[rodly]

Is it wrong to contaminate a space that has no life/use otherwise? I'm not saying Mars as it stands has no use, but if we find no life there, surely spreading life to another planet is "good" right?

[wtetzner]

Well, we might end up thinking there was life on Mars when we're really the ones that brought it. It might screw with the science.

[rodly]

That burden is on us though. Assume we've taken the proper precautions, searched high and low on Mars, and can definitively say no life currently exists in any form on Mars. What does that make Mars?

- A useful resource for studying terrestrial planets - A geologists dream land - A lifeless rock that will likely never host life unless terraformed - A useful resource for spreading life; extending the Human race's finite time in the Universe

I'm not very educated on the ethics of this topic so I'm looking for reasons you would want to leave Mars be indefinitely.

[wtetzner]

I don't disagree with you, I was just trying to come up with a reason we might not want to contaminate it.

If there's no life on Mars, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with introducing life to it.

I mean, I guess maybe if it there was some reason it would be bad for the life forms, versus being bad for Mars.