I do not want to get into the politics and ethics of this but if it
was decided that the rest of the universe was lifeless what would be
the most efficient way of bringing intelligent life to the rest of the
universe ?
We can work on a very long timescale of maybe millions of years so
even with our current technology we could get spores and seeds out
into space, aiming at planets or just letting them drift.
Would it be best to breed , or genetically modify some type of hybrid
species which is based around a UV tolerant spore that could survive
in space (dormant) but crossed with a higher lifeforms, so that in
suitable conditions it could like an insect change metamorphise into
an alternative form.
We could make a fungi that can change into a plankton and then into
dolphin or human.
We could proivide the whole food chain in one species.
Maybe our junk dna consists of this and we have been seeded by another
civilization with the same plan.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Stephen wrote:
> I do not want to get into the politics and ethics of this but if it
> was decided that the rest of the universe was lifeless what would be
> the most efficient way of bringing intelligent life to the rest of the
> universe ?
> We can work on a very long timescale of maybe millions of years so
> even with our current technology we could get spores and seeds out
> into space, aiming at planets or just letting them drift.
> Would it be best to breed , or genetically modify some type of hybrid
> species which is based around a UV tolerant spore that could survive
> in space (dormant) but crossed with a higher lifeforms, so that in
> suitable conditions it could like an insect change metamorphise into
> an alternative form.
> We could make a fungi that can change into a plankton and then into
> dolphin or human.
Ummm….If you’re not in a hurry, something like this is how we’re
here to begin with.
> We could proivide the whole food chain in one species.
> Maybe our junk dna consists of this and we have been seeded by another
> civilization with the same plan.
You might be interested in the ‘Uplift Universe’ stories of David
Brin…
–
You know what to remove, to reply….
On 5 Nov 2003 22:16:15 -0800, stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au
(Stephen) wrote, in part:
>I do not want to get into the politics and ethics of this but if it
>was decided that the rest of the universe was lifeless what would be
>the most efficient way of bringing intelligent life to the rest of the
>universe ?
Well, instead of "deciding" that the rest of the Universe is lifeless,
hadn’t we better *determine* that the rest of the Universe is lifeless
before doing such a thing?
Sending out spores and waiting for them to evolve is rather
untrustworthy; von Neumann machines are much more reliable for this
sort of thing. And in that case, generation ships based on an O’Neill
design are almost as fast, and have the advantage that their
intelligent occupants can tell if there is life in another solar
system before seeding it.
This has the efficiency that one doesn’t have to explore the whole
universe before getting started.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
In article <e7c13da0.0311052216.67fb7…@posting.google.com>,
stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au (Stephen) wrote:
> I do not want to get into the politics and ethics of this but if it
> was decided that the rest of the universe was lifeless what would be
> the most efficient way of bringing intelligent life to the rest of the
> universe ?
Develop a spacefaring civilization. Then, be fruitful and multiply.
> We can work on a very long timescale of maybe millions of years so
> even with our current technology we could get spores and seeds out
> into space, aiming at planets or just letting them drift.
There’s no way that would be faster than just waiting for the next
(post-)human colony to go set up shop. Assuming it worked at all, which
I highly doubt.
> Would it be best to breed , or genetically modify some type of hybrid
> species which is based around a UV tolerant spore that could survive
> in space (dormant) but crossed with a higher lifeforms, so that in
> suitable conditions it could like an insect change metamorphise into
> an alternative form.
No. It’d be best to go found a colony, and bring whatever species
you’re fond of with you.
> We could make a fungi that can change into a plankton and then into
> dolphin or human.
This seems unlikely.
> We could proivide the whole food chain in one species.
> Maybe our junk dna consists of this and we have been seeded by another
> civilization with the same plan.
Fun speculation, but no connection to reality.
,——————————————————————.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j…@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`——————————————————————’
In article <e7c13da0.0311052216.67fb7…@posting.google.com>,
Stephen <stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
>I do not want to get into the politics and ethics of this but if it
>was decided that the rest of the universe was lifeless what would be
>the most efficient way of bringing intelligent life to the rest of the
>universe ?
