Last week, 2% favorite Les Jenkins focused our attention on a story that didn't make too many waves in the mainstream media:

The US space agency believes the two rover spacecraft scuttling across the red planet are carrying bacteria from Earth.

The bacteria, bacillus safensis, were found in a chamber in California that had been used to test the rovers. Officials believe it is likely that some of the microbes, possibly from scientists' skin, were on board when the mission left.

The craft, Spirit and Opportunity, landed on Mars last year. One key task was to look for signs of life: now it seems that if there are any organisms, it is man who has put them there. If proved, the contamination would raise concerns at possible breaches of a UN treaty to stop other planets being polluted from Earth.

Question: are we the only ones who really don't see this as a big problem?

We see no problem with "contaminating" Mars in this way. Really: whatever. Yes, we want (and need) to study the planet; and yes, we'd like to see the "original" pristine conditions on Mars in our studies. But: whatever.

The point here is that we should be working towards terraforming and colonizing Mars! Follow us, here: the goal of the human species should be to survive and prosper. If we don't work towards developing technologies such as interstellar travel and terraforming capabilities, there's a simple conclusion: we don't survive. In a million, or a billion, or however many years...we just die out. Either due to the changing biosphere on our own planet, or our sun shifting into its next stellar phase...sure, it's possible that our descendents will have evolved into life forms better adapted to those new conditions — but there will come a point when our planet, and our solar system, are no longer hospitable to any form of terrestrial life. If we haven't left by then, that will be the end of our lineage.

Mars is a perfect practice arena for terraforming and colonization. If we get it right — right next door — we'll be ready to do it on extrasolar planets thousands or millions of years from now.

We'd personally love to see terrestrial bacteria survive and flourish on Mars — it's highly unlikely, but if it did happen, it would probably teach us a lot about biology, extraterrestrial colonization, and terraforming. And anyway, we shouldn't be worrying about sending a few measly microorganisms to Mars if we're planning on sending people there — like the rovers, the arrival of human beings will unmistakably herald the arrival of microorganisms (in addition to those people-sized organisms that they'll be riding on!). There's simply no avoiding it, and no compelling reason to try.

As an aside, it would also give the Charlie-Wagnerian IDiots some imagined ammunition for their non-theistic "Intelligent Design" hypotheses — which is pretty silly, because there's nothing "intelligently designed" about us planting bacteria on Mars; it was an accident. Charlie's ID "theory" still wouldn't take into account — as it never does — where the bacteria came from in the first place. Positing extraterrestrial intelligence requires, by extension, a theory on the origins of that intelligent life form. Refusing to accept natural biochemical processes as the explanation for life simply moves the "God goalpost" back a step.

But enough of that! What we're really trying to say is that those taking an "environmentalist" approach to this subject aren't looking at the issue in the right light. Would we be opposed to using our nearest intrasolar neighbor as a planet-sized trash dump? Absolutely — because that's not a good use of Mars' resources and, more simply, its presence as our most accessible extraterrestrial world. Yes, it's good to protect the environment, and that includes Mars, but if "protecting" Mars means that we can't send probes or people there because we might "contaminate" it, then that's just plain stupid. So keep those UN regulations in place to avoid blatant trashing of other planets; but don't worry too much about introducing these little microorganisms. It isn't the same as "polluting" other planets, and it isn't going to be the deal breaker when it comes time to colonize them.

Viri tend to be benign or bad to the host organism.

Bacteria are neither inherently bad nor good to the host and certain bacteria are required for life.

It's prejudicial to consider bacteria inherently bad for Mars and therefore a contamination.

To the people who are complaining, it's probably not about bacteria being considered "bad" — they would probably consider anything organic to be a contamination of Mars, since it could alter the original "pristine" condition of the planet's ecosystem. Of course, by that logic, we shouldn't send people to any other planets, ever; and we should probably construct gigantic orbital shields to stop meteors and other extra-planetary objects from impacting on the surfaces of other planets...as they, too, could potentially carry organic substances.

Silly, isn't it?

Silly, yes, but part of a fairly effective overall strategy by the IDiots: stifle any and all science, especially that which produces reliable, inarguable new knowledge in two particular areas -cosmology/space and human biology.

Those are the two primary areas of scientific gain over the past 2-3 centuries that have led to the most problems for those trying to save the efficacy of Biblical teachings, namely in the area of evolution and the demotion of planet Earth as, at first, the literal center of the universe, and more recently, as the theological center of the universe.

