What Are We Protecting Mars From - And Why Do We Bother?

[@zapfanzapfan]

Why the edits? Seth is usually very funny, keep his bits in! :-) And, Zubrin should be the next NASA administrator!

[@galaxia4709]

Couldn't agree more!!

[@julioalmeida4645]

Is that too farfetched? actually is not a bad idea.

[@hardergamer]

Agree fully!

[@Lilmiket1000]

lmao, they know better than that. Zubrin won't be a good puppet. A lot will get done under him I believe. but everyone knows Zubrin is a lone wolf and not a team player lol. hed try to run the whole NASA administration alone haha.

[@jonathanlindsey463]

i couldn’t disagree more... zubrin is all about his bank acct and still hates nasa for not giving him the contract that was gonna make him millions and millions... he cannot give a speech anywhere anytime without hating on nasa for one reason “i want more money”

[@helixxharpell]

Some of these videos I watch on NASA and SETI and the universe as a whole are filled with these seemingly arrogant scientists who have little to no personality but not Seth Shostak! He manages to find humor in just about every statement he makes and I find that quite refreshing! Bravo Seth!!

[@arishghaderi4273]

Zubrin makes the most sense. his logic cuts through the nerdy shit jokes, and bs arguments.

[@distantthunder12ck55]

@Nicholas Guy I think his IQ is probably double yours, though I do admit I am being generous to you.

[@TheExoplanetsChannel]

Great movie, indeed!

[@resurrectedstarships]

OH BELEIVE me, consider the extreme tourists today, people will want to go to Mars as sight-seers, it is a stark but gorgeous place.

[@robertinventor]

As for resources we don't need to go to Mars for that. There are enough resources in the asteroid belt to build habitats slowly spinning for AG with total habitat area a thousand times the surface area of Mars, and the perfect conditions for humans, you can complete a habitat like that in a decade, and if it doesn't work, sterilize and start again. Terraforming would not be completed in a thousand years, and it's not at all certain you can set up a biosphere on Mars that functions like Earth's, our atmosphere would not be warm enough for Mars.

[@peter6712]

I vote for Zubrin as the winner in this debate.

[@robertinventor]

As for microbes on Mars we value them because they are microbes, but because they are extra terrestrial microbes, mini ET's. They may be the only ET's in our solar system for all we know. They may for instance not use DNA. They may perhaps not have proteins. They could be the basis of entire multi-biillion dollar industries, and of new advances in medicine, agriculture, new understanding ofthe basics of biology. Extremophile enzymes, resulting from study of microbes that live in extreme environments on Earth, are already the basis of a billion dollar industry for such things as making it possible to wash materials in cold temperatures - also saving a lot of energy. There is no knowing what we might learn from alien microbes. They are like our heritage, something wonderful that may have been left to us in the solar system. The main issue I have with destroying it is the idea that we don't need to know what it is we are going to destroy. It is like someone giving you a big box, you don't know what is in it, and they say "this is your inheritance". You then say "Oh goody, this box is made of wood and I need to build a fire for bonfire night" and you just put it on the bonfire without looking to see what is inside. Maybe you don't need a box and you feel you might as well burn it - that's like the martian microbe, got plenty of microbes on Earth, why do we need more? But if you don't look inside, that's like extinguishing our only chance of ever studying life based on a different biochemistry in our solar system, without looking inside first to see if they function like Earth microbes. We don't know, maybe life is abundant here, maybe there are lifeforms in Europa, Enceladus, Mars, Ceres, Pluto, everywhere. But each of those places might also be, for all we know, unique. They are like tressure chests that may be empty or may be piled to the brim with rubies and diamonds. The nearest such planet other than Mars may be many light years away - not within reach for us to visit it within our lifetimes or our children's lifetime, except maybe wtih a robotic flyby taking photographs as it zips past the planet. We just should not destroy them until we know what is inside. Once we know, we can then have this debate about whether it is okay to destroy the native life on Mars. And that might also depend on whether it is possible to cultivate it in artificial habitats, or set aside regions of Mars where Earth life can be kept out. And - it is possible that it is hazardous to Earth life, so it can go both ways, that Earth life extinguishes martian species or vice versa. We simply have to know what is inside that box before we burn it.

[@bearlemley]

Life is precious. Let have a mission to spread it.

[@christopheb9221]

51:56 _I always appreciate bob when he takes strong positions against positions I'm not advocating because it makes for a much more difficult debate_ LMAO

[@danievdw]

Zubrin spend his life working on this. He almost seemed the only one prepared for this debate.

[@zebonautsmith1541]

Zubrin is probably right. But still it pays to be somewhat cautious due to our lack of knowledge.

[@Myrddnn]

I feel for Dr. Zubrin. He's been trying to get us to Mars for a while now. He seems to be about half a bottle of Jack Daniels from sounding like Lewis Black.

[@davisgreen2099]

He is fed up with human slowness in getting to Mars!! Him at the head of NASA will he will cut through the shit and get NASA working towards to a goal! MARS!!

[@InTheBleakMidwinter666]

We are already at mars my friends even as crazy as that sounds........nasa has blurred an erased so many pictures from mars its not even funny, but now with the tech ordinarily people have now there able to unblurr them and see whats what.....dont believe me? Thats ok cuz i wouldnt have belived me 10 years ago either until iv seen first hand some of these pics.......go look for yourself and tell me what u think k oh by the way we also have shit on the moon or other things do......

