E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
ESA
This Mars photo from ESA's Mars Express spacecraft was taken on Dec. 15, 2012, and beamed to Earth on Dec. 18. The spacecraft was 9.761 kilometers from Mars at the time.
By Stephanie Pappas
LiveScience
If a microorganism were found on Mars, would anyone care?
NASA scientists announced on March 12 that the Red Planet could have supported ancient life — though they don't yet have evidence that it did. A sample of rock drilled by the Curiosity rover revealed conditions that could have supported ancient microbes at some point in the distant past.
The news of even potential life made headlines, and there's no doubt the discovery of actual microbial life on Mars would, too. But the impact of finding life on another world might not be as Earth-shattering as one might think, experts say. That's mainly because the life probably wouldn't be asking to be taken to our leader.
"People don't get excited about microorganisms," said Chris McKay, an astrobiologist at NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.
Life on Mars?
For scientists, Mars life would be a big deal, McKay told LiveScience. Even more paradigm-altering would be to find that life on Mars originated independently.
It's plausible that Mars and Earth exchanged material in their early days, and that life found on Mars could have arisen from the same source as life on Earth. Such a discovery would be intriguing, McKay said, but "not as profound as finding that there's life on Mars and finding that it represents a second genesis."
"If we find on Mars evidence for a second genesis, that changes everything," he said. [Photos: Curiosity Finds Habitable Martian Site]
Life evolving twice in the same solar system would suggest that life is common throughout the universe, McKay explained. Such a discovery would be huge for biologists, who would suddenly have an entirely new type of biology to study.
McKay doesn't envision any major shifts in philosophy among the public in response to such a discovery, though. The discovery of microorganisms on another planet wouldn't necessarily spur the need to re-evaluate humanity's place in the universe, for example.
"I would put it along the lines of the discovery of the Higgs boson," McKay said, referring to the particle theorized to explain where other particles get their mass. "It would be that sort of level of event. It would be out in the public and people would be like, 'Oh, wow,' but mostly it would be something that scientists would get into."
Physicists announced last week they had confirmed the newfound particle discovered with experiments in the Large Hadron Collider was indeed a Higgs boson, with other physicists expressing their excitement and exhilaration of the discovery.
Life versus life
Indeed, some data suggest that even the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrials wouldn't shake human society beyond its ability to cope. One survey of more than 1,300 religious individuals released in 2011 found that believers were extremely confident that the discovery of intelligent aliens wouldn't shake their faith. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]
"Theologians and religious leaders who have looked at this, it's surprising to me that they have so little to say — almost as if it's not interesting," said Ted Peters, a theologian at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, Calif., who led the study.
Mars microbial life would be unlikely to have much of a theological impact, Peters told LiveScience. Most religious traditions hold that life is the creation of God, but don't commit to an exact explanation of how God did it. Life's origin could happen through chemistry multiple times throughout the solar system and not conflict with these world views, Peters said.
The discovery of intelligent life somewhere in the universe would be far more theologically significant, Peters said. Such a discovery could throw open fundamentally spiritual questions, he said: Are the aliens spiritual? Do they have a sense of morality, empathy or love?
Intelligent aliens could also provide answers about the evolution of religious belief, Peters said. Some scientists hold that religion is a primitive way of explaining the world, and that science will replace it, he said. If super-intelligent aliens were to both embrace science and God, it might disprove that evolutionary theory.
Discovering intelligent life would also be scientifically valuable, above and beyond any discovery that microbes evolved on Mars, McKay said. There are three big steps that get you to a species like humans: The origin of life, the evolution of complex life such as plants and animals, and, finally, the development of intelligence.
"We don't have any expectation that, on Mars, life did the other two steps," beyond possibly originating, McKay said. "Communicating with extraterrestrial intelligence takes us to the end of that comparison, so we immediately know that all three steps occurred."
Follow Stephanie Pappas @sipappas. Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience, Facebook or Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.
