From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:16:09 +0800 Archived: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:44:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:11:41 -0400 >Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >>From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:37:25 +0800 >>Subject: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >>Speculative: On sampling Earth's biodiversity In Search For >>Novel Reactive Compounds ><snip> >Three quick points:: >1. Earth is the densest planet in the solar system implying >higher levels of such very high density metals as Rhenium, >Osmium, Gold tungsten, uranium,etc.. all of which have special >properties and appear to be rare in the stars of the local >neighborhood. Interesting point. Does that mean you argue that such elements are unavailable for harvesting in the asteroid belt? Wouldn't Earth be made primarily of the same stuff as what existed in the dust ring during stellar formation? If so, doesn't that imply that such materials are abundant elsewhere in the solar system? >2. While there is undoubtedly water on other bodies here, none >are covered with a deep ocean containing both readily accesible >life forms and, at the bottom, loads of relatively well >segrgated metals, diamonds, etc. So the argument here is not that water is special (we agree) but that certain metals and carbon forms are available in the oceans of Earth that aren't available elsewhere in the solar system. The words 'life forms', however, go right to my initial argument. Finding by accident, or modifying by intent, the genetic nature of a life form to produce specific molecular compounds is exactly what I'm driving at. Why sample the biodiversity of Earth without a purpose framed within self- interest? Ultimately, I'm arguing that repeated visitations suggest some kind of rational 'self-interest' gain rather than expending the energy on a long term program to travel here out of 'pure research' intent. IMO: the best counter-argument against my suggestion is to presume the advent of self-replicating nanotechnology - akin to what Drexler proposes. However, if one were to guess that Drexler's goals are pie-in-the-sky and much more difficult to achieve than we imagine, than the 'harvesting novel molecular compounds' from life becomes a viable option to achieve similar goals. >3. Judging by the physical trace cases and the abduction cases, >aliens are able to breath the air here so would have a much >easier time than where air is much less dense and special >apparatus would be required.. Abduction doesn't fit into the thought experiment because it wasn't among the presumptions listed. But I have a serious problem with the evidence collection methods (hypnotic regression), so I won't comment there. As for aliens breathing our atmosphere, I'm not convinced that actual biological agents would have to travel here for the sampling methods stated here to be achieved. But I don't discount the possibility. Thanks for your response, Maynard Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp