapt, survive, build and react at incredible paces... it is inevitable, whether you like it or not.

Peace out bitches.

wow what a bunch of flakes! lol quick to jump on the guy for trying to save millions of years of development. and you cry about what ifs. go hug a tree.

You have got to be kidding me. Thats the most ridiculous load of crap i've heard in a long time. If you count how long the our current event horizon has been around which is I believe 11 billion years old just imagine what life could have evolved on the edges of our known universe and you think you can do the job better huh. GOOD LUCK. I think mother nature is in perfect control of the rest of the universe you should worry about your own butt.

"Moral obligation" good way to catch attention with a headline. Ours is not a moral obligation but our species has a built in desire to propogate and spreading to the stars is an inevitable future.

@ dhmittelberg:

A'friggen'men

@ twiggster345:

What the hell are you talking about? If there's "better" life out there, it'll eat/ignore our little package and go on with its life. If its inferior, then our package eats it/out produces it and lives on. We're talking about microscopic life here. If there's intelligent life out there it will find our biopackages and be all the better because it will know that there was other intelligent life in the universe. And if it dies from the package, well, in a billion or two years hence perhaps a new intelligent species will arise to repeat the process. Either way, life goes on.

A moral obligation is irrelevant. We should do this, because we can.

I prefer to live out my moral obligation by playing SPORE. It's so much fun to terraform alien worlds, abduct citizens of other planets, and then struggle for domination of your own little sector of the galaxy.

If life is so common as some believe (thank you Drake's equation and Carl Sagan), then there is no imperative to spread our own version of life. However, I guess that this is very consistent with the basic tenets of Darwinism. The ultimate good is perpetuation of the genes, and since we share so many genes with all living things on earth, any genes that we manage to "plant" on another planet fulfills this goal.
Yay for panspermia!

"mother nature" doesn't exist on foreign planets twiggster345. Thats the point. This is not about seeding humanity throughought the galaxy (though i'm a big proponent) but delivering the spark of life, dispering it, so a natural disaster here won't get rid of one of the most rare commodities in the universe. Life propegates itself quite well, but getting it started is something I doubt humans could acomplish for centeries, if ever.

And yeah, life only matters because we as humans are arrogant enough to think that WE matter. But, the fact that we can think we matter shows we have acomplished a greater feat than anything else in the universe (unknown sentients aside). The universe is inconsequential so long as there is nothing to contemplate it. Its just tons and tons of atoms flying about and occasionaly chemically reacting. For those of you that are religious and scientific, Think of creationism as giving meaning to the universe, making it exist by giving it something self-aware.

One note to point out.

How many extra terrestrial life forms have been identified definitively?

BTW....SPORE.....fun game.

Sorry; when I look at what a flawed species homo sapiens has become, I think we should do the universe a favor and confine ourselves to the solar syatem. Arrogant? By all means; we think all this was created for our enjoyment and conquest. We're microbes on a speck of dirt at the edge an inconsequential galaxy indistinguishable from a hundred thousand others. Why should we contaminate the neighborhood?

Pop another brew and belch, o master of the universe.

If you stay true to a naturalists view.....contaminate, don't contaminate, it's irrelevant. There's no moral incentive because there isn't an (objective) way to come up w/ morality.

Homo Sapien is an arrogant species to be sure.....but the concept of arrogance being a bad thing again isn't coming from an objective standard posed by naturalism.

If we spoil another planet...it is nothing....then again why use the word spoil? We shouldn't assign a word w/ a negative connotation to something that doesn't have any moral meaning. Wait, what was meant by morality again?

I think all the knee jerk reactions to this article go to show more that most people really don't function like naturalism is really true.

@analogartist

The main idea here is spreading microscopic organisms from Earth out into the galaxy, not spreading human colonies.

But even so, why not? Give me a good reason why we shouldn't colonize the moon, Mars, or Alpha Centari. So we're 'flawed'. So what. To err is human. Yes we're a speck on a speck, but why shouldn't we hold a handful of specks? You're from Arizona, and you're ancestors sure as hell didn't come from there. Even the Native Americans immigrated over the land bridge in from Siberia. Should they have gone home because they didn't evolve in North America? Should humanity have never left Africa?

Whatever. When we finally do get the technology to spread our seed to the stars, only the most fit will leave. Those without the will to survive will stay behind. I think we know who's who.