- 5 Mars Myths and Misconceptions
- Science Fact or Fantasy? 20 Imaginary Worlds
- UFO Quiz: What's Really Out There
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
The impact of a story of finding microbes depends upon how much each person knows about biology and biochemistry. I used to find macro-biology and evolution much more interesting topics, because those subjects are fairly easy to understand. When I began to understand a little about biochemistry, I found the theories about the origin of life much more fascinating, so I would be thrilled if news came of microbes found on Mars.
You're right, and I wish I understood more about the complexities of biochemistry. I think the main factor causing the lack of interest is that since we began landing Rovers on Mars that there have been articles about evidence suggesting that Mars could have supported life in the past just about monthly. Personally I find each article as interesting as the one before it, but people get tired of the same article about new findings that may point to the possibility of life. However if they find an actual organism, not just the building blocks, I believe it will capture the interest of just about everyone.
Also, instead of a "second genesis" on Mars, the Martian life would probably be seen as the first genesis and life on Earth reduced to a second genesis. The theological problem with this is that it would destructively tinker with the Biblical explanation of the origin of life. It would pose a God who created life on Mars, apparently wasn't happy with it, wiped it out and tried again on Earth. A pretty capricious god in anyone's book.
Absolutely, I don't know who these gomers have been talking to but I'd be VERY excited about proof positive that Mars once supported life or IS supporting life right now. It doesn't have to be ET or Mr. Spock for me to be very interested in ANY kind of life on another planet.
Of course it would be even more exciting it were something larger than microbes, but life is life!
There will be worms.
Most definitely worms!
All good and interesting points. These kind of news articles always get me (as they are intended). They start out talking about what would the general population think and then they bring up the usual touchy topics.
Basically, I agree with the articles main point: "Average" people don't care about much of anything and so they wouldn't care about microbial life on Mars. Your so-called "average" Joe is much more focus on his or her daily life and how the world affects it (generally speaking, of course)
So, then what would affect the slack-jaws out there? Well, the new scientific findings would have to challenge our beliefs. And this is where the article brings in religion. And Chris makes a good point, but I think, Chris, your conclusion is wrong (in my opinion)...
For anyone who has read the bible, or just about every holy book our world has to offer, there are many tales of the almighty creature in the sky wiping out all living things and starting over. So, I don't really think that kind of though process would shake people's faith too much.
If you could prove beyond a doubt that Earth was not first genesis then maybe we'd have something to argue about and start more wars over, but the idea that God starts over ain't a new idea.
Really, this conversation should be less about people's beliefs and more about what kind of history we can find laying in the red sands of Mars and how it fits with what we have found in our own dirt here at home. Maybe we'll find microorganisms. Maybe we'll find ancient fish fossils. Heck, maybe we'll find fossils of a long dead anthropomorphic creature not too dissimilar from ourselves along side their version of a "good-book". That would surely turn some heads.
More importantly it would force us all to realize that we are incredibly closed minded about life outside Earth (and to a lesser extent we are also closed minded about life ON this planet).
So, I would argue that if I can have faith that there is a great deity "up there", then why should I be called a crackpot for having faith that there are others "out there"? ...I suppose some people will call me a crackpot in either case. But, who cares what they think anyway. They'll not shake my faith.
mob,,, I've read a lot of your stuff,, you're not a crackpot.
As a non-believer the points regarding religion are unimportant to me. If there is life elsewhere in the Universe, or evidence of past life on Mars, none of that has a religious implication as far as I'm concerned.
Those who have "faith" need no proof and they will believe regardless of life on distant planets. I encourage and endorse their right to their beliefs. It has no effect on me or what I believe or don't believe, at least as long as they don't try to teach their beliefs in publicly funded schools as scientific fact.
Every scientific article that discusses the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe eventually gets around to discussing it's possible impact or Earth's organized religions. Why? In my simple universe religion is religion and science is science and the two paths need never cross or intertwine.
Believe what you want to believe. Science is something entirely different. It's teachings do not need to be reconciled with your religious beliefs, or vice versa, for them both to have validity.
