Would it be easier to colonise a living world or a dead world?

This question about eating on a alien world got me thinking.... Would it be easier for humans to colonise a world with existing life, or one which was biologically dead?

For the living world, let us assume a world with no technically proficient lifeforms, but one in which living material (i.e. forms of matter capable of using available energy sources to grow and reproduce) is abundant.

For the dead world, let us assume a 'goldilocks zone' world with an active hydrosphere (or at least sufficient water to create one given enough heat) and a G comfortable for humans.

On the one hand, the living world seems like the best choice, colonisation might be analogous to human groups moving into a new, unpopulated (by humans) environment on Earth in which the colonists learn to make use of the natural resources available. On the other hand, some of the answers to the linked question suggest that we wouldn't even be able to produce food on the new world as there is no reason to think that the alien biochemistry would be usable in any way by Earth-evolved life. In this case, the colonists would have to basically eradicate any existing life-forms and replace them entirely with Earth stock. This strikes me as a harder task than just starting from scratch on a suitable rock.

So, should future space colonists be aiming for that exciting distant world with the traces of life detected by atmospheric spectroscopy, or should they set course for the god-forsaken rock with nothing but the cold, lonely isolation of space for company?

posted about 5 years ago

DrMcCleod‭

1 reputation 1 0 0 0