[@Myrddnn]

@@InTheBleakMidwinter666 I hardly think that a coverup of that scope would last more than a generation. It's just not feasible to keep something secret with that many people involved.

[@domestique3954]

@@InTheBleakMidwinter666 I don’t know if we are on Mars,but definitely there are huge cities on Mars and on the Moon. And on Ceres,Venus,Mercury and who knows where else. Today’s telescopes and high tech cameras combined are good enough to bring us close to the surface.Amateur astronomers all around the world know that there’s infrastructure.Huge cities,towers,bridges and tunnels leading inside. But actually there are not enough people who are interested in the topic.Fear and shame of ridicule. At least the DOD came out with some of their sightings years ago-they knew that smartphone cameras would bring up more images,videos-sometimes from different perspectives! They know they can’t hide it forever and the disclosure has already started!

[@simonaspetravicius6199]

@@davisgreen2099 yy

[@KipIngram]

Wow... this bit around 1:03:00 is simply beautiful. I just love Zubrin's outlook on things. He's winning HANDS DOWN.

[@koori3085]

It's not just the aliens that want to lay waste to LA... 👽 Very interesting video, thanks.

[@graemewight2975]

Its not Ares that needs protection. It is Earth, our home, that needs protection from Ares.

[@happygolucky8245]

Love you Bob what a legendary man 👨

[@TeamLegacyFTW]

The Rocket Equation, it's a beautiful thing.

[@Norman92151]

Has Elon received the memo from the Planetary Protection Office????

[@TraditionalAnglican]

Shredders & circulator files are wonderful things...

[@KipIngram]

I just could not agree with this "we should go to Mars the easy way" guy more. His arguments are so cogent. As I noted earlier, my ONLY criterion for "non-intervention" is INTELLIGENT LIFE. If such life is not there (and it's not), then LET'S TAKE THAT PLACE AS OUR OWN. Let's make humanity a multi-planetary culture. Heck yes!

[@bonghits02]

Somebody start a GFM to send Bob Lazar to Mars. He really, really, really wants to go!

[@michaelginever732]

That Bob fella sounds like Woody Allen arguing to end the planetary protection office.

[@arrowrod]

Rummel is doing his best to make sure NASA will get the the moon by 9999 or so.

[@vincentkellner7232]

Zubrin misses the point completely. We have only 1 realistic chance to find out if life has emerged anywhere else than on earth. The answer to this question is one that science owes to mankind and is too important to leave to short sightedness. We want to know whether there is life on Mars!!!!

[@hmdshokri]

Zubrin is a Mars zealot indeed!

[@DrMackSplackem]

+Hamid Thankfully, yes.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Unfortunately, yes.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

The Ultimate Reductionist - So, please tell us where Dr. Zubrin is WRONG on the SCIENCE. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong, & his zealotry doesn’t matter. &, If he’s right, he’s right, & his zealotry is necessary...

[@charleswood7001]

@@TraditionalAnglican He's right, obviously. Humans are what we are because we dream, we look up at the stars, and we wonder.

[@williamsknowledgetruth6286]

I’m sure, these guys know a lot more than they’re aloud to state in public. I.E. They already know life exists on mars. Possibly even how intelligent and what type. That’s a stretch, but given the secrecy surrounding this subject. Which has so slowly drip dripped out to the public. Seriously scary to imagine people of such moral misguidance. Having any say as to the policies, rules, objectives, protocols etc. There morally bankrupt, and have no right to make any rules. Subject to space, and policies to be followed in space. How about we do this right for once we have the computing power. One person one vote. Every space faring country should have a say and therefore there people get a vote as well. If not the planet as a whole. If that were a feasible possibility I would say that’s the only responsible approach. Unfortunately it’s not realistic, what is realistic is a registration one person one vote. This way each individual who cares to have a opinion on possibly the most profoundly impacting realization this side of the century. Possibly the most important answer to many questions yet to be answered. Life? Why? Who? Where? How? Etc.? The only proper and correct answer, is to include as many of the people potentially impacted by any discovery made. This is something that must be done sooner rather than later. What better subject to rally a planet than space exploration. Let us act as one people united by one earth. Then perhaps we will learn to act like one people of the earth!!!

[@donaldmccann2049]

Question: Why didn't Dr. Zubrin get to rebut but his opponent was given that opportunity? Reminds me of a political debate sponsored by one of the parties! The attitude of Dr. Zurin's debate opponent was offputting and superior, even condescending. Dr. Zubrin showed his frustration but did so in a gracious manner. When he says what is needed for a spacecraft and mission, I am sure he knows, that is his profession and training!

[@MtnTow]

Panspermia!

[@truecrony]

It's much more important to colonize Mars than it is to worry about contamination. My opinion.

[@jesseg9088]

11:00. Do you have your special protect other planet ray gun and badge. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@donaldmccann2049]

Your reply made more sense than his entire argument!

[@barrycardiss4851]

What about finding dormant bacteria or viruses on Mars and unwittingly bringing them back destroying hunan life on earth...?

[@KipIngram]

39:30 - No. Fuel consumption is not the PPP's business. This is the second time this guy has deflected the standing question with some sort of an "Oh, I'm actually on your side - just being smart" argument. This is a man who only cares about getting his way. If you can't air the unvarnished truth to the public in a debate, then DON'T DEBATE.

[@johnfretz1938]

My uneducated layman's point of view is that humankind is going to Mars, full stop. The issue here seems to be if NASA will be the first there, or some other global player who needs not, or will not abide by these precautions. Caution should always be a primary concern for any endeavor we take, but if that caution escalates to the point that we never step across a given exploratory threshold, then we will achieve nothing. Once another global player sets foot on Mars, the arguments these two gentlemen are having will become moot.