There will be worms.
Thanks Charlie7274. I appreciate that.
Skip, I agree with everything you've said wholeheartedly, but I would like to make one point that may shed a little light into your point on separation of science and religion..
Science, generally speaking, seeks to understand the fundamental nature and structure of the Universe. It seeks to quantify and calculate, collate and correlate. So, having said that, it stands to reason that if there is a deity and said deity can be quantified in any way then science would be the tool to quantify that deity. It's important to make clear that there needs to be no intertwining of science and faith, merely that science seeks to quantify all things quantifiable.
For example, we can study EEG's and brain wave patterns of the believers and non believers and quantify very real differences in their brain activity during periods of relaxation, meditation, and prayer. This is not a proof of faith or religion or god, merely that the individual in the study has some brain activity that was outside the expected norms.
On a similar note, if humanity is ever visited by a race of aliens and those aliens have more advanced science than ours we will undoubtedly desire to learn what we can from them. And if they come with their advanced science then it is equally fathomable that they may have religious or faith-based belief structures as well. And it behooves us to learn what we can from them in that regard as well.
It has no effect on me what anyone else believes or does not believe, until they try to force it upon me. That is true whether we are talking about religion or science or art or music or pizza. And beer. You can try to push your pilsner on me all night long but, damn it, I'm an ale man. That's just who I am. But I also understand the importance of pilsner to some individuals. We can coexist.
Science and religion may never need to intertwine, but their paths will surely continue to cross.
From the Article
What is there to get excited about ? Little Microbes could be any where. Im sure we even take a few with us when we launch something from earth to other planets. Microbes on another planet means nothing to most people.
What does it change ? a Genesis ? Life from non life nonsense again ? Microbes turning into human beings over a long slow process hypothesis ..
I guess most people are like me, they dont get excited by wild assumptions and could have , maybes and possibly, answers.
Also most of us dont have jobs that need to have wild claims made all the time to keep funding for their studies.
I think it would depend on the complexity of the microbe found. If it had unique traits to it then yeah I believe people would end up being curious.
wow...how refreshing. An MSNBC science article that isn't fully dissmissive of those that don't necessarily gold to a 100% science-disproves-god, reductionist view of the Universe! I'm sure the comments section will quickly correct that though. Interesting that it is the materialists that have the biggest stake in whether life originated independently and in multiple...thereby--in their view--supporting the idea that there is nothing special about life. That *is* the current working paradigm (in contrast to what's implied in the article)--since the alternative (i.e., purposeful OOL)--has been deemed unacceptable.
and what's this? there may be a super-intellectual race out there somewhere that embraces both science and a creator? perish the thought!
So religionists' new hope for continuing to believe in God is that we will communicate with some distant aliens who also invented religion? Wow.
Just... wow.
The 'Wow' only comes into this if it is considered that those distant aliens are really spiritual.
I know Baptists that absolutely deny that The Muslim and Christian Deity are the same. So unless ET is reading the King James and singing Amazing Grace, they will be no better than the Catholics, Jews, Wiccans, and all the other nonbelievers.
Religious intolerance never ceases to give me pause.
Baptist, nonbelievers, nerds, and aliens can think and feel and worship however they want. It's not until some jerk comes in pushing his own agenda that everyone gets bent out of shape.
That was the point of Mike's facetious final comment. The idea that an intelligent race would embrace science and a creator? Mike is talking about us human beings. So, Doug, save your wow.
I think the first question xeno-microbs would raise would be: "Do they have any military application?"
If they didn't then I'd think only the egg-heads would care.
As for super-intelligent alien life - I suspect they would likely have outgrown religion either as a crutch for what could not be explained, and opt for the simpler, more honest answer: "I don't know.", or outgrown it entirely. Or they would have a spirituality more in keeping with certain pagan groups who recognize the divine as being far beyond our limited understanding, taking more of a shape-and-watch role.
