Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-21 17:20:39

Aboard the Starship Enterprise there exists a cardinal rule governing the actions of the Star Trek crew as it gallivants gloriously around the galaxy, boldly going where no one has gone before. Labelled the 'Prime Directive', this ethical ruling states that humans shall not interfere with any life encountered lest the aliens, or their social and physical environment, be destroyed and irrevocably damaged.

The most notable medium for such interference is through the action of invasive microorganisms. The writers of Star Trek have invented a convenient piece of technology to handle such interplanetary transfer of germs. When beaming off to a new planet, 'biofilters' installed in the Enterprise's transporter supposedly filter out microbes accompanying the crew. Twentieth-century space exploration has no such biofilter technology and if recently-renewed enthusiasm to explore and colonise the planet Mars is not tempered with some restraint, humans may act to spread the spores of destruction for unknown numbers of Martian species. This would constitute the falling of the Prime Directive at its first hurdle.

The scientific and astronautic community has looked into the problem of the contamination of other worlds with Earth microbes, and there are policies in place designed to ensure microbial stow-aways are not carried through-out the Solar System aboard robotic probes. However, with human space exploration, prevention of contamination would be impossible. There is little chance of decontaminating a human to the same degree of sterility as is possible with a robot.

The discovery of what may be fossilised Martian life has rekindled the life on Mars debate. In the minds of many, the probability of extant Martian life is given a great boost if fossil Martian life is verified. Currently there are numerous exobiologists from around the world presenting credible models of extant Martian lifeforms. Microbes that dwell inside Antarctic rocks serve as one model of what Martian life may be like. Other models of life on modern Mars include: - Sub-regolithic life (that is life below the Martian soil: including life in subsurface water environments), - Polar life (life in the Martian ice-caps), - Geothermal or hydrothermal life (life associated with Martian hotsprings or volcanic vents), - Endoevaporitic life (life associated with evaporitic deposits such as salt pans).

Having announced such models for Martian life it becomes relevant to enquire 'What will be the consequences for such life if human exploration and colonization on Mars is undertaken?'

There has been an unfortunate experience in environmental history for once-isolated ecological communities to be irrevocably altered upon the reciept of invading alien species. This is most stark when considering the ecology of the islands of the world. From Mauritius to Hawaii to New Zealand and Australia, islands of all shapes and sizes have often had their indigenous landscapes altered to the detriment of many indigenous species. Mars exists as an extraterrestrial island and it too may be intensely susceptible to invasion by non-natives.

Studies aboard the Space Shuttle and other spacecraft indicate that terrestrial microbes are enviably capable of tolerating the extremes of the space environment. If a microbe finds its way to Mars via human exploration, it may impinge upon the native microbial species in a number of ways: -antibiosis\allelopathy (an invasive microbe may produce substances toxic to native species), -phagocytosis (an invasive microbe may predate upon a native species to obtain its carbon, water, nitrogen etc), - infection (an invasive microbe may invade the cells of a native species to facilitate its own reproduction), -competition (an invasive microbe may out-compete a native species for scarce resources such as water, light, shade or space), -ecological disturbance (an invasive microbe may alter the Martian environment in such a way that the change kills the native species).

While infection may be quite unlikely (as it relies on the specificity of a host-parasite relationship derived from historical association) the other threats are real. That the above threats can be contained at the point of initial contact may be a false expectation. Bacterial and fungal spores may be carried thousands of kilometres by the episodic Martian duststorms, and the wider the exploration activities of humans on Mars the wider will be the dissemination of Earth organisms. In the event of human settlement of Mars, no indigenous microbial community may survive untouched, particularly when human pollutants become widespread as that might work synergistically to enhance invasion by Earth microbes.

One might think that because Martian microbes have been living on Mars for billions of years they will be far better adapted to Martian conditions than any alien species which comes along and that this will confer upon them some degree of resilience in the face of invasion. However, this is not necessarily so. On the most Mars-like environment on Earth - the dry inland valleys of Antarctica - introduced microbes carried by scientific personnel have commonly grown and reproduced more rapidly and at lower temperatures than indigenous polar microbes. No matter how warily human explorers on Mars might tread they may still impinge upon the Martian ecosystem and promote the extinction of Martian lifeforms.