Well we may have found life on mars on the dusty ground, we sent a probe to collect it and bring it back it may be to small to see with the naked eye but still alive, that probe is landing in utah if it has not already, and we are keeping the dirt in question in a air tight CDC building to be studied because it took humans millions of years to evolve to the point where the common cold will not kill us, are dna is passed to our kids with that immunity to common germs, new germs can very deadly so if there is life out there that is as smart as us, us sending that could start a war, I know we would take it as bio-warfare if a probe came here spraying alien dna and germs out.
When you go out camping there is more stars than you can count, and you can not see 1% of them from earth, most stars are suns with planets orbiting them, so do the math how many planets are out there at 6 or more per star?
To think there is not plenty of life out there is as dumb as when we thought that everything in space orbited the earth, it is a lot better to spread by sending real people instead of boxes of dna, bacteria, and germs. looking to nature it is survival of the fittest, and if we are dumb enough to kill our selfs before unlocking how to travel in space, then nature weeded us out for a reason: we were not up to it, but we are just 1 species on 1 planet out of a infinity, to think we are the only life out there is ignorant!
We can't even send people to all the planets in our solar system so how do we think there no life when we never left our own back yard?

@ analogarist. Flawed species implies all 6 billion + human beings have that trait? I doubt it.

A flawed species that needs to be confined implies that it could never progress(in regards to the flaw) and even if it could, it would be hindered by the confinement.

Why should 100% of everyone confine themselves to a box even if 99% of 'us' are flawed.
What is this notion of 'contamination.' What is there to contaminate?

You can look at it as either of two ways: With emotion, or without.

Without emotion, all that is happening with live expanding to new worlds is the introduction of various elements in various arrangements on a different planet, solar system, etc. That is all it is. No 'contamination,' nothing against 'nature,' nothing against equilibrium. These notions are created by conscious beings (humans). Just as stephenD.alvarez mentioned, there is no good or bad, there is no time. we created measurements, we created names, we created morals and ethics to help us put this existence into an understanding.

To look at this with emotion? You can make up any reason possible by the human mind to argue for or against it. There is an infinite # of solutions, and the one that matters the most is the one closest to my explanation above.

p.s. I think when the author said that life would end, he meant eventually, whether 10 years or 10 billion years. Whether we like it or not, we will outgrow this planet, or be forced to leave it.

Also a lot of people are thinking that we need to do it now, or in the foreseeable future. He didn't say now, he said eventually. Who here is that high and mighty to reject his proposal because they can see 1billion(or even 1000) years into the future? Assuming is bad ;)

...with life* expanding...

I rarely proofread. It's a flaw I have.

Interesting comments since my last addition yesterday ... especially dhmttelberg's initial one.

History is known to repeat (and thankfully we learn from it). A BioPac would only be the beginning. You'd be niave to think otherwise. Why go to the expense of dumping a BioPac on a "barren" planet if we weren't at some stage planning to go that one step further ?

However .... as stated previously I agree it should be done eventually.

BUT please reflect on a little known Science Fiction program called Star Trek and ponder over the morality of the PRIME DIRECTIVE ... an elegant INITIAL statement that lends some binding force as to what should and should not be considered.

@RAT
Your comment reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite TV shows:

Sheldon: I'm afraid I can't allow that. Pursuant to Starfleet General Order 104, Section A, you are deemed unfit, and I hereby relieve you of your command.
Leonard: General Order 104, Section A does not apply in this situation.
Sheldon: Give me one good reason why not.
Leonard: Because this is not Star Trek!
-The Big Bang Theory

BTW... to everyone else... I still don't understand where this moral obligation come from. What are these morals based on? The greatest good for the greatest number? If so, the greatest number of what? Lifeforms? Humans? Sentient beings? Civilizations?
If these Morals are NOT based on the greatest good for the greatest number, what are they based on? If they are simply based on what each individual believes (knows) is right, then what basis can be used to distinguish good morals from bad morals(to seed the universe or not to seed)? Perhaps we can thank postmodern philosophy for this dilemma, but it needs to be answered all the same.

What is our basis for morals?

wcbpolish. I think eventually it's a matter of expanding to survive rather than a moral obligation. The only small detail is justifying our need to survive with morals. Which is, to all his own. It also depends on what culture you're looking at: modern western civilization (that focuses on the self-centered aspect) or the 'other' which is a more "I choose for you all" or "we all share the same idea whether or not we actually do" type of deal.

@meshca
I appreciate your thoughts.
Can I rephrase what I think that you are saying, to see if I understand you?
My paraphrase:
We (I assume that you mean humans, but the article is simply about earth life) have a need to survive, and we justify this need by, as a culture, creating a system of morality which will lead to our survival. The ends (survival) drive the means (morality).