Even two or three thousand years ago, pre-NT, theologians were wringing their hands over the possibility of intelligent life on heavenly bodies other than Earth. Were those 'people' made by God and under God's holy umbrella? Were they, God forbid (pun intended), even higher in the holy hierarchy than are Earth humans? The possibilities and implications scared the shit out of them. The Bible doesn't indicate knowledge that North and South America existed, let alone entire planets, solar systems, and galaxies in the billions. Ruh-roh.

The more we learn about biology and space in general, the more the Bible and Biblical teachings take it in the ass. They've been forced into back-pedaling for centuries, to the point that their cock-a-mamie 'explanations' which attempt to reconcile undeniable scientific discoveries with age-hold Biblical teachings have reached the profoundly, laughably absurd levels seen in Intelligent Design. Your better Christian apologists could beat Lance Armstrong while back-pedaling.

Science, over the last couple millenia and particularly over the last few centuries, has forced religionists to move from an original stance that the Bible was Total Truth and an Exact and Authoritative Account of How It All Started and How It All Works -in essence an encyclopedic book of science -to a position of constant forced revisionism of their own texts, requiring the proper 'interpretations' to determine what is really meant by this or that passage, this or that concept. It's like a massive game of Cosmic Twister for them. Resentment is understandable, lol.

Objections to 'polluting' Mars or other ET bodies may just be an attempted justification for the actual agenda to stifle any and all scientific inquiry in general, lest new knowledge further paint Biblical teachings and religious cosmological explanations as to 'how it all works' as the untenable slop it is.

There's a UN treaty prohibiting pollution of other planets?!? Shouldn't we start with one prohibiting polllution of THIS ONE first?

I think I would be scientifically interesting to start our colonization of Mars with a clear picture of whether there are in fact native lifeforms, but nobody seriously expects any of them to be very complex. In reality, if they exist, we probably won't know it until we're fairly well established there... and maybe never.

The UN prohibition makes some sense for planets that obviously harbor complex life, but such worlds (when we find them) will have evolved in ways that would probably make our bacteria harmless to them and vice versa.

I think Gren's right -- spacefaring will probably put the last nail in the coffin of literalist religion, but it won't happen immediately. I could easily imagine embattled wingnuts trying to start their own colonies to escape the rising tide of common sense and species unity spacefaring will probably bring us.

In general, most people who insist on taking their religion literally have been forced into a "god of the gaps" position. The problem (for them, not the rest of us) is that science keeps making those gaps smaller and smaller. Basically, watching the religiosos trying to reconcile their inherently non-scientific texts with the march of scientific progress has gotten to be like watching those stupid Nostradamus believers who explain that they are "allowed" to add and change letters in the text in order to come up with their meaning du jour. The lengths to which these types of people will go are purely comical in their absurdity.

In the end, it is a foregone conclusion that they will have infinitesimally microscopic gaps to inhabit, and they will either need to firmly plug their ears and isolate themselves (at which they're quite adept), or give in and admit defeat (against which they tend to stubbornly fight).

Someday the march of science may spell the end of religion, but that will likely be a long way off. We'd be happy to get them set up on their own private comet or asteroid colony as soon as next week, though. We'll even move their futon couches for them.

This rant and its comments have missed the point. The treaties and policies about not contaminating other planets are not anti-science policies imposed by radical environmentalists or creationists wanting to stop all scientific research. These policies were developed by scientists to further scientific research.

We are still searching for life on Mars. If we have accidentally sent bacteria to Mars and that bacteria survives, it becomes more difficult to determine if Mars now or previously harbored life.

If there is currently life on Mars, but in very narrow environmental niches, terrestrial bacteria could potentially take over the niche and drive the Martian life extinct. That is a huge loss to science and the study of the origins of life!

If there is currently no life on Mars, but there was in the past, the introduction of terrestrial bacteria will also make it more difficult to unambiguously determine that fact. We will always have to determine whether any evidence of life (like organic molecules) was due to the more recent terrestrial contamination instead of being of Martian origin.

Without doubt, the colonization of Mars will result in the introduction of terrestrial microbes and the eventual terraforming of the planet. But before we do that, scientists need to complete their survey of the planet so that we don't inadvertantly destroy our best opportunity to discover (and study) alien life. And wouldn't the discovery of extraterrestrial life be a huge blow to creationism?

See also NASA's page on Planetary Protection, which says:

Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere—if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth's biosphere in case it does.

We get the point of trying not to mess with the unaltered Martian environment. What we were saying was that scientists shouldn't be worried about "contaminating" other planets if that contamination is a byproduct of our study and expansion.