"Religion is a primitive way of explaining the world and science will replace it." What a very narcissistic way to think, as if 1,000's of years of internal work and SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE, not mere theology, will be able to be replaced by external study. Anyone who has even a passing interest in philosophy knows they are not the same thing and to imply one can replace the other only shows they haven't really thought about it very extensively...or logically. Argh. No wonder religious people fight with "scientists".... who are really believers of "scientism", one of our fastest growing "faiths" and religions!
Religion is a primitive way of remaining bonded as a 'family,' which helps give the human species its incredible strength in numbers.
The current thinking by a lot of informed archeologists is that it was religion, not farming or domestication of animals that led to the first permanent structures in the world. Look up Gobekli Tepe and you'll see structures that were created thousands of years before Stonehenge and the Pyramids, but have such sophisticated carvings on them that they could not possibly have been the first such structures. It is beginning to look like religion was the absolute driving force behind civilization for the past 20,000+ years. Before you disagree -- look at any pictures you can find of Gobekli Tepe.
No one would (or should) argue against the idea that civilization and religion are so intimately intertwined that cause and effect are like the chicken and the egg. But 'absolute driving force' is just way too strong.
As far as religions go, let us not 'throw the baby out with the bath water'!
So was slavery but, we have gotten past that for the most part haven't we?
Ted Peters is the one who made that statement. Ted is a Lutheran theologian and make a living off of playing science and religion against each other. Just take a look at his wikipedia page and look at the titles of his works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Peters
It doesn't surprise me that the person who would make such a wild claim is on the religious side of the argument. Now, I'm not knocking religious people here, but you'd have to look long and hard to find a credible scientist that would willingly state that the goal of science is to replace religion.
Most of us have. There are some out there you'd swear they just cut the shackles off of though....
Whether there's life on Mars or not, NASA will never discover it because they have no intention of ever sending instruments to Mars that COULD discover it. The Viking landers of the '70s did detect signs that MIGHT have been indications of living organisms on the planet. So NASA came up with hypotheses about inorganic chemical processes mimicking life and never sent any instruments to Mars that could test whether those hypotheses were valid. They are going to continue testing rocks and then try to keep the public interested in what they're doing by occasionally putting out a press release suggesting that some rock or the other showed indications that perhaps Mars might possibly have supported life in the distant past -- maybe.
MSL, Mars Science Laboratory. Curiosity, the rover, is MUCH more advanced than the Viking landers and the rover can test many of the same things to a much higher degree of validity. Not to mention Curiosity can test many other things that Viking could not.
It seem clear to me, Houston!, that you may not have thought through the process of detecting signs of life on another planet. On Earth you can just walk through an empty field and usually you'll find a bone or two here or there. But Earth is geologically active whereas Mars hasn't "turned over the soil" so-to-speak in quite a while. I only mention that because we have never sent to Mars the means to do any significant digging, and if one is to ever find a real fossil artifact on Mars they will need to dig for it. And at the off-chance that there is a good fossil sticking up out of the red dirt then one of our rovers would have to have the incredible luck of stumbling on to it.
NASA may or may not ever discover whether or not significant life ever existed on Mars. But your assertion that they have no intention of ever sending instruments that could discover it is just ridiculous. Depending on what is there, any one of the MANY instruments NASA has sent to Mars could have detected it. And if human beings ever do put boots down on Mars then you can bet your farm that it'll be through the involvement of NASA (probably in conjunction with space agencies around the world).
mob_barley
If it's ridiculous, then why hasn't NASA done so in the four decades since the Viking landers DID carry experiments expressly designed to detect evidence of biological activity in the form of microbes? Those experiments actually involved injecting nutrients into soil samples, and some of them detected evidence for life. Those experiments were never repeated nor were any experiments ever sent to Mars to test the alternative hypotheses that the evidence of biogenic activity was merely inorganic chemical reactions that mimicked life ever tested. If they haven't sent such experiments in forty years, why should they be expected to do so in the next forty years?
