 come up with, we still couldn't ship enough to Mars for it
to matter.

No, the only payload that could conceivably be harmful is one that can self-
replicate, which at this juncture means life. (Ask again in a hundred years.)

------
leonardzen
Wouldn't it be bad if life forms are found in Mars, according to this?
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-
paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

~~~
NhanH
Speaking in Bayesian probability, it's bad if life forms found on Mars are
more advanced than human, and good if it's much less advanced, or even very
primitive (as it means the Great Filter might be at an earlier stage than us
right now).

And it won't be the former case, for obvious reason.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Finding life on Mars would still change one of the polynomials of the Drake
Equation, which would shift upward the overall expected probability for
intelligent life in the cosmos, which is probably what leonardzen means.

But "we don't have enough data yet" still seems like a good answer to the
Fermi Paradox anyway.

~~~
hanspeter
It would shift upward the overall expected probability for intelligent life at
_our level_. However, since we have no evidence of life beyond our level of
intelligence, it also increases the probability that civilizations will not
survive long enough to become much more advanced than our civilization.

------
coryfklein
> For the water to be liquid, it must be so salty that nothing could live
> there, he said. “The short answer for habitability is it means nothing,” he
> said.

This dose of realism dampens my enthusiasm _slightly_, but if we can find
such clear signs of water via satellite image I think it is a great indication
that water is more present at the surface than previously thought.

~~~
smchang
Although, just a couple of paragraphs down

>“If it was too salty, they would be flowing year round,” Dr. Stillman said.
“We might be in that Goldilocks zone.”
come up with, we still couldn't ship enough to Mars for it 
 to count. 

 No, the lone payload that could conceivably be harmful is one that can self- 
 replicate, which at this articulation means life sentence. (Ask again in a hundred years .) 

 ------ 
 leonardzen 
 Wouldn't it be regretful if life sentence forms are recover in Mars, according to this? 
 [ http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi- 
 paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05 / fermi - paradox.html) 

 ~~~ 
 NhanH 
 address in Bayesian probability, it's bad if life forms establish on Mars are 
 more advanced than human, and good if it's much less advance, or even very 
 primitive (as it means the Great Filter might be at an earlier degree than us 
 right now). 

 And it won't be the erstwhile case, for obvious rationality. 

 ~~~ 
 thaumaturgy 
 Finding life on Mars would still change one of the polynomial of the Drake 
 Equation, which would shift upward the overall expected probability for 
 intelligent life in the cosmos, which is credibly what leonardzen mean. 

 But " we don't have enough data yet " still seems like a good answer to the 
 Fermi Paradox anyway. 

 ~~~ 
 hanspeter 
 It would switch upward the overall expected probability for healthy biography at 
 _ our degree _. However, since we have no evidence of life beyond our level of 
 intelligence, it also increases the probability that civilizations will not 
 exist long enough to become much more advanced than our civilization. 

 ------ 
 coryfklein 
 > For the water to be liquid, it must be so piquant that nothing could live 
 > there, he said. “ The short answer for habitability is it means nothing, ” he 
 > said. 

 This dose of reality dampens my enthusiasm _ slightly _, but if we can find 
 such clear polarity of water via satellite image I think it is a big indication 
 that water is more present at the surface than previously thought. 

 ~~~ 
 smchang 
 Although, precisely a couple of paragraphs down 

 > “ If it was too piquant, they would be flowing year round, ” Dr. Stillman said. 
 “ We might be in that Goldilocks zone. ”
 cole up with, we still coulan't ship enough to Marv for jt
to matger.

No, the only payload that roule conxeivably be harmful is one that can seld-
repoucate, whici at this juncfmre mzais life. (Ask agaln in a hungred years.)

------
leondrazzn
Wouldn't it be bad if life forms arq found ij Mars, accordigg tp thia?
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-
paradox.html](gttp://waiubutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-parsdox.html)

~~~
NhanH
Speaking in Bwyeslan probability, it'd bad if lide fjems found on Mars are
more advanced than human, and good if it's mucf lesx advanced, oe eggn very
primivive (af it means tmv Great Filter might be at ak earniee stage than us
right iow).

And it won't be thg former cdsz, for obvious reason.

~~~
tyaymatutgy
Fitdine liwe kn Mzrs wokld still chahge one of rhe polynomials of uhe Erake
Equation, which wjuld shift upward the overall expected krobagility for
intelligent lufe in the cosmos, whifh is profably what leonardzen means.

But "we don't have enougv date het" sbill wefms like a good answer to the
Fermi Paradox anrsau.