Is that a valid paraphrase?
It seems like a logical position, not one that I would choose to embrace, but logical all the same. Let me know if the paraphrase is valid.

I appreciate it when there's some dialog on this site. All too often people leave comments, but never return to read the responses and respond back.

I'm a VCU student :D

I come from a different culture (Russia) so sometimes it's hard to use the right words, but yes I that's what I meant to say. And I did mean humans, since all other life here has very limited ways of spreading itself further then this planet.

I don't embrace that idea but wanted to point it out for others to be aware of it.

I'm gobstoppered.

Calling it 'arrogance' to spread life out into the universe??

Comparing a bacteria-seeding space mission to the social/military conquest of a primitive people??

People, listen: this is science, not social engineering! Do you think an asteroid shares your political views? A virus? A solar nova? Please, put aside your political agendas and concentrate on the logic of the situation.

Wow.

@wcbpolish - friend, those people who feel that they have to justify their will to survive typically join religious cults. Or the nazi party. I don't think you are either, but your conversation is rather distrubing.

@Rmoore080:

I'm surprised that you're gobstopped! Of course it is arrogance to spread our kind of life around the universe. Frankly, from the evidence, our kind of life is horribly destructive and from an unbiased or external perspective I should think it more likely we have a moral obligation NOT to spread it! Plus, equating a biological drive to reproduce with a moral obligation to do so is obviously fallacious.

"Comparing a bacteria-seeding space mission to the social/military conquest of a primitive people??"

Yes, exactly. Many of us believe that the Earth is not the only cradle of life. Sending hardy earth organisms in spaceships randomly at other possible life cradles is perfectly analogous to sending Europeans in frigates randomly around the oceans at other possible land masses. We know how that worked out, and we should expect similar results when we repeat the experiment.

"This is science, not social engineering..."

Are you suggesting that there is no place for morality in science? Are you suggesting that biological engineering is so fundamentally different from social engineering that we shouldn't even inquire as to its propriety?

@Rat - you are asking exactly the right question about where these morals come from. All I have seen is that since we have a biological drive to reproduce, this also means we have a moral obligation to do so. This is obviously fallacious reasoning since it simply equates biological drives with moral obligations and therefore would also require us to shit and piss over everything, since we are biologically driven to do those things at least as much as we are to reproduce.

Post-modernism did not do away with ethics or morality, it only shone a light on some of the more tenuous assumptions that had underwritten previous conclusions on the subject. If there is no morality, we are nothing but animals.

Do you suffer from self hatred. Do you view yourself and the rest of the human species as a virus, destructive bacteria or otherwise noxious thing that needs to be controlled and/or destroyed? Do you feel the need to inject a blame for religion into an otherwise purely secular debate including purely secular historical decisions? Do you feel the need to rewrite and reinterpret history to support your views? Do you feel trapped? Suffocating on our little blue marble. With terrifying thoughts about global warming, rising oceans, utter chaos and how horrible you are for existing being pounded into you from all sides?

If so you may suffering from progressivitis, a degenerate disease of the soul. It's not your fault. You've been conditioned by generations of carefully crafted politically motivated speech and social engineering.

Hope is finally here, with our new scientifically designed program of de-programming, training about the positives in the world, self love (not the bad kind), and constant reassurance that if it's wrong to blame one racial group for actions of some of its members throughout history, then its still wrong even if those people happen to be of European descent. Combining tech, science, history, motivational speakers, aromatherapy and anything else we can think to throw in we will help you get back to sanity and become a fully functioning person again.

Visit www.ItsOurManifestDestinyToCureProgressivitis.com to find out more.

@rmoore080
I'm not sure that I am trying to justify my will to survive. Instead, I find myself in a situation where I cannot comprehend the source of a morality that obligates us to spread terran life through the solar system/galaxy/universe.

Accuse me of being in a "religious cult" if you please- I am a Christian. I understand the basis for my morality, and to me it is neither moral or immoral to seed the universe with life. To me, it is simply: What purpose does this planet seeding achieve? What is the motivation for this action? I question because I want to understand the perspective of others.
I would love to see humans colonize other planets, and if sending bacteria is the first step in terraforming, I am in support. However, it is certainly no moral obligation in my mind. I do am obligated to the spreading of my memes, not my genes- Mark 16:15- but everyone knows that this is the "chief end" of Bible Thumpers like me.