[@KipIngram]

Ok, the guy taking the second position (against PPP) is actually winning the argument. His case is solid and good. But... he's not terribly charismatic and so on, and I worry people will discount his arguments because he seems abrasive. Try not to. Try to pay attention to NOTHING except the data delivered to you by each speaker, and the go think about that data for yourself, and come to an opinion. As I said in an earlier comment, I don't think there's a "wrong" opinion here. Every single one of us deserved to have an opinion of his or her own, and in the U.S. each of us is granted one vote we can use to try to implement our preferences. Sometimes we get to, and sometimes we don't. To discount another citizens right to express a preference is pretty much the most un-American thing you could possibly do. Take care and stay safe, all!

[@grooveseeker2883]

The samples they got from the moon had no contamination from earth so we can do that safely why not mars

[@pyrografix]

An interesting discussion however, considering (as an example) Israel thought nothing of bringing Tardigrades to the Moon and then unfortunately crashing and releasing the poor little devils onto the lunar surface, why are WE so strict with our regulations when other countries are NOT following the same guidelines? Do we even know what, if any, living creature, China might bring to Mars? What about India? Reportedly, their Mars lander was extremely cheap to make and deploy...doesn't that beg the question what did they perhaps overlook or not include in their rover as far as microbial life goes? It's all great to have the philosophical ethics but unless all space agencies are on the same ethical platform, it's just shooting our space exploration in the ass.

[@fckgooglegooglefck9124]

The Mars Rover Hypothesis: A Film by Richard Hall

[@robertinventor]

We do need to be able to drill, yes, astrobiologists say it is a top priority. But we don't need humans to do it. ExoMars will be able to drill 2 meters. The Insight lander, 5 meters with a robotic mole. Designs for future robotic martian moles tested on Earth can drill tens of meters, in principle hundreds of meters or more in Martian conditions. Most drilling rigs such as we use on Earth don't work on Mars because they use drilling fluids and in the near vacuum they are at boiling point, the ground is also very dry and porous. Some form of dry drilling is needed. And humans are very clumsy in spacesuits - have you seen the attempts by the Apollo astronauts to get a simple core by drilling? They often fell over. The suits may be a bit more flexible than that but it's not ideal to drill in a spacesuit, remember the high internal pressure, gloves stiff as if your fingers were inside a garden hose, so stiff that astronauts risk losing their fingernails and have special internal gloves to protect them from damage. And what is the good of drilling into a habitat if you introduce Earth microbes to it in the drilling materials? The Russians with lake Vostok still don't have a good sample of the lake. They triggered a geyser from it by drilling downwards because it is under high pressure, which rapidly froze which they think stopped surface microbes getting into the lake - but it didn't stop them gettting into the sample they brought up which remains somewhat controversial. When we can't yet figure out how to drill into a lake in Antarctica without contaminating it with surface life, how will that work on Mars? I think as a top priority for Mars we need to develop a way to make 100% sterile landers, which would also work on Earth as well in these especially challenging environments. Then we can send them right up to any of these habitats without any risk of contaminating them (and "harmful contamination" is the phrase used in the Outer Space Treaty, it's not a modern invention, goes right back to the very beginning of the subject of planetary protection). That is possible. We have electronics that are certified at up to 300 C, for various high temperature applications on Earth, and work on a Venus surface rover have lead to plans for an entire rover that could operate at such temperatures and higher. At 300 C all amino acids are destroyed, so heat it for a few months on the way to Mars and the result is 100% sterile. Combine it with the Venus lander project, and I think this should be our top priority myself, find a way to explore these habitable locations like the surface brines on Mars, the salt on top of ice at the higher latitudes, liquid fresh water 10-20 cm thick about 6.5 cm below the surface that should exist anywhere there is clear ice in the polar regions, the RSLs, also indeed the brines that we know exist below the sands that Curiosity drives over just a couple of cms down. They are sometimes warm enough for Earth life and sometimes wet enough but never both according to the models. But biofilms could make them more habitable, or they may have native martian life that can survive lower temperatures and the lower temperature limit of Earth life is also hard to determine for sure. We need to be able to drill yes. We don't need to have humans drilling.

[@KipIngram]

What I want to know is WHY the PPP basically doesn't want us to capitalize on Mars. Guys - are you Americans or not???? Are you HUMANS or not? Your first concern should be the future prosperity of the human race, with special emphasis on your fellow American citizens.

[@lesliesavage9229]

NO!!! You are talking about the SECOND War of the Worlds. Steven's would be the THIRD, not the second!!!

[@rodneygaul2227]

Screw Mars , better answer O'Neil Cylinders or Babylon 5 style stations are much better options . Mars gravity and lack of magnetic field makes it useless

[@Phelan666]

we can't build those things

[@ericjarvie]

Is this the evidence the NASA conspiracy theorist have been looking for all along the ideal Mars has life that could be transmitted to Earth or even that Mars has the capability to support life from Earth because without this possibilty would this discussion even be taking place? .

[@philipmcdonagh1094]

Leave it there we don't need a Martian Covid-19

[@attilarivera]

*_What Are We Protecting Mars From - And Why Do We Bother_* ? In Mars you will find tons and tons of precious metals. All of them! Thats why USA and the other countries are disperatedly trying to reach that "poor" planet. That's why, ok? lol ________________ Em Marte encontra-se toneladas e toneladas de metais preciosos. Todos eles! É pos isso que USA e os outros países estão desesperados em alcançar este "pobre" planeta É só por isso, ok? lol

[@danielash1704]

If we did the planetary on earth the new world continents wouldn't have been so called found by Christopher Columbus or something like that.

