Is it ethical for Chang'e-4 to bring an entire ecosystem to the moon? [closed]
$begingroup$
As far as I know, it isn't ethical to contaminate outer space with life from Earth, because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there. However, I just read reports that the latest Chang'e-4 brings an entire ecosystem to the far side of the moon, with Arabidopsis plant seeds and even silkworms.
Is this okay? Even if it is contained within the machine and not spewed out? What danger is there of the plant material coming out of the machine and contaminating the moon?
the-moon astrobiology chang-e ethics
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
$endgroup$
closed as primarily opinion-based by Dr Sheldon, Organic Marble, Sean, Nathan Tuggy, peterh Jan 12 at 5:36
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As far as I know, it isn't ethical to contaminate outer space with life from Earth, because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there. However, I just read reports that the latest Chang'e-4 brings an entire ecosystem to the far side of the moon, with Arabidopsis plant seeds and even silkworms.
Is this okay? Even if it is contained within the machine and not spewed out? What danger is there of the plant material coming out of the machine and contaminating the moon?
the-moon astrobiology chang-e ethics
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
$endgroup$
closed as primarily opinion-based by Dr Sheldon, Organic Marble, Sean, Nathan Tuggy, peterh Jan 12 at 5:36
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
12
$begingroup$
What system of ethics?
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 11 at 16:27
7
$begingroup$
It's effectively impossible to prove a negative; we will never be able to claim with 100% certainty that any celestial body is completely devoid of life. Does that make the prospect of stellar colonization an unethical venture from the get-go?
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
Jan 11 at 19:29
10
$begingroup$
Space has dropped plenty of material on Earth; it's time we returned the favor.
$endgroup$
– Rob Crawford
Jan 11 at 22:02
2
$begingroup$
"...because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there." ... The moon, lacking atmosphere, shielding from cosmic radiation, and a number of other important factors for life, is almost certainly never going to be able to support it. If by some freak accident that changes, it almost certainly won't be for millions or billions of years. Why is disrupting a hypothetical future that probably won't happen and that we have very little chance of realistically disrupting an ethical concern? I can only respond to this with "wat."
$endgroup$
– jpmc26
Jan 11 at 23:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As far as I know, it isn't ethical to contaminate outer space with life from Earth, because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there. However, I just read reports that the latest Chang'e-4 brings an entire ecosystem to the far side of the moon, with Arabidopsis plant seeds and even silkworms.
Is this okay? Even if it is contained within the machine and not spewed out? What danger is there of the plant material coming out of the machine and contaminating the moon?
the-moon astrobiology chang-e ethics
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
$endgroup$
As far as I know, it isn't ethical to contaminate outer space with life from Earth, because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there. However, I just read reports that the latest Chang'e-4 brings an entire ecosystem to the far side of the moon, with Arabidopsis plant seeds and even silkworms.
Is this okay? Even if it is contained within the machine and not spewed out? What danger is there of the plant material coming out of the machine and contaminating the moon?
the-moon astrobiology chang-e ethics
the-moon astrobiology chang-e ethics
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
edited Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦
81.9k16234447
81.9k16234447
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
asked Jan 11 at 16:07
jonvyltrajonvyltra
595
595
closed as primarily opinion-based by Dr Sheldon, Organic Marble, Sean, Nathan Tuggy, peterh Jan 12 at 5:36
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by Dr Sheldon, Organic Marble, Sean, Nathan Tuggy, peterh Jan 12 at 5:36
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
12
$begingroup$
What system of ethics?
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 11 at 16:27
7
$begingroup$
It's effectively impossible to prove a negative; we will never be able to claim with 100% certainty that any celestial body is completely devoid of life. Does that make the prospect of stellar colonization an unethical venture from the get-go?
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
Jan 11 at 19:29
10
$begingroup$
Space has dropped plenty of material on Earth; it's time we returned the favor.
$endgroup$
– Rob Crawford
Jan 11 at 22:02
2
$begingroup$
"...because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there." ... The moon, lacking atmosphere, shielding from cosmic radiation, and a number of other important factors for life, is almost certainly never going to be able to support it. If by some freak accident that changes, it almost certainly won't be for millions or billions of years. Why is disrupting a hypothetical future that probably won't happen and that we have very little chance of realistically disrupting an ethical concern? I can only respond to this with "wat."
$endgroup$
– jpmc26
Jan 11 at 23:23
add a comment |
12
$begingroup$
What system of ethics?
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 11 at 16:27
7
$begingroup$
It's effectively impossible to prove a negative; we will never be able to claim with 100% certainty that any celestial body is completely devoid of life. Does that make the prospect of stellar colonization an unethical venture from the get-go?