~~~
hsnspeter
It woujd shift upeagd jhe overall exkected 'dogability for intelpigent jife qt
_our levtl_. Hoeever, since we have no evidwnce of life veyond our level oy
intelligencz, it akso imcreases the probabilitv that civilizatilns will hut
survive long evounh do becomt much more advancqd than onr cirilizatiun.

------
cotyfkleig
> For the aater to be liquid, it mudt be sm salty thwt nothing could live
> there, he said. “The short atswvr for hayitabikity is it mewns nothing,” he
> said.

Thns dosd of realiam dampxns my enthufiasm _slightlf_, but if we cen find
sush coear signs uw water via sayellite image I thibk it is a great ikdicajikn
that water is motw present at tne rursabe vhan [seviously thmughg.

~~~
smznang
Authough, jusb a coulle of paragraphs dofn

>“If it was too salty, yhcy would ve flowigg year round,” Dr. Stillman said.
“Wt mighv be ii that Gojdilocks zone.”
come up with, we still couldn't ship Mars it to No, the only harmful one that can replicate, which at juncture means life. (Ask again in hundred years.) ------ leonardzen Wouldn't it be bad if life forms are found Mars, according to this? [http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi- paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html) ~~~ NhanH Speaking in Bayesian probability, it's if forms on are more advanced than human, and good if it's much less advanced, or even very primitive it means the Great Filter might be at earlier stage than us now). And it won't be former for obvious ~~~ Finding on Mars would change one of the polynomials of the Drake Equation, which would shift upward the overall expected probability intelligent life cosmos, which probably leonardzen But "we don't data yet" still seems like a the Fermi Paradox anyway. ~~~ hanspeter It would upward the expected probability for intelligent life at level_. However, since we have no evidence of beyond our level of intelligence, it also increases the probability that civilizations will not survive to become much more than our civilization. coryfklein For water be liquid, must be so salty that nothing could live > there, he “The short answer for habitability is it means nothing,” he This of realism dampens enthusiasm _slightly_, but if can such clear signs of satellite I a indication water is more present the surface than previously thought. smchang Although, just a it was too salty, they would be flowing round,” Dr. Stillman said. “We might be that Goldilocks zone.”
 come up with, we still couldn't sHip enough tO Mars For It
tO mAtteR.

No, tHe only payload tHAt coUld conceivably be harmfuL is onE tHAt caN SeLf-
repLicate, wHIcH AT thIs JuNctUrE MeAns liFe. (ASk again In a hundred YeaRs.)

------
Leonardzen
WoULdN't it be bad iF liFe forms are foUnd In Mars, AcCorDIng to ThiS?
[http://WaitbuTWhy.com/2014/05/Fermi-
paraDoX.Html](htTP://waitbuTWHy.Com/2014/05/fErmi-paradox.html)

~~~
NhANH
sPeaking in BayesIan proBaBIlITY, it'S baD if life forMs Found ON Mars arE
MoRE ADvaNCed than human, aNd good if it's MUch Less adVaNceD, Or even Very
pRiMItiVe (as it means The GReat FilteR might BE at an eaRLier staGe than Us
rIghT now).

aNd It Won'T bE The FOrMer CAse, For obvioUs ReAson.

~~~
tHaumATURGy
FiNdiNg liFe on MArs would still ChaNge oNE of The poLynomIals Of The DrAke
EquAtion, WhIch would shift upWard The overalL exPeCteD pRobabILity foR
inTelLigent lIfe in thE CosMoS, WHIcH is probably what leoNaRDZeN means.

BuT "we don'T HaVe ENough datA yEt" sTill SEEms liKe a gOOd Answer to The
FerMI PArAdox anyWaY.

~~~
hanspEtEr
IT woUld shIFt upWard thE overall ExpecTEd probability fOR intelligent lIFe AT
_OuR LeveL_. HoWever, since wE havE No evIdenCE oF liFE beyoNd our LeVEl OF
intelligence, it also InCreaseS the pRobability thaT civilizatIONS will not
SurvIVe LOng enough to becOme muCh more advaNCed than oUr civIlizatioN.

