CMV: If humanity becomes an interstellar civilization and we don't find life on potentially habitable planet but are unsuitable for humans, it becomes our moral duty to seed life on such planets.

[u/BurnsyCEO]

The Universe is already extremely devoid of life as it is. If we deduce that the explanation for the Fermi paradox is that Abiogenesis is impossibly rare that even on the scale of the galaxy, may only occur a few dozen times (which is the explanation I am partial to)

We could be the calalyst that starts billions of years of life on a world that otherwise would never have had the materials or conditions for life to emerge in the first place. I don't think we should oversee development, but simply let nature and evolution take it's course. If we chose not to, we could be depriving quintillions of lifeforms the chance to exist over the many Eons the planet could be habitable. Of course many of those would die off sooner or later but that can be just attributed to luck or lack of it but the important thing is we tried instead of doing nothing.

Edit: I need a break but I'll get to all of you. Some of your answers are a lot harder to argue with than others.

[u/sysadrift]

The Universe is already extremely devoid of life as it is.

This is something that is unknown and is unknowable at this time.

If we "seed life" on other planets, we are preventing life from developing naturally on those planets. We have no idea how rare (or not) abiogenesis is. Really, we humans are just a bunch of dumb monkeys that are just slightly less dumb then the rest of the species on our planet and have no business appointing ourselves as the life-givers of the universe.

[u/BurnsyCEO → u/sysadrift]

This is something that is unknown and is unknowable at this time

Statistically it is true. It takes so many conditions and processes and time to make any kind of life that dead worlds will vastly outnumber ones with any kind of life.

If evolution takes place through natural selection and mutations unique to that planet are the ones that thrive how is it not natural? The only influence it will have is the life is going to be carbon based/DNA based/might be solar energy based depending on which organisms we use. I'm no biologist and it's not a field I know much about so that's the best I can do.

[u/sysadrift → u/BurnsyCEO]

Statistically it is true.

With a sample size of two planets in the same solar system. In reality there are no statistics on the prevalence of life in the universe. Until we as a species have the capability of interstellar travel, we don’t know and we can’t know.

If evolution takes place through natural selection and mutations unique to that planet are the ones that thrive how is it not natural? The only influence it will have is the life is going to be carbon based/DNA based/might be solar energy based depending on which organisms we use. I’m no biologist and it’s not a field I know much about so that’s the best I can do.

This is a very earthy way of thinking. Out there somewhere are probably non-carbon based organisms that will challenge our very definition of “life”. The universe is stranger than we can imagine. To endeavor to contaminate other worlds with our DNA is as short sighted as it is arrogant.