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
Jan 11 at 19:29
10
$begingroup$
Space has dropped plenty of material on Earth; it's time we returned the favor.
$endgroup$
– Rob Crawford
Jan 11 at 22:02
2
$begingroup$
"...because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there." ... The moon, lacking atmosphere, shielding from cosmic radiation, and a number of other important factors for life, is almost certainly never going to be able to support it. If by some freak accident that changes, it almost certainly won't be for millions or billions of years. Why is disrupting a hypothetical future that probably won't happen and that we have very little chance of realistically disrupting an ethical concern? I can only respond to this with "wat."
$endgroup$
– jpmc26
Jan 11 at 23:23
12
12
$begingroup$
What system of ethics?
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 11 at 16:27
$begingroup$
What system of ethics?
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 11 at 16:27
7
7
$begingroup$
It's effectively impossible to prove a negative; we will never be able to claim with 100% certainty that any celestial body is completely devoid of life. Does that make the prospect of stellar colonization an unethical venture from the get-go?
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
Jan 11 at 19:29
$begingroup$
It's effectively impossible to prove a negative; we will never be able to claim with 100% certainty that any celestial body is completely devoid of life. Does that make the prospect of stellar colonization an unethical venture from the get-go?
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
Jan 11 at 19:29
10
10
$begingroup$
Space has dropped plenty of material on Earth; it's time we returned the favor.
$endgroup$
– Rob Crawford
Jan 11 at 22:02
$begingroup$
Space has dropped plenty of material on Earth; it's time we returned the favor.
$endgroup$
– Rob Crawford
Jan 11 at 22:02
2
2
$begingroup$
"...because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there." ... The moon, lacking atmosphere, shielding from cosmic radiation, and a number of other important factors for life, is almost certainly never going to be able to support it. If by some freak accident that changes, it almost certainly won't be for millions or billions of years. Why is disrupting a hypothetical future that probably won't happen and that we have very little chance of realistically disrupting an ethical concern? I can only respond to this with "wat."
$endgroup$
– jpmc26
Jan 11 at 23:23
$begingroup$
"...because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there." ... The moon, lacking atmosphere, shielding from cosmic radiation, and a number of other important factors for life, is almost certainly never going to be able to support it. If by some freak accident that changes, it almost certainly won't be for millions or billions of years. Why is disrupting a hypothetical future that probably won't happen and that we have very little chance of realistically disrupting an ethical concern? I can only respond to this with "wat."
$endgroup$
– jpmc26
Jan 11 at 23:23
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
tl;dr: There are "96 bags of poop, pee, and puke" on the Moon already!
The bags of waste are ecosystems for sure, but like the ones you mentioned, they are not going to remain alive for very long.
From Gizmodo's There's Poop on the Moon:
There is, however, scientific value to the things left behind. Astrobiologists, for instance, hope to one day inspect that half-century-old feces to see if the crap has undergone any genetic mutations while in space. Even more mundane gear on the moon's surface offer a unique perspective on how different materials hold up in extreme environments like the moon, where temperatures oscillate between minus 370-degrees to 250-degrees Fahrenheit.
What kinds of mundane gear, you wonder? Well, there's actually an entire website devoted to trash on the moon. However, here's a list of the more interesting and unusual items—aside from the 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke:
- More than 70 spacecraft
- 5 American flags, all of which are now white
- 12 pairs of boots
- An olive branch sculpture made of gold:
- "Several improvised javelins"
- Used wet wipes
- Space food wrappers
- 2 golf balls
- This gold-plated telescope that was the first tool used to make astronomical observations from the surface of another planetary body:
- A feather from Baggin, the official mascot of Air Force Academy
- A patch from the doomed Apollo 1 mission that never launched
- This silicon disc with goodwill messages from 73 world leaders:
- 12 Hasselbad cameras
- This photograph of Astronaut Charlie Duke's family from Apollo 16:
- Not to be repetitive or anything: 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
5 flags and 12 Hasselblad cameras on the Moon, are these numbers correct? See How many Lunar Surface Hasselblad cameras were left on the Moon?.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 11 at 19:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Humans have already been to the Moon, and pretty much verified it is completely sterile. It isn't really an issue bringing plants to the Moon, it couldn't contaminate anything, as there is nothing there it could really affect. Besides, anything complex couldn't survive in a vacuum, and there's been plenty of bacteria that have been on the Moon from the Apollo missions to previous landers.