[@intensedays4965]

Look, we have signed a contract along with Isreal about all this. They are the ones who explained to humans how important this issue is. And look obviously we need to prove ourselves in order to join the federation. If we mess this up humanity is done. Look, listen to the board of the Federation, they have been doing this for thousands of years. Humans don't know sh it. Get over the pride and follow inctructions of the Federation. This is not a decision to be made by us clearly by listening to the speakers. So that tells us there is life on mars, it's all underground and has been for a long time probably. And the federation is telling us loud and clear you can not move to mars, I mean it's only right. I'm sure they would do the same and probably have been keeping mars humans from coming to earth because if would kill us just like we would kill them. So what the hell is so hard to understand? if we go to mars we would clearly be the lowest, dumbest intelligent life in the universe and we would lose the protection of the federation, which means the end of humanity. Man huma s are selfish ignorant and downright asshole race

[@nopeno9130]

That cursory mention of the Native Americans in the same breath as the buffalo and forests in his talk about Columbus and his North American "trade..." @49:40 You heard it here first, the genocide of the Natives, the rape of their culture and sovereignty, the theft of their chance to ever be a self-representing power among humanity and make their own modern America... all part of a "strongly positive trade." It seems so bizarre because he just got done saying that ethics are always determined if there's a human element involved. He uses another example of genocide, Hitler, to demonstrate, then seems to see no issue in calling what happened in the Americas "strongly positive." I don't want to believe he's racist against Natives in particular. I hope he was just getting excited to prove his point and wasn't really thinking about what he was saying. It just made me sad to hear the rhetoric.

[@stevencoardvenice]

Zubrin is not particularly enlightened in his views on conquest and manifest destiny in the Americas. It's a totally eurocentric perspective, and out of respect for the native people, he should drop that stuff from his books and lectures. It doesn't help his case for mars, and is offensive to some people

[@mikefromct5415]

Caprica is Mars

[@robertpattinson2065]

They don't even know if the earth or if the moon are gloves,they could be flat or a hologram

[@johnege7352]

Interesting, you’re argument was earth bacteria was resilient enough to survive an asteroid impact extinction level event, dont you imagine Martian bacteria will survive us going to Mars? Even after thousands of years of terraforming there would pockets of Martian life to study. Just like here.

[@KipIngram]

28:45 - That is total crap. If we found a "native" lifeform on Mars, a simple DNA sequencing would peg it as a contaminant from Earth. "So we decide we "Can't go back to Mars" my behind. That would be an easy test - you're just trying to curry favor with the audienc.

[@jamiemclean4678]

I think if zuban was nasa admin we would be on Mars. If its costing so much to explore space why isn't there a world fund sure it would stop the next world war if all major country's are working together for one goal. The goal is to continue humanity 200 years from now 15 BILLION people folks

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@thisnametooktolong No shielding? Mars has no dirt?

[@danielfahrenheit4139]

its always a battle between organic and inorganic lol

[@stevenmorgan1822]

whos to say that the amount of life on our planet came from another like a mixed flora, as well as animal and inset as well as micro, were els in the universe were you can find hot-cold artic jungle desert swamps grasslands mountains valleys oceans seas lakes rivers even the sky caves salt mines I think some of it came with the travelers I think Noah is not just about the flood on earth but mars i think the moon Jupiter Neptune mercury venus moons I think at one time that would explain some of the things found that predated the birth of man on this planet I think we escaped some were in the distant future only to come back in time to start the process of life we are in part our own creation may some were down the timeline we were trying to escape a super black hole and we used gravity waves to open a doorway back to our past... I think we built the pyramids with tech we have.t discovered yet...you decide to wither its science fiction or science fact

[@gisterme2981]

Conjecture is okay, Steve, but you shouldn't have cut school the day they taught punctuation.

[@mele2904]

So the one guy is ok with potential interstellar genocide.

[@MrDennis8169]

Life Appeared on earth becouse of the moon

[@deeliciousplum]

The parts of this talk that shared ideas and concerns about Mars missions are wonderful and enlightening. The odd and often lowbrow jokes were cringey and unnecessary.

[@TrippSaaS]

Lmao Elon

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

The tree has been invalidated therefore it's irrelevant and nonscientific!

[@scottbrower9052]

I am dumber for having listened to this.

[@hinteregions]

Sure looks that way.

[@Gnevnyj]