We agree that we should try not to introduce earthly life forms until we've had more of a chance to study Mars, but ultimately the continued exploration of the planet is more important to us. So, if being careful entails holding off on robotic or manned missions to Mars (or elsewhere), then it's not only a non-issue to us, it's a problem.

We look at is this way: NASA attempted to sanitize all earthly life from the Martian Rovers, yet they still may have brought bacteria with them. They tried, and they should continue to try. But, if the proposed answer is to halt such missions in order to stop bacteria (et al) from hitching a ride to Mars, then we are firmly against that approach. And if that isn't the favored approach to stop the spread of bacteria to Mars, then what is? As we said, NASA already tries to prevent this from happening, with less than 100% success. What else can we do?

There is a pretty convincing argument to be made that we won't know for sure if Mars did (or does) support simple life forms until humans actually set foot on the planet. By that time, all thoughts of "not contaminating the planet" will have to be set aside since humans themselves will be there. So to us, it's a nice idea to keep the planet pure, but we aren't getting overly worked up about the alternative.

All that said, you may disagree with our opinion — that's just fine, and we expect that some reasonable people will. However, we never suggested that it was anti-science groups or creationists or radical environmentalists who are imposing these policies. We just said that we didn't agree on the importance of the issue.

Who has proposed that we stop all robotic exploration because of this? No scientist would ever support that. It defeats the very reason scientists implemented the sterilization policies in the first place... to protect scientific research!

Scientists have always known that 100% sterilization is next to impossible, but they do their best. NASA has varying degrees of sterilization depending on where the spacecraft is going. Mars has higher requirements than an asteroid, because of Mars's scientific relevance to the origin of life. Having found contamination in the sterilization lab, they can further refine their procedures and do a better job next time. I've seen no proposal to kill the program!

Finally, I stand by my statement that "this rant and its comments" are dismissing the issue, at least in part, because it is being incorrectly interpreted as having "environmental" or "anti-science" motives, when it is actually scientifically motivated:

Original rant:

What we're really trying to say is that those taking an "environmentalist" approach to this subject aren't looking at the issue in the right light.... Yes, it's good to protect the environment, and that includes Mars, but if "protecting" Mars means that we can't send probes or people there because we might "contaminate" it, then that's just plain stupid.

Comments:

they would probably consider anything organic to be a contamination of Mars, since it could alter the original "pristine" condition of the planet's ecosystem...

Silly, isn't it?

Silly, yes, but part of a fairly effective overall strategy by the IDiots: stifle any and all science....

Objections to 'polluting' Mars or other ET bodies may just be an attempted justification for the actual agenda to stifle any and all scientific inquiry in general

There's a UN treaty prohibiting pollution of other planets?!? Shouldn't we start with one prohibiting polllution of THIS ONE first?

Wow, you quote mined us on our own site.

By adding an ellipsis and skipping part of one of our comments, you artfully made it seem as though the words "Silly, isn't it?" were meant to apply to our statement that some people would consider anything organic to be a contamination of Mars. If you actually examine the entire comment, it's clear that what we were saying was "silly" was this:

Of course, by that logic, we shouldn't send people to any other planets, ever; and we should probably construct gigantic orbital shields to stop meteors and other extra-planetary objects from impacting on the surfaces of other planets...as they, too, could potentially carry organic substances.

We're not sure how that could be any more clear, Peter.

In addition, let's look at the other quote that you used from our Rant to support your statement that we missed the point and blamed environmentalists for this policy:

What we're really trying to say is that those taking an "environmentalist" approach to this subject aren't looking at the issue in the right light.... Yes, it's good to protect the environment, and that includes Mars, but if "protecting" Mars means that we can't send probes or people there because we might "contaminate" it, then that's just plain stupid.

Does that really sound like we're saying that anti-science tree-huggers are behind this strategy? What we said was that those taking an "environmentalist" approach to the issue were misguided, not that environmentalists are getting involved. You don't have to be an environmentalist in order to take an "environmentalist" approach to an issue. Note how we keep putting the word "environmentalist" in quotes, both here and in the original Rant, to help illustrate this point.

Now take a look at the rest of that quote in which we state that it is good to protect the Martian environment as long as it doesn't mean halting robotic or human exploration (if that's one of the reactions some members of the scientific community have). The very statement that you pulled out shows quite clearly that we didn't miss the point.

Now, if you disagree with one or more of our readers, go ahead and address them. But we did not miss the point.