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I am not sure "pretty much verified it is completely sterile" is an accurate statement. Related Can the vacuum of space be used to sterilize equipment?. I believe there is also a post about how much moon dirt you need to to protect from radiation but not finding it. Realistically there could be an entire ecosystem thriving under the surface of the moon. Maybe not a high potential, but it can't be ruled out.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Jan 11 at 18:00
2
$begingroup$
@JamesJenkins according to this about half a meter of regolith is required. That aside, we’ve found precious little to indicate any possibility of life on the Moon. I suspect Titan would be a better candidate for extraterrestrial life.
$endgroup$
– Snoopy
Jan 11 at 21:34
3
$begingroup$
With 9 sample return missions, if there is life on the Moon, it is hiding really well.
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
Jan 11 at 21:35
1
$begingroup$
Even the toughest Earth-derived bacteria can't do more than just sit there hoping that some water will eventually show up. The Moon is an incredibly hostile environment.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 11 at 22:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to Jainism and some forms of Buddhism, the concept of Ahisma tell us that it not ethical to bring an ecosystem of living creatures to an environment that will almost assuredly kill them as a result of you bringing them there.
Ahinsā (Ahinsā) in Jainism is a fundamental principle forming the cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. The term ahinsa means nonviolence, non-injury and absence of desire to harm any life forms.... Furthermore, the Jains extend the concept of ahinsa not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everything has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. Living beings need not fear those who have taken the vow of ahinsa.
Emphasis mine. Whoever decided to put those organisms on the vessel did so either knowing it would harm them, or if not, at least were not able to be sure that it wouldn't hamper the creatures' maximum potential.
From the article linked:
so it’s unclear whether plants and worms will grow normally with the moon’s meager 17 percent gravity.
To the Jainist belief system, that was an unethical action.
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
+1 for looking at the question in exactly the opposite direction to everyone else!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 11 at 23:37
$begingroup$
So what? There are thousands of gods and religions on earth. Whatever you do is going to be considered unethical by at least one religion.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
Jan 12 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
Eric, the only difference between Jainism and the western Hippocratic oath is that it extends to all forms of life. This is hardly a stretch and I think it is remiss to dismiss it outright simply because the ethical framework has religious roots.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 12 at 20:27
1
$begingroup$
@CalebJay I like this answer for the lateral thinking but just be clear religion is not necessary to build a ethical framework (this path is dangerous because on this way one can falsely claim atheist are amoral and the "wrong religion" is immoral)
$endgroup$
– jean
Jan 14 at 10:18
$begingroup$
Correct, but it provides written historical evidence, in clear terms (almost like a legal document!) for whether something is immoral / moral. You can still argue the morality of it, but this just gives evidence for the fact that, for at least the last 2,500 years, Jainists would believe the given action is immoral.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 14 at 20:02
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
tl;dr: There are "96 bags of poop, pee, and puke" on the Moon already!
The bags of waste are ecosystems for sure, but like the ones you mentioned, they are not going to remain alive for very long.
From Gizmodo's There's Poop on the Moon:
There is, however, scientific value to the things left behind. Astrobiologists, for instance, hope to one day inspect that half-century-old feces to see if the crap has undergone any genetic mutations while in space. Even more mundane gear on the moon's surface offer a unique perspective on how different materials hold up in extreme environments like the moon, where temperatures oscillate between minus 370-degrees to 250-degrees Fahrenheit.
What kinds of mundane gear, you wonder? Well, there's actually an entire website devoted to trash on the moon. However, here's a list of the more interesting and unusual items—aside from the 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke:
- More than 70 spacecraft
- 5 American flags, all of which are now white
- 12 pairs of boots
- An olive branch sculpture made of gold:
- "Several improvised javelins"
- Used wet wipes
- Space food wrappers
- 2 golf balls
- This gold-plated telescope that was the first tool used to make astronomical observations from the surface of another planetary body:
- A feather from Baggin, the official mascot of Air Force Academy
- A patch from the doomed Apollo 1 mission that never launched
- This silicon disc with goodwill messages from 73 world leaders:
- 12 Hasselbad cameras
- This photograph of Astronaut Charlie Duke's family from Apollo 16:
- Not to be repetitive or anything: 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
5 flags and 12 Hasselblad cameras on the Moon, are these numbers correct? See How many Lunar Surface Hasselblad cameras were left on the Moon?.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 11 at 19:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
tl;dr: There are "96 bags of poop, pee, and puke" on the Moon already!
The bags of waste are ecosystems for sure, but like the ones you mentioned, they are not going to remain alive for very long.
