On the opposite side, James Lovelock suggested that life controlling the planetary conditions, is a necessary property for long term survival of life. For exam

On the opposite side, James Lovelock suggested that life controlling the planetary conditions, is a necessary property for long term survival of life. For example: Too little oxygen, too much CO2 in the atmosphere: CO2 feeds more plants, oxygen below 16% makes wildfires difficult. So plants grow more. Too much oxygen enhances wildfires, and huge wildfires would burn off parts of plant cover. Atmospheric oxygen concentration would go back down. [1,2] Lovelock's argument is, that on dead planets the environmental parameters vary in time, and in time they would randomly fluctuate outside of the zone where life is possible. But early life taking control of the planetary environment by establishing feedback mechanisms, is what the long term survival of life in that planed. Of course, Lovelock doesn't specify intelligent life. Even microbial life could establish feedback mechanisms and maintain planetary homeostasis. [1] https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/flammable-planet-fire-finds-its-place-earth-history https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/flammable-planet-fire-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Regulation_of_oxygen_in_the_atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Regulation_of_...