Knowing that this island Earth was not the only place life had come into being, would be profound - not least in the implication that life is more probable than Intelligent Design enthusiasts would like us to believe. It would give more certainty to the parameters of the Drake Equation:

ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets.

...giving an increased probability there's intelligent life out there. And when we brought it back to Earth it would escape, mutate and turn us all inside out, still walking around, with our organs on the outside! A great day for science!

It would be one if the all-time great discoveries. Great achievement by NASA to get the lander down too.

Oh, yes, for sure. Life or no life - a near miraculous feat of engineering. Amazing. But still, the idea that life may exist beyond this world - that would be paradigm shifting knowledge, like the Copernican revolution - only more profound.

What if life finds perseverance??

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55885086

The search widens for hot rocks that provide power

Drilling holes into an extinct volcano might sound like an unusual start to an energy project. But that's what J Michael Palin, a senior lecturer at the University of Otago in New Zealand, is planning to do. His project involves drilling two boreholes to a depth of 500m (1,600ft) and monitoring the rock to see if it is suitable to provide geothermal energy.

"You're selling power all the time, so on a levelized basis, geothermal can outcompete all the other options. Once up and running, these projects can go for decades."

I think it would be extremely extraordinary if life existed only on Earth.

It would be one if the all-time great discoveries. — Wayfarer

One supposes. On closer look though more just a step out the primordial ooze of ignorance into greater understanding of the facts of the world and universe we live in. That there is life out there should be news to no one, Of much greater interest the WWWWW&H of it, or them.

I think it would be extremely extraordinary if life existed only on Earth. — baker

I'm inclined to agree. But there's a difference between thinking that life exists elsewhere, and knowing that it does - and it's the difference between looking into the night sky and seeing a lot of floating rocks, and seeing life, wherever the right conditions occur.

Why? The matter is trivial. (And they're spending billions on it.)

What if space exploration is a subtle and blatantly desperate attempt to prove the Abrahamic religions wrong?! Oh!

Why? The matter is trivial. (And they're spending billions on it.) What if space exploration is a subtle and blatantly desperate attempt to prove the Abrahamic religions wrong?! Oh! — baker

So you'd be very surprised if life didn't exist elsewhere, but think proving it; knowing for sure is a trivial matter. Is that because you are so confident in your ignorant opinion - that to you, it is as good as certain knowledge? Well, then - look at it this way: you'll get to say I told you so.

If the only reason for space exploration is to prove the Abrahamic religions wrong then they will have served yet another useful purpose!

So you'd be very surprised if life didn't exist elsewhere, but think proving it; knowing for sure is a trivial matter. — counterpunch

In terms of costs and solving engineering problems the matter is, of course, tremendous.
But beyond that, what's the point? To find another planet for humans to destroy it?
Rather than make an effort to work things out here on Earth, the solution is to go "business as usual", and consume up another planet, and eventually, what, the whole Universe? Because mankind's appetite knows no bounds nor should any limits be imposed on it?

If the only reason for space exploration is to prove the Abrahamic religions wrong then they will have served yet another useful purpose!

That's just so pathetic.

Imagine how many microorganisms are on the surface/interior or tools or probes near computer elements that are protected from the extremes of space that are only opened/utilized on the rock itself. And from all those before. Even if the ones from before mutate due to radiation or wahtever. I imagine it may be hard to distinguish between what was brought and what was already present if anything.

In terms of costs and solving engineering problems the matter is, of course, tremendous. But beyond that, what's the point? To find another planet for humans to destroy it?
Rather than make an effort to work things out here on Earth, the solution is to go "business as usual", and consume up another planet, and eventually, what, the whole Universe? Because mankind's appetite knows no bounds nor should any limits be imposed on it? — baker

That's a somewhat ambitious view; of which our current capabilities fall a very long way short. I think we most certainly should work things out here on earth, because the idea we're going to colonise space is a distant dream - that in any case, is unlikely to save the vast majority of people. Further, if we cannot live in an environment to which we are ideally suited, how can we possibly hope to colonise space where every breath of air, every drop of water, every morsel of food has to be created in a hostile environment?

In short, we are not going to be consuming another planet any time soon. I think we should be planning to catch asteroids, mine them and build in orbit - while looking for ways to travel a lot faster and further than chemical rockets allow.