From Gizmodo's There's Poop on the Moon:
There is, however, scientific value to the things left behind. Astrobiologists, for instance, hope to one day inspect that half-century-old feces to see if the crap has undergone any genetic mutations while in space. Even more mundane gear on the moon's surface offer a unique perspective on how different materials hold up in extreme environments like the moon, where temperatures oscillate between minus 370-degrees to 250-degrees Fahrenheit.
What kinds of mundane gear, you wonder? Well, there's actually an entire website devoted to trash on the moon. However, here's a list of the more interesting and unusual items—aside from the 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke:
- More than 70 spacecraft
- 5 American flags, all of which are now white
- 12 pairs of boots
- An olive branch sculpture made of gold:
- "Several improvised javelins"
- Used wet wipes
- Space food wrappers
- 2 golf balls
- This gold-plated telescope that was the first tool used to make astronomical observations from the surface of another planetary body:
- A feather from Baggin, the official mascot of Air Force Academy
- A patch from the doomed Apollo 1 mission that never launched
- This silicon disc with goodwill messages from 73 world leaders:
- 12 Hasselbad cameras
- This photograph of Astronaut Charlie Duke's family from Apollo 16:
- Not to be repetitive or anything: 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
5 flags and 12 Hasselblad cameras on the Moon, are these numbers correct? See How many Lunar Surface Hasselblad cameras were left on the Moon?.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 11 at 19:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
tl;dr: There are "96 bags of poop, pee, and puke" on the Moon already!
The bags of waste are ecosystems for sure, but like the ones you mentioned, they are not going to remain alive for very long.
From Gizmodo's There's Poop on the Moon:
There is, however, scientific value to the things left behind. Astrobiologists, for instance, hope to one day inspect that half-century-old feces to see if the crap has undergone any genetic mutations while in space. Even more mundane gear on the moon's surface offer a unique perspective on how different materials hold up in extreme environments like the moon, where temperatures oscillate between minus 370-degrees to 250-degrees Fahrenheit.
What kinds of mundane gear, you wonder? Well, there's actually an entire website devoted to trash on the moon. However, here's a list of the more interesting and unusual items—aside from the 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke:
- More than 70 spacecraft
- 5 American flags, all of which are now white
- 12 pairs of boots
- An olive branch sculpture made of gold:
- "Several improvised javelins"
- Used wet wipes
- Space food wrappers
- 2 golf balls
- This gold-plated telescope that was the first tool used to make astronomical observations from the surface of another planetary body:
- A feather from Baggin, the official mascot of Air Force Academy
- A patch from the doomed Apollo 1 mission that never launched
- This silicon disc with goodwill messages from 73 world leaders:
- 12 Hasselbad cameras
- This photograph of Astronaut Charlie Duke's family from Apollo 16:
- Not to be repetitive or anything: 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
$endgroup$
tl;dr: There are "96 bags of poop, pee, and puke" on the Moon already!
The bags of waste are ecosystems for sure, but like the ones you mentioned, they are not going to remain alive for very long.
From Gizmodo's There's Poop on the Moon:
There is, however, scientific value to the things left behind. Astrobiologists, for instance, hope to one day inspect that half-century-old feces to see if the crap has undergone any genetic mutations while in space. Even more mundane gear on the moon's surface offer a unique perspective on how different materials hold up in extreme environments like the moon, where temperatures oscillate between minus 370-degrees to 250-degrees Fahrenheit.
What kinds of mundane gear, you wonder? Well, there's actually an entire website devoted to trash on the moon. However, here's a list of the more interesting and unusual items—aside from the 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke:
- More than 70 spacecraft
- 5 American flags, all of which are now white
- 12 pairs of boots
- An olive branch sculpture made of gold:
- "Several improvised javelins"
- Used wet wipes
- Space food wrappers
- 2 golf balls
- This gold-plated telescope that was the first tool used to make astronomical observations from the surface of another planetary body:
- A feather from Baggin, the official mascot of Air Force Academy
- A patch from the doomed Apollo 1 mission that never launched
- This silicon disc with goodwill messages from 73 world leaders:
- 12 Hasselbad cameras
- This photograph of Astronaut Charlie Duke's family from Apollo 16:
- Not to be repetitive or anything: 96 bags of poop, pee, and puke
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
edited Jan 11 at 16:35
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
answered Jan 11 at 16:28
uhohuhoh
36k18127451
36k18127451
3
$begingroup$
5 flags and 12 Hasselblad cameras on the Moon, are these numbers correct? See How many Lunar Surface Hasselblad cameras were left on the Moon?.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 11 at 19:37
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
5 flags and 12 Hasselblad cameras on the Moon, are these numbers correct? See How many Lunar Surface Hasselblad cameras were left on the Moon?.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 11 at 19:37
3
3
$begingroup$
5 flags and 12 Hasselblad cameras on the Moon, are these numbers correct? See How many Lunar Surface Hasselblad cameras were left on the Moon?.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 11 at 19:37
$begingroup$
5 flags and 12 Hasselblad cameras on the Moon, are these numbers correct? See How many Lunar Surface Hasselblad cameras were left on the Moon?.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 11 at 19:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Humans have already been to the Moon, and pretty much verified it is completely sterile. It isn't really an issue bringing plants to the Moon, it couldn't contaminate anything, as there is nothing there it could really affect. Besides, anything complex couldn't survive in a vacuum, and there's been plenty of bacteria that have been on the Moon from the Apollo missions to previous landers.