Go there ourselves. That beats all the less-direct methods hands down.
Interstellar cruising speeds of 0.1c look to be possible with several
different technologies which will be practical, and perhaps affordable
(that’s the hard part — starflight will initially be very expensive),
within a century. That’s by a *relatively conservative* prediction,
excluding revolutionary new developments like serious nanotechnology.
Much higher speeds are likely to be feasible later.
That means that all the effort that would have to go into a spore-based
scheme would reduce the travel time by, *at most*, a factor of ten… in
return for a very long wait for the spores to develop into something
intelligent, and considerable uncertainty as to whether they will succeed.
Better to just go there and settle the matter.
—
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | he…@spsystems.net
> Go there ourselves. That beats all the less-direct methods hands down.
> Interstellar cruising speeds of 0.1c look to be possible with several
> different technologies which will be practical, and perhaps affordable
> (that’s the hard part — starflight will initially be very expensive),
> within a century. That’s by a *relatively conservative* prediction,
> excluding revolutionary new developments like serious nanotechnology.
> Much higher speeds are likely to be feasible later.
> That means that all the effort that would have to go into a spore-based
> scheme would reduce the travel time by, *at most*, a factor of ten… in
> return for a very long wait for the spores to develop into something
> intelligent, and considerable uncertainty as to whether they will succeed.
> Better to just go there and settle the matter.
The advantage of launching spores is that it is possible to launch
clouds of trillions of spores so that you cover a very wide number of
possible systems for the cost of just one manned spacecraft. Working
on large timescales and with suitable toughened spores capable of
surviving in space it should be possible to achieve some suitable
habitats just by chance.
>The advantage of launching spores is that it is possible to launch
>clouds of trillions of spores so that you cover a very wide number of
>possible systems for the cost of just one manned spacecraft.
But as that cost is likely to be in tens of trillions, most peple will say,
"why bother?" What is so wonderful about Earth plants growing in places no
human eye will ever see?
I love space, but I would loudly oppose *any* gov’t resources being used for a
panspermia project. Rather use those US$trillions to build SPS or colonise the
asteroid belt.
G EddieA95 wrote:
> I love space, but I would loudly oppose *any* gov’t resources being used for a
> panspermia project. Rather use those US$trillions to build SPS or colonise the
> asteroid belt.
Hear, hear. SPS could well lead to orbital habitats which could lead to
colonization of the Belt and, eventually, life disseminating throughout the
Milky Way.
And better still, we’d be along to enjoy the ride.
–
Regards,
Mike Combs
———————————————————————-
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable – the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."
Gerard O’Neill – "The High Frontier"
on 7 Nov 2003 07:06:29 -0800, Stephen <stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au> sez:
` >
` > Go there ourselves. That beats all the less-direct methods hands down.
` >
` > Interstellar cruising speeds of 0.1c look to be possible with several
` > different technologies which will be practical, and perhaps affordable
` > (that’s the hard part — starflight will initially be very expensive),
` > within a century. That’s by a *relatively conservative* prediction,
` > excluding revolutionary new developments like serious nanotechnology.
` > Much higher speeds are likely to be feasible later.
` >
` > That means that all the effort that would have to go into a spore-based
` > scheme would reduce the travel time by, *at most*, a factor of ten… in
` > return for a very long wait for the spores to develop into something
` > intelligent, and considerable uncertainty as to whether they will succeed.
` > Better to just go there and settle the matter.
` The advantage of launching spores is that it is possible to launch
` clouds of trillions of spores so that you cover a very wide number of
` possible systems for the cost of just one manned spacecraft. Working
` on large timescales and with suitable toughened spores capable of
` surviving in space it should be possible to achieve some suitable
` habitats just by chance.
