A Martian question...

[PeteInTexas]

Did Earthlings just screw up life on Mars?  (hear me out)

Kudos to all the engineers and engineering efforts to answer the question if there WAS life on Mars.

But nobody ever thinks that life could still be evolving on Mars.  And our series of intrusions into the red planet could very well have altered the nascent evolutionary process.

[JuKu]

The brightest brains on the planet on the task, and you claim, without checking the facts, that they missed something elementary? Of course they have thought of that.  All interplanetary satellites, probes etc. have been and are sterile.

That said, they did miss a step in the procedures. Not a real issue, but they did open a container on board; the contents were sterile, but not gone through the ultra sterile preparations that the other parts went through, so potentially, parts of the craft are just sterile, not ultra-sterile.

[PeteInTexas]

The brightest brains on the planet on the task, and you claim, without checking the facts, that they missed something elementary? Of course they have thought of that.  All interplanetary satellites, probes etc. have been and are sterile.

That said, they did miss a step in the procedures. Not a real issue, but they did open a container on board; the contents were sterile, but not gone through the ultra sterile preparations that the other parts went through, so potentially, parts of the craft are just sterile, not ultra-sterile.

There is still a lot of mechanical stirring and kicking up of dust and digging and scraping and squishing.  All these could retard the delicate evolutionary process.

[Ed.Kloonk]

[_Sin]

There is still a lot of mechanical stirring and kicking up of dust and digging and scraping and squishing.  All these could retard the delicate evolutionary process.

It's not that delicate a process. I mean, the planet is pelted with debris from space on a regular basis, as is Earth. A relatively tiny robot delicately landing and then digging up samples isn't going to have much effect, especially as any life up there would be microbial.

[Things]

Stirring up of dust was also minimal, as that was one of the limitations they had to overcome and thus decided to use a skycrane.

[EEVblog]

There is still a lot of mechanical stirring and kicking up of dust and digging and scraping and squishing.  All these could retard the delicate evolutionary process.

"A lot"? 
Calculate the surface area and volume of what these rovers compared to the surface area, and calculate the percentage.
I get roughly 0.0000007% even if the rovers ruined 1sqkm
Also compare the what the regular dust storm do etc.
It's not even in the noise.

Dave.

[Psi]

The question is moot anyway, eventually humans will go there and setup a mars base. Then comes mining equipment etc...
In the long run it will be impossible to keep the atmosphere and ground free of earth material.

[_Sin]

The question is moot anyway, eventually humans will go there and setup a mars base. Then comes mining equipment etc...
In the long run it will be impossible to keep the atmosphere and ground free of earth material.

Yeah, even if there are microbes up there, we're not going to wait a few million years in the hope they'll evolve into something that can be our friend.

[ejeffrey]

The "real" reason behind the sterilization procedures is to avoid contamination that might disrupt future science missions.  Almost certainly the questions of whether mars has or ever had microbial life will be answered long before there is a manned mission.  At that point we will be able to make an informed decision.  Presumably the decision would be how the best way to preserve the evidence of native martian biology for future study.  It is unlikely to me that we would decide to entirely forgo human missions simply to avoid contamination at that point.

[Mechatrommer]

The question is moot anyway, eventually humans will go there and setup a mars base. Then comes mining equipment etc...
In the long run it will be impossible to keep the atmosphere and ground free of earth material.

oh please are you saying intelligence may interfere with natural selection?

[PeteInTexas]

Alright, I don't know the particulars of how the nascent evolutionary process may be disrupted but we have all seen the time travel movies where one little change in one little detail wildly changes the future.

If evolution relies on Chaos Theory, then a butterfly could have died each time humans land on the planet.  I don't think we should be okay with that, or at least we should openly accept that consequence.

[IanB]

Alright, I don't know the particulars of how the nascent evolutionary process may be disrupted but we have all seen the time travel movies where one little change in one little detail wildly changes the future.

Considering the extent to which mankind has transformed the ecology of the Earth and continues to do so, it is strange you would worry about consequences from sending an unmanned probe to some distant and desolate planet halfway across the solar system.

If evolution relies on Chaos Theory, then a butterfly could have died each time humans land on the planet.  I don't think we should be okay with that, or at least we should openly accept that consequence.

That isn't how chaos theory works. The idea that the flapping of a butterfly's wings could affect the weather is a myth.

[PeteInTexas]

Alright, I don't know the particulars of how the nascent evolutionary process may be disrupted but we have all seen the time travel movies where one little change in one little detail wildly changes the future.