Your comment on discovering fossils reminds me of what one of the Viking scientists said about NASA's attitude toward the discovery of life, which was something like: NASA wouldn't acknowledge any evidence for life unless something came up to the lander, waved a sign in front of the camera, and banged on the side of the spacecraft. That may be an exaggeration, but the only way NASA would ever detect conclusive evidence for life is if they accidentally photographed an unmistakable fossil with a camera designed to examine rocks.
BTW: If you're not totally close-minded about the subject, do as Google search for the name of Gil Levin, who was a principal investigator for one of the Viking experiments that produced positive evidence for life, and who insists to this day that his experiment did in fact find life on Mars.
Only one experiment (the Labeled Release) detected any results that could be interpreted as a sign of life. The other experiments did not detect any organic compounds. There are, in fact, a variety of inorganic processes that could give the same results as the Labeled Release experiment. At that time, it was felt they needed to see positive results in detecting organic matter combined with the Labeled Release in order to consider it a positive test for life signs.
Don't forget, this was, like you said, 40 years ago, and they were using physical/chemical means to cook the organic matter. Our knowledge of chemistry has come a long ways since then. It was not until 2008 that they discovered with Phoenix that there was perchlorate in the soil. Perchlorate, under the test conditions of the Viking experiments, could in fact create halogenated hydrocarbons in the presence of some organic materials, which is what Viking did detect. In 2012, a reanalysis of the data indicated that the Viking test results could still be interpreted as detecting life. But that was only based on know what was found in 2008.
So long story short - they did not have the information needed to rethink the process until recently. And even that is tentative at best.
Houston, I am aware of the Viking missions and there findings and the hullaballoo that ensued since. It would appear that you think I am denying the findings of the Viking program. I am not. I am not involved in the space program, nor am I a learned scientist with educational or knowledge enough to even weigh in on the findings of the program.
But I am a so-called space enthusiast and I do make it my business to learn as much as I can, within reason, about our planets endeavors in space. And I do believe that it will take "extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims", and in that regard I do think it very likely that NASA will continue to play it safe in terms of "acknowledging any evidence for life". They will do what they always do and report their findings in a scientific manner and leave the embellishment to the media and talking heads. Frankly, it will take an alien walking up to the rover's camera with a sign, written in English, that says "I'm an intelligent extra-terrestrial".
Houston, you seem to know quite a bit about the Viking mission, but I wonder if you are familiar with the suite of experiments that accompanied Curiosity to the surface of Mars. Vikings findings have been studied, restudied, verified, contested, argued, and ultimately there is nothing left to do but continue to study the geology and composition of Mars.
Curiosity recently provided evidence that suggests habitability of Mars was indeed part of Mars' past. In my mind that supports Vikings findings.
But, I stand by what I said earlier. You are saying that NASA "has no intention of sending instruments that could discover it". That is just not true. NASA has studied Mars more than any other planet aside from Earth. And just because Curiosity has the stated mission goal of "ascertaining Mars' habitability" that doesn't mean it could find evidence of life. Any of the rovers could find evidence of life. Any of the orbiters could too.
Also, arguing that Vikings findings are conclusive is also not an easy task. I have listened to the arguments for and against and in my limited capacity I will just say that the jury is still out..
gee all the phony stories of mars rocks found here just didnt bump the interest that NASA (nasa=never a straight answer) had hoped for. a little odd that we never heard much about venus rocks or titan rocks, always mars rocks
an aside to nasa here 'actually IMHO most of these rocks fell out of uranus'
I am gonna go out on a limb here and say you probably think the moon landing was a hoax as well. Your statement " (nasa=never a straight answer)" Makes me wonder what question have you asked that NASA (in your opinion has not given a straight answer to? ) And though I may be wrong I don't think we here on earth have any rocks ( ice) from Titan or Venus for that matter. But maybe you have some from ur-anus. Have a nice day and don't forget your tin-foil hat
naah im good with the moon landing
but i see you missed the entire point that nasa has hyped the mars rocks but never explained why we havent gotten any venus rocks here or how these rocks after flying in space for millions of years, give or take, they plummet thru the atmosphere and all that heat can still be identified as actually comming from mars.
they are pushing mars because mars is the ONLY planet we can get to and put a lander down that will survive. hence the mars push
but to return to your problem, easily fixable, your long overdue for your koolaid enemy better get topped up
lilbear68: No rocks from Venus because we're uphill in the Sun's gravity well from there. If you don't understand that, I'm not surprised, but it's the answer to your question.
