From Guy Cox
I was horrified by the proposition that we should send life to other planets (5 February, p 40). Why anyone should seriously favour contaminating ecosystems on other planets with terrestrial bacteria I find hard to understand.
Let’s not forget that it is likely that such ecosystems do exist. Organic compounds are common even on meteorites and comets, so life is likely to arise on a planet if it is even remotely Earth-like.
Admittedly, one unusual feature of our planet is its oversized moon. The tides it creates were probably instrumental in getting life out of the oceans and onto land. One may expect, therefore, that life elsewhere may be confined to water.
This has an ironic corollary. Aquatic life, however intelligent, would have little use for radio waves, making it likely that most of our attempts at interstellar communication are misdirected.
Advertisement
From Leo Passaportis
I was surprised that your feature about sending life to other planets did not mention the debate surrounding the Russian Federal Space Agency’s Phobos Sample Return Mission. This aims to send live bacteria into the solar system for the first time, apparently in violation of the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
As Barry DiGregorio argues in an earlier New Scientist article (25 December 2010, p 32), our knowledge about the “survivability” of life on another planet is “constantly changing with each spacecraft mission”. So why embark on such projects now, just because the technology allows?
Our endeavours to study extrasolar planets are just starting to bear fruit. There may come a time for philanthropically sharing terrestrial life forms with these other worlds, but it is not yet.
Plymouth, Devon, UK
Sydney, Australia