Some would-be Mars developers might believe that any indigenous microbial species will have their chances of survival actually enhanced by human activities (since Martian development might involve the moderation of Mars' harsh environment and the creation of diverse ranges of ecological niches for the native microbes to exploit)). While there is a tiny chance that human activities on Mars may help Martian microbes it may be even more likely that they will end up quite extinct. As is the case with many fastidious terrestrial microbes that like extreme environments, Martian bugs will probably only be able to survive under precise environmental conditions; those prevailing on Mars now. Alternatively , an indigenous microbial species that has its survivability enhanced may then proceed to alter its environment with the production of toxic wastes or gases so as to make that environment highly unsuitable for itself. Humans could thus be responsible for a Martian species poisoning itself to death.

Even if human activities on the red planet act to enhance the prospects of a individual Martian microbial species it can be argued that such an enhancement breaches the integrity of the natural state of the indigenous ecosystem. If there are several species of Martian microbes, then the balance of one to another may be altered by human actvities. One species may be enhanced by human activities and then proceed to conquer previously unsuitable areas to the detriment of others. This may be encouraged by the biological and chemical prospecting of scientists who may facillitate the cross-habitat spreading of Martians through the contamination of their suits and their scientific instruments. On Earth, such cross-habitat infection is acknowledged by many microbiologists as being a serious threat to the survival of unique microbial communities.

The scenarii for Martian destruction are many and various. Though it might be possible for human exploration upon Mars to go ahead without the death of a Martian species I think it unlikely. Certainly, there is no way that the ecology of the planet would ever be the same again. Unfortunately, for the microbes, the future expansion of humans into space may someday mirror the environmental consequences of past human expansion on Earth. Where now native Martians may proudly sift frozen carbon dioxide from icy rocks in great subterranean herds stretching from the north Martian pole to the Valles Marineris, they may someday be slain mercilessly in their trillions to give rise to sad isolated clumps that hang on to dear life amidst a great mat of advancing atmospheric and bacterial pollution.

So there may be life on Mars? And so human activities have the capacity to destroy such life? So what? Humans spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to rid themselves of microbes on Earth, why should we let microbes stand in the way of human space exploration? This is the same sort of attitude that Europeans have had in the past with regards to indigenous human populations during their colonial expansion. Indigenous peoples were thought of as being some kind of sub-level of humans who were not worthy of the moral consideribility afforded to Europeans. We have just about got over such brash racism - at least theoretically - but now the environmental movement challenges us to reject anthropocentrism. Just as the white man is not the measure of all things human, so humanity is not the measure of all things living. An ethic of biotic egalitarianism is emerging in environmentalism and it suggests that humans and microbes exist side by side on the ladder of moral considerability. Many people have certainly adopted this sort of view when contemplating the moral worth of such grand species as the Panda, the Blue Whale and the trees of the tropical and temperate rainforests but when it come to microbial organisms such as bacteria and algae it is somewhat different. Microbes are not cuddly like Panda, nor graceful like Blue Whales, or enchanting like the trees of a temperate rainforest. But these are human ascribed qualities and they often fall short of some of the less aesthetic species who have as much right to existence as humans and the lifeforms that we tend to favour.

In the past twenty-five years or so the emerging field within moral philosophy known as environmental ethics has dared to extend the concepts of justice, rights, respect and moral considerability beyond the human sphere to encompass all kinds of living things. Out of this field of environmental ethics there have tended to be three main ways of extending value to nature. The Conservation Ethic, Libertarian Extension and Ecological extension.

{A} The Conservation Ethic. The conservation ethic is the ethical approach that governs current extraterrestrial environmental views. The Conservation Ethic does not see any intrinsic value or rights in the various components of the Martian environment (be they biological or non-biological) but sees their value purely in terms of their being natural resources which have a use for humanity (or as often as not for a select or lucky few members of humanity). The conservation ethic is often labelled as an anthropocentric or shallow type of envionmental ethic since it does not recognise any intrinsic value in non-humans, be they large highly-intelligent quadruped mammals in the same room as us or tiny wee microscopic bugs on another planet. As you can see, according to the Conservation Ethic humans are firmly perched on the top of the pyramid of those things in nature to be valued. The conservation ethic primarily believes that we must conserve and manage environmental resources, such as the planet Mars, in order to ensure the integrity of scientific explorations or, in the long term, in order to secure a continued supply of resources so that humans may remain in the standard of living they have become accustomed to. Thus the conservation ethic is deficient when considering it as the only philosophical base in the drawing up of environmental policies to do with Mars, for it will not protect Martians so much as allow the management of the Martian environment to be enacted in an efficent manner for science and commerce. If the safety of Martians conflicts with the scientific curiosity or commercial programmes of humans, it will always be the humans that will win out. What we need then is a non-anthropocentic ethic to guide us.