No rocks from Titan? We are way the holy crapoly uphill in Saturn's gravity well from that one. Saturn is about a hundred times the mass of the Earth, and right next door. So no Titan rocks, either. Once again. . .Mars is about the only planet that could possibly have a chunk torn off, end up on Earth, and that we could tell that it came from there.
The truth is, NASA has probably answered every question you have. . .but you didn't comprehend the language they used.
sorry stronti i see you too are overdue for your koolaid enema
and you seem to be unaware that in space rocks can orbit of millions of years or so and never land here and your saying that all the rocks that might have been busted off from a meterite strike on venus would never have a radical unforseen rock fly in an un predictable direction
your whole up hill down hill view of space is specious and just sadly disengenious
lilbear68: I don't normally answer trolls, but you made me laugh. Since disengenious isn't actually a word, I will translate it as disingenuous, which means:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Soo. . .uh. . .thanks?
lilbear68,
What strontiDog said is accurate and it is the commonly accepted scientific reason why material from Venus doesn't end up on Earth. And it's important to note that nothing is "impossible". We just have not identified any Venus rocks here on Earth.
But, the uphill concept Stronti gave you is not specious. The gravity at work in our solar system, with all mass pulling on all other mass, would prevent a VERY high percentage of ejecta from ever reaching us from Venus or Titan. Orbital dynamics would have to be in just such a play and working in concert with a major impact event to even consider the possibility of a Venus rock making it to our little planet. Like I said earlier, nothing is impossible. But finding "all the other rocks" that you mention is highly improbable on Earth given the gravity of the situation.
You can pass out your koolaid comments until you are blue in the face but if you do the math yourself and think through it logically then you will very likely come to the same conclusion.
@lilbear68:
"There is no point in being exact if you don't know what you are talking about."
-John von Neumann
Not sure on this, but isn't the asteroid belt (between Mars and Jupiter) considered to be the debris from a protoplanet that was torn asunder? So that would mean that we have rocks from Mars, also from the moon, and now also from the planet wannabe that never quite made it? As to Venus and Titan - I agree the odds of anything coming from those planets would be, uh ... astronomical? Not impossible, mind you, just very unlikely.
Indeed, Brisaber. I believe the going rationale is that Jupiter's gravity tore the protoplanet apart, or prevented it from ever forming properly. Not entirely sure about that but that's what I recall.
Jupiter did a fine job of "stirring the pot" so that nothing larger than Ceres-ish could form.
Even if one could magically accumulate all the material in the asteroid belt together into one mass, it would still be only 4% of the mass of our Moon; not large enough to be a planet.
The asteroid belt is "construction debris" left over from the formation of the Solar System.
(And all the other comments about how gravitational wells keeps material material in certain zones in the Solar System - all correct.)
That doesn't make any sense. We are only uphill from Venus if one is below the orbit of Venus and comparing where to go - Earth or Venus. If you are in Earth orbit, you have to get a push to get to either Mars or Venus. You aren't going to just fall down.
Ejecta from Venus is harder to get to us because Venus has a much deeper gravity well than Mars. Ejecta from Titan has a harder time to get to us because Saturn has a really deep gravity well and in any case, it would evaporate if it got this close to the sun.