On the other hand, what you potentially get is a universe chock full
of organisms which are just sufficiently similar to ourselves to
be, instead of randomly and occasionally, generally and frequently
really really toxic to us. We will have a much higher likelihood of
being edible to them (than a fully exobiotic ecology – which brings up
the question: how much advantage does a panspermia get you beyond
spontaneous local generation? Will seedings thrive in places where
local life couldn’t start? Remember how soon biological evidence
appears in earth’s geological record after it became remotely
possible…)
Note: this doesn’t negate my suggestion voiced at other times here
that fully exobiotic planets have a high probability of having
some aspect of ecology which will render them toxic to an exposed
human – just that a earth-panspermiated ecology will probably
have lots more potential…
–
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
>> even with our current technology we could get spores and seeds out
>> into space, aiming at planets or just letting them drift.
>There’s no way that would be faster than just waiting for the next
>(post-)human colony to go set up shop. Assuming it worked at all, which
>I highly doubt.
Assuming Humanity Survives! Since when is that a given? It might be worthwhile
to send out slowships just in case humanity destroys itself with its own
stupidity. I have visions of humanity spreading out into space, some others
have visions of waging a perpetual Jihad against unbelievers. Some of the
Christian bent are waiting for the second coming of Christ, some of these look
in anticipation of possible conflict in the Middle East as Fulfillment of
Biblical prophesy that presages the second coming of Christ. Who knows what
they’ll do if it looks like peace will break out and they won’t have their
anticipated Battle of Armageddon in their life time afterall.
Humans have lots of motivations, some of these are not rational and some are
self destructive. People who blow themselves up are a possible threat to
humanity if you give them the right equipment.
Tom
>Hear, hear. SPS could well lead to orbital habitats which could lead to
>colonization of the Belt and, eventually, life disseminating throughout the
>Milky Way.
If stupid irrational religious warriors don’t kill us first. Who knows which
technologies will be released first, the ones that destroy us or the ones that
allow us to travel to the stars. So far it seems the self destructive
applications come first, specifically in the form of the Hydrogen Bomb, before
the Fusion Rocket. Nanotechnology could build spaceship, but will we ever get a
chance to use it for that purpose before others use it to deliberately destroy
humanity in its cradle?
Tom
We will have a much higher likelihood of
> being edible to them (than a fully exobiotic ecology – which brings up
> the question: how much advantage does a panspermia get you beyond
> spontaneous local generation? Will seedings thrive in places where
> local life couldn’t start? Remember how soon biological evidence
> appears in earth’s geological record after it became remotely
> possible…)
It took Earth four billion years to get to lifeforms like us. By
introducing spores that are preprogrammed to become intelligent
lifeforms we can save billions of years from the evolutionary process.
It is quite likely that life on Earth originated elsewhere, and
without that kickstart we may never have evolved. Remember with all
the catastrophies that can hit a planet such as meteors , super nova ,
host star exploding etc. it takes a lot of luck to get to an
intelligent species within the time frame available.
If you were an outside observer you would think it was such a waste to
let a civilization evolve and then just die out without spreading
around the universe to ensure its survival.
I do not think it needs to cost as much as a manned mission to release
such spores. The solar wind will take them from the solar system, so
one space shuttle mission could release them high enough to do the
job.
I am not at this point saying that we should carry out such a mission
as we have only spent a very few years looking for other life and it
would be very irresponsible to release such spores before we have
spent at least several centuries exploring the galaxy.
In article <e7c13da0.0311081953.784aa…@posting.google.com>,
Stephen <stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
>I do not think it needs to cost as much as a manned mission to release
>such spores. The solar wind will take them from the solar system, so
>one space shuttle mission could release them high enough to do the job.
No, the space shuttle never gets out into the solar wind. The solar wind
rarely gets as low as 40,000km altitude, while the shuttle can only reach
a few hundred.
Moreover, small particles released out beyond Earth’s magnetosphere will
*not* be carried by the solar wind, which is far too thin for that. (Do
not be misled by the false analogy to Earth winds.) They will remain in
approximately Earth’s orbit, and if they don’t hit Earth (a definite
possibility), Poynting-Robertson light-pressure drag will slowly take them
down into the Sun. To get them out of the solar system, they need to be
propelled somehow.