The two generally accepted non-anthropocentric ways of valuing nature are Libertarian Extension and Ecologic Extension and it is some combination of the two that must be considered when trying to formulate ideas about ethical treatment of Mars and the Martians.

{B} Civil Libertarian extension. Civil Libertarian Extension involves the widening of rights to previously unconsidered members of the living world. One might trace in human history an uneven and sometimes sporadic evolution of such ethical extension which aims at promoting rights for every individual being. In the realms of environmentalism, Civil Libertarian Extension is most manifest in the works of animal rights activists who believe that animals (generally those with an advanced nervous system) hold the same rights and should be valued at some sort of parity with humans. If one carries Civil Libertarian extension beyond the narrow scope of animal rights then it could be thought of as being applicable to all organismal entities, including microbes. Such ethical extension tends to value the importance of individuals and when applied to Mars might be considered to recognize intrinsic value in each Martian microbe.

{C} Ecological Extension. Ecological Extension has evolved from the science of ecology and from facets of the environmental movement and it tells us how all the components of a living system, along with the non-living components, are interrelated and interdependent. Such an approach emphasizes the values of species, communities, ecosystems and biospheres more than the rights of individuals. Thus Ecological Extension applied to Mars would value the species and communities of Martian Microbes and would then seek to work out how to protect these entities.

If you choose not to buy into the biotic egalitarianism of extensionist environmental ethics, you may still wish to protect Martian life for what it could mean to science. The study of extraterrestrial life would be an unprecedented discovery for science. To jeopardize such an opportunity by putting humans on Mars would be to blaspheme the spirit of scientific research. Thus human space exploration can jolly well wait till we have thoroughly explored Mars with decontaminated probes so as to determine whether Mars has life or not. Unfortunately there is a paradox emerging here. It is probable that robotic probes will only ever deliver ambiguous results with regards to Martian biology. To really find out if there is extant life on Mars, scientists (and their accompanying microbiota) have to go there to do it; thus endangering the very life they seek to discover. It would be shameful to discover life on Mars and then cause the extinction of such life by its very discovery. The situation would be akin to that of an exploratory entomologist who discovers a small goup of unidentified butterflies and then promptly fixes them into a collection only to find out later that he has exterminated an entire species in the name of science.

Though the main risk to Martian microbial well-being will come from actual human presence upon Mars, it must be noted that sterilised robotic probes carry a risk too, though a much smaller one. Space Probes are not decontaminated to 100% sterility. In fact sterilization in the interplanetary science business usually means just the lowering of the number of microbial passengers from the millions to the hundreds. Any supposedly sterilized spacecraft is still the carrier of numerous living entities.

Although microbes are often thought of as primitive organisms with no moral worth we might like to ponder upon the situation, which has become a familiar theme in science fiction, in which an extraterrestrial visitor from another planet may look upon the Earth as an interesting or resource-full looking place and decide that we are not worthy of consideration because we are just primitive humans. The genre of science fiction has done much to make the western world paranoid about aliens where that alienism is often allied to percieved threats from other nations, other races, other cultures, other values or just plain otherness. But it is becoming clear that the best candidate for the label of alien invader (whether on Earth or on Mars) are the members of the western world. There seems to be a grand irony growing here with respect to recent representations of things alien. In a number of recent science fiction films we have been encouraged to fear alien invasion and to regard America (and sometimes the American president, himself) as the saviour of liberty. In one swift advance of cultural imperialism Independence Day, the movie, extends Independence Day, the American institution, beyond the national boundaries of the USA to universally encompass the whole world's supposed fight for freedom. However, with regard to Mars and its recent date with the Pathfinder probe, it seems that Earthlings - and in particular; American Earthlings - should really be the ones cast as the invaders.