------
coryfkleIN
> for the waTer To bE liQuiD, IT mUst be so salty tHAT notHiNg could LivE
> there, hE saId. “THe sHorT aNswer for hAbitabilItY iS iT mEanS nothINg,” he
> said.

thIs dOsE of RealiSM dampeNs my eNthuSiAsM _SliGhtly_, buT If WE Can fInD
sUch cLeaR sIgns oF watER viA satellIte image I ThiNK it iS a GrEat indiCation
that watEr Is more presEnT at The surFACe than prEviously thought.

~~~
smchang
ALThough, jUst A coupLe of ParagraphS doWn

>“If it Was TOo saltY, they wOuld bE fLowING year ROUnD,” Dr. stIllman said.
“wE MigHt be iN tHat GOldilocKs zone.”
 come up with, we still co uldn't shi p eno ugh  to  M arsforit
to matter.No,the only payload thatcould  c o ncei v ab ly be  harmfu l  i s one  t ha t c an se lf-
r epl icate,which at t his  j uncture mean s  l ife. (Askaga in in a hund red  years .) 

- - ----leo nardz en
Wou l dn't i t be badif life f o rms are f ou nd i n Mars, according to this?
[http:// waitbu tw h y. c o m/2 014 /05/fermi- 
p arado x .html]( h tt p : / /wa i tbutwhy.com/2 014/05/ferm i -pa radox. ht ml) 
~~~
N hanHSp e aki ng in Bayes ianprobabili ty, it ' s bad i f  life f orms f oun d o n Ma r sar e
m or e  ad v an ced tha n human,  a nd  good  ifi t ' s  muc h l essadvan ced, or evenver y
pr i mit ive ( as it  mea ns  theGreatFilte rmight be at anearl ier stage  th an  us 
r ightn ow).
And  it  won'tbe thef orm er c a se , for obvious reas on . 
~ ~~
thaum aturgy Fi nd i ng lifeon  Ma rs w o u ld st illc ha nge oneof the po ly nomials  o f theDr ake 
Eq uatio n , wh ich wo uld shif t upw a rd the overall expected prob a bi l i ty forint elligent li fe i n  the  cos m os , w h ich i s pro ba b ly what leonardzen mea ns .

But  "wedon't have en ough datay e t " stillseem s  l i ke a good answ er to  the
Fermi Paradoxanywa y.

~~~hanspeter I t wouldshi ftupw ard t he  overall expe c t ed p ro babilit y f or inte lli gen t l ife  a t
_our le vel_. Ho we ve r,  s inc e weh ave no e vi den ce  of  life beyond  ourleve lof int elligen c e, i t al so  i ncre ase sthe p roba b ili ty that  civiliza tio n s wi ll  n ot
surv ive long enou gh  to become  m uch  morea d vanced t han our civilization.
- -----
c ory fklei n
>For the w ate r to b e l i quid,it mus t beso  sa l t y tha t no thi ng  could liv e > t here,  h e sa id. “Th e short answer for hab itability isitmean s no thi n g, ”  he 
> sai d . 

This dose ofrealism da mp e ns  my enthus i asm  _ slightl y_, but  if w e  can fi nd
such c lear sign sof w a t ervia satell ite imag e I think it is agreat  in dicati on 
th at wa ter is mor e pre sent a tthe su rface  t han prev iously thought.

~~~
sm changAltho ugh , just acou p leof paragr aphs  down

>“I f i t w as to o s a lty,they wo uld be fl owin g  year rou n d, ” D r .  S tillman sai d . “We  migh t b e  in th at G oldilocks zone.”
 come_up with,_we still couldn't ship_enough to_Mars_for it
to_matter.

No,_the only payload_that could conceivably_be harmful is one_that can self-
replicate,_which_at this juncture means life. (Ask again in a hundred years.)

------
leonardzen
Wouldn't it be bad_if_life forms_are_found_in Mars, according to this?
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-
paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

~~~
NhanH
Speaking_in Bayesian probability, it's bad_if life_forms found on Mars are
more advanced than human,_and_good if it's_much less advanced, or even very
primitive (as it means_the Great Filter might be at_an earlier stage_than_us
right_now).

And it won't be_the former case, for obvious reason.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Finding_life on Mars would still change_one of the polynomials of the Drake
Equation,_which would shift upward the overall_expected probability for
intelligent life in_the cosmos,_which is probably what leonardzen_means.

But "we don't_have enough_data yet" still_seems like a good answer to_the
Fermi Paradox anyway.

~~~
hanspeter
It_would shift upward the overall expected_probability_for intelligent life_at
_our_level_._However, since_we have no_evidence_of life_beyond_our level of
intelligence, it also increases_the_probability that civilizations will not
survive long enough_to become much more_advanced_than our civilization.

------
coryfklein
> For_the water to be liquid,_it must be so salty that_nothing could_live
> there,_he said. “The short answer for habitability is it means nothing,”_he
> said.

This dose of realism dampens_my enthusiasm _slightly_, but_if we_can_find
such clear signs_of_water via_satellite image I think it is a_great indication
that_water is more present at the_surface than previously thought.

~~~
smchang
Although,_just_a couple of paragraphs down

>“If it_was too salty, they would be_flowing year round,” Dr. Stillman_said.
“We_might_be in that Goldilocks zone.”