On another note, resources are a consequence of the energy available to create them, and so, given massive amounts of clean energy from the heat energy in the molten interior of the earth, we can produce limitless clean electricity, capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate wastelands - like deserts, and so protect forests and natural water sources from overuse, recycle, farm fish, and have continued prosperity, sustainably, into the long term future. It's only a matter of the energy we have available to spend. Given sufficient energy, there is no limit to resources.

That's just so pathetic. — baker

Is it? So you wanted me to dump on religion because I believe in science? I think that's pathetic; not that I didn't feel that way myself at one time. I was in my twenties when I became disenchanted with religion - and I was very angry about it. But when you think about the role religion has played as the central coordinating mechanism of societies through thousands of years of history - the question of whether it's true or not is about the least interesting and least important thing about it.

I'm agnostic because, as a philosopher interested in science - I think it important to admit what you can, and cannot know. I've got to a place where I accept, I don't know if God exists or not; and emotionally, that's quite comfortable.

The last thing I'll say is probably the most important; and it's that religion made a mistake making an enemy of science. Science could have, and should have been welcomed as the means to know the Creation - rather than been rendered suspect of heresy, true knowledge should have moral worth. Why? Because, as implied above, survival is a matter of the application of the right technologies. We do not have a limited amount of resources we are consuming, and once they're gone, we're done. That's not how it is. We create resources by the application of technology, and have not applied the right technologies because science was made a heresy - rather than valued as true knowledge of Creation.

The last thing I'll say is probably the most important; and it's that religion made a mistake making an enemy of science. Science could have, and should have been welcomed as the means to know the Creation - rather than been rendered suspect of heresy, true knowledge should have moral worth. Why? Because, as implied above, survival is a matter of the application of the right technologies. We do not have a limited amount of resources we are consuming, and once they're gone, we're done. That's not how it is. We create resources by the application of technology, and have not applied the right technologies because science was made a heresy - rather than valued as true knowledge of Creation. — counterpunch

Humanity and unrestrained science do not mix. The world almost became an irradiated wasteland SEVERAL TIMES now due to NON-WILLED NON-HUMAN NATURAL OCCURRENCES/MALFUNCTIONS. See nuclear false alarm incidents. We create all these germs and mutations in things that have the potential to kill us all, there's so many science fiction movies about this that nevertheless speak from a strong position of scientific fact. Please just honestly stop reading, thinking of a reply, and just think about that for a few minutes.

What is the goal of science? To extend and benefit human life? What do you think that will work out to with enough time. The end of true life, and us all being a series of 1's and 0's in a simulated machine. There is no other outcome. We must turn back. And now.

One of my all time favourite books is The Intelligent Universe by Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasingha. It argues for panspermia, which is the theory that the universe is full of proto-organic matter that will begin to evolve wherever the conditions are right. It was not widely accepted, but Fred Hoyle was a respected astrophysicist, and can’t be entirely discounted. But as noted above, hard evidence seems to be very difficult to find, perhaps if there’s a discovery on Mars it might throw some light.

What if space exploration is a subtle and blatantly desperate attempt to prove the Abrahamic religions wrong? — baker

It’s the natural human instinct to explore, but I also think it is sometimes the sublimated longing for Heaven.

I think the main argument against the idea of colonising space is that it’s impossible. The distances are far too great - astronomical! - and the energy requirements unfeasible. We have precisely one vessel which can carry billions of people for millions of years, and that’s Spaceship Earth, which is dangerously overheating and under immense resources stress. We ought to recognise that and act accordingly.

Humanity and unrestrained science do not mix. The world almost became an irradiated wasteland SEVERAL TIMES now due to NON-WILLED NON-HUMAN NATURAL OCCURRENCES/MALFUNCTIONS. See nuclear false alarm incidents. We create all these germs and mutations in things that have the potential to kill us all, there's so many science fiction movies about this that nevertheless speak from a strong position of scientific fact. Please just honestly stop reading, thinking of a reply, and just think about that for a few minutes. — Outlander

You do not understand my argument. No offence. It takes a bit of effort to see. What I'm saying is, because the Church made an enemy of science, science was used as a tool - but ignored as an understanding of reality. Had we recognised science as an understanding of reality, and applied technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality - we would not have created nuclear and biological weapons. Instead, however, science was made a heresy to protect religious, political and economic ideologies, even while science was used as a tool for industrial and military power. We used the tools but didn't read the instructions. That's why we have nuclear and biological weapons, and that's why we have climate change. And that's why making science a heresy was a mistake.

we would not have created nuclear and biological weapons. — counterpunch

Why would we create small guns, then larger guns, then just stop all of a sudden. Someone makes a gun, you make a bigger gun. It goes back to the same dynamic "if you don't do it, somebody else will" or "you snooze, you lose".