Ethical concerns are of philosophical nature where pragmatism is the dominant trade. Hierarchy of knowledge consists in knowing science must be ethical to be in practice. Universal Law is derived from mathematic process of numbers and symbols translated to words. The mythic Grand Unifying Theory denies its own existence. Change of subject... Let me ask you a question: Do you like to garden? Is it not a fundamental process? Have you heard of the Fertile Crescent? The first recorded written language was used to keep records on agriculture. So the concept in question is whether extraterrestrial seeding is an ethical commitment we Earthlings share. Let me add places most likely to see this occurrence (like Mars) are primed to support life but still have no atmosphere. From what I read the seeding at the early levels is merely done to make hospitable for life. I suspect my definition of life does not include molecules and mineral deposits. Reports from NASA every planet is dead. Some possess potential to support life. Another question: Is it not ethical to assist in fertility to a loving couple trying to have a baby? I think so. I remember hearing about Mother Earth in these posts. Biodiversity makes the world a beautiful place. Why would that not apply to the entire Universe? Maybe it's time to wake up and smell the flowers. Foretold prophecy entails reaping what we sow. You always here the question of footprint and what legacy we leave our children's children (like debts). What is selfish and egotistical is not to consider what they would want. You see, it really isn't about us after all. I am not like minded to past mistakes rather consider a future of harmony and bliss called Utopia. Heaven on Earth is still God's plan. The Mothership is OUR enterprise. Expansion is something we all should want. The fear of not being able to manage outerspace thus spinning out of control is paranoid. You see we highly adaptive humans are not so destructive after all. Panspermia does not consist of raping unsuspecting planets. Certain conditions must apply. Arid desolate lifeless with a good view sounds about right. Things like soil and water come to mind. One thing is certain... each biosphere is gonna be unique. Whether protected or harvested these life supporting gems shall bear a crown of life for us all to wear deepening the mood of human conquest. Scientists know from the abyss of the ocean floor ridges, volcanoes, and caves how rare forms of life can survive in areas previously thought to be lifeless. So long as that knowledge is available I'm giving this whole concept two thumbs up. Exploration is the heart and soul of human culture. Scientists know the difference between sustainable and renewable matter enough to realize fossil fuels provide a timeline. Nanotechnology will soon introduce mechanical microbes capable of digesting buckytubes. This means seeding of natural lifeforms may soon be pinned against genetically engineered microbes. That is why Panspermia is imminent for a naturalist before God's purest seeds are left in the dust by advanced life forms required to flourish in decimated conditions. Like it or not we are all the last of a dying breed as our conditions for life cannot be recreated to exactitude. The parity is the polarity between yay and nay; this solution of seeding. Put it on the back burner. Once chaos is achieved a synapsis will assure a final decision consisting of certainty. This will be our inevitable fate.

I'm sorry, but this proposal sounds entirely narcissistic.
"Manifest Destiny" was the arrogant policy that lead to the trampling of the American Indians and other "abos" that got in the way of "our God given right" to expand to the Pacific and beyond.
Human kind has been described as a plague upon the land. Now this guy thinks morality compels us to spread it to other worlds. Great.

My mind just shat bricks at reading these recent comments.

@auteur47. And look where Manifest Destiny got us: Democracy, oh such a tyrant form of government. Watch out, ideal Communism's next and we will all have the same moral oh no! American Indians did not live in a Utopian society, they were ravaged by war(tribal) just as much as Europe was. People only have a problem with this because of the mass number of lives of one culture that was lost..but do you think one person who died in a tribal war would feel differently if he/she died in a different war?(disregarding honor and fear and cause of death and what not)

Don't confuse history with the present. We learn from our past so we know what we are capable of and try to prevent it (or not..depending on who you ask).

WHO has described human kind as a plaque? your neighborhood owl? I'm guessing some humans did. Now wouldn't that be a biased opinion? Shouldn't we ask the squirrels? or the bears right before they hug you with their teeth?

And why is it a plaque to send a life-form (be it us or other) to a desolate planet where it can thrive (given that nothing exists there, only the possibility to exist). We are in a sense, playing god.. which might be wrong, but certainly not a plaque. Stop commenting misguided nonsense.
Although I can see why sending life to other planets with already present life is a bad idea.

Seeding, don't confuse it with total annihilation and contamination.

In a nutshell you plant any tree seeds, it competes with other plants around it for growth, it wins, and the other possible plants in the small area lose and don't develop or even die out. Do you consider it genocide because you took away the 'right' these other plants had?

Do you consider it a plaque when non-intelligent life-forms go through the same process but without our interaction?

