Space Lichen

[urbpan]

So by now, you will have read the article Lichens survive in space. (Thanks crunchywater and omphalina) The gist of it, is that lichens have been added to the list of living things put into space, and unlike the others, survived. (I know they didn't expose chimps and dogs to outer space, they just let them die in the capsules, but it flows better for me this way.) I think this is cool, but entirely unsurprising. There are lichens in Antarctica, as well as any other cold place on earth you can think of. I'm sure if they kept the lichen in space for longer than 15 days, parts of it would start to die, but the point is clear: this stuff is sturdy.

But I'm bothered by the last sentence in the article: "This discovery has added weight to the argument that life may have come to Earth and spread around the universe attached to asteroids, a theory known as panspermia. "

While I'm happy to add the word "panspermia" to my lexicon, the fact that the theory has a name makes it no less idiotic. I'm a bit of an earth chauvinist, I admit. I'm willing to admit, nay embrace, the idea that life could develop on another planet (or asteroid, comet, or cold wet star). But--and I apologize to those of you that have heard me rant about this before (sorry, Alexis)--what is the appeal of the idea that life on earth came from outside of earth?

In other words, panspermia says that the materials for life are zipping around the universe, landing on class M planets and terraforming them until the highest form of life evolves: cuttlefish humans. So, while the germ of life is extraterrestrial (by this theory), the most important part is still the planet that sustains it all (do you see from whence my passion emanates, yet?)

The theory bugs me because it will allow people with a little bit of knowledge to claim that there is nothing special about the planet, therefore, lets trash it and move to the next one. There ain't no next one folks. All our telescopes say each further rock out is worse than the next. I like to imagine life on other planets, but that's just fun speculation and fantasy. There is life on exactly one place in the universe, as far as we know, and its desperately fragile.

See also: http://www.livejournal.com/users/urbpan/22278.html

Comments

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

Your take on it is very interesting and, while I understand your point, I feel that there is much to be said for unification. Once it was determined that black people were (omg!) actually 'human beings,' the world changed for the better. When it was determined that human beings were actually just animals, the world changed for the better. Imo, ANYthing that can be done to prove that we are not so special after all, will improve things.

The fact that there are other planets out there in no way gives us an excuse to rape and destroy this one. That's a very immature way of looking at it. It's like, "omg, there's a yard across the street, let me just use mine as a toilet - when I'm done making mine as polluted as possible, I can just move on!" A mature individual would love their yard and keep it beautiful, regardless of how many other yards there are.

I'm not in love with the idea of aliens, other habitable planets, what have you. I am in love with the organized nature of the universe.

[http://users.livejournal.com/purplebunnie_/]

As uneducated as this is....

I rather like the idea that SOME (by which I mean few) specks of life-form accidentally arrived on Earth via asteroid. However, to thing that all or most did just seems reaching... it doesn't resonate, if that makes sense. Just a few bacteria, or something, showed up, and added to the wealth of life already existing.

I'm also sure there's life on other planets. With the incalculable size of the universe, it would be awfully egotistical of us humans to beleive we're the only 'intelligent life' in existance.

[gigglingwizard.livejournal.com]

"...the fact that the theory has a name makes it no less idiotic."

Of course not. But why is it idiotic at all?

"what is the appeal of the idea that life on earth came from outside of earth?"

Need an idea be appealing in order to be accurate? "Appeal" seems to me the worst possible reason to subscribe to any scientific hypothesis. "Greenhouse effect? That is SO 1990! Guilt went the way of the Rubik's Cube. We've tossed out that idea and decided that car exhaust actually is responsible for rainbows and pretty sunsets and that there's no such thing as global warming. It's a much more appealing idea. It makes us feel better about ourselves."

Besides, the operative words here are may have. Nobody credible I'm aware of is saying that Earth was, in fact and undeniably, inoculated with extraterrestrial life and that there was no life here before that. Nobody's claiming that Earth isn't capable of growing her own, so to speak. So what's the harm in acknowledging the possibility that simple life forms could travel on asteroids and thrive and evolve in hospitable new environments? Why is that idea so threatening?

In other words, panspermia says that the materials for life are zipping around the universe, landing on class M planets eggs and transterraforming them until the highest form of life evolves: cuttlefish humans. So, while the germ of life is extraterrestrialuterine (by this theory), the most important part is still the planet womb that sustains it all. :oD

"The theory bugs me because it will allow people with a little bit of knowledge to claim that there is nothing special about the planet, therefore, lets trash it and move to the next one."

...unlike their current policy of "let's trash this planet and then get raptured up into Heaven." ;o) Besides, unless you're proposing that we could somehow all be transmogrified into lichens so we could survive the trip--possibly to a place no more hospitable than Antarctica--we're pretty much stuck here, at least for awhile. The only way we're going to go to another Earth-like planet is to make one ourselves out of something nearby (like that little red guy next door) or to discover some amazing new propulsion system that will enable us to travel to other solar systems.

Speaking of fun speculation, what do you make of Europa? It seems to me as likely as not that there would be something squirming around under the ice up there.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Need an idea be appealing in order to be accurate?
Absolutely not. It needs to be appealing in order for people to let it make decisions for them, like...

their current policy of "let's trash this planet and then get raptured up into Heaven."
I'm very worried that secularists will join fundamentalists in having a fanciful reason that justifies leaving the planet worse than we found it.

Why is that idea so threatening?
What really bugs me is that the idea is always posited without mentioning evolution. (talk about your accurate but unappealing ideas!) Evolution could happen anywhere that the conditions for life exist. So far as we know, we inhabit the only place with those conditions.

I think that the people who like that idea are people who like science, but are afraid of life having a mundane origin. What's threatening to a lot of people is the idea of being descended from a collection of non-living amino acids. It's much more appealing to imagine the hand (design) of God, or even space germs.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

Even space germs were a collection of non-living amino acids at some point.

I find the space seeding idea a lot more believable than the inane lightning-strikes-a-pot-of-soup theory.

hyperreality

[(Anonymous)]

I think most environmentalists believe that it is difficult to enlist allies in preserving the environment if most people don't feel themselves to be part of it. It's easy to understand why that would create some skepticism about astrobiology. That Bush senior defended manned flight to Mars is perhaps an example of the galactic triumphalism you are alluding to. I am reminded of Jean Baudrillard's notion of American culture running under 'hyperreality' (wiki him for more along that line).

Peter (peterharbo@yahoo.com)