Many of those people that propose to expand humanity into outer space do so under the enticing notion that it is a natural and inevitable process. Just as a tree casts forth its seeds to colonize a new piece of ground, so humans are seeking to expand their ecological domain. Such a naturalistic interpretation evades the social reality of space expansion. Space expansion is a social phenomenon and not a biological one. A dispersing seed acts according to genetically prescribed rules arrived at through millions of years of biological evolution. The entities that take part in space expansion (namely nations, space agencies and private aerospace companies) are social entities that act according to social forces arrived at through the course of social, political and economic history (processes quite different to biological evolution). Far from being part of our biological makeup, Twentieth-century space exploration is a demonstrable phenomenon of Cold War history. I doubt very much that Neil Armstrong, or Yuri Gagarin, , have specific genes coding for space exploration in the cells of their respective bodies.

The scientific investigation of Martian life is a romantic pursuit , full of exciting implications for Earthbound science. That Martian life is valuable for scientific reasons will to some extent ensure a preservationist attitude to Mars. But more than that, Martian life has an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its scientific value. Martian microbes have no obligation to contribute to human scientific knowledge, and the search for such knowledge should not threaten the intrinsic value of Martian lifeforms. That the exploration of Mars will inevitably produce environmental disaster for any extant native Martians is not neccesarily assured. But the danger it presents is not posed against us but against Martians. Any thoughts of exploring or settling on Mars must be aware of this point. We will not be the ones to suffer from a miscalculation of environmental policies or decontamination techniques; it will be the Martians who suffer.

Space exploration in general is also presented in a highly romanticised fashion. But we should not let the romance of human exploration and development in space blind us to the possibility that we are endangering the lives of extraterrestrial species. Next time you see Captain Kirk and his gallant crew zooming off from planet to planet in the corner of your living room, you may stop to contemplate how many extinct species he may have left in his wake, and whether such explorations of destruction are to be initiated in your life time with regards to the planet Mars.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-22 03:27:42

Do we know of any species of bacteria or any species of mould which have become extinct, from whatever cause, except by deliberate and concerted human attempts at eradication?

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 05:12:52

Do we know of any species of bacteria or any species of mould which have become extinct, from whatever cause, except by deliberate and concerted human attempts at eradication?

It is generally agreed by microbiologists that bacteria and mould are just as liable to become ecologically extinct as other organisms but no body cares enough to study them

Well, that is except for a few intrepid environmental microbiologists measuring bacteria levels in polluted streams (where the changing populations, up for baddie bugs and down for goodie bugs, is making life miserable for other living things).

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-22 08:00:54

Not "just as liable to become ecologically extinct", I meant known to have become extinct already.
And not in one polluted stream. I mean totally extinct ... planetwide.

Adrian · 2002-09-22 08:08:08

Would you care to cite evidence for your claim that "It is generally agreed by microbiologists that bacteria and mould are just as liable to become ecologically extinct as other organisms but no body cares enough to study them"? Because, you know, I'm actually a molecular biologist and neuroscientist and I don't recall ever hearing such an assertion.

NovaMarsollia · 2002-09-22 08:57:46

Because, you know, I'm actually a molecular biologist and neuroscientist and I don't recall ever hearing such an assertion.

No you're not -- you're a 1st year science student.

Adrian · 2002-09-22 09:08:14

Actually, no, I'm graduating this year.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-22 23:22:01

Rather unsurprisingly, it appears Nova lacks the knowledge to back up his broad assertions.
As suggested elsewhere by Adrian, he fails to respond to legitimate questions and criticisms because he is fundamentally ignorant of his chosen subject matter.

Aggressive bluster and insults are poor substitutes for reasoned argument, Nova.

P.S. If Nova is to be believed, he was granted a Ph.D
here in Australia somewhere. I feel guilty, being
Australian, that such an injustice was
perpetrated in my own country.
Please accept my apologies!

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-23 12:24:32

Heh, it's good to have a biology grad student here.

HeloTeacher · 2002-09-24 11:05:27

I'll reply directly to what you posted Nova.