Also, why do we consider the earth as one object, and the rest of the universe as another? Can't we consider this whole universe as one entity? So why should materials(and life) on earth be restricted to earth.

I think everyone has the problem with the concept of moral obligation and not so much actually expanding past this globe.

(It might sound confusing, I'm not great with words)
The point is, a characteristic of the human race is to explore, push further, and expand. A characteristic of an asteroid is floating in space, sometimes collide with other asteroids or planets, etc. You can say it is an asteroid's moral obligation to float and collide, and our moral obligation is to explore, expand, and seed life to other worlds just like we expanded geographically here on earth. Whether 'right' or 'wrong', it is a moral obligation.

djsee4. Wow. great comment.

This madman has apparently not heard of the law of unintended consequences. He has no idea what the consequence of this mindless act could be. Could it lead to the annihilation of life on Earth if some alien race viewed this as an act of war or unknown exposure result in interstellar mutation enabling rapid evolution and intelligent development?

...spread life throughout the universe.

Is that sort of like... an infestation?

And what do we send? Grass? Cherry trees? Moss?

Maybe animals... but what do the animals live on, especially during the trip?

Hey, we could send our grandchildren. Gee, thanks Grandpa, for dumping me on this freezing desert with lightning striking all around. Big favor.

we send troybny and a pack of monkeys.

We don't have to seed the universe with life. Life is everywhere throughout the universe!!! The only problem is people don't want to see and know it. If you haven't guessed it, I am referring to God! God is life! God is light (i.e. energy!) Life is just a very specific form of energy! It is everywhere, because God is everywhere, the Source of all energy, including life.
The arrogance of trying to spread life through the universe and thereby trying to reach eternal life, reminds me of the Bible text which says that in the last days man would sit in the temple of God and pretend to be god. Playing God would be people's game before the end comes! It is an attempt to reach eternal life without God - impossible! That's what Adam en Eve tried on the instigation of the snake and why they were chased from the garden where the tree of life stood.
Richard Dawkins's says in the first chapter of "The God Delusion" that if somebody says "God is energy" it would mean to him that coal is god. That's not God delusion but self delusion. Dawkins should be able to see the difference beteen the statements "A flower is beautiful" and "Beautiful is a flower". His God delusion is another way of playing god!

Cyback of Prexus LOL, you all kill me, what makes you all think that even if we did send something out there to plant our seed that it would even survive the trip? There are so many hostile forces in space that even the most protected sample send from earth would die, if not from cosmic rays then from the super extended time it would take to make the trip. Even going to the nearest star would take centuries.

^Cyback. Not send stuff now, send stuff eventually when we have the knowledge and the technology to do it. (and that's when, not if)

There's also one easy way, a self-sustaining ship and environment. For a rough example, ion drives. It would be hard to sustain larger life forms like us, other animals, etc. Because it often takes more then a small self-sustained envi. However, it is completely opposite for bacteria/etc. The problem is not trying to make bacterial(and the like) life survive on these trips, but curbing the massive population growths that occur over time in a very, very confined space without altering it's original characteristics. So when it arrives at the destination it's still relatively the same thing we started with.

@meshca- good comment:

"In a nutshell you plant any tree seeds, it competes with other plants around it for growth, it wins, and the other possible plants in the small area lose and don't develop or even die out. Do you consider it genocide because you took away the 'right' these other plants had?"

... some may accuse this train of thought of not taking into account loss of species diversity (extinctions due to introduced organisms)- however, extinction of species is the only way to open up niches for new species. It's a "natural" process, and although we should not accelerate it in an unnecessary fashion, it will happen. But again, it has yet to be shown that life DOES even exist on these desolate moons, planets, and chunks of rock. Drake's equation and other "thought" experiments aside, this whole conversation would be a moot point if we could know that there is no other life out there. Too bad that would be a universal negative statement. However, based on the data (or non-data) that we have, perhaps the assumption that we are the only living things (in our region of space, in the galaxy, in the universe, whatever) is not to broad of an assumption to make.

