4 ms·
We only know one system that "worked", and thus may have a biased view of what conditions can create advanced life. The article mentions "toxic atmospheres", b
by tabtab 7y ago
We only know one system that "worked", and thus may have a biased view of what conditions can create advanced life.
The article mentions "toxic atmospheres", but oxygen was toxic to 99% of the existing life when it first started increasing on Earth. Life switched strategies to use it instead of choke on it. "Toxic" is relative. The other factors you mentioned may have similar issues.
Some bacteria can thrive under high radiation because they have four nuclei and related error correcting. It costs some energy to have that feature, but that's not a show-stopper to the critter.
- cevn 7y agothat's nuts. ... do we just need more nuclei to be immune to cancer or is that a stupid question?
- tabtab 7y agoCould be. In the wild it may not be advantageous because the extra hardware would make you too slow to compete relative to those who are fast but live short. Living on a planet where everyone is in the same radiation boat could make such a feature worth it. Such efficiency issues may not matter to modern humans. However, changing that would be too big of an upgrade to our current system to simply bluntly "add".
- papito 7y agoI don't see this as black and white (life either happens or it doesn't at all). My pet theory is that there have been many places where life took root, in very simple form, but failed to hit the "home run" like the Earth did, because the other factors stifled it.