I disagree. There is no life on Mars today. Proof:
Life needs continued supply of biochemical energy; And there is simply no source for that on Mars except sunlight.
So, that leaves photosynthetically active organisms as the only possible form of life. But to be photosynthetically active, you have to be exposed to the sunlight; in other words, you have to grow on the surface, and be visible from outer space. So it is enough to check the surface to find out whether there's life on Mars or not. And there appears not to be.
You are probably right, but how cool would it be if we are wrong.
Also, any evidence of life that may have been existed on Mars previously would be erased.
I assume you have read the Kim Stanley Robinson trilogy.
When I read it, as a teenager, I was definitely a Green-Mars proponent, but as I grew up learnt more about palaeontology and geology, I became more of a Red-Mars proponent.
I disagree. There is no life on Mars today. Proof:
Life needs continued supply of biochemical energy; And there is simply no source for that on Mars except sunlight.
So, that leaves photosynthetically active organisms as the only possible form of life. But to be photosynthetically active, you have to be exposed to the sunlight; in other words, you have to grow on the surface, and be visible from outer space. So it is enough to check the surface to find out whether there's life on Mars or not. And there appears not to be.
You are probably right, but how cool would it be if we are wrong.
Also, any evidence of life that may have been existed on Mars previously would be erased.
I assume you have read the Kim Stanley Robinson trilogy. When I read it, as a teenager, I was definitely a Green-Mars proponent, but as I grew up learnt more about palaeontology and geology, I became more of a Red-Mars proponent.