Pretty much well true. Unless life in human, insect or some other science fiction form is found, The vast majority of humans are..unexcited. And, it amazes me that after alll these space probes, journeys, and monitering the stars, absolutely nothing that hints of life has been found!!...so far. I'm starting to think nothing will..ever be found.
when it says "Most religious traditions hold that life is the creation of God"... my only question is which one? Religion is a byproduct of culture.. we don't need to find extraterrestrial beings to know that... we can view that now, on earth. Every culture has their own creation myth that look NOTHING like the christian creation story which seems to be the only one they are referring to here. There was a time when the Greek and Roman gods were just as much a god to them as the christian god is to followers today... now the Greek/Roman gods are taught in a mythology course... since the god that is worshipped here on earth changes when you literally cross the street, why shouldn't an extraterrestrial culture also have a different god? or no gods?
Those are good points. But the guy who said that quote was Ted Peters, a Lutheran theologian and author.
In terms of monotheistic religions of the world, "the big 3" have very similar creation myths. So you could say that the majority is being represented in that quote. Obviously the majority never adequately covers everyone. So don't read too much into crazy Ted Peters' comments.
And Buddhists believe in no beginning and no end.
Personally I would think this would be one of the most important discoveries ever made, and that could ever be made. If life formed on two different planets in our solar system then life may be very prevalent throughout the galaxy. Even if life on Mars is found to be originally from Earth, just the fact that life can survive there is a massive achievement as it would expand our factual knowledge of where life can exist.
It's not a questions is there life outside of earth, it's just a matter of time until we find it. It will happen very soon. The discovery will surely make headlines and confirm what many have suspected all along. With the advancement in science over the last 20-25 years we now can see things in the Universe we never thought possible. Think in another 25 years.....ect ect...
The fact that no one is interested in microbiological on life on Mars is due to a lack of education. Uneducated people usually need "larger" impacts to become interested. Also, be careful of articles like this because they are rhetorical. They use rhetoric and anyone reading it will immediately set their mind to believe it to be true.
Mars will be our bridge to the new age, as long as we can dump the old men who want to keep us on the ground, and in their wallets.
This is a very good article. I liked it because it takes all the mumbo jumbo out of what different people want to believe in, like if a microbe is intelligent or ever could be intelligent or even religious. Also, the scientists, have said they have found a Higgs type theoretical particle, but only have pictures of one. The part about, who invented God or why, is also up to the ones who see it the way they want to. So it's freedom to believe what you want, or don't want to believe, and who cares and who doesn't care. I don't care, but find it all fascinating.
Spirituality is certainly not necessarily synonymous with morality nor does it hold any copyright to it. That belief is a cultural relic that needn't be exhumed for rational people in the 21st century and beyond.
The possibility of any kind of life somewhere else is fascinating. Hope it's confirmed before I die.
Agreed!
Should microorganisms be detected/discovered on Mars, a large sub-section of the planet will just say, "Meh."
But another large sub-section will know that the finding will be astounding to say the least. That said, the more important facet of the discovery is whether or not, should we attempt to terraform Mars, can we co-habitate with the microorganism. Will it kill us at the microscopic level, will it mutate us (keep the science-fiction snickering to yourselves), or will we destroy the most fragile of lifeforms by us cohabitating Mars or try to terraform it in an attempt to play God?
At the current rate, sooner or later, man will colonize Mars. If we don't figure out a way to inoculate ourselves from whatever we find, then we will have a short chapter in the history books about our ill-attempt to reach out beyond Earth.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a scientist, nor do I have a PhD in anything...I'm just a dude walking along the side of the railroad tracks looking at the impending train collision...Nevermind the fact I was the one that placed the penny on the track...
>:-)
Good times had by all, I think I enjoy reading the comments more than the article. But I feel like it is almost propaganda in the sense that the writer, is in some way trying to convince more important powers than us that it would be alright to release information that maybe science already has? I don't know but it seems with all the media available to us today sometimes I get the feeling that people in control of information are taking baby steps to get us prepared for some or all of the truth that is out there?
Or maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part. :)
The greatest proof of God is the discipline of Science. Why can't anyone else see? - Rick Carter
"Trying to argue against faith with logic is like trying to nail jelly (Jell-O to the 'merkins) to the ceiling; it's using the wrong tools for an ultimately pointless task."
-trollface