To your point though. I'm not sure if "the Church" is some single malevolent organization disingenuously masquerading as an envoy of a greater power to lull those who believe in the possibility into conformity and submission to you or just those who believe there is something greater and chooses to live in accordance to that or not, if we take the scientific approach you admire we still have the drawbacks and potential doomsday possibilities as a result now that we did not have before. That's fact, whereas your quoted theory remains exactly that, a theory.

This isn't the 16th century where the Church was part of government and heliocentrists were locked away. Nearly all professors, scientists, and men of position are not theists. This occurred long before even the hydrogen bomb. Back then, I think explosive barrels on catapults were the maximum damage potential available via science.

Science is the process of observing and testing hypothesis in the natural world in order to gain some benefit. The hijacked definition of science is that because of this, there is no room for religion, faith, spirituality, etc. You continue to push this dynamic of opposite and opposing forces ie. the ultimatum of one or the other. I humbly reject this, along with many other people.

Makes you proud to be a 'mercan.

I humbly reject this, — Outlander

You still do not understand my argument. No offence. It was the 17th century - as in 1633, that Galileo was put on trial for proving heliocentrism using scientific method, and found grievously suspect of heresy, such that science as an understanding of reality was disgraced, even as science as a tool drove the Industrial Revolution. Ask yourself what might have followed instead, had science been welcomed as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and so accorded sacred moral worth? If you won't see it you can't. That's okay. If instead, you continue to insist we must TURN BACK NOW - maybe you can explain how we put the genie back in the bottle???

Makes you proud to be a 'mercan. — Banno

Well, sure; why not? The technology involved in the placement of Perseverance on Mars is pretty impressive, much more refined than the also successful technology used in Lunar landings.



QUESTION: How are people pronouncing the thing? per-SEV-er-ance or per-se-VER-ance? I vote for per-SEV-er-ance. Let us hope it does persevere.

the Church made an enemy of science — counterpunch

The alleged war between science and religion is greatly exaggerated in the telling. My guess is that now most of the offensive maneuvering is from the science side rather than the religion side (except for the lunatic fundamentalists). As for providing a system of reality, even some deep-fat-fried-fundamentalists rely on science when push comes to shove (like the reality that that big lump might kill them).

The role that many religious people assign to science is 'understanding how the divinely created universe works'. This approach doesn't look for magic or miracles in the cosmos, apart from the event of creation. A second approach is to operate two systems of reality side by side and separate. There is the reality of science and the reality of God (or Gods). One may earnestly pray to God for healing, comfort, and health, at the same time one seeks competent medical treatment. Where the science reality touches the God reality varies from person to person, situation to situation.

A third approach is to earnestly accept scientific reality and to nominally accept religious reality. This is probably the most common approach. Nominal religion doesn't confer many advantages, apart from 'cover'. Of course there are some people who nominally accept science; quacks, for instance.

As for life on Mars, maybe we'll find evidence, maybe not. It has not been a hospitable place for life for a long time, and the discovery of life-evidence is probably a matter of improbable luck. Maybe there are microbes or monsters deep under Mars surface, but so far no big drilling rigs have been designed, sent, landed, and operated to find out.

Our expectation/hope/fear that life arose not only on earth does not depend on Mars, one way or the other. Earth is one speck in the cosmos; life on Mars would make 2 specks. Not a big deal.

We should most anxiously worry about whether we will survive long enough to solve our problems here.

I do I just think it's wrong. Lol.

Eh idk. Maybe you're right. So, to clarify, your assertion is the following:

Because some body described by an arbitrary term you've yet to define ("the Church") said something, people used the process that created the ability to make and defend themselves on par or if not greater than others, as they always did... but suddenly would have stopped, again doing what they always did, randomly, for no purpose whatsoever, other than/because of "the Church", again which has yet to be defined.

