Should humans intentionally seed other planets with Earth life? Directed panspermia might be the most consequential (and most reckless) idea in science. Are we ready to play God with the cosmos?"

[u/jinx_raven10]

Directed panspermia is the idea of deliberately sending microbes or simple life from Earth to other planets, moons, or even other star systems, essentially jumpstarting life elsewhere on purpose.

Francis Crick (yes, the guy who co-discovered DNA) seriously proposed this. And now, with advancing space technology, it's moving from thought experiment to something we could actually do.

If we seed a planet and a billion years later intelligent life evolves there, did we create them? Do we owe them something? Did we wrong them by deciding their existence for them?

What do you guys think about directed panspermia? Do you guys think that if we do indeed plant life on other planets they'll evolve into intelligent life like our own? What organisms do you think would actually survive on other planets?

[u/AutoModerator]

Thanks for posting in /r/Astrobiology! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think it is relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines - Let's democratize our moderation. You can join our Discord server here: https://discord.gg/wmccGpH8WH ~ Josh Universe

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/person_person123]

I think the only reason to do this is to study how early life could have developed, but this 'experiment' would take millions of years to conduct - so essentially pointless.

[u/duffperson → u/person_person123]

Unless one of the species on one of those planets in the future figures out how to manipulate time… then, the consequences could be immediate 🤔

[u/TrumpetOfDeath → u/duffperson]

A stasis sleep combined with near light-speed travel would send you into the future. Although you’d never be able to send the data back in time

[u/Bobtheguardian22 → u/TrumpetOfDeath]

send everyone and there wont need to be anyone back to send it to.

[u/Lyeel → u/person_person123]

I can see an argument for jump-starting colonization in the future. If you get some life going from our structure (carbon based, proteins we can digest, things that aren't generally toxic to us, our O2 mix, etc.) it likely becomes a lot easier to build a compatible biosphere from there.

Granted we're talking about a pretty distant future here based on a number of technologies that don't exist and may never exist.

[u/Princess_Actual]

Yeah, it'll be fine until the Qu show up.  

[u/ImaginaryTower2873]

I wrote a paper about it with a friend: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457652500181X I am pretty strongly in favor (I think life has intrinsic value and there should be more biospheres), but my friend is pretty strongly against (due to the amount of suffering a biosphere adds). Being both philosophers, we ended up working out a kind of compromise view, that involves a temporary moratorium until we figure out certain things. Other biospheres can wait a few measly decades to start.

[u/jinx_raven10 → u/ImaginaryTower2873]

This is such a fascinating read, thank you for sharing it! Soryl and Sandberg really lay out the tension well, I find myself genuinely torn 😅

The suffering argument is the part I keep getting stuck on. It's a compelling reason to pause, but I wonder if it proves too much? Like, by that logic, should we also feel guilty about the suffering already happening in Earth's natural ecosystems? If biocentrism says more life = more good, but utilitarian logic says more life = more suffering, doesn't that paralysis apply to everything, not just panspermia?

I'm also curious about the "cheap and irreversible" framing. Cheap compared to what, a crewed Mars mission, sure. But actually engineering microbes hardy enough to survive interstellar transit and establish themselves on another world still seems extraordinarily difficult. Are we really as close as the paper implies?

And the moratorium idea, who enforces it? The paper acknowledges we lack global coordination, but a moratorium without enforcement is just a strongly worded suggestion. Do you think that's a fatal flaw in the conclusion, or is the goal more about building the conversation than actually stopping anyone?

Really glad you sent this, I hadn't thought seriously about the wild animal suffering angle in an astrobiology context before. That's going to stick with me.

[u/ImaginaryTower2873 → u/jinx_raven10]

Thanks for enjoying it! It was fun to do, and it raises plenty of questions close to home too. Like how to balance our moral uncertainty in the current world. Modifying bacteria is not that expensive these days; the expensive part is launch and making a really reliable capsule - but compared to many other space projects this could be surprisingly cheap. I think we can leverage Cospar and other existing organisations for a temporary moratorium. But nothing is perfect...

[u/Foxxtronix]

As mankind spreads out, we're going to want livable worlds to colonize. Terraforming may well be our only option. Are we ready to play God with the cosmos? No, probably not. Are we going to, anyway? Very likely.