I did not intend to mislead with my "silly" quote; I was just trying to avoid reproducing an entire comment that is present on the same page while showing how it led into a subsequent quote that brings up ID and anti-science. My apologies if it looked like I was quote mining. I thought including the ellipses made it clear there was more content that preceded the "Silly" statement, but was irrelevant to my point...

My point being that the "environmentalist" argument which you are ranting against is a strawman. By focusing on it and failing to acknowledge the real scientific reasons that scientists worry about contamination, you give the impression (as evidenced by the comments) that people are in fact making "environmentalist" arguments to abandon robotic exploration, when that isn't the case.

Snipping quotes is perfectly okay, but snipping them in such a way that the original meaning is altered is generally not so good, whether it is done intentionally or accidentally. Just because part of our content was irrelevant to your point, Peter, doesn't mean it was irrelevant to our point which you were quoting. By using an ellipsis, you appeared to attach our "silly" judgment to the wrong phrase, and thereby misrepresented our statements. We aren't trying to beat a dead horse here, we just want to be clear why we reacted as we did.

That said, we weren't building a strawman, or suggesting that there is a push to stop space exploration due to this contamination issue. Rather, we were pointing out that there isn't much that can be done about this issue that isn't already being done. The only other readily apparent option would be to stop exploration, which, of course, would be silly (and which, as far as we know, no rational people are advocating).

So, as we see it, we either keep trying to remove contamination from our probes, and simply accept that we won't always be 100% clean, or we take silly and drastic steps that include stopping our forward progress in space exploration. We advocate simply accepting the possibility of contamination as a necessary byproduct of exploration, and moving forward regardless.

And if the bacteria that may have hitchhiked to Mars on the Rovers are a problem for the UN treaty, then it is our opinion that such a treaty is misguided since the only way to ensure that such a treaty is not breached would be to take the silly steps outlined above. That's what we were talking about.

If rocks from Mars made it to Antarctica, there's a good chance rocks from Earth made it there. Contamination probably already happened!

Right. As far as we're concerned, we should be appropriately careful when it comes to exploring other worlds, but we can't get our panties in a twist over something that is inevitable (and which has probably already happened without our intervention).

Environment of mars? what environment? There may have once millions of years ago been bacteria on mars and the most recent rovers show the bedrock so there could have been a whole ocean full of alien life at some point. There could even have been intelligent life forms living there for all we know but it's pretty safe to assume that at the moment there is nothing living on Mars. No matter what it may have once been It's just a iron wasteland now, a planet that's rusting away

Environment of mars? what environment? There may have once millions of years ago been bacteria on mars and the most recent rovers show the bedrock so there could have been a whole ocean full of alien life at some point. There could even have been intelligent life forms living there for all we know but it's pretty safe to assume that at the moment there is nothing living on Mars. No matter what it may have once been It's just a iron wasteland now, a planet that's rusting away

Environment of mars? what environment? There may have once millions of years ago been bacteria on mars and the most recent rovers show the bedrock so there could have been a whole ocean full of alien life at some point. There could even have been intelligent life forms living there for all we know but it's pretty safe to assume that at the moment there is nothing living on Mars. No matter what it may have once been It's just a iron wasteland now, a planet that's rusting away

Well, two points, actually. I don't have the time at the moment to get the link, but there's actually evidence to suggest that there may have been localized liquid water on the surface of Mars within the last decade or two, which is a pretty amazing find, and a huge step forward in the possibility of there ever having been life on the planet. Besides that, given some of the harsh conditions on our own world where life can exist (I'm thinking specifically in Antarctica and in the boiling, high-pressure waters near steam vents on the ocean floor), it's not entirely inconceivable that there's life somewhere on or beneath the Martian surface. Unlikely to be sure, but not impossible.

And second, a harsh, inhospitable environment is still technically an environment. Whether or not anything can live in a given environment doesn't change the fact that pretty much every place is one.

Exactly, just because an environment can't support life (and I'm not saying that Mars can't) doesn't mean it isn't an environment. It reminds me a little bit of a person who take a thermometer out of his/her kid's mouth and says, "He doesn't have a temperature." Uh, yes, he does, even if he has been dead for hours, he has a temperature ....room temperature.

Like Jay Denari said "There's a UN treaty prohibiting pollution of other planets?!? Shouldn't we start with one prohibiting polllution of THIS ONE first?"

Yeah shouldn't we protect the environment of the planet we live on more than one that we can't even get to yet?