Science, a tool by definition, rather a process of discovery, would not have been used as a tool if this group of indeterminate definition ("the Church") did not say that it was bad. Can we substitute "the Church" for "mainstream/majority belief of the time" or no? If so then at least that finally defines every term or variable in the argument, thus allowing proper analysis.

"[Religion prevented us from having] recognized science as an understanding of reality"- my point was that reality is what we make it, we either have controlled demolition or collapse in the contexts of villages or nation-states, progress/innovation/inventions that result in no more fatalities than a village/small society OR uncontrolled obliteration in the context of the entire planet from nuclear holocausts, germ warfare run amok, etc. as nearly occurred several times since, inevitable due to human nature.

I still wish to pinpoint any logic or rationale in words and ideas you deem me as having missed. To circle back, if religion (the idea or absolute existence even of a supreme being or afterlife) was non-existent, we would have overcame our biological inclinations toward survival, groups of similar appearance, genetics and familiarity, disinclination toward the unfamiliar, and just all held hands and sung kumbaya, which again never occurred due to the two realities of limited resources colliding with the human ego. We would have never created weapons to defend ourselves, no people would have ever committed a grave or unforgivable crime against another people warranting retribution or justice (with the understanding that there is only one life to live and someone permanently ruined or destroyed it), and we would have all just created Utopian cities where peace and understanding was prevalent and strife and discord was rarer than a total eclipse?

Is that your argument? Help show me the light here.

The alleged war between science and religion is greatly exaggerated in the telling. — Bitter Crank

I disagree. I think the rift between science and religion is deep, but largely misunderstood. Maybe it requires a good appreciation of what science is, both as a method of investigation, and as a picture of reality, to understand why the trial of Galileo meant we applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons. It's not just some bickering about evolution - that's surface stuff.

Think about it this way. Humankind evolved from animal ignorance and only slowly came into human knowledge about the world. For generation after generation our ancestors struggled on in ignorance - plagued by disease, drought and crop failure, and invented religion to give themselves some illusion of control. They struggled on and on - burning offerings and reading entrails, then Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, trying to understand generation after generation - and on and on, and then they discovered scientific method, and the Church declared it a heresy. What if they hadn't declared it a heresy? What if they'd embraced it instead? Our natural evolution would have unfolded. This isn't our natural course. We are not "who we were meant to be."

We were sent down the wrong road, applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons, and so now we're looking at a climate and ecological crisis that threatens civilisation and thereby human existence. It's cause and effect. It's evolution. Organisms have to be correct to reality or are destined to become extinct. We're wrong, and unless we address this problem, soon we'll be gone. That's how deep this issue is. It's of existential import.

Is that your argument? Help show me the light here. — Outlander

I'm not interested in engaging with your sarcastic childish bullshit. Offence intended!

I truly believe there's a valid point in your argument I might have missed. The possibility, at least. Even so, there's always the explicit logical counterarguments you could engage with. The only thing I was expecting of you to do. If you would choose to do so that is. Still, I suppose the point we're now debating "religion stigmatizing science as evil resulting in the creation of weapons of mass destruction", or were at least, is a far cry from the original premise stated in your OP as "what if there is life on Mars". My mistake, undoubtedly.

Let's get back to that then, shall we? Or, anyone else who wishes to continue in your place.

I mentioned the possibility of microorganisms as having little prominence in my opinion, if not from the fact that microorganisms were inevitably brought there via not only this probe but those before it. Between the actions of the instruments of the previous craft introducing them and the possibility of solar wind and lack of atmosphere spreading them and perhaps cosmic radiation mutating them into forms now unrecognizable or.. alien :grin:, I'd suggest there's still little cause for a "eureka!" moment.

So. What if it's beyond that of a microorganism. Say a "space algae" of a sort. I'd still default toward the belief this is hardly a game-changer. Now.. something with a nervous system and full-fledged brain on the other hand.. would be a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. Though still nothing outside of the realm of scientific possibility.

*

'mercan. — Banno

Murican.

