log in or register to remove this ad

 

Is there life on Maaaaaaars! (er, Venus)

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Interesting!


Phosphine in the upper atmosphere of Venus. The scientists so far can't come up with a way of having that much phosphine without microbial life or industry (and they're ruling out the latter!)

Still, it might be that we just don't know chemistry as well as we think. it's a potential marker for life, but a long way from proof.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Moon_Goddess

Adventurer
Supporter
Well there are places in the upper atmosphere of Venus that are rather earth like in temperature and pressure, I could see microbes floating in clouds, I'm just not sure how live like that could begin. (then again no one knows how live began so shrug)
 




Moon_Goddess

Adventurer
Supporter
It doesn't have to start in the clouds, or even on Venus. There's plenty of evidence that we have traded rocks with other planets: a meteor hits Mars, that ejects some material off the planet, which eventually finds its way here, or vice-versa. A similar transfer could bring simple life to Venus.

I'm conflicted about if I want for it to happen this way or not. Like if abiogenesis happened on Venus independent of Earth, that's amazing, it means it's easy, the universe will be just flooded with at least single cellular life everywhere, And depressing, that all that life and we see no signs of intelligent life, means there's some filter somewhere between single cell and where we are now.

If it's earth life there, well then it's no more or less depressing than the state we are now,we still see no signs of intelligent life, and the fermi paradox remains unanswered.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
I'm conflicted about if I want for it to happen this way or not. Like if abiogenesis happened on Venus independent of Earth, that's amazing, it means it's easy, the universe will be just flooded with at least single cellular life everywhere, And depressing, that all that life and we see no signs of intelligent life, means there's some filter somewhere between single cell and where we are now.

If it's earth life there, well then it's no more or less depressing than the state we are now,we still see no signs of intelligent life, and the fermi paradox remains unanswered.

Eh, there are all sorts of explanations.

The simplest is that life goes through a very short period of time (like ours) when it is spewing out information into the void (although our signals don't get that far), and actively seeking out life without really worrying too much. Say, a little more than a century.

It is entirely possible that more advanced life doesn't want to be found. Or there are other factors we can't think of yet. Or we are detecting it, and it's simply so different that we aren't perceiving it. Who knows?
 


Ryujin

Adventurer
I'm conflicted about if I want for it to happen this way or not. Like if abiogenesis happened on Venus independent of Earth, that's amazing, it means it's easy, the universe will be just flooded with at least single cellular life everywhere, And depressing, that all that life and we see no signs of intelligent life, means there's some filter somewhere between single cell and where we are now.

If it's earth life there, well then it's no more or less depressing than the state we are now,we still see no signs of intelligent life, and the fermi paradox remains unanswered.

We tend to equate intelligence with success, because we are intelligent, tool using animals. The most successful creatures on this planet, ie. the species most unchanged over millennia, are unintelligent by our standards.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
We tend to equate intelligence with success, because we are intelligent, tool using animals. The most successful creatures on this planet, ie. the species most unchanged over millennia, are unintelligent by our standards.
While true, it's also not really the point -- intelligent life is more interesting than successful life. We can't talk to microbes.
 


Ryujin

Adventurer
While true, it's also not really the point -- intelligent life is more interesting than successful life. We can't talk to microbes.

It's rather on-point when discussing the Fermi Paradox/Equation. Intelligence might be one strategy for life but it's not necessarily the successful strategy, as how we screw with our environment shows. As a result while life may be plentiful, intelligent life may be an extreme rarity.
 

Moon_Goddess

Adventurer
Supporter
Well I tend to look at the Fermi Paradox from the angle of Great Filters that might be ahead of us. If intelligence is just really freaking rare that's good. If every intelligence lifeform tends to blow up their planet the first time they try to crack FTL, well, that's bad for us.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Well I tend to look at the Fermi Paradox from the angle of Great Filters that might be ahead of us. If intelligence is just really freaking rare that's good. If every intelligence lifeform tends to blow up their planet the first time they try to crack FTL, well, that's bad for us.

If we survive 2020, we should be cool like the other side of the pillow.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The most successful creatures on this planet, ie. the species most unchanged over millennia, are unintelligent by our standards.

That's a very particular and narrow definition of "success", and there are flaws with it - they become apparent when you ask the question: Which was more successful - Neanderthals, or modern humans?

Neanderthals came on the scene between 315,000 and 800,000 years ago. Some authors claim "modern humans" are whatever didn't become Neanderthals. Others claim that the modern human lineage arose between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago. With that kind of ambiguity, you cannot make a clear argument as to which creature has/had been around longer with least changes. And, the modern human line isn't done yet. It may last a million more years, it may not last out the century.

The whole concept of measuring evolutionary success is a human construct largely based out our need to rank things, and is based on our subjective ideas as to what "success" even means.
 



Ryujin

Adventurer
That's a very particular and narrow definition of "success", and there are flaws with it - they become apparent when you ask the question: Which was more successful - Neanderthals, or modern humans?

Neanderthals came on the scene between 315,000 and 800,000 years ago. Some authors claim "modern humans" are whatever didn't become Neanderthals. Others claim that the modern human lineage arose between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago. With that kind of ambiguity, you cannot make a clear argument as to which creature has/had been around longer with least changes. And, the modern human line isn't done yet. It may last a million more years, it may not last out the century.

The whole concept of measuring evolutionary success is a human construct largely based out our need to rank things, and is based on our subjective ideas as to what "success" even means.

And some suggest, based on the DNA evidence, that we are the product of breeding between Neanderthals and our parallel lineage, meaning that they (and we?) are pretty much as successful as each other.

The point being that "last man standing" isn't necessarily a measure of how successful a species is, either. We co-exist with species that have a billion or more years on us, largely unchanged. Species have lasted millions of years longer than we've been around, despite no longer being prevalent. That makes them pretty damned successful.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top