Thank you for a very interesting debate. Unfortunately, Zubrin is being plainly ignorant here. "Red death" and the fears of back contamination are silly of course, and I agree with him on that. But while I respect Zubrin as an enthusiast and a space exploration fanatic, he is almost unbearable as a speaker. He tries so hard to convince the public that we need to send humans to Mars RIGHT NOW or NEVER, that he easily oversteps the boundary of what is currently known and waves off all the concerns about the forward contamination which the planetary protection mostly stands on right now. "You're not gonna find this out without sending people there" - false! We can send robots first to find out, as the probes and rovers become more and more sophisticated with each mission. Essentially, IF there is life on Mars or anywhere else in the Solar system, by arguing that the planetary protection program must be shut down Zubrin argues for the same destructive wave of uncontrolled human expansion like the one we had in Pleistocene, which wiped out most of our megafauna on a planetary scale. And now it's gone. Forever. And we can't study or benefit from it in any way. Now that is what truly irresponsible. There are multitude of arguments in favor of preventing forward contamination of Mars. Even if the direct aim of current PP protocols is not to make a stupid mistake and detect Earth life the probe brought with it, as Rummel says, the question of existential threat of Earthlings to Martians remains. If there are microbes on/in the planet, their rate of reproductions is likely extremely slow due to transient conditions suitable for cell division on the surface or even in the subsurface (just like with the Earth microorganisms living in the permafrost). Furthermore, due to the environmental conditions on Mars becoming very harsh quite early in the planet history (comparing with the timeline of the evolution of Earth's life), one can hypothesize that even though the putative present day martians have surely adapted to such conditions, their evolutionary rate, globally, was much slower than that of their Earth cousins, and they might have less efficient metabolic pathways. In turn, that makes plausible for Earth microbes, if introduced in substantive quantities, to outcompete the natives in their own niches. I strongly disagree with Robert's assertion that ethics should be human-centered and that preserving martian life is unethical, that's a total bullshit in my value system which accentuates science and conservation. Rummel's reply to such a position could not be worded better. Regarding the detection issue, the argument made by Rummel in his presentation was also very spot on - we know too little at the moment about our own basal microbe lineages to reliably distinguish them from the martians, in the case of a single Genesis at the very least. I am certainly a minority, but I am convinced we need even stricter forward planetary protection protocols. The potential discovery of an alien life should not be compromised by what in the absence of true space dangers to human civilization in the next thousands of years amounts to nothing more than an egoistical desire of individual people to "conquer" Mars and make it a colony, just for the sake to settling on alien soil. I am all for going to Mars - but only in due time, once we know it enough to be sure our actions pose no danger to science progress and to the indigenous life on the planet, if it's there. It's a kind of a gamble, but if you bet on the view "if right now we do not see the sings of life on the surface of Mars, it really isn't there" and lose, you cannot reverse the situation. On the contrary, with the other bet we have plenty of time to study the planet and go to Mars when we sure, from the objective point there is absolutely no rush.

[@rayzorrayzor9000]

Gnevnyj Spot on, you have covered everything I had to say and more. Very well thought out and applied comment, I could not have put it on to words in such a manner. Kudos to you . Take Care . R .

[@Gnevnyj]

Thank you Razor Ray

[@Rob_Moilanen]

Horseshit, so what we wait another 500 or 1000 years for some agency scientist to tell us what we can or can't do? Are you kidding me, we'll all be dead and buried by then and the "science" won't matter to us anymore. I'd rather us go there and figure it out, and transmit back the data of what we find rather than wasting billions of dollars on machines and "protocols" to do that for us. By the time we create a machine sophisticated enough to "figure it out", it would have been faster and cheaper to just send a human to do it in the first place, since it has to be a human that interprets the data anyways! If you want to stay in your protective lil bubblewrap cocoon, fine, but stay the hell out of the way of the rest of us that would rather go outside and explore it all for ourselves!

[@Gnevnyj]

@@Rob_Moilanen This - this is an egomaniac colonization attitude that I was talking about. I didn't want to sound emotional and derogatory, but the scientific quest is so much bigger and more significant for humanity than a very simple desire of self-proclaimed explorers to put your boots on martian soil as soon as technically possible. Even more so as it doesn't contradict Mars' human development in the long run. I'll state again - right now, we have to consider all possibilities, and that includes those I've listed above. The loss of any species, let alone martian one, is irreversible, immeasurable in any amount of dollars, so yes, people will get there once it will be possible for astrobiologists to exclude any risk for martian life and tell the rest of us "OK, green light for meatbags!". There are no rational and scientific arguments for putting humans there as soon as we have BFR AND risk the larger quest for extraterrestrial life at the same time. There will be humans on Mars - and there will be cities on Mars, too. Yet in due time and without irreversible losses for knowledge.

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@Gnevnyj "the scientific quest is so much bigger and more significant for humanity " No, it is an important part of human progress, but it DEPENDS UPON human progress. Any number of professions can claim to be essential and vital, but if we give any the power to dictate to the rest of humanity progress reverses. The egomaniacs are those that insist that their professions and interest always trump every other consideration. By your own arguments, that is YOU. "t doesn't contradict Mars' human development in the long run. " Neither the sequestration advocate, nor you, have placed a projected limit on how long irrational limitations on exploration will last. When directly asked, the speaker dodged the question. The evaluation of how much human development is being retarded by bureaucratic nonsense is impossible until we have quantified "How long of a run are we talking about?". "I'll state again " Repetition, in a WRITTEN forum is pointless. "we have to consider all possibilities, " Prohibition of an act until all possibilities have been considered is PERMANENT prohibition of an act. You're insisting on a blank check, and nobody gets a blank check. "once it will be possible for astrobiologists to exclude any risk for martian life" The mathematically perfect exclusion of risk is impossible in any endeavor, and particularly impossible in endeavors involving exploration and innovation. You steadfastly refuse to quantify a risk level which would be acceptable. We're not going to take "When we say so, slave" as an answer. "The loss of any species, let alone martian one, is irreversible, immeasurable in any amount of dollars," Sure, we can measure the value of the preservation/loss of the average species by counting the dollars which have been spent to preserve species and dividing it by the number of species preserved. Any other quantification is more arbitrary than that. "There are no rational and scientific arguments for putting humans there as soon as we have BFR AND risk the larger quest for extraterrestrial life at the same time. " If we have learned anything from history, it is that exploration leads to more knowledge, and that access to a frontier and new resources improves conditions in the new world and the old. We cannot advance our knowledge of Mars greatly beyond our current level by poking it with sticks. We need boots on the ground. Often when exploring, a discovery raises new questions. A robot cannot dependably be used to answer questions the designers didn't think of 10 years before when the rover was being designed. And the only way we know of to leverage in situ resources in a versatile way to seriously pursue knowledge and profit is to send a package with humans in the loop. Any benefits from the knowledge or properties of Martian life (whether it is native in origin or an Earth cousin imported by asteroids) will only be delayed by indefinitely hobbling our instrumentality on Mars. The case for Mars colonization is straightforward. The case for sequestration depends on two vastly improbable assumptions. 1. That Mars has not already been naturally seeded with Earth life, long before humans left Earth, and that this will not continue apace regardless of what we do. 2. That human exploration will destroy native Martian life before we can detect and preserve it. No plausible arguments or mechanisms for either of these assumptions have been presented. They hang in the air as canonical doctrines that we're not supposed to question.

[@wertdeg]

Never trust a guy with a combover

[@cynicaloldgit7177]

Boring speakers.

[@hinteregions]

Fascinating comment.

[@henrifritsmaarseveen6260]

If one cell can be seen as life .. how about on earth . How many cell are needed for life on earth .. (the abortion problem) First define life on the earth and then look at Mars ., or are we discriminating humans ???

[@ddgallion]

IMHO, Robert's argument that it is certain that we could determine if any life found on Mars was indigenous, i.e. the result of an independent 2nd genesis, is correct. Additionally, if we found life on Mars that was related to life on Earth, we would also be able to determine the degree to which it is related to life on Earth. The latter situation would then require us to attempt to determine the original point of origin, Earth or Mars. It is also possible that we could find both conditions to be true, with life forms which developed independently and ones that were the result of the exchange of material between the planets, which would be an interesting turn of events. I sympathize with and understand the desire to avoid contaminating an experiment, which Robert also supports, but it seems somewhat meaningless to me to enforce a protocol which appears to be excessive and possibly stifling. One thing is clear, honest and intelligent people disagree on this issue.

[@DrMackSplackem]

+ddgallion Well said. If I had to guess, my money would be on panspermia as the seed for life developing on Earth, merely because otherwise we ought to see surviving life forms much simpler than the simplest bacteria which still exist today, despite the advent of more advanced forms. Also, this issue brings up a danger which Zubrin has articulated elsewhere, and it's a philosophy which seeks to diminish and denigrate all forms of human achievement. It's far too prevalent among academics and even taken as an unspoken rule. The most outspoken conservationists, for instance, decry extinctions and seek to save every endangered species. The merits of this are defensible, for sure, if only because a life form is more easily studied alive than dead. Implicit in their advocactions, however, is that man, being 'apart from nature' (just how they never articulate), must be held solely responsible if any extant form of life is having a hard time staying alive. The the fact that Darwinian pressures have taken the form of mass extinctions from the very beginning of its appearance on Earth is not, to my knowledge, ever addressed in their writings, though they of course know this to be true. This is what must be challenged first of all, if mankind is ever going to become a multi-planet species. I have heard some of them say that if even the most simple life form was discovered on Mars, no humans should set up a colony and all should be prevented from somehow (again, they never say just how) 'contaminating' it. How a scientist could believe that alien life may exist relatively nearby, and not only not wish to go there to catalog it, but actively prevent others from doing so, seems completely pathological to me. I don't know if these are the same folks who want to pass laws to grant trees human rights, but it's clear that any push to settle the solar system must begin by first calling out such anti-human ideologies for what they are and identifying their root causes and means of propagation. I don't believe these people have any real power in preventing humans from settling Mars, eventually. I'm sure the Chinese will just tell them to go to hell. What worries me is that they hold real power to shut down off-world settlement efforts by the Western world, and like Zubrin I think this could and should have already been done decades ago.

[@mutleyeng]

I would say you certainly could potentially tell, but if life has to be dna/rna, you may never be able to know with any confidence

[@TraditionalAnglican]

Joe Flink - Actually, the Chinese may stick them on the spaceship & not let them take the return trip, & the Chinese may end up using a BFR to send them there...😱😂😂

[@rafaelcharbonier209]

We will never go to Mars with this guy. Keep stalling and waiting for some global catastrophic event to happen.We are already 50 years behind since NASA stopped sending people to the moon.

[@jamiemclean4678]

Wonder if he will say we have to save Mars from contamination when there 10 15 20 billion people on earth 🌍 Mmmmm 🤔

[@paulslater42]

What are we protecting Mars from??? USE Humans the passion fingers of the universe, everything we touch we destroy or damage

[@hideentity1518]

We? Who is we? It's the science which destroyed this beautiful earth Go to sleep And don't wake up

[@dexsquabmolutinator9363]

It's not the science, it's the amorality. Science has given everyone a library at their fingertips, and flight, and the ability to share our art with more minds than ever could have been imagined. We do not destroy everything we touch, that is only some of us, the worst of us. Have you never saved a wounded animal, helped a stranger, made something beautiful for no reason? If you wish to look at the worst of us, and blame us all for that, and lay the blame in the wrong place... well, you're going to live an unhappy life, most likely. Perhaps you need to look at yourself, for the way you see the world is a reflection of your world within.

[@hideentity1518]

Stfu noob

[@KipIngram]

27:00 - Oh my gosh yes. This is an incredibly powerful argument. I know which side of this I am on.

[@The_Tiffster]

Zubrin is brilliant! I could listen to him all day! The other guy is kind of smug and manipulative...

[@Lilmiket1000]

agreed.

[@njengakim]

@Nicholas Guy his arguments make more sense that is why they are compelling

[@njengakim]

@Nicholas Guy lets agree to disagree. I am more drawn to zubrins arguments than Rummel's.

[@bobbymac1947]

Is the temperature on mars going up? Like on earth.

[@htos1av]

Yes. Due to the solar system entering the galactic ecliptic for the next 5000 years. There are many factors creating magnetic and gravitic instabilities.

[@jamescurtis1226]

Space is our Oyster...Question If we were contacted by ET and they offered round trip tickets to visit their Galaxy/Planet, would you want a ticket? Planetary Protection Office? It makes sense from a "Don't destroy the Planet" and a "Watch that first step" point of view but as far as anything farther..."Last one in is a rotten egg"

[@chrisclark7212]

The planetary officer has a planet 4 a head plus ego ... prick !

[@brunov958]

A whole speech based on common sense and naive arguments. Bravo Mr. zubrin.

[@markrowland1366]

Deep ocean sedamentry rock revealed a microbe that seemed to double every thirty two thousand years. In a petry dish it appeared not to grow. But doubling each thousand years might be rapid for that Wee Bestie.

[@endima6204]

I broadly agree with the second speaker. Evolution is achieved by contact and not by segregation. However, we should do it on tip toe, by minimizing our footprint and negative effects should we find other forms of life. Do remember the way we blunder into the recesses of the Amazon forest: we risk to destroy the plants or animals we are going there to study. So yes to exploration but with a conscience!

[@KipIngram]

"New histories - new cultures - new inventions waiting to be made"... YES! This is the right way. Unleash the human spirit and let us rock and roll!

[@markgarin6355]

Find life on Mars? Drop a Corvette...drive around. Any intelligent life will find you.

[@Lilmiket1000]

my god the audio team... please do better!!!

[@christ406]

John Rummel, spoken like a true government bureaucrat. Bob Zubrin, a real pragmatist voicing common sense resembling the private sector.

[@earlj9888]

Ppp

[@Monkismo]

As someone who works for a multinational corporation, I can tell you the private sector is loaded with bureaucrats, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

[@sidneyeaston6927]

They should just dump a load of fresh water from a pond onto the surface of Mars and see what happens. If we were serious about colonising we need those bacteria already there to create soil that we can grow food in.

[@mikerama4724]

Lol I like your style

[@KipIngram]

31:40 - I don't get this. We know we're not going to find intelligence on Mars. If we did, then I'd advocate a "hands off" approach (Prime Directive sort of thing). But if it's just bacteria, SO WHAT if we disrupt it? In that case, we'd be looking to make that planet ours. Let's not kid ourselves - that would be the goal. At that point, in my opinion, consideration for those germs would only go so far as us worrying abut what THEY might do to US.

[@nicholasdebs1753]

Well, several lifesaving drugs (tetracycline, erythromycin, streptomycin, rifamycin, ivermectin, etc.)are derived from terrestrial bacteria--so the potential for a future use for any Martian bacteria is always there--if they are not made extinct by human activity. as is the possible outcome of ill-thought out precautions, or lack thereof, against introduction of non-Martian life to Mars.. Aside from the potential loss of a source for useful (to humankind) products that the extinction of ANY species ANYWHERE represents, there is also the question of respect for life--again, for ANY life, ANYWHERE. I find it shocking, and actually quite bone-chilling to hear Robert Zubrin speak so cavalierly of the notion that the idea of trying--trying, not necessarily succeeding-to follow a protocol that ensures biological non-contamination of a new world is a fools errand--and worse.. He dismisses the very idea as a tempest in a teapot created by little old lady bureaucrats hell bent on spoiling all of his fun by adding unnecessary, unscientific regulations. I daresay he was quite let down when NASA ended the Apollo program and declined to go to Mars immediately after. Im sure he was all set to be Mission Commander. His extraordinary aggression in his delivery indicated to me that his desire to get to Mars damn the consequences has much, much more to do with his own personality and his frustration at having had to wait almost fifty years to get his big prize than it does with any serious consideration of the pros and cons of the protocol. It is clear to me that the man has lost all professional composure (more importantly, rationality) in re: Mars. In any event, his outright dismissal of the ideas behind the protocol, one of which is a respect for life, is not an indication of someone who can work well with a team of colleagues, nor someone who can assimilate new information which may be at odds with his own ideas (which is kind of a foundation for being a scientist) but is very indicative of someone who will be blinded by their obsession with a subject and who will therefore make grave mistakes during the course of the mission. I would not want Robert Zubrin anywhere near a project that requires cool, level-headed and critical thinking if my life depended on it. Which is exactly what will happen to those headed to Mars (really?) if he remains associated with the mission.

[@KipIngram]

@@nicholasdebs1753 Well, your point re: drugs is an excellent one - I do have to concede that. I certainly don't think we should just "barge in" with the deliberate intent to obliterate as much life as we can. But, after all - we live on Earth and we haven't disrupted its microbial population. I imagine such things are a lot more robust than these fears give them credit for. Regarding "life, any life" - I certainly do think life is to be respected. But it's just a fact of reality that existence is a competition amongst life forms. Let me put it this way. If you give me two possible futures to pick between: future A, in which we hold back from Mars out of respect for its (possible) existing ecosystem, and then have a large asteroid come along in a few centuries and completely sterilize Earth, and future B, in which we vigorously colonize Mars and have a substantial human presence there when that asteroid comes and wipes Earth out, but - unfortunately - we've destroyed a lot of previously existing Martian life, I can tell you right now I opt for future B. We are an incredibly vulnerable species right now, and sooner or later that asteroid is coming. I might be thousands of years instead of hundreds, but it will happen eventually. A two-planet species is enormously, ENORMOUSLY less vulnerable than a one. Yes, I do have respect for life. But I have the MOST respect for HUMAN life, and we have a right to take steps to ensure our existence, even though that does involve a competition for resources with other species.

[@skywatcherextraordinaire7014]

The advocation for more practical research and undoing unnecessary protocols by the planetary protection agency (ppi) is a much stronger argument.

[@wedgeantilles7731]

That really excited guy lost credibility with me when he referenced thomas edison. No wonder his colleague had to correct "the record."

[@bimmjim]

We must, some day take possession of Mars. .. We need to learn about the present life on/in Mars to help us Terra-form it. That is the only reason to protect the current life on/in Mars. .. Anybody who tries to make this into a moral debate is an idiot to be ignored.

[@tmst2199]

BTW, Trump just announced his support of Mars Direct after speaking w/ his advisors. The option to first set up some kind of facility on the Moon was the alternative approach discussed. The Moon makes a lot of sense to me, to teach us to be a spacefaring race. But it's surprising what a drag it is getting stuff out to the Lagrange point from low Earth orbit.

I wouldn't put much faith in anything trump says. closing in on 11,000 lies since being installed against the will of the majority.

[@tmst2199]

@ Well, at least the Russians like space, too, so maybe he's telling the truth this time. :-)

[@SuperTomcatUk]

The PPO guy sounds like he is protecting his job.... probably cant find work anywhere else.....

[@dylanpeterson6449]

What a stupid debate... cant contaminate an entire planet because it will look like Florida well i guess you answered that we shared life? Or... you can put 1000 scientist on the planet and actually explore it. Really feels like we need to get the scientists out of the way so we can make progress, then let them follow it with the resources to actually answer their question.

[@dannygjk]

The first speaker, John is his name?, I would confidently bet is devout. Why do I think that? It's partly because he is concerned about contaminating Mars with Earth organisms. Also partly his speaking of 'stewardship' which smacks of text from the Bible.

[@sarah-janelambert8962]

I am surprised that Seth Shostak should be so insulting of the members of the British Interplanetary Society given its illustrious history in first establishing many principles of modern spaceflight, advancing academic discourse through its long-established journal, and conducting ground-breaking research into such concepts as the Daedalus fusion powered starship.

[@philipmcdonagh1094]

If life is there leave it there we don't need a Martian Covid-19.

[@dannyjackson5883]

Mars is a flat planet and has an inner world that's a beautiful paradise where reptillians live together in harmony and some visit earth to collect insects and buy drugs

[@danceswithcritters]

Zubrin would make a good CEO of Big Oil who would drill the shit out of the Arctic and damn the consequences .

[@bozo5632]

They're both wrong, but it's better to be on the safe side. We can only accidentally destroy Mars and/or Earth once.

[@LuciFeric137]

Totally agree. The inner solar system is exchanging material constantly anyway.

[@phil20_20]

Without a magnetic field, icemelt will just blow off into space.

[@robertinventor]

On a low cost sample return, then - the astrobiologists have been saying over and over that a sample return is not the thing to do. We need to send in situ instruments to Mars to study it.

[@view1st]

The rules should be revised as our knowledge and technology improve and as needs and expectations change. This, of course, should be done with caution and with the consensus of the scientific community - we shouldn't, after all, just remove rules that (seem to) have worked well up to now. Ideally the rules should be mainly informed by science but, naturally, politics and even economics cannot be entirely absent.

[@KipIngram]

I recognize this as an absolutely legitimate subject for political debate. I have total respect for the people who argue that we should honor any indigenous life on Mars. I don't regard those people as "objectionable" in any way. However, I also recognize the huge benefit that Mars could offer humanity, if properly handled. For me, I think the level of the indigenous life on the "tree of life" matters. Obviously, if we'd found that Mars hosted intelligent life, then we'd have to take a "hands off" policy. On the other hand, if there's nothing there beyond the microbial stage, I feel perfectly fine about moving in and taking the planet as our own. Somewhere in between microbes and sentience there would be a line of demarcation, and I don't really know exactly where I'd place that. I'd prefer to just wait and see what we find and then make the decision. To be clear, though, I regard the "hands off if even microbes exist" position to be as wrong as the "take it for our own even if there's intelligent life" position. Life progresses, and in that struggle to progress some species rise and other fall. There's nothing inherently wrong in that - it's the way of the world.

[@quosswimblik4489]

My guess is that Marian's might be in the north where the weather is worse and it's more rocky due to the fact the temperature is warmer and more dynamic there. I suspect the reason we have not looked much there is because it's tough making a successful mission in such tough terrain. watch out for those hamon from Europa they might be armed with technology just maybe.

[@danielash1704]

According to the other space administration officials in other countries that have been in the process of developing their own spacecraft discovered that clean air is there for profitable purposes. Many want it for them selves.

[@henrifritsmaarseveen6260]

what if earth live started on Mars.. and it moved from Mars to Earth.. then all humans on earth need to be killed ?? Just think about what to do if the above is true ...