I mentioned the possibility of microorganisms as having little prominence in my opinion, if not from the fact that microorganisms were inevitably brought there via not only this probe but those before it. Between the actions of the instruments of the previous craft introducing them and the possibility of solar wind and lack of atmosphere spreading them and perhaps cosmic radiation mutating them into forms now unrecognizable or.. alien, I'd suggest there's still little cause for a "eureka!" moment. — Outlander

NASA go to extreme lengths to sterilize spacecraft - so the introduction of microorganisms from earth is unlikely. The spontaneous formation of RNA and DNA are where Intelligent Design advocates defend against a physical explanation of life. If RNA or DNA could be proven to have occurred on another planet - it would be a big deal. It's thought that, to get from RNA and DNA to microorganisms took about 1.5 billion years on earth. Being able to show evolution had advanced that far before conditions on Mars became inhospitable would be a very big deal.

What if it's beyond that of a microorganism. Say a "space algae" of a sort. I'd still default toward the belief this is hardly a game-changer. Now.. something with a nervous system and full-fledged brain on the other hand.. would be a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. Though still nothing outside of the realm of scientific possibility. — Outlander

Perhaps you've been conditioned to expect three breasted aliens and million year old machines that create an oxygen atmosphere when plugged in. But realistically, we are looking for the remains of very primitive life that became extinct over 4 billion years ago. Mars was only warm and wet for around 600 million years after the planet formed. It's overwhelmingly likely they will find nothing conclusive, if they find anything at all.

Mmrrr'can!

then they discovered scientific method, and the Church declared it a heresy — counterpunch

When did the Church declare 'scientific method' to be heretical?

True, Galileo was found to hold a heretical heliocentric belief. However, Copernicus came up with the heliocentric theory a century earlier in 1533, and it wasn't kept a secret from the then-current pope:

In 1533, Johann Widmanstetter, secretary to Pope Clement VII, explained Copernicus's heliocentric system to the Pope and two cardinals. The Pope was so pleased that he gave Widmanstetter a valuable gift

Further, Copernicus' book on the heliocentric system was published around 1543 or so, about the time Copernicus died at age 70 from the effects of a stroke. Maybe Galileo just rubbed his current pope, Urban VIII, the wrong way.

But why blame the church for everything? One Claudius Ptolemy is responsible for the long-running geocentric model of 'the universe'. Why don't you blame this Roman Egyptian for setting science back--a millennia and a half!?

In any event, the earth continued to orbit the sun, and science continued getting done without a whole lot of interference from Holy Mother Church. (Of course there was some interference in all sorts of activities: The Pope and his minions, and the Protestant big wigs too, all had their fingers in numerous pies all over the place.

That's how deep this issue is. It's of existential import. — counterpunch

Yes, I totally agree. We are in the unappealing position of needing to wonder how long our species will be around. It might not be for long.

What if they hadn't declared it a heresy? What if they'd embraced it instead? Our natural evolution would have unfolded. This isn't our natural course. We are not "who we were meant to be." — counterpunch

This might be where your train goes off the rails. Holy Mother Church was never in charge of whatever constitutes the "scientific establishment". Science marched on, whether the pope thought it was heretical or not. Our "natural evolution" had unfolded long before Jesus, Mary, and Joseph came along.

Human beings have been a damned, doomed species from the get go. Our Original Sin occurred when we emotional volatile apes added intelligence, curiosity, and blind ambition to our species. After that it was only a matter of time before we would get our hands on clubs, arrows, bullets, and atomic weapons, and gas ourselves with CO2.

Sure, much that happened in western culture after the Renaissance (and the Enlightenment) contributed to the situation we are in. Everything from double-entry bookkeeping, the expansion of credit, harnessing steam, global exploration, capitalism, the French Revolution--it all figures in. The history of cultures just can't be reduced to some simplistic explanation like the pope deciding that Galileo's theory was heretical.

As a 'murican (or Terran / Terrestrial / Earthling), what will make me really sit-up and take notice is (if and) when we drop (constructed in hard lunar vaccum) an AI-driven "fleet" of (cephalopod-like) submersibles through one or all of the frozen carapaces of the watery moons of Ganymede, Enceladus, Europa and/or Callisto to explore those pitch black oceans where 'extraterrestrial life' most probably resides, and maybe also is most abundant, in this solar system. And I hope this happens before I'm too decrepit or decomposed to appreciate that "eureka" moment. :nerd: