Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

[Jdvn1]

To use the dolphin example, we would have a much easier time to understand dolphins than any lifeform from mars and that even when we could observe them in person instead of talking over radio.
And no, we could not be sure if we would get along with them when we are not in conflict over resources.

Do you advocate destroying dolphins, then? What about martian dolphins?

The fact is you can't factually say we'd have a much easier time to understand dolphins than any lifeform from Mars. You can't know that until you try. And history tells us we would try and continue trying even after initial failures.

And I disagree with Umbran that we need to know that we're not in conflict over some resource - just like with oil, we would just create a market for that resource or find alternatives to it.

The least, but not the only one. Gravity? Radiation?
Besides as I understood it you were saying that earth plants might grow in a mars greenhouse. What if mars has a lot more radiation than earth? I don't think our plants would do well in that case.

Thank goodness we have a ability to study the surfaces of other planets. We've been doing that for decades. If we've been studying martian linguistics at the same time, we'd probably be further along than we are now.

To use my previous example, billions of years ago the eagle and seaweed had a common ancestor. Mars and earth plants would not. So unless you can combine an eagle with seaweed or subscribe to a "earth was seeded from space and mars, too" theory you don't even need to think about combining alien with terrestrial plants.

Crossing plant life with other plant life is likely enough. We don't have to be able to do everything we just have to be able to do initial things, and then we'll eventually grow into the more complicated things. Science is done in baby steps. NASA wasn't built in a day.

Further, crossing earth and martian DNAs isn't necessary. Chemical processes that occur in martian plants can be duplicated on earth, regardless, outside of a plant. We can put together protons, neutrons, and electrons to create elements to create any molecule... initial tests could be expensive, but just about anything can be done.

If we can create temporary black holes and pass the speed of light, we can do a lot. We're only bound by our imaginations - which is part of the benefit of observing life different from our own.

What scientific knowledge is expanded by building a greenhouse?

I already mentioned biological and chemical things we could learn by studing the plant life.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What scientific knowledge is expanded by building a greenhouse?

Lots, actually. You get a controlled environment in which to study plants over generations, for one, including hybridizing different strains. This gives you the foundations for understanding their genomes, etc.

In the case before us, a working terrestrial Martian greenhouse- a redhouse, if you will- could be the basis for that bioplastics factory mentioned above.

But lets say all we find out is that wecannot sustain Martian life on Earth, even in an artificial environment, with the tech level of the day. Then we have still learned something: it expands the depth of knowledge we would have on the difficulty of biological exploration of other worlds- terraforming and colonization, in other words.

Even if, for whatever reasons, we could not have a sustainable Martian Bioplastics Industry on Earth or in orbit, you still have the potential for the basis of trade. They have the bioplastics, we have __________.

What that is, we don't know, and can't know until there is communication. Perhaps they are affected by chemicals in cinnamon and rattlesnake venom like it was LSD, and they're secretly a planet of would-be stoners. Or perhaps the color purple is extremely rare and hard for them to produce.

Perhaps they really want to learn to surf the big waves.

It doesn't matter, by sheer force of separate biospheres, there will be things- natural and created- they have that we don't and vice versa, which is the basis for any trade scenario.

 

[Derren]

Do you advocate destroying dolphins, then? What about martian dolphins?

Do they have the technology to seriously harm or destroy us?

The fact is you can't factually say we'd have a much easier time to understand dolphins than any lifeform from Mars. You can't know that until you try. And history tells us we would try and continue trying even after initial failures.

It is simply a fact that we would have more in common with dolphins than martians. Same needs, same senses, two genders, much more similar brain structure, etc.
Communicating with dolphins or any other higher intelligent earth animals would be much more easy than communication with martians.

Thank goodness we have a ability to study the surfaces of other planets. We've been doing that for decades. If we've been studying martian linguistics at the same time, we'd probably be further along than we are now.

Surface study of planets have nothing to do with communicating with completely alien life forms.

Crossing plant life with other plant life is likely enough. We don't have to be able to do everything we just have to be able to do initial things, and then we'll eventually grow into the more complicated things. Science is done in baby steps. NASA wasn't built in a day.

No, it is not likely. Again, mammals or birds have more in common with out plants than martian plants would. The most obvious difference would be if they would be silica based. But even if they are carbon based there still would be no similarities unless through ungodly coincidence.

Further, crossing earth and martian DNAs isn't necessary. Chemical processes that occur in martian plants can be duplicated on earth, regardless, outside of a plant. We can put together protons, neutrons, and electrons to create elements to create any molecule... initial tests could be expensive, but just about anything can be done.

We can? Since when can we create atoms? And molecules outside of chemical processes?

If we can create temporary black holes and pass the speed of light, we can do a lot. We're only bound by our imaginations - which is part of the benefit of observing life different from our own.
I already mentioned biological and chemical things we could learn by studing the plant life.

You read way to many science fiction.

 

[Jdvn1]

Do they have the technology to seriously harm or destroy us?

We don't know! Maybe! So, you're thinking kill them just in case?

It is simply a fact that we would have more in common with dolphins than martians. Same needs, same senses, two genders, much more similar brain structure, etc.
Communicating with dolphins or any other higher intelligent earth animals would be much more easy than communication with martians.

We don't know that for sure, do we? The supposed planet is earth-like, but we don't know exactly how close to earth it is. They might be just like us, they might be totally different. That means you have to allow for the possibility that they might be very easy to communicate with - we only find out by trying first.

Surface study of planets have nothing to do with communicating with completely alien life forms.

I beg to differ - if we study their plants and see that they're remarkably similar to our plants (it's a possibility!), then we've find out that our atmospheres might be compatible, and they might be able to live here without a green/redhouse.

No, it is not likely. Again, mammals or birds have more in common with out plants than martian plants would. The most obvious difference would be if they would be silica based. But even if they are carbon based there still would be no similarities unless through ungodly coincidence.

You don't know that martian plants would be so different without testing. If they're silica based - we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

We can? Since when can we create atoms? And molecules outside of chemical processes?

Well, outside of plants, which is what I said. But, yes. It's difficult and expensive (as I also mentioned), but yes. (Link is over 10 years old, so for over a decade now, and probably longer than that)

You read way to many science fiction.

Actually, I don't read a lot of science fiction. But, I'm not sure which part you think is fiction. Temporary black holes or passing the speed of light? Or just the sentiment that we can do anything? Maybe you don't read enough science fiction.

 

[tomBitonti]

So ... having a second biosphere, with potentially very very different chemical processes at play ... should open a huge new field of biochemistry. It might also introduce very dangerous substances into our biosphere. Our biosphere was created by oxygenating organisms driving out competing organisms by poisoning them. It's not so clear that the same might not happen, in one direction or the other, between two biospheres that provide similar enough niches. Then again, our biosphere has evolved to be self stabilizing, such that any organism not fitted to a fairly high degree might have a hard time of surviving. Hard to say.

One could co-opt the intellectual resources of another people to one's benefit. Have them do the research and development. Capture the knowledge to your own benefit. Also environmental costs as well. Why have that experimental and potentially dangerous lab on your own planet?

Thx!

TomB

 

[I'm A Banana]

I understand the stymie, there. I'll leave it at this...

The wingnuts don't *dictate* policy. I am cynical enough to think that the major figures who look like they almost dictate policy 1) are not themselves wingnuts or true believers, but are generally the more insidious and calculating sort who make themselves appealing to wingnuts. 2) Don't actually dictate policy, but instead do a lot of back room dealing - if you have lots of help and support, it isn't dictating.

Your beliefs may differ.

Yeah, given the frequent and persistent occurrences of wingnuttery in old and recent history, I'ma hafta differ on that point. Genocide is a thing. A thing that has happened in living memory of people that are not even very old. Any argument that wingnuttery doesn't dictate policy is, for me, going to have to overcome some counter-examples that I feel are TREMENDOUSLY problematic to write off as just outliers.

I don't think I'm being overly cynical, either. I don't imagine we'd be at interplanatery war or anything (that would assume a planetary government, which...hahahahaha). Just that in this hypothetical, a journey to the other planet isn't out of the realm of possibility for wingnuts, and said wingnuts are likely to try something violent sooner or later, 'cuz they're nutty. If the aliens aren't psychologically hegemonic (which, given natural selection, it is unlikely that they would be), they'll probably have some wingnuts, too, who do very similar stuff.

Give it at most a year or two before someone is on a popular news network advocating for the destruction of all alien life (for one reason or another) and politicians talking about securing the "xenophobe" vote in 2016 while people are showing up at rallies with signs like "THEY HAVE NUKES, TOO!" and "BLAST THEM OUT OF THE SKY!" and "IF HUMANS ARE MADE BY GOD, WHAT MADE THEM?!"

(Xenotheology/Exotheology would be an interesting subject, I think!)

 

[sabrinathecat]

Why trade, when we can conquer and destroy, then take their stuff? If we have merchant ships flying back and forth, you can damn well better bet we'd have a space navy of some kind. Then some Hawk politician (or whoever actually gives the orders) would want to use them, even if it meant fabricating an incident to use as an excuse. (Because we're good at that.) I would love to believe that the human race would opt for trade and peace. I just don't believe it is up to the challenge.

 

[Bullgrit]

Reading some of the thoughts in this thread, I wonder why Earth isn't completely ruled and lived by one, and only one, race/nationality of humanity.

Bullgrit

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

A thing that has happened in living memory of people that are not even very old. Any argument that wingnuttery doesn't dictate policy is, for me, going to have to overcome some counter-examples that I feel are TREMENDOUSLY problematic to write off as just outliers.

What he said.

Consider the Cambodian massacres of the 70s - which did not even involved different nationalities, religions or ethnic groups, just different social classes. The Rwandan massacres of the 90s did involve different ethnic groups, but ones which knew each other and were often neighbors in close proximity. Further, a lot of the rhetoric around the wars on terrorism and in Afghanistan and Iraq at least in the Early days also carried genocidal tones. Also consider the Falkland Island war between Argentina and Great Brittan happened in large part because the Argentinean government was attempting to distract its population from the incompetence of the Argentinean government. Lastly all such wars and conflicts were served by great marketing, were wonderfully entertaining for the perpetrators.

Reading some of the thoughts in this thread, I wonder why Earth isn't completely ruled and lived by one, and only one, race/nationality of humanity.

Give it time, sir, give it time.

 

[Umbran]

3. Even when we manage to exchange people and somehow keep them alive, whats the point?

Here's the thing - nobody in history has ever been able to accurately predict what and where the cool and useful new bit of knowledge comes from. The very moment you say, "I cannot imagine how this might be useful..." is the moment you lose at the game of science. Can we guarantee that it will be a big payoff? No. But if you fail to search, you absolutely guarantee there will be no big payoff. So, you have to try pretty much everything.

The potential of an entire planet of sentient beings and the richness of their biosphere, however, is vast. The number of things you don't know about them is huge. And the more new things you learn, the more chance you have of finding excruciatingly useful pieces of information.

What scientific knowledge is expanded by building a greenhouse?

Well, presumably, you learn a whole lot about the alien biology in the process.

Interesting analogy to current events. There are creatures on our own planet referred to as "extremophiles". They live in environments we don't - like in the boiling water around volcanic vents on the sea floor. Those volcanic beasties, their ecosystem works on a different basis than the one you're used to - rather than based on photosynthesis, they're based on chemosynthesis, from heat and minerals welling up from the vents. These critters certainly *cannot* live on the surface of the Earth with us, at least not without a major artificial habitat. By your logic, that means really, there's no point studying them...

But then, folks at Virginia Tech didn't listen to you, and instead discovered an enzyme from such life that may help us create a real viable hydrogen fuel infrastructure, as it allows us to take pretty much any vegetable biomass, and use it to create hydrogen fuel at modest temperatures, without having to worry about heavy metal pollution from the catalysts used.

http://www.dailytech.com/Virginia+T...ogen+to+Replace+Fossil+Fuels/article30286.htm

You don't know what useful bits you'll discover. You *cannot* know, until you bother to look.