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I am not sure "pretty much verified it is completely sterile" is an accurate statement. Related Can the vacuum of space be used to sterilize equipment?. I believe there is also a post about how much moon dirt you need to to protect from radiation but not finding it. Realistically there could be an entire ecosystem thriving under the surface of the moon. Maybe not a high potential, but it can't be ruled out.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Jan 11 at 18:00
2
$begingroup$
@JamesJenkins according to this about half a meter of regolith is required. That aside, we’ve found precious little to indicate any possibility of life on the Moon. I suspect Titan would be a better candidate for extraterrestrial life.
$endgroup$
– Snoopy
Jan 11 at 21:34
3
$begingroup$
With 9 sample return missions, if there is life on the Moon, it is hiding really well.
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
Jan 11 at 21:35
1
$begingroup$
Even the toughest Earth-derived bacteria can't do more than just sit there hoping that some water will eventually show up. The Moon is an incredibly hostile environment.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 11 at 22:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Humans have already been to the Moon, and pretty much verified it is completely sterile. It isn't really an issue bringing plants to the Moon, it couldn't contaminate anything, as there is nothing there it could really affect. Besides, anything complex couldn't survive in a vacuum, and there's been plenty of bacteria that have been on the Moon from the Apollo missions to previous landers.
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I am not sure "pretty much verified it is completely sterile" is an accurate statement. Related Can the vacuum of space be used to sterilize equipment?. I believe there is also a post about how much moon dirt you need to to protect from radiation but not finding it. Realistically there could be an entire ecosystem thriving under the surface of the moon. Maybe not a high potential, but it can't be ruled out.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Jan 11 at 18:00
2
$begingroup$
@JamesJenkins according to this about half a meter of regolith is required. That aside, we’ve found precious little to indicate any possibility of life on the Moon. I suspect Titan would be a better candidate for extraterrestrial life.
$endgroup$
– Snoopy
Jan 11 at 21:34
3
$begingroup$
With 9 sample return missions, if there is life on the Moon, it is hiding really well.
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
Jan 11 at 21:35
1
$begingroup$
Even the toughest Earth-derived bacteria can't do more than just sit there hoping that some water will eventually show up. The Moon is an incredibly hostile environment.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 11 at 22:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Humans have already been to the Moon, and pretty much verified it is completely sterile. It isn't really an issue bringing plants to the Moon, it couldn't contaminate anything, as there is nothing there it could really affect. Besides, anything complex couldn't survive in a vacuum, and there's been plenty of bacteria that have been on the Moon from the Apollo missions to previous landers.
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
$endgroup$
Humans have already been to the Moon, and pretty much verified it is completely sterile. It isn't really an issue bringing plants to the Moon, it couldn't contaminate anything, as there is nothing there it could really affect. Besides, anything complex couldn't survive in a vacuum, and there's been plenty of bacteria that have been on the Moon from the Apollo missions to previous landers.
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
answered Jan 11 at 16:12
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
81.9k16234447
81.9k16234447
3
$begingroup$
I am not sure "pretty much verified it is completely sterile" is an accurate statement. Related Can the vacuum of space be used to sterilize equipment?. I believe there is also a post about how much moon dirt you need to to protect from radiation but not finding it. Realistically there could be an entire ecosystem thriving under the surface of the moon. Maybe not a high potential, but it can't be ruled out.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Jan 11 at 18:00
2
$begingroup$
@JamesJenkins according to this about half a meter of regolith is required. That aside, we’ve found precious little to indicate any possibility of life on the Moon. I suspect Titan would be a better candidate for extraterrestrial life.
$endgroup$
– Snoopy
Jan 11 at 21:34
3
$begingroup$
With 9 sample return missions, if there is life on the Moon, it is hiding really well.
