Actually the opposite. We need to be careful not to introduce Earth life anywhere habitable, because it may well have its own forms of life, which may be of great interest. And even if there is no life there, this is our first chance to find out about Mars, Europa, Enceladus “as is”. If we introduce Earth life there, right away, we never get a chance to look at them without life. It’s robbing us, and also all future civilizations here, of any chance of looking at a planet like Mars, or a moon like Europa or Enceladus, free of Earth life. Those are the top places where Earth life could potentially survive “as is” and also the top ones where Earth life could cause most problems.
I did this series of “fake future news” stories to show why we need to be careful about this.
To dramatize the idea, here are a series of fake newspaper stories in a (hopefully) "alternative future" in which humans accidentally introduce Earth life to Mars, then regret what they did.
This is fiction. I created these fake newspaper stories using this online free newspaper generator. I invented the name of the astrobiology mission specialist using this online fake name generator. I put my name as the “author” because you have to add an author to make it look like the real thing.
(photo shows Artist's impression of a human astronaut on the Mars surface holding Oskar Pernefeldt's proposed International Flag of the Earth )
(Photo is actually of a slope with RSLs from this paper)
(Photo is of nanobes from "New life form may be a great find of the century" (1999), at one time thought to be relic RNA world life here on Earth)
(Photograph is Hubble's photograph of a Global Mars dust storm from 2001 )
Actually, if the Earth life they found was salt loving haloarchaea, they don't seem to produce spores (archaea generally probably don't). Instead they have other ways of coping with desiccation including dwarfing of the cells, protective capsules and probably forming dormant states. That's why the article says "spores and other dormant states".
The Lascaux cave painting photo is by Prof Saxx.
This short story is based on NASA's plan for safe zones - based on finding Mars life easily according to which they would land the humans inside a region which they judge "safe to contaminate" with Earth microbes. Outside of that, not too far away, they'd have a potentially habitable and biologically interesting site for them to explore using sterile rovers, such as one of the sites with Recurring Slope Lineae. So what happens if dust carries microbes from their base to the RSL? That's the basis for this story. My first draft of it had a crash of the human occupied ship, as in Crashes of spacecraft on Mars, but I removed it to keep the storyline as simple as possible.
Why not let those first steps be taken by a telerobot instead, operated by a human in orbit around Mars?
SO WHERE IS THE BEST PLACE FOR EARTH LIFE?
The best places to introduce Earth life right now are places where no life can survive without our help. Such as the possibly vast lunar caves, see my An astronaut gardener on the Moon - summits of sunlight and vast lunar caves in low gravity in MOON FIRST Why Humans on Mars Right Now Are Bad for Science . The moon is the closest and safest place to try this.
Or in free space - if we use the asteroid belt to make large colonies turning slowly for artificial gravity, see my Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths.
But Earth’s by far the best place for us at least in this solar system. Perhaps our top priority should be to look after life on Earth. If we could apply the ideas suggested for space colonies on Earth, then we could have habitats for many times the Earth’s current population living onfloating sea cities, or habitats in deserts, self enclosed like a space colony so having minimal impact on the rest of the Earth, even, for instance, bringing water to deserts that have recently been denuded by human activities. I cover those in What about Earth deserts? and Seasteading in my MOON FIRST Why Humans on Mars Right Now Are Bad for Science.
There’s much we can do in space too. Exploration, knowledge, satellites orbiting Earth are already of great value and we are likely to find many more ways that space activities can help us. Move some of our heavy industry into space. Perhaps solar power from space, mining metals there. There might be many ways that space could be useful to help Earth. And a place for holidays, hotels, research, recreation. I think it’s such early days yet and who knows what we’ll do in space. But in our solar system at least, Earth remains by far the most habitable place for humans. As Carl Sagan said in in Pale Blue Dot:
"The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand."
Though we have learnt much since then and we now think there is a chance of some life on Mars, and a good chance also of life in the oceans of Europa and Enceladus, still, the situation hasn’t changed significantly since he wrote that as far as the habitability of Earth and the rest of the solar system.
Despite all the hype about Mars, it’s not a patch on Earth as a place for humans to live. And even the worst disaster that could happen to Earth would not make it even remotely as uninhabitable as Mars would be even after trillions upon trillions of dollars spent to try to “fix it up” to make it a bit more habitable. See Earth best for a "backup"
For more about this see my online and kindle book:
The online version, free to read, is here: OK to Touch Mars? Europa? Enceladus? Or a Tale of Missteps?
It’s 838 pages all in one online page, with lots of graphics so give it plenty of time to load.
You can also get it on kindle here: OK to Touch Mars?: Or a Tale of Missteps?, Robert Walker - Amazon.com
This answer consists mainly of the chapter Prestige or dishonour, first footsteps on Mars from the book.
See also my
About the Author