Finally, if memory serves, the expected viable lifetime for something like
a bacterial spore in deep space is only tens of thousands of years.
Radiation damage doesn’t take all that long to ruin something dormant that
can’t repair itself. For long-term survival, you need a larger object —
think marble or golf ball, not spore — so that the interior is shielded
against the less-energetic radiation. (Stopping cosmic rays is a whole
lot harder, but they are rare compared to ultraviolet and X-ray photons.)
—
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | he…@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer wrote:
> Finally, if memory serves, the expected viable lifetime for something like
> a bacterial spore in deep space is only tens of thousands of years.
> Radiation damage doesn’t take all that long to ruin something dormant that
> can’t repair itself.
Simple fix: wake ‘em up every 7500 years. Let ‘em do their little
reproduction dance, and dispense with the broken ones… then re-freeze
‘em.
–
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
<<Nanotechnology could build spaceship, but will we ever get a
chance to use it for that purpose before others use it to deliberately destroy
humanity in its cradle?>>
I agree that "humanity" hasn’t evolved enough to be a worthwhile colonizer of
space. I don’t bemoan our lack of space travel progress anymore because it’s a
good thing we aren’t spreading our greed and lust everywhere.
Say we found a planet with rich resources. Do you think we’d leave the
inhabitants and their riches alone? Or would we treat them like Iraqis? Get
real.
"Oh you guys have a bad dictator so we have to ‘privatize’ your oil
resources and destroy your socialism for your own good."
.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~
Scott Lowther wrote:
> Henry Spencer wrote:
> > Finally, if memory serves, the expected viable lifetime for something like
> > a bacterial spore in deep space is only tens of thousands of years.
> > Radiation damage doesn’t take all that long to ruin something dormant that
> > can’t repair itself.
> Simple fix: wake ‘em up every 7500 years. Let ‘em do their little
> reproduction dance, and dispense with the broken ones… then re-freeze
> ‘em.
Designing the equipment to do this, should be interesting….
–
You know what to remove, to reply….
Drag will slowly take them
> down into the Sun. To get them out of the solar system, they need to be
> propelled somehow.
Would launch from somekind of gun achieve this, otherwise some kind of
small plasma drive would probably be the best option with current
technology.
> Finally, if memory serves, the expected viable lifetime for something like
> a bacterial spore in deep space is only tens of thousands of years.
> Radiation damage doesn’t take all that long to ruin something dormant that
> can’t repair itself. For long-term survival, you need a larger object —
> think marble or golf ball, not spore — so that the interior is shielded
> against the less-energetic radiation. (Stopping cosmic rays is a whole
> lot harder, but they are rare compared to ultraviolet and X-ray photons.)
We can enclose the spores then or directly contaminate some comets
with them. This would obviously make this a more expensive mission but
we could still greatly increase the odds on the survival of earth
life.
Stephen wrote:
> We can enclose the spores then or directly contaminate some comets
> with them. This would obviously make this a more expensive mission but
> we could still greatly increase the odds on the survival of earth
> life.
This has all been looked at from the point of view of designing
Directed Panspermia missions:
http://www.panspermia-society.com/
Paul
In article <e7c13da0.0311091819.68353…@posting.google.com>,
Stephen <stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
>>Drag will slowly take them
>> down into the Sun. To get them out of the solar system, they need to be
>> propelled somehow.
>Would launch from somekind of gun achieve this, otherwise some kind of
>small plasma drive would probably be the best option with current
>technology.
Solar sailing is actually a reasonable approach, given a launch that gets
them out into interplanetary space as a starting point. Current and
near-future gun/catapult systems can’t reach the sort of velocities needed
to leave the solar system.
—
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | he…@spsystems.net
Allen Meece wrote:
> I agree that "humanity" hasn’t evolved enough to be a worthwhile colonizer of
> space.