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
Jan 11 at 21:35
1
$begingroup$
Even the toughest Earth-derived bacteria can't do more than just sit there hoping that some water will eventually show up. The Moon is an incredibly hostile environment.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 11 at 22:07
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
I am not sure "pretty much verified it is completely sterile" is an accurate statement. Related Can the vacuum of space be used to sterilize equipment?. I believe there is also a post about how much moon dirt you need to to protect from radiation but not finding it. Realistically there could be an entire ecosystem thriving under the surface of the moon. Maybe not a high potential, but it can't be ruled out.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Jan 11 at 18:00
2
$begingroup$
@JamesJenkins according to this about half a meter of regolith is required. That aside, we’ve found precious little to indicate any possibility of life on the Moon. I suspect Titan would be a better candidate for extraterrestrial life.
$endgroup$
– Snoopy
Jan 11 at 21:34
3
$begingroup$
With 9 sample return missions, if there is life on the Moon, it is hiding really well.
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
Jan 11 at 21:35
1
$begingroup$
Even the toughest Earth-derived bacteria can't do more than just sit there hoping that some water will eventually show up. The Moon is an incredibly hostile environment.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 11 at 22:07
3
3
$begingroup$
I am not sure "pretty much verified it is completely sterile" is an accurate statement. Related Can the vacuum of space be used to sterilize equipment?. I believe there is also a post about how much moon dirt you need to to protect from radiation but not finding it. Realistically there could be an entire ecosystem thriving under the surface of the moon. Maybe not a high potential, but it can't be ruled out.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Jan 11 at 18:00
$begingroup$
I am not sure "pretty much verified it is completely sterile" is an accurate statement. Related Can the vacuum of space be used to sterilize equipment?. I believe there is also a post about how much moon dirt you need to to protect from radiation but not finding it. Realistically there could be an entire ecosystem thriving under the surface of the moon. Maybe not a high potential, but it can't be ruled out.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
Jan 11 at 18:00
2
2
$begingroup$
@JamesJenkins according to this about half a meter of regolith is required. That aside, we’ve found precious little to indicate any possibility of life on the Moon. I suspect Titan would be a better candidate for extraterrestrial life.
$endgroup$
– Snoopy
Jan 11 at 21:34
$begingroup$
@JamesJenkins according to this about half a meter of regolith is required. That aside, we’ve found precious little to indicate any possibility of life on the Moon. I suspect Titan would be a better candidate for extraterrestrial life.
$endgroup$
– Snoopy
Jan 11 at 21:34
3
3
$begingroup$
With 9 sample return missions, if there is life on the Moon, it is hiding really well.
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
Jan 11 at 21:35
$begingroup$
With 9 sample return missions, if there is life on the Moon, it is hiding really well.
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
Jan 11 at 21:35
1
1
$begingroup$
Even the toughest Earth-derived bacteria can't do more than just sit there hoping that some water will eventually show up. The Moon is an incredibly hostile environment.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 11 at 22:07
$begingroup$
Even the toughest Earth-derived bacteria can't do more than just sit there hoping that some water will eventually show up. The Moon is an incredibly hostile environment.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 11 at 22:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to Jainism and some forms of Buddhism, the concept of Ahisma tell us that it not ethical to bring an ecosystem of living creatures to an environment that will almost assuredly kill them as a result of you bringing them there.
Ahinsā (Ahinsā) in Jainism is a fundamental principle forming the cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. The term ahinsa means nonviolence, non-injury and absence of desire to harm any life forms.... Furthermore, the Jains extend the concept of ahinsa not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everything has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. Living beings need not fear those who have taken the vow of ahinsa.
Emphasis mine. Whoever decided to put those organisms on the vessel did so either knowing it would harm them, or if not, at least were not able to be sure that it wouldn't hamper the creatures' maximum potential.
From the article linked:
so it’s unclear whether plants and worms will grow normally with the moon’s meager 17 percent gravity.
To the Jainist belief system, that was an unethical action.
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
+1 for looking at the question in exactly the opposite direction to everyone else!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 11 at 23:37
$begingroup$
So what? There are thousands of gods and religions on earth. Whatever you do is going to be considered unethical by at least one religion.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
Jan 12 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
Eric, the only difference between Jainism and the western Hippocratic oath is that it extends to all forms of life. This is hardly a stretch and I think it is remiss to dismiss it outright simply because the ethical framework has religious roots.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 12 at 20:27
1
$begingroup$
@CalebJay I like this answer for the lateral thinking but just be clear religion is not necessary to build a ethical framework (this path is dangerous because on this way one can falsely claim atheist are amoral and the "wrong religion" is immoral)
$endgroup$
– jean
Jan 14 at 10:18
$begingroup$
Correct, but it provides written historical evidence, in clear terms (almost like a legal document!) for whether something is immoral / moral. You can still argue the morality of it, but this just gives evidence for the fact that, for at least the last 2,500 years, Jainists would believe the given action is immoral.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 14 at 20:02
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
According to Jainism and some forms of Buddhism, the concept of Ahisma tell us that it not ethical to bring an ecosystem of living creatures to an environment that will almost assuredly kill them as a result of you bringing them there.
