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