In comparison to what other intelligent species we’re aware of?
> Say we found a planet with rich resources. Do you think we’d leave the
> inhabitants and their riches alone? Or would we treat them like Iraqis?
If by that you mean get them out from under the yoke of an oppressive and
brutal dictator, and then help them to the first representational form of
government they’ve ever known, it sounds like you’re saying we’d help them. Is
that what you meant?
> Get
> real.
> "Oh you guys have a bad dictator so we have to ‘privatize’ your oil
> resources and destroy your socialism for your own good."
If you can point to a place where socialism contributed to the common good…
–
Regards,
Mike Combs
———————————————————————-
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable – the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."
Gerard O’Neill – "The High Frontier"
>> resources and destroy your socialism for your own good."
>If you can point to a place where socialism contributed to the common good…
Canada? Britain? Mexico?
stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au (Stephen) wrote in message <news:e7c13da0.0311052216.67fb78b9@posting.google.com>…
> I do not want to get into the politics and ethics of this but if it
> was decided that the rest of the universe was lifeless what would be
> the most efficient way of bringing intelligent life to the rest of the
> universe ?
1. Build a space-faring civilization in this solar system.
2. Launch automated drones to cruise to the nearer stars and report
back.
3. Design a fleet of slow-ships with Insta-Colony kits.
4. Launch.
5. Repeat 2-4 as needed.
If the Polynesians could colonize the Pacific in outrigger canoes, can
we do less well with slow ships?
ER
on Mon, 10 Nov 2003 03:56:18 GMT, Henry Spencer <he…@spsystems.net> sez:
` In article <e7c13da0.0311091819.68353…@posting.google.com>,
` Stephen <stephen.colbou…@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
` >>Drag will slowly take them
` >> down into the Sun. To get them out of the solar system, they need to be
` >> propelled somehow.
` >
` >Would launch from somekind of gun achieve this, otherwise some kind of
` >small plasma drive would probably be the best option with current
` >technology.
` Solar sailing is actually a reasonable approach, given a launch that gets
` them out into interplanetary space as a starting point. Current and
` near-future gun/catapult systems can’t reach the sort of velocities needed
` to leave the solar system.
You say spores can last tens of thousands of years. If you build
something small enough, not much heavier than a spore, you should
be able to launch it with something more like a particle accelerator.
Give it a bit of ionization, and accelerate it from a linac in
orbit. If you can do this, the advantage is the volume of material
you can fire. If you can only get it to 0.01 c, or even 0.001 c,
that’s still good enough to be useful. …Let’s see, could it be
done with milligrams, micrograms, or nanograms? Ionization/mass would
be rather low, so acceleration would be slow, the accelerator would
have to be long, but a sufficiently ambitious society might be
able to pull it off… I presume the panspermiators have done the
numbers on this…
–
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
on Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:19:17 -0600, Mike Combs
<mikeco…@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> sez:
` Allen Meece wrote:
` >
` > I agree that "humanity" hasn’t evolved enough to be a worthwhile
` > colonizer of space.
` In comparison to what other intelligent species we’re aware of?
` > Say we found a planet with rich resources. Do you think we’d leave the
` > inhabitants and their riches alone? Or would we treat them like Iraqis?
` If by that you mean get them out from under the yoke of an oppressive and
` brutal dictator, and then help them to the first representational form of
` government they’ve ever known, it sounds like you’re saying we’d help them.
` Is that what you meant?
` > Get real.
` > "Oh you guys have a bad dictator so we have to ‘privatize’ your oil
` > resources and destroy your socialism for your own good."
` If you can point to a place where socialism contributed to the common good…
Ants, bees, prairie dogs, kleptocrats…
–
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
<<>If you can point to a place where socialism contributed to the common
good…
Canada? Britain? Mexico?>>
Cuba? Norway? Sweden? Finland? Viet Nam? How bout China? Now they’ve even
got a moon program while we don’t.
In other words, you’ve been mistaking propaganda for information.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~