Also, some of the comments made above (about other races potential reactions to our capsules of bio-matter) indicate a good path for the SETI program to pursue. We could look for other life forms by simply trying to infect them! I am reminded of the Ender Wiggin series (sci-fi by Orson Scott Card), when it was discovered that the Descolada virus was intentionally sent out from its home planet. That sure helped humans find the planet that produced the virus! If we want to be found, sending out self-replicating packets of DNA seems like a viable option. (Personally, I don't believe that there are other sentient beings, but that is not based at all on science, but on my personal biases. I am willing to work from the worldviews of others- so long as they seem logically consistent)

Cyback of Prexus Ok, lets say for instance it were possible for something to survive the trip and in the next hundred years we are able to send these packets out, I am not at all covinced it would be the right thing. Look at my own home state of Florida, right now we have what were once domesticated pets and plants taking over the eco system, lion fish are creating havoc on our reefs, pythons are taking over the everglades, ivy plants from indonesia taking over the forests all because people didn't want to kill these pets and set them lose in the wild. Long story short it made these people feel good that they saved a life, only problem is they are destroying whole ecosystems because of their folly. I am not saying that we shouldn't send these packets out, what I am saying is we need to learn a whole lot more about what IS out there before we do.
I for one think that to destroy ANY other life in favor of our own is to stupid and short sighted to even think about and a lot of what if's come to mind ie: what if by some fluke of nature (theirs not ours) a sentient life form was in the process of developing and we destroyed it with our infection? Say a sentient species that would have one day solved the riddle of star travel and would have shared it with us (assuming we still existed) and what we sent a packet that wiped them out? Sure we would never know, but wouldn't some of us wonder? I just think that by the time we study our own local systems enough to know this may all be a moot point, and if we act before we know we are being a lot like those people that released those pets. We as a species need to learn a lot more before we assume we know whats best for the Universe imo.

A little random thing: I'm in North Florida.. and the weather here is shitty right now.

I'm not sure that the weather is altogether pleasant anywhere right now. Here in Toledo, we had 2 consecutive snow days for all of the local schools, my friends up in Alaska DON'T have the snow that they should (makes snowmachine travel difficult), and a friend in Philedelphia said that the weather is terrible there as well.

And in Montreal, Canada, the weather is always shitty. Only clouds, snow, cold...

Actually, I would want to make a comment showing my point of view but this comment would be of about 400 pages (and this is over my English level)... Let say that I see it pretty much like Meshca. I don't consider us like viruses or whatever. Were just humans, trying to live in this world. And what, I ask you, make you think we are more ''bad'' than any other species? Do you have a comparison?
Oh, also, meshca, ''we send troybny and a pack of monkeys''
I'm agreeing with this one!

We should do it. There is only one problem; we would evantually lose track of the satellite. You never know what might happen. It may land on a planet with intelligent species smarter than us and know about earth. I have a couple of questions like how is the micro-organisms going to stay alive. You got to think it may not land on a planet for lightyears. I like the idea, but the plan can be revised

Let me get this strait.

One argument is going on. Whether or not humans should send "biopacks" or other such things that can propagate life, to other planets.

Some "holier than thou" idiots brimming with knowledge from their 7th grade history book site Manifest destiny and decry the advance of the human conquest.

Another group argues that we will contaminate the universe. I would greatly love for them to define "contaminations" because such a term only holds true is there is something to be contaminated.

A third group says that its our moral obligation to spread humanity because humans desire reproduction, because that is a trait evolution has bred in all races.

And a fourth group worried about us starting an intersteller war by sending the common cold to a planet with advanced sentient beings that results in mass xenocide and a thirst for revenge.

Oh where to start!

The arguments against the professors statment are all intertwined, and flawed in the sense of objective pragmatism. Arguments for spreading life also have some flaws, but lets start with the antagonists.

What what wrong with manifest destiny? Yeah, it was misguided. The results are a large nation, a superpower, and far too many other good things to count. Bad things have resulted as well. Potential bad things, or potential good things that may exist or may have existed are mute points. You cannot determine what would have been. You can look back and say: "was it wrong? why was it wrong? should we not do it again?" The only reason it was considered bad was because we killed natives along the way, and took their land.

By the way, this is a call to spread LIFE, not humanity. Also, we wouldn't bother spreading it to where it exists, so we arn't killing anything. Manifest destiny is an incomparable situation, and I would kindly ask it not be mentioned again because it makes me sad that idiots are allowed to speak.

Onto the second group. Contamination in the general sense, is the presence of unwanted chemicals or lifeforms that cause undesirable effects. Please tell me the undersirable effect of having life elsewhere than Earth. If we assume no other planets sustain life, then there is nothing to register this alien presence as "undersirable" and therefore, it is not contamination, but merely a spread. If we assume other planets DO possess life, then our mission is acomplished. And if you're ok with this, why is life occuring naturally elsewhere different than life occuring here and propegating elsewhere?