Ahinsā (Ahinsā) in Jainism is a fundamental principle forming the cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. The term ahinsa means nonviolence, non-injury and absence of desire to harm any life forms.... Furthermore, the Jains extend the concept of ahinsa not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everything has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. Living beings need not fear those who have taken the vow of ahinsa.
Emphasis mine. Whoever decided to put those organisms on the vessel did so either knowing it would harm them, or if not, at least were not able to be sure that it wouldn't hamper the creatures' maximum potential.
From the article linked:
so it’s unclear whether plants and worms will grow normally with the moon’s meager 17 percent gravity.
To the Jainist belief system, that was an unethical action.
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
+1 for looking at the question in exactly the opposite direction to everyone else!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 11 at 23:37
$begingroup$
So what? There are thousands of gods and religions on earth. Whatever you do is going to be considered unethical by at least one religion.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
Jan 12 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
Eric, the only difference between Jainism and the western Hippocratic oath is that it extends to all forms of life. This is hardly a stretch and I think it is remiss to dismiss it outright simply because the ethical framework has religious roots.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 12 at 20:27
1
$begingroup$
@CalebJay I like this answer for the lateral thinking but just be clear religion is not necessary to build a ethical framework (this path is dangerous because on this way one can falsely claim atheist are amoral and the "wrong religion" is immoral)
$endgroup$
– jean
Jan 14 at 10:18
$begingroup$
Correct, but it provides written historical evidence, in clear terms (almost like a legal document!) for whether something is immoral / moral. You can still argue the morality of it, but this just gives evidence for the fact that, for at least the last 2,500 years, Jainists would believe the given action is immoral.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 14 at 20:02
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
According to Jainism and some forms of Buddhism, the concept of Ahisma tell us that it not ethical to bring an ecosystem of living creatures to an environment that will almost assuredly kill them as a result of you bringing them there.
Ahinsā (Ahinsā) in Jainism is a fundamental principle forming the cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. The term ahinsa means nonviolence, non-injury and absence of desire to harm any life forms.... Furthermore, the Jains extend the concept of ahinsa not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everything has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. Living beings need not fear those who have taken the vow of ahinsa.
Emphasis mine. Whoever decided to put those organisms on the vessel did so either knowing it would harm them, or if not, at least were not able to be sure that it wouldn't hamper the creatures' maximum potential.
From the article linked:
so it’s unclear whether plants and worms will grow normally with the moon’s meager 17 percent gravity.
To the Jainist belief system, that was an unethical action.
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
$endgroup$
According to Jainism and some forms of Buddhism, the concept of Ahisma tell us that it not ethical to bring an ecosystem of living creatures to an environment that will almost assuredly kill them as a result of you bringing them there.
Ahinsā (Ahinsā) in Jainism is a fundamental principle forming the cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. The term ahinsa means nonviolence, non-injury and absence of desire to harm any life forms.... Furthermore, the Jains extend the concept of ahinsa not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everything has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. Living beings need not fear those who have taken the vow of ahinsa.
Emphasis mine. Whoever decided to put those organisms on the vessel did so either knowing it would harm them, or if not, at least were not able to be sure that it wouldn't hamper the creatures' maximum potential.
From the article linked:
so it’s unclear whether plants and worms will grow normally with the moon’s meager 17 percent gravity.
To the Jainist belief system, that was an unethical action.
