To your point, one of the most remarkable things I've read about both Mars and Venus, is that there was a time billions of years ago when they had more moderate temperatures and liquid water.
In a way, it's a tragedy that human civilization has only emerged at a time when both Mars and Venus have become much more uninhabitable than they used to be.
I think by "survive" they mean that yeast spores can briefly be put in a "mars jar" and then be revived, not that they can become metobolicaly active, or even last for an extended time on mars
More seriously, they send only sterilized landers to Mars, to avoid killing all life there (if there is any), and to avoid the problem of finding in a few years the contamination we sended there. More info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
Given that the "percentage of stars with planets" part of the Drake equation has recently been determined to be close to 100%, Panspermia is starting to feel more and more likely.
>Given that the "percentage of stars with planets" part of the Drake equation has recently been determined to be close to 100%
I'm fully with you that the sheer number of planets is one of, if not the most powerful data point we know for sure, that points toward the plausibility of extraterrestrial life. One thing I haven't heard discussed a whole lot though is, what if it's a tug of war, between a preposterously large number of planets, and a correspondingly preposterously small chance of life, that is every bit as impressively small as the number of planets is impressively big?
For whatever reason, it seems like the default attitude is to treat the sheer volume of planets like they more than compensate for the rarity of life. But what it doesn't work like that? There are different versions of this argument that apply to any life at all, and then to intelligent life, so take your pick for the more interesting question.
But in principle it seems like life, and especially multicellular and even more especially intelligent life, very well could be kind of vanishingly rare that's effectively a match in rareness to the universe's vastness.
Something to blow your mind with. The early days in the universe there were millions of years were the average temperature in the universe supported liquid water.
On the one hand, (primitive) life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions allowed it.
On the other, the early universe — this particular "warm bath" era — had approximately zero oxygen with which to make water. Right temperature, just (IIRC, but I'm not certain) zero stars yet, so nothing to make things heavier than what came out of Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
all of those theories depend on one assumption, that life and our existence are products of a purely random collision of events.
IMHO, "We don't know" is the only answer to the question of how many planets have life on them or the probability of some forms of live existing somewhere. 0 is as valid as 10^128 until more than one other life supporting planet or moon is found to establish some baseline for speculation. otherwise, we're talking sci-fi here, in which case I think stargate's version seems decent.
There is the old theory about how life is entropy accelerating, and therefore in a grand sense the emergence of life is thermodynamically favored. Though, that says nothing about the absolute chance of it occurring. Our observable universe is far from infinite.
All the study says is that their lab yeast survived shock waves and perchlorate levels similar to those on Mars.
That's all.
How likely is it that we have already accidentally "contaminated" other planets or moons, despite procedures to prevent this?
It seems unlikely to be possible to completely prevent all lifeforms from hitching a ride
We should be dropping bags of extremophile organisms into the Martian atmosphere to get a start on terraforming it.
The best time to start terraforming a planet is 500 years ago. The second best time is now.
To your point, one of the most remarkable things I've read about both Mars and Venus, is that there was a time billions of years ago when they had more moderate temperatures and liquid water.
In a way, it's a tragedy that human civilization has only emerged at a time when both Mars and Venus have become much more uninhabitable than they used to be.
What if we are the bag of organisms?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
What about uncommon yeast?
I think by "survive" they mean that yeast spores can briefly be put in a "mars jar" and then be revived, not that they can become metobolicaly active, or even last for an extended time on mars
Is there any food for them on mars?
Yeah, we can make beers on mars!
And the Martian beers can drunk in Mars' bars
I came here to write this.
We could call it "The beer at the end of the universe"
And yet the stuff in my freezer went bad.
So send the yeast.
More seriously, they send only sterilized landers to Mars, to avoid killing all life there (if there is any), and to avoid the problem of finding in a few years the contamination we sended there. More info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
My first thought on reading the title of the OP was 'I wonder if we've already ruined Mars with unhelpful yeast?'.
Surely there's nothing for it to eat there yet though.
When jupiterians come to explore mars they'll face a horror movie scenario with long dormant alien pathogen eating through their carbohydrate shells.
I think they prefer "Jovians".
That's just our word for them, just like Protestants is a Catholic umbrella term for most other denominations.
Given that the "percentage of stars with planets" part of the Drake equation has recently been determined to be close to 100%, Panspermia is starting to feel more and more likely.
>Given that the "percentage of stars with planets" part of the Drake equation has recently been determined to be close to 100%
I'm fully with you that the sheer number of planets is one of, if not the most powerful data point we know for sure, that points toward the plausibility of extraterrestrial life. One thing I haven't heard discussed a whole lot though is, what if it's a tug of war, between a preposterously large number of planets, and a correspondingly preposterously small chance of life, that is every bit as impressively small as the number of planets is impressively big?
For whatever reason, it seems like the default attitude is to treat the sheer volume of planets like they more than compensate for the rarity of life. But what it doesn't work like that? There are different versions of this argument that apply to any life at all, and then to intelligent life, so take your pick for the more interesting question.
But in principle it seems like life, and especially multicellular and even more especially intelligent life, very well could be kind of vanishingly rare that's effectively a match in rareness to the universe's vastness.
Something to blow your mind with. The early days in the universe there were millions of years were the average temperature in the universe supported liquid water.
Okay, but this is the average temperature of a big cloud of hydrogen with oxygen yet to be invented right?
I don't think millions of years is long enough for anything interesting to happen life-wise, is it?
On the one hand, (primitive) life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions allowed it.
On the other, the early universe — this particular "warm bath" era — had approximately zero oxygen with which to make water. Right temperature, just (IIRC, but I'm not certain) zero stars yet, so nothing to make things heavier than what came out of Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
hard to know with so few data points
>hard to know with so few data points
i've yelled at the interns several times but none have been able to set up a haldane soup focus group yet
all of those theories depend on one assumption, that life and our existence are products of a purely random collision of events.
IMHO, "We don't know" is the only answer to the question of how many planets have life on them or the probability of some forms of live existing somewhere. 0 is as valid as 10^128 until more than one other life supporting planet or moon is found to establish some baseline for speculation. otherwise, we're talking sci-fi here, in which case I think stargate's version seems decent.
There is the old theory about how life is entropy accelerating, and therefore in a grand sense the emergence of life is thermodynamically favored. Though, that says nothing about the absolute chance of it occurring. Our observable universe is far from infinite.