Third group. Once again, HE IS NOT CALLING TO SPREADY HUMANITY. We do not have a sense on continuity in this matter. If humans were arrogant, we would not care about any races surviving other than ourselves. This idea transcends any of that with the simple realization that life is special. That sentience is a special thing in the universe, and that it should persist. While life is great at propogating itself, getting it started is a massive conundrum only solved with theories of infintesmially unlikely chemical reactions-- or God. This is a call to deposit microscopic life--the simplest forms of life-- elsewhere, so when our sun goes supernova, or when we decimate the planet with nuclear arms, or an asteroid boils the mantle, that LIFE will still exist. It is assurance that life will go on. The responsibility comes from us being life, realizing its complexity and value, and seeing that it should be preserved.

The fouth group. We will not knowingly send life to planets possessing life. We could also equip the "biopacks" with sensors to confirm no life or organic materials are in the vacinity. If it detects life, it will vaporize itself, preventing contamination from a planet's personal brand of life. What I really want to say to you though is, go to hell. I dislike idiots that turn to fantasy so they can argue.

Lets review:

-NOT SPREADING HUMANITY
-No chance of contamination, unless life exists, in which case, problem solved.
-preserving one of the most precious and unlikely phenomena in existance
-sentient alien species capable of intersteller travel can survive a virus. Quarentine and natural immune systems work wonders.
-get your heads out of your "humanity is inherintly evil" asses.

Thank you, and have a good night.

Well far starters, to pick these planets to spread life to, we are looking with things like hubble, we are not able to run over to these places and check for life first. We just see a dot on the screen and say: hmmm by the size of the planet and moon, and distance from the sun life may be able to survive here, but we don't know and cant check first if life is already evolving there, so our probe will land and possibly throw off the balance of nature there.
A lot of you here do not believe life is out there, well we are still checking our nine planets and NASA thinks we will find life in our solar system.
They found frozen water on the moon and in other places and now think water is on over 50% of the things floating in space. We checked for life on 9 out of a infinity planets that is your reason to think that there is no life out there. Life is booming out there we just need to learn how to travel.
If you believe in god or in the big bang or anything else then why would you think that that event just happened here and no where else.
I do believe we need to spread to new places because this planet will not make it forever and it is important our ways and cultures should survive its a issue of how we spread that concerns me. I think we need to go to these places in human form (when possible) instead of blindly spreading life building materials that have already been found on meteorites that hit earth, life spreads on its own our challenge is to keep the balance of nature stable. I am not to big on god but I do believe natures billions + years of spreading life is way more effective. I have no problem sending these biopacks to a place we know there is no life but there is no way to see that far to another planet that is Earth like. I have seen the video of them finding possible earth like places and we are VERY far from even learning to probe one.

you're quite right thizzled. It is possible we will find life elsewhere in our solar system (not on the moon, but in other places where water is plentiful and liquid enough). If we find UNRELATED (as in, life developed seperately on Earth and say, Europa, rather than it occuring one place and via meteorite, translocated) then it would be quite reasonable to assume that life elsewhere exists in plentiful amounts.

Meanwhile however, we have yet to find conclusive evidence that life exists (or existed) on anywhere but Earth. That coupled with the intercomplexity of life generates a fearful picture. I greatly hope that, despite the infintesimal chance of life arising, the near-infinite scope of the universe over billions of years has counteracted that and resulted in a massive amount of life throughout the universe. If we don't find evidence of unrelated life (more than one spark) occuring in our universe, we have nothing to go on, and we will not be able to properly estimate the probablility of life until we venture to nearbye solar systems.

The idea of "If here, then why not elsewhere" is flawed, because no matter where the one spark of life occured (if indeed there has only been one) then the sentients who arose from that spark would ask "why here". It happend here because it had to be somewhere, and we would be where it occured. We noticed that where we are is where we are.

Overall though, you are correct that we have little way of acertaining whether life is on a planet we send a biopack to. If we were to take the safest possible measures, we would send a biolab to potential planets, acertain that it is habitable but uninhabited, and then release organisms into the wild.

However, as far as the "moral responsibility" this proffessor calls for, the idea is this. If we have not the resources or ability to scan for life on other planets, then it is more responsible to send biopacks without knowing. If there is no life in the universe, no problem. If there is life, we might screw up some planets, but what is a few planets compared to the mass amount of life? The consequeces are far worse if we presume life is commonly present in the universe, and we're wrong, than if we assume the opposite, and are wrong.

1. First of all we haven't found a suitable planet.

2. We would have to consider how to get the Human Race there.

3. We would also need transportation for other species vital to our survival (Fruits, vegetables, meats etc.)

4. If we came across an inteligent species it either shares its dang planet or we move in and bomb there civilization to smithereens.