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
answered Jan 11 at 22:35
Caleb JayCaleb Jay
2173
2173
4
$begingroup$
+1 for looking at the question in exactly the opposite direction to everyone else!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 11 at 23:37
$begingroup$
So what? There are thousands of gods and religions on earth. Whatever you do is going to be considered unethical by at least one religion.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
Jan 12 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
Eric, the only difference between Jainism and the western Hippocratic oath is that it extends to all forms of life. This is hardly a stretch and I think it is remiss to dismiss it outright simply because the ethical framework has religious roots.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 12 at 20:27
1
$begingroup$
@CalebJay I like this answer for the lateral thinking but just be clear religion is not necessary to build a ethical framework (this path is dangerous because on this way one can falsely claim atheist are amoral and the "wrong religion" is immoral)
$endgroup$
– jean
Jan 14 at 10:18
$begingroup$
Correct, but it provides written historical evidence, in clear terms (almost like a legal document!) for whether something is immoral / moral. You can still argue the morality of it, but this just gives evidence for the fact that, for at least the last 2,500 years, Jainists would believe the given action is immoral.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 14 at 20:02
|
show 1 more comment
4
$begingroup$
+1 for looking at the question in exactly the opposite direction to everyone else!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 11 at 23:37
$begingroup$
So what? There are thousands of gods and religions on earth. Whatever you do is going to be considered unethical by at least one religion.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
Jan 12 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
Eric, the only difference between Jainism and the western Hippocratic oath is that it extends to all forms of life. This is hardly a stretch and I think it is remiss to dismiss it outright simply because the ethical framework has religious roots.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 12 at 20:27
1
$begingroup$
@CalebJay I like this answer for the lateral thinking but just be clear religion is not necessary to build a ethical framework (this path is dangerous because on this way one can falsely claim atheist are amoral and the "wrong religion" is immoral)
$endgroup$
– jean
Jan 14 at 10:18
$begingroup$
Correct, but it provides written historical evidence, in clear terms (almost like a legal document!) for whether something is immoral / moral. You can still argue the morality of it, but this just gives evidence for the fact that, for at least the last 2,500 years, Jainists would believe the given action is immoral.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 14 at 20:02
4
4
$begingroup$
+1 for looking at the question in exactly the opposite direction to everyone else!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 11 at 23:37
$begingroup$
+1 for looking at the question in exactly the opposite direction to everyone else!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 11 at 23:37
$begingroup$
So what? There are thousands of gods and religions on earth. Whatever you do is going to be considered unethical by at least one religion.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
Jan 12 at 0:50
$begingroup$
So what? There are thousands of gods and religions on earth. Whatever you do is going to be considered unethical by at least one religion.
$endgroup$
– Eric Duminil
Jan 12 at 0:50
1
1
$begingroup$
Eric, the only difference between Jainism and the western Hippocratic oath is that it extends to all forms of life. This is hardly a stretch and I think it is remiss to dismiss it outright simply because the ethical framework has religious roots.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 12 at 20:27
$begingroup$
Eric, the only difference between Jainism and the western Hippocratic oath is that it extends to all forms of life. This is hardly a stretch and I think it is remiss to dismiss it outright simply because the ethical framework has religious roots.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 12 at 20:27
1
1
$begingroup$
@CalebJay I like this answer for the lateral thinking but just be clear religion is not necessary to build a ethical framework (this path is dangerous because on this way one can falsely claim atheist are amoral and the "wrong religion" is immoral)
$endgroup$
– jean
Jan 14 at 10:18
$begingroup$
@CalebJay I like this answer for the lateral thinking but just be clear religion is not necessary to build a ethical framework (this path is dangerous because on this way one can falsely claim atheist are amoral and the "wrong religion" is immoral)
$endgroup$
– jean
Jan 14 at 10:18
$begingroup$
Correct, but it provides written historical evidence, in clear terms (almost like a legal document!) for whether something is immoral / moral. You can still argue the morality of it, but this just gives evidence for the fact that, for at least the last 2,500 years, Jainists would believe the given action is immoral.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 14 at 20:02
$begingroup$
Correct, but it provides written historical evidence, in clear terms (almost like a legal document!) for whether something is immoral / moral. You can still argue the morality of it, but this just gives evidence for the fact that, for at least the last 2,500 years, Jainists would believe the given action is immoral.
$endgroup$
– Caleb Jay
Jan 14 at 20:02
|
show 1 more comment
12
$begingroup$
What system of ethics?
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 11 at 16:27
7
$begingroup$
It's effectively impossible to prove a negative; we will never be able to claim with 100% certainty that any celestial body is completely devoid of life. Does that make the prospect of stellar colonization an unethical venture from the get-go?
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
Jan 11 at 19:29
10
$begingroup$
Space has dropped plenty of material on Earth; it's time we returned the favor.
$endgroup$
– Rob Crawford
Jan 11 at 22:02
2
$begingroup$
"...because then we will never be sure if life can actually grow there." ... The moon, lacking atmosphere, shielding from cosmic radiation, and a number of other important factors for life, is almost certainly never going to be able to support it. If by some freak accident that changes, it almost certainly won't be for millions or billions of years. Why is disrupting a hypothetical future that probably won't happen and that we have very little chance of realistically disrupting an ethical concern? I can only respond to this with "wat."
$endgroup$
– jpmc26
Jan 11 at 23:23