From the link I sent:

> The United States is a signatory to an international treaty that stipulates that exploration must be conducted in a manner that avoids of the transportation of living organisms to celestial bodies.

First of all the US is part of a treaty, so if we do introduce organisms to other plants we are violating the treaty.

> We wouldn't want to go to Mars and "discover" life - only to figure out later that we brought it with us! Scientists also want to study the planet and any life that might be there in its original "pristine state."

Ultimately I guess it comes down to why you are sending something to space. If your goal is science then contaminating the planetary environment with organisms is not great. If your goal is colonization (which I guess is SpaceX goal) then you probably wouldn't care. But I still think it's something that should be considered.

It definitely will be considered when they'll be actually aiming at Mars.

Aren’t humans half microbe by percentage of cells? Once we send someone on a one way trip it’s over.

Hopefully we don’t intend to keep this treaty forever, or we’ll always be stuck on this one rock.

The link is wrong. I work in this space and I know of no such international law regarding biological contamination, unless they are grossly misinterpreting the outer space treaty way beyond what it says and the context in which it is written.

Could you comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16325757, did they err?

It’s totally misquoted. The line is “harmful contamination of the Earth” and the concern was about Apollo bringing back samples and the US taking proper quarantine safeguards ON EARTH.

Good to know. I wasn’t trying to sound fatalistic. Just pointing out it’s unworkable if true.

There's no scenario where human beings can land on Mars without biologically contaminating it. This is a powerful argument against human exploration of that planet. This is why God made robots.

There are worse places to be stuck than Earth. The food here is good!

A an argument in similar vein for human exploration of Mars is that it's cool as fuck. The same way people enjoy food, many people believe they'll profoundly enjoy space exploration.

What's wrong with introducing biological material to mars? I am so confused as to the rational here. Is it just so some scientists can get the glory of saying the discovered life on Mars and we're sure it's not from earth? What is the practical value of that anyway except some scientist's vanity?

>What is the practical value of that anyway except some scientist's vanity?

Proof of extraterrestrial life would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time with profound philosophical implications.

I don't think it matters. If it's genetically interesting, that will increase our understanding of biology, but otherwise the practical implications are nil. Profound philosophical implications are a joke. You and the rest of the world would forget about it in a week.

Look at the UFO videos the pentagon released in December. No one cares.

> Look at the UFO videos the pentagon released in December. No one cares.

Because they don't prove that extraterrestrial life exists?

Yes, but there are two ways to approach that: cautiously explore apparently barren planets and eventually, maybe, find evidence of primitive life life, either ongoing or ancient; or explore as widely and as prolifically as possible.

The opposite. If there is evidence of life on Mars, even microbial life, we'd potentially be contaminating that life and, if it didn't kill it, it might create strains of bacteria that are resistant to anything on Earth. If that ever made its way back to Earth, it might kill a large chunk of the population. We literally have no idea what the consequences of life and growth in those conditions are.

Discovery of extraterrestrial life would have huge scientific and practical consequences. The rationale behind not needlessly contaminating other planets it to not make related science more difficult than it already is. It's not meant to hold forever, though - eventually practical interests will outweigh scientific benefits of keeping things pristine, and people will get the green light.

The practical value is that if there is uncontaminated life on Mars, scientists will be able to study it and hopefully open up new avenues of scientific inquiry. It's a research question and one that likely would contribute immense value if realized.

Specifically, it might teach us things about the prevalence of extromophiles, which promises to open up the universe to us.

Either we use extremophiles to establish beachheads in otherwise uninhabitable places, or we adapt ourselves or other beneficial organisms with the information we learn.

For instance proteins that protect against high or low temperatures.

Less speculatively, krill can be fed to things we already eat, and some krill survive on a diet entirely comprised of extremophiles.

The detailed study of alien biology may provide insight useful for some practical application. Any specifics are wild speculation. Maybe we can produce an artificial pancreas that performs the function without registering as foreign to the immune system.

Are we assumed to have contaminated the Moon?

We are, and there is even some supporting evidence [1]. The evidence is not quite conclusive, however.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reports_of_Streptococcus_mitis...

Here's one: when you get there and are looking for extra-terrestrial life, you won't know if the things you find are native, or if they got there on their own somehow, or if you brought them with you. Maybe you don't care, but I think that knowing the answer to that question would be super interesting.

It would, but there's a bunch of other celestial bodies that offer at least as much potential, eg Europa. I share your interest, but not to degree of stopping all other activity while you indulge your curiosity, because other people would like to go and explore directly. I'm not saying just ignore the issue and barrel ahead, but would-be exobiologists should make ambitious and timely proposals of what they intend to sample, what they expect to find, and how long they need to check, in order to give other people a chance to pursue their interests.

Having a self sufficient human settlement on Mars would also be super interesting, and vital to reducing existential risk. You have to pick one.

>You have to pick one.

Why? Why can't you have both? Once we verify that there isn't measurable life on Mars, we can start a human settlement.

Even if there is life on Mars, we can consciously decide to build a colony that may wipe out that life, after we studied it.

You still wouldn't know, would you?

Could infect the native population on the planet