Considering the extent to which mankind has transformed the ecology of the Earth and continues to do so, it is strange you would worry about consequences from sending an unmanned probe to some distant and desolate planet halfway across the solar system.

For the irony-  the very search for life thoughtlessly ended it.

If evolution relies on Chaos Theory, then a butterfly could have died each time humans land on the planet.  I don't think we should be okay with that, or at least we should openly accept that consequence.

That isn't how chaos theory works. The idea that the flapping of a butterfly's wings could affect the weather is a myth.

You get the idea though.

[FlyingBrickyard]

The rover is likely to discover the first known extraterrestrial life, which to everyone's surprise will be rather complex and very much resemble a cat.  Unfortunately it'll make this discovery by inadvertently rolling over it.

[G7PSK]

Is it likely that any bacteria or virus from Earth will survive the radiation from nine months in deep space, I would also expect that the greater concern might be what bacteria or virus lurks on Mars and would it be a threat to humans if they either landed on Mars or if rock samples were brought back to earth, there might be no immunity to infections so brought back or encounterd directly on Mars.

[FlyingBrickyard]

Is it likely that any bacteria or virus from Earth will survive the radiation from nine months in deep space, I would also expect that the greater concern might be what bacteria or virus lurks on Mars and would it be a threat to humans if they either landed on Mars or if rock samples were brought back to earth, there might be no immunity to infections so brought back or encounterd directly on Mars.

It's unlikely in both cases.  They do sterilize the equipment before it is sent out, and the chances of any native Martian life being hazardous in that manner to us is remote.  The Earth and Mars being as isolated as they are from each other would not likely give rise to things like viruses that are able to take advantage of the life on the other planet.  Most viruses here on Earth can't even jump from one species to another, and those few that can depend on significant genetic similarities between the hosts and often considerable exposure. 

The chances of some Martian evolved virus matching well and being able to take advantage of life from Earth is extremely remote, and the reverse is also true.  Even if life on both worlds had somehow shared a common origin back in the earliest days of the solar system, they've been isolated long enough for significant divergence to occur.  Heck, just look at the native terrestrial species of Australia compared to the rest of the world for a milder, significantly shorter term example. 

[benemorius]

It will ultimately boil down to a question of morals: Is it morally right for humans to disturb the evolution of life on Mars for the sake of our own survival?

I'll not be the one to answer the question, but humanity is going to need to answer it very soon. Mars is the only other planet in this system that appears to have even a ghost of a chance of supporting a human colony. No other planet or moon even comes close. Discovering life (even advanced life) on Mars will not change the fact that Mars is our one and only hope for colonization.

The bottom line is that in order to ensure our survival we absolutely must leave Earth and colonize a second planet, then a second star system, and so on. We may have a few billion years before our star system will no longer support life as we know it, but the useful lifetime of our planet might well be far, far shorter. Given that it may take centuries to terraform Mars and establish a thriving human colony there, it is imperative that we begin as soon as we possibly can.

Thus, we might very soon need to decide whether it is ok to interfere with (and perhaps even destroy) another form of life for the sake of our own preservation. It is an age-old dilemma, and one that is now being posed to us on a greater scale than ever before in our history. It goes very deep - to the very heart of what life is, what free will is, and what it means to harm, interfere with, or destroy these things.

Science does not have an answer to any of these questions - at least no answer that is congruent with existing moral beliefs. These are not easy questions. Will we be the laughing stock of our galaxy for staying and dying on our home planet, or will our race be thrown in a galactic prison for being stubbornly arrogant and morally destitute. Who can know?

[HardBoot]

The prime directive only applies to already existing life.

Wait, what, that's not law?

Anyways, Mars is likely well past it's golden age for advanced life to spring up.

[Bored@Work]

It will ultimately boil down to a question of morals: Is it morally right for humans to disturb the evolution of life on Mars for the sake of our own survival?

Yes, we are nature, too. Going to Mars is a natural process.

Besides all this, are we killing life on Mars, or maybe are we bringing life to Mars?

By the same arguments (disturbing something), one can argue that the tiny disturbance Curiosity does is by sheer luck the disturbance needed to bring two materials together that would otherwise not come together. And without bringing them together Mars would have had no chance of developing life in a million years. We just don't know.

If the development of life is a robust process then Curiosity should have no effect. If it is a delicate, fragile process, then already every meteoroid hitting Mars might endanger or facilitate it, like then Curiosity does to a smaller extend.

