Okay, say they find life on Mars or any other body in the solar system (outside of Earth). Even if it’s microbial in form, I think there should be a real-life version of Star Trek’s Prime Directive: If primitive life is found there, then we should back off and let it evolve on its own. Going there would risk causing the extinction of a new life form on another planet and doing anything with it would alter its natural course. Also, I think this would preclude us from ever terraforming a planet that showed signs of native life. Does anyone know of what the procedure would be if life were found on another planet? How do you feel about what I suggest?
One weird thing you are assuming is that somehow Earth life would be better adapted to life on Mars than Mars life! That is pretty absurd on the face of it. Mars is very dry, cold and salty. Anything adapted to living there would have a hard time living on earth and vice versa.
And even if some bacteria were found there, I’d still advocate terraforming the planet, it would be a waste of a whole planet for the sake of some bacteria analogs that, if they existed on your skin, you would be more than happy to smear some anti-bacterial soap on and kill.
The natural course of life on Mars, if it exists at all, is to die as the planet slowly gets drier and colder. Natural is not a synonym for good.
Of course, if any life is found anywhere, it should be studied, and co-habited with if at all possible. If complex life (multicellular)is ever found outside earth, I could see leaving it alone…then it would be something worth preserving for eternity. But microbial life isn’t worth weeping over.
What **Thaumaturge ** said, basically. If it’s microbial or even simple multicellular organisms, screw it and take the planet if we can. If we find another Earth somewhere with indiginous higher life forms then possibly co-habitate but if that proves impossible, leave the planet alone.
I don’t think we’ll ever have to worry about either though.
This is an interesting aspect of part of Kim Stanley Robinson’s book Red Mars. Unsurprisingly, the humans begin terraforming Mars and hopelessly contaminate it before any discovery of Martian life can be made. I see this as a very realistic scenario. But I would regret the passing of the Martian microbes. Think of their value! They would be the only example of a life form that developed under conditions different from Earth’s own life. The secrets we could obtain from the study of that life are unimagineable from our current perspective, and would be an incalculable loss.
On the other hand, if Martian life were like that depicted in H.G. Wells, I’d be willing to do a little dance on their graves if it would help. 
I think the scientific community already follows a sort of prime-directive. I think no-one is allowed to leave anything behind on an expedition to Antarctica. And there are plans to investigate a lake submerged under ice in Russia (help me out people I forget where) and they are absolutely set on not disturbing/contaminating anything they find there.
Anyhoo - if there’s anything tough enough to live on Mars as it is, a bit of terraforming isn’t gonna bother it.
But I’m with wevets if they come at us in their tripods I say we nuke 'em from orbit.
That’s Lake Vostok.
Nah…
If we’ve got a Republican administration at the time, we scoop up any life we find and put 'em to work in a sweatshop for 3 Glarnxyx an hour.
If the Dems are in control, we just tax 'em into oblivion.
Okay, I am not assuming that Earth life would be better suited to Mars life than Mars life. I am suggesting that going there and screwing with the natural order of things would interfere with the development of life there.
Simplistic Example: We set up some sort of rudimentary tent or something and there is a colony of microbes right underneath the floor of the tent that require sunlight to live. Okay, we’ve just killed them.
What some of you are assuming is that microbial life is not worth saving or that you can predict what environmental changes could affect the evolution of these life forms into a more complex form of life. Had aliens a few billion years ago come to Earth with your attitude, none of us would be here now…
Life finds a way in the harshest of environments. If somehow it has found a way on Mars, then let it be. And I realize that natural doesn’t always mean “good.” But we have to realize that our actions have consequences and we are not gods to decide what life forms are worthy and which are not.
Wow, that’s crazy!
Where are they in their progress with lake Vostok? They were supposed to start in 2004.
How do you know for sure that a long time ago, some alien being came to earth and helped move things along for us to evolve? Maybe us going there could a be a good thing…as noted above, just because it is “natural” doesn’t mean it is the best way of doing things.
We should, however, be careful of bring back some new disease, bacteria or whatever from any return missions from Mars. That could be a bit problematic if it didn’t mix well in our environment, or if it mixed too well.
Damn the microcrobes. We should terraform Mars, it’s good for America.
First of all, I do not adhere to the belief that there is a universal definition of what “good” and “bad” are. So, those of you who are saying that “natural doesn’t necessarily mean good” are speaking to me irrelevantly.
I mean, great, but what you suggest; it’s “good” for whom? Maybe from a certain perspective, it’s “good” for humans, but perhaps we should not ascribe to the fact that only we can judge what is “good.”
Being able to hunt and get food is good. Being prey is bad. Neither case is right or wrong, but both are natural occurences. Good and bad depend on your point of view. “Natural” occurs regardless of your opinion of whether it’s good or not.
Examples: "It’s good to terraform Mars even though there is microbial life there because we need more resources. "
“It’s bad to terraform Mars because there is microbial life there and humans may interfere with the development of more complex life forms.”
“Humans are a part of nature and anything they do can be considered part of the natural process so interfering with life on Mars is natural.”
My original post was basically to see if there was any Prime Directive. Or to examine the sides of the issue. Again, I don’t buy the whole natural vs. good because no one can point to something that is universally accepted as “good.” It’s all on your perspective. The most I am willing to concede is that something either “is” or “is not” or a concept is “popular” or “unpopular” and what determines what is popular and not popular is not whether it’s inherently good or bad, but if it works for whatever you are trying to accomplish.
I’m not sure it’s even possible to visit a planet without infesting it with terrestrial life. Even an unmanned craft can have bacteria on it, and if people go there, they are bacteria factories.
I’m one of those that you probably think are assuming that microbial life isn’t worth considering due to its chance of becoming something more but I’m not. I’m just a pragmatist.
We most likely already have infected Mars with our probes and rover, like **Libertarian ** alluded to. For all we know, within a couple thousand or million bacterial generations, our Terran microbes could very well outstrip the Martian ones and we’ll have totally destroyed the planet’s ecosystem before we even touch down. The damage is already done. Because of that, I believe that if we ever get the technology to get to Mars and to try to terraform it without bankrupting ourselves, I see no reason not to do so.