> what was the hypothesis for how microscopic particles with billions of years of geographic isolation might hurt the biosphere?
North america was pretty isolated from europe but bad things still happened.
I think the risk is lower because its not just geographic isolation but the vaccum of space. But everything was just theory before we actually went there. In terms of trade offs, risk seems low, but a quarintine also seems relatively low effort. Seems worth it as its an easy precaution.
How do we know they didn't bring anything back, for that matter? In the years since we've found all kinds of extremophiles and other exotic microscopic life on earth, there's stuff living here which can survive a vacuum.
> North america was pretty isolated from europe but bad things still happened.
I don't think this and the hypothetical moon pathogen are comparable. In the case of smallpox in North America, the native Amerindian population had no acquired immunity to smallpox but smallpox had already evolved to be very effective at spreading through human populations. But in the case of lunar pathogens, both the pathogen and humans would be new to each other. The lunar pathogen would not be evolved to spread in humans.
Yes. We need to look at how severe the negative outcome could be before we invest resources in prevention. A low probability catastrophy is still well worth an attempt to prevent.
North america was pretty isolated from europe but bad things still happened.
I think the risk is lower because its not just geographic isolation but the vaccum of space. But everything was just theory before we actually went there. In terms of trade offs, risk seems low, but a quarintine also seems relatively low effort. Seems worth it as its an easy precaution.