The assertion that the human drive to explore is less of a biological function than any other function seems to smack of a religious bent. Human history has a long, very much pre-Cold War, history of a drive to expand. Look at the extent of the human population fom the humble beginnings on the African continent. A most impressive example is the Inuit and their ingeneous adaptations to a most hostile enviroment. This is PRECISELY the same drive that has populated all the continents of the Earth with all manner of related beasts, plants, etc. As we have expanded we have adapted, that is a biological and natural function.

For the human group to see the world becoming full and want to expand beyond it is just as natural as the nomads who crossed the land bridge into North America because there was open space to fill.

The environtal ethics you speak of seem like a movement to prosecute me for murder because I killed the mosquito that was attempting to feed on my blood rather than let it finish. Or perhaps we should imprison all the lions for eating and ruthlessly impinging their will on the gazelle? Get over it!

The terraformation of Mars will not, in my opinion be a creation of Lifeboat Earth, or even a mock earth. It will be an attempt to open up new land to human habitation. Many people will attempt to create a unique and independant eosystem on the planet to ease this process.

After Mars we will move out and attempt to do the same on any planet or moon (Europa?) that has the necessary ingredient for life, any kind of life. And each of these new worlds will develop a unique and valuable ecosystem.

We will do what all life does, replicate the DNA and spread it as far as we can, the root function of all life.

clark · 2002-09-24 12:05:47

We will do what all life does, replicate the DNA and spread it as far as we can, the root function of all life.

Sounds like a pretty effective virus.

Adrian · 2002-09-24 12:45:40

Or a pretty effective bacteria, mammal, bird, plant, or any self-replicating organism? What's your point? I personally don't feel comfortable with the idea of humanity spreading out the cosmos using stuff up, but comparisons with viruses are trite.

clark · 2002-09-24 13:31:03

Calm down.

Sometimes it is helpful to look at our behavior through a different perspective. As a virus mutates to succeed within it's environment, therby creating more of itself, so too do humans "mutate" with the advances in science and technology that allow us to succeed within our environment and contemplate the idea of moving to previously uninhabitable environments.

I am sorry if this is a bit simplistic for your tastes Adrian, but we all can't be molecular biologists.

Would a comparison og human behavior to pond slime be better?

Bill White · 2002-09-24 15:20:41

Or a pretty effective bacteria, mammal, bird, plant, or any self-replicating organism? What's your point? I personally don't feel comfortable with the idea of humanity spreading out the cosmos using stuff up, but comparisons with viruses are trite.

What if we look at this as "bootstrapping" complexity? Daniel Dennett's analogy of evolution as a series of cranes building on top of each other comes to mind.

If we calculate a ratio between the amount of data stored and the mass of the storage device, DNA is at the top of the chart. Pound for pound - or maybe kilogram for kilogram - the human brain is perhaps the most data dense substance in the known universe.

Adrian, am I wrong about this?

By settling space, by "terraforming" what we are really doing is increasing the data storage capacity of the cosmos. And, unless/until we obtain firm confirmation that there are other species doing the same thing, I believe our species has a moral imperative to do exactly that.

Of course, preserving the evolved complexity of other bio-spheres will remain a moral imperative.

Call me odd perhaps, but all this does remind me of something Harold Bloom, of Yale University, has written seeking to explain his understanding of The Blessing promised by Yahweh to the people of Israel - that Blessing being the promise of life. "Ever more life, expanding into time and space without bound." A formulation not derived from science but from a lifetime of close reading of Jewish Scripture.

As far as consuming the resources of the cosmos, is there an upper limit to the quantity of information that can be stored in a finite quantity of matter/energy? If not, then Malthus is wrong - even in the longest run imaginable.

Obviously, this requires consideration of a post-human future and is pure speculation but it is fascinating question, IMHO.

Dorothy · 2003-01-03 05:41:00

Hello NovaMarsollia,
differing viewpoints are democratic and necessary.
With regards to terraforming I'm pulled two ways a bit, which I consider to be natural, but I know that extremist attitudes have always been of harm in their consequences and destructive to all kinds of life.
Your agressive treatment of other viewpoints won't help to make yours more popular.

dickbill · 2003-01-03 07:58:37

The problem with life on MArs is that you can never be sure there is no life, or fossiled life, somewhere, deep there, or if not there then somewhere else. Until you lift the last stone of the last crater or gullies, you can never be sure.
Life could have emerged for a moment in a specific hotspring 4 billions years ago and be swept out by an impactor 2 seconds after.
In 200 hundreds years there will still guys looking for those traces maybe.