5. We really wouldn't have a choice in the matter becuase A. Well be dead B. We all know the world would push for the survival of the human race anyways.

WOW, genesis3333. Assuming we do discover another intelligent species (I'm not convinced we will), I sure hope that their strategy for colonization is not like yours... I'm pretty sure that humanity has enough trouble sharing this planet with each other .: I'm pretty sure that if earth was "discovered," we'd be the recipients of a Xenocide similar to what you propose.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments Brian 144, webpolish, Low Spender, Mescha, Sierra34. Please visit
www.panspermia-society.com, it would be great if you join and help us to secure life.

thanks for all the lol's guys;by some of the comments posted here; life should never of been allowed to exist in the first place & we should go extinct immediately;
if life is a 1 in a billion chance & just random mutation, then spreading life further throughout the galaxy/universe, is going to be extremely difficult,but otherwise natural process;
we ourselves maybe destroyed by man's own hand or some other disaster;but you can betcha the microscopic organisms that are life,will continue else where; with or without us. Rna & Dna is said to be able to exist in the harsh enivoroment of deep space. life is said to have been transferred to earth from early comets & asteriods;
so the concept of helping seed space is only natural;
if by chance life was delibrately started, then i would suggest it was so that the universe could become aware of itself & seeding other areas of space is again a natural process.

We should just move to Titan like in the song by Hammerfall. We could survive there for several million years. (Assuming that the world is ending because of the sun enlarging)

The constant talk of the world ending is enough to send some people into an apathetic frame of mind. When we consider the increased mental illness in society hearing this type of discussion may just push them over the edge into complete insanity and or violence. We must be mindful of the message and the intent,

www.resiliens.eu

Here are just some of the unusually held beliefs of the way the world is invariably going too perish:

Polarity Shift

Asteroid Impact

Yellowstone National Park exploding

Nibiru hurtling into our planet carrying an ancient and hostile form of alien life. Yes people believe this one.

The endless blather around 2012. The mayans are ancient and therefore hold the wisdom and irrefutable powers of prophecy from which there is no escape....c'mon people they couldn't even predict their own downfall...

Every atom all at once "vibrating" into non-existence, thus negating all existence.

The solar system getting sucked into a black hole.

The sun ending all life via an explosive, joyful ray of death inducing radiation stripping the planet of it's atmosphere and thus ending all life as we know it.

Zombie's

Nuclear War

A supernova from a nearby star, see above solar radiation doomsday scenario.

Robots taking over the world.

Religious Apocalypse involving the Anti-Christ, some form of Jesus zombie warrior destroying the armies of said anti-christ AND the armies of the Eastern Kingdoms because they are both n00bs, and should quit fighting. Hail Satan!

God suddenly deciding he's tired of humanity.

A super-plague that wipes the human race out.

Aliens that have come too conquer our planet for it's resources and too farm humanity because our soft-squishy bodies are important too some obscure unknowable process the aliens need too survive.

etc...

These are just a few of the exhaustive scenarios in which the world can end. All have website dedicated too pontificating the authenticity of each scenario and it's impending happening on the horizon of human existence. So...apathetic reader's, begin your spiral of self-destructive behavior in which you begin too consume vast amounts of alcohol and drugs, which will in turn cause you too have sex an obnoxious amount of times producing even MORE babies too grow up and populate the planet. Remember, you are our future, emo kids.

Professor Mautner is correct about our moral obligation inasmuch as human presence on our planet is the result of the recipropal propagation of intelligent life throughout the universe, by intelligent life. This morality follows naturally from conscious acceptance of the gift and promise of intelligent life.

We have the moral obligation to ensure that our species does not die out, through ignorance or inaction. We owe this to our OFFSPRING, and they to theirs; it is what we are designed to do. This includes preserving life in as many forms as we can. To do this we must spread it, and ourselves, around. Human-haters and the chronically depressed need not reply.

JeremyQooki

www.eaffinitymortgage.com

This idea is utterly repulsive. Evolution by natural selection has inflicted and still inflicts monstrous and incomprehensible suffering upon sentient life. As I write this now thousands of animals are been slowly consumed from within by parasitic insects; others are having their flesh torn off as they writhe in agony: others are dying of starvation, disease, thirst, cold etc, or watching their children or parents being consumed and mutilated by predators. This is for no greater or meaningful purpose than consuming and reproducing in an environment with slight genetic adaptations. Why would you instigate such unnecessary and preposterous suffering on alien planets?