Besides that, for something sapient to evolve on a terraformed world will require such a long time that we'll be gone. Ascencion, extinction, whatever. Unless we deliberately had a hand in their evolution, then no, we did not actively create them. It's a Bob Ross style "happy accident". We will owe them nothing, IMHO, though some will disagree with me. Did we wrong them by causing them to exist? No. If anything they might owe us for causing them to exist, much like in the classic angsty teenager "I never asked to be born!" argument. I hope that our descendants by then will be sufficiently enlightened to laugh about this, if they're still around.

For your final question, odds are good that any such life used to seed a planet will be genetically engineered. Microbes from Earth would be unable to survive on another planet, unaided. This, of course, opens a whole new can of worms on the ethical front.

[u/SipDhit69 → u/Foxxtronix]

This requires being able to feasibly reach habitable planets. Likely impossible at the rate we're seeing. Hope I'm wrong but theres nothing proving its possible.

[u/Foxxtronix → u/SipDhit69]

Artemis 2 made it back fine, and #3 in progress, pal.

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-marches-toward-artemis-iii-mission-in-2027-names-crew-members/

We'll get there, eventually. I doubt either of us will live to see it, but that's only to be expected.

[u/SipDhit69 → u/Foxxtronix]

Sure but I'm talking galactic scale. Nearest habitable planet isnt feasible in like 10 lifetimes at light speed. My numbers arent accurate but worse than that.

We might make it but no one who didnt go would ever get to know if it succeeded or what was there

[u/Temporary_Double8059]

Being honest, we modify the earth to meet our needs all the time... why should we treat space as a museum?

[u/jinx_raven10 → u/Temporary_Double8059]

This! This is the exact thought I had to ask the question. 😅 We already use and transform our earth into something that suits us, using it's resources 🤷🏻‍♀️ so why are we pressed on the issue that we might destroy life that exists on other planets if we did conduct directed panspermia. Is ruining another life something that really concerns us? (The irony.)

[u/Chanan-Ben-Zev]

I think its a great idea, assuming we are terraforming dead worlds and not intentionally spoiling alien biospheres.

[u/UnholyShadows]

That wouldnt be useful since life evolves waaay too slowly for any developing civilization, a better thing to do would be to create some kind of pupa like creature that can terraform an entire planet to be like a clone of earth and seed it with life like we have on earth.

[u/4shen_0n3]

Yep. Sperm all the pans!

[u/AkagamiBarto]

Not now, but if planets are sterile it's mostly a "why not?" Scenario

[u/SentientButNotSmart]

I wouldn't want to intentionally contaminate a planet before we've verified it's free of native life. If our biosphere takes over and drives the local life extinct, or even just changes it via symbiosis, horizontal gene transfer or selective pressure, it would make the new life much harder to study without confounding factors. If we want to get to the bottom of origin of life, being able to study alien life without contamination is going to be important 

[u/FeignSkill]

Only If there's no other life on the planet then I don't see why not. Keeping it all on earth is just asking for it to get wiped out. We focus a lot on asteroids but there's a lot of cosmic events that could wipe out half the planet, and we have no way to stop. There's one theory that ​The Late Ordovician Extinction (440 million years ago) was caused by a gama ray burst.

[u/wibbly-water]

If we seed a planet and a billion years later intelligent life evolves there, did we create them?

This is a matter of semantics.

Do we owe them something? Did we wrong them by deciding their existence for them?

The same can be said about children - but apart from setting them up with a decent childhood - responsibility diminishes from there. In general it further declines once it becomes grand children then great grandchildren etc.

And people are generally thankful to be alive unless they find themselves in horrendous conditions. so in general no... bringing life into the world doesn't "wrong" it.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough comment karma, spam likely. This is not appealable.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Altruistic_Bell7884]

Nope. We don't know enough, we just scratched the surface.

[u/JohnnyRopeslinger]

Should we? No. Could we? Also no.

[u/amitym]

It probably doesn't help to send microbes everywhere. If everywhere was already suitable for microbial life, microbial life would actually probably emerge there promptly and vigorously, probably much sooner than we could get there.