So, don't try to prove the unprovable at all cost. Start terraforming to bring real life ASAP.

Anyway, as it has been said in this forum, terraforming starts as soon the first living organism lands on Mars, it might be already there, below a viking lander, waiting for some warming...

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-03 12:36:42

Terraforming as soon as possible might be a wee bit premature. I mean, you could do some extensive surveys while you're there. In fact, I wouldn't want to terraform until those surveys were done, and we knew with a large degree of certainity what would happen were we to do so.

What will happen to certain soils when the water melts? We can't know unless we look at the soil in specific areas, check its overall density, do erosion tests and so on.

Can we terraform without doing such research? Probably, but such an attempt would be very misguided, disorganized, and unscientific. If we're going to terraform, it ought to be as scientific as possible. Not ad hoc and basically based on luck.

Auqakah · 2003-01-04 15:58:10

'Aboard the Starship Enterprise....'

Okay, I'm a Trek fan. But I read this far, and.... stopped. One thought had I; 'Get back to reality.'

Auqakah · 2003-01-04 16:02:15

Sarcasm aside (and that was only directed at the very first post anyway) I'll say again, just dome areas, don't terraform, keep primal Mars as much as possible, blah blah blah Red viewpoint blah.

soph · 2003-01-04 20:21:15

I completely disagree ???

i hope youre kidding

Auqakah · 2003-01-12 13:04:22

Kidding about what?

I'm certainly not kidding about preserving Mars as much as possible. I might be a little hypocritical, because I want us to colonize the place, as well... but I don't see why that can't be done without too much damage.

That said, though....

I accept I'm very much in the minority. More people want to see a Green Mars in the future than a Red one. But maybe when some of you Green advocates actually get there, you'll understand the preservationist point of view in the way that we do.

Of course, that said, the opposite could be equally true.

Who knows?

Echus_Chasma · 2003-01-12 14:50:14

I reckon it would be sorta cool to stay 'primal' for a bit just for the novelity of being the only living things on a planet. Yeah I wanna terraform and stuff, but it would be nice to keep some places natural, so like in a few hundred years time we could have "This Is What Mars Looked Like Before We Came" parks for tourism and stuff.
I'm sorta a mix of Red and Green, what colour is that again?
brown?

dicktice · 2003-01-13 19:12:15

Damage Mars? That planet is already damaged! We should go there to "fix it" asap!

soph · 2003-01-13 19:14:29

Its true. Nova should go to the surface and shake his fist at the asteroids.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-14 00:01:48

Well, I've always had the position that if we terraform Mars, that we use everything that comes from Mars to do the job, with very few exceptions (like aquatic life).

I want to see a Red, Blue, Brown mars. No Green for me, thanks.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-21 17:20:39

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#2 2002-09-22 03:27:42

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#3 2002-09-22 05:12:52

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#4 2002-09-22 08:00:54

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#5 2002-09-22 08:08:08

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#6 2002-09-22 08:57:46

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#7 2002-09-22 09:08:14

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#8 2002-09-22 23:22:01

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#9 2002-09-23 12:24:32

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#10 2002-09-24 11:05:27

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#11 2002-09-24 12:05:47

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#12 2002-09-24 12:45:40

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#13 2002-09-24 13:31:03

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#14 2002-09-24 15:20:41

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#15 2003-01-03 05:41:00

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#16 2003-01-03 07:58:37

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#17 2003-01-03 12:36:42

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#18 2003-01-04 15:58:10

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#19 2003-01-04 16:02:15

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#20 2003-01-04 20:21:15

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#21 2003-01-12 13:04:22

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#22 2003-01-12 14:50:14

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#23 2003-01-13 19:12:15

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#24 2003-01-13 19:14:29

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

#25 2003-01-14 00:01:48

Re: Save the Martians! - Why Mar Soc Members are Morally Corrupt

Board footer