[G7PSK]

It will ultimately boil down to a question of morals: Is it morally right for humans to disturb the evolution of life on Mars for the sake of our own survival?

I'll not be the one to answer the question, but humanity is going to need to answer it very soon. Mars is the only other planet in this system that appears to have even a ghost of a chance of supporting a human colony. No other planet or moon even comes close. Discovering life (even advanced life) on Mars will not change the fact that Mars is our one and only hope for colonization.

The bottom line is that in order to ensure our survival we absolutely must leave Earth and colonize a second planet, then a second star system, and so on. We may have a few billion years before our star system will no longer support life as we know it, but the useful lifetime of our planet might well be far, far shorter. Given that it may take centuries to terraform Mars and establish a thriving human colony there, it is imperative that we begin as soon as we possibly can.

Thus, we might very soon need to decide whether it is ok to interfere with (and perhaps even destroy) another form of life for the sake of our own preservation. It is an age-old dilemma, and one that is now being posed to us on a greater scale than ever before in our history. It goes very deep - to the very heart of what life is, what free will is, and what it means to harm, interfere with, or destroy these things.

Science does not have an answer to any of these questions - at least no answer that is congruent with existing moral beliefs. These are not easy questions. Will we be the laughing stock of our galaxy for staying and dying on our home planet, or will our race be thrown in a galactic prison for being stubbornly arrogant and morally destitute. Who can know?

None of that mattered to any one when the Europeans went to Australia and America, they just went and used religion to justify the wholesale slaughter of indigenous life including other human races
It is thought that some viruses have arrived from space in the past including some of the flue virus strains as viruses can form spores which are very hard to destroy.

[EEVblog]

It will ultimately boil down to a question of morals: Is it morally right for humans to disturb the evolution of life on Mars for the sake of our own survival?

Of course it is, that's how the universe works. We would be stupid if we didn't.
It's not that there is any intelligent life there anyway, or likely any form of semi-complex life at all to disturb.

I'll not be the one to answer the question, but humanity is going to need to answer it very soon. Mars is the only other planet in this system that appears to have even a ghost of a chance of supporting a human colony. No other planet or moon even comes close. Discovering life (even advanced life) on Mars will not change the fact that Mars is our one and only hope for colonization.

The bottom line is that in order to ensure our survival we absolutely must leave Earth and colonize a second planet

I think we have a moral obligation as an intelligent evolved species to expand beyond our own planet. it's not just a matter of survival.

Thus, we might very soon need to decide whether it is ok to interfere with (and perhaps even destroy) another form of life for the sake of our own preservation. It is an age-old dilemma, and one that is now being posed to us on a greater scale than ever before in our history. It goes very deep - to the very heart of what life is, what free will is, and what it means to harm, interfere with, or destroy these things.

We've already been doing that on a daily basis for the entire modern history of the human race.
There is nothing to decide, because it will eventually happen, no doubt.

[/quote]
Science does not have an answer to any of these questions - at least no answer that is congruent with existing moral beliefs. These are not easy questions.
Will we be the laughing stock of our galaxy for staying and dying on our home planet, or will our race be thrown in a galactic prison for being stubbornly arrogant and morally destitute. Who can know?
[/quote]

Neither will eventuate, because AFAWK we are the only ones within cooee who will care. We will expand and conquer, it's the human way.

Dave.

[_Sin]

So it's morally ok for me to clean my toilet bowl? That's good, I was getting worried for a minute there.

[Ed.Kloonk]

So it's morally ok for me to clean my toilet bowl? That's good, I was getting worried for a minute there.

Don't do it. It's over-rated.

Mine's never been cleaned in 15 years and I can assure you it gives me no trouble what so ever.

[EEVblog]

For the irony-  the very search for life thoughtlessly ended it.

Whatever life there is there (if any) won't be ended by us finding it.
Whatever life is there has survived and won against all odds, we would have a hard time finishing it off.
In fact, the most likely life we find up there will be quite simple and dormant, and it's likely that the choice will be if we bring it back to life or not. Not end it. (We will of course bring it back to life out of sheer curiosity and research)
In fact we likely won't have a say in it, because the act of trying to make Mars more habitable for us, will almost certainly make it more habitable for any life there.

The irony is people trying to think that there is some big moral question here, without stopping to realise that by their own lifestye choice, the insatiable demand for power and products they are using, the house the live in, the street they drive on, and almost everything they do in life has resulted in countless species being made extinct already, both directly and indirectly.

Dave.