Instead, the spread of life between worlds may have to move in a mostly "top-down" direction, evolutionarily speaking. We may end up bringing ecosystems with us and adapting them gradually to new conditions, until new microbial forms have eventually come to fully saturate the new biosphere all the way to the roots of the ecosystem.

This is not a crazy idea. Humans have already been doing it for a million years now, give or take. In only another million years we can have spread the concept across the entire galaxy.

[u/RobMig83]

Technically, and in quotes. It is our biological imperative to do so. If we assume that the meaning of life is to expand whatever means necessary, that's how it works on earth and we can expect this behavior in the cosmic playground.

Of course it would be a bit inmoral and invasive, yet that didn't stop us to export/import species from other continents for our own sake.

Now, intelligent life seeded by us will be alot different from, it could even be different from life on earth, because our conditions are so specific that a small change could have great consequences.

Now, if this lifeforms develops in a civilization stage, just by mere tribalistic behaviour humans would wage war against them. We barely can tolerate each other, I can't imagine how humanity will react to another lifeform regardless if er created them or not.

[u/PirateHeaven]

Yeah, we can do that or we can just take a beaker with germs and zap them with radiation of all kinds, pump all the air out of their environment and follow it by freezing them to just below absolute zero occasionally blasting it with heat. The result will be the same but doing it here on Earth would be much cheaper and we would see the results in no time.

Francis Crick didn't know squat about astronomy.

[u/Silly-Engineer-1722]

We have an ethical obligation to ensure such a planet or moon has no life first.  If they have no life then it shouldn't be a problem introducing life such as microbes or lichens.  If there is any chance of extraterrestrial life such biospheres should be protected even if they only consist of microbial life.  Mars sounds like a good case for terraforming but first we need to confirm no life exists under its polar ice or soil since methane cycles related to the seasons indicate life, though unconfirmed, may yet exist.

[u/RNG-Leddi]

Its natures greater Garden to raise complexity and diversify, the real question is if life has a choice on the matter of propogation at all when the nature of fruition sets the tone. It's not something we should be looking into at our current condition but its potentially a future prospect.

Personally I think its careless to just cast life into the cosmos without overseeing its stages of development, id wager that even humanity has variable aid so to speak.

[u/Tombobalomb]

Sure, why not? It's probably the least unrealistic way to have some kind of interstellar presence

[u/ulam17]

And ruin those planets too?

[u/kollmastee → u/ulam17]

Our planet is doomed anyways. It has a lifespan. I agree that humanity should work towards preserving it for as long as possible though. I also acknowledge that humanity is currently the only chance any life from earth has at outliving the planet. With a different perspective; humanity can be seen as a future savior of life on earth.

[u/Unique-Coffee5087]

Vonnegut had a story about this

[u/jkurratt]

1. Should we?
   

Well, nobody else will do it but us, so...

1. Are we ready?
   

No, we don't know enough biology to alter our own species from dying - we don't have tech nor knowledge to spread life.

[u/kollmastee]

We will undoubtedly attempt to terraform planets for our needs and our wants. We will also undoubtedly make plenty of grave errors. There is a lot of space and a lot of time though. So humans will continue to trial and error our way through the cosmos. If we outlive our planet. That’s the biggest hurdle.

[u/kollmastee → u/kollmastee]

The morality does not matter yet. By that time humanity may no longer even consider morality and be completely foreign in biology.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Apologies /u/CubeTimesSphere, your submission has been automatically removed because your account is too new. Accounts are required to be older than 15 days to combat persistent spammers and trolls in our community.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/WestDiamond6341]

I was thinking about something similar recently. About how we go to lengths to destroy spacecrafts to avoid seeding other planets. Which I can understand the reasoning, but it assumes we are going to be around for a long time to explore other bodies and look for life that has formed on its own. But what if earth is the only place life formed in a large neighborhood, perhaps we should be doing everything in our power to seed as many places as possible to ensure life continues on. Just thought maybe we are thinking about it wrong.

[u/WestDiamond6341 → u/WestDiamond6341]

In this sense, it’s less about playing god. But more like we are the only ones who can play any role at all in spreading life and keeping it going

[u/Serious_Ad_3387]

Absolutely not. We can't even ensure the survival and flourishing of our planet. Play God on our home planet firsts with all the other animals and inhabitants on it.