3 ms·
Why do we keep acting like we know what the requirements for life are? Those we look to for insight on this are most entrenched in socially accepted fallacies -
by throwaway062324 2y ago
Why do we keep acting like we know what the requirements for life are? Those we look to for insight on this are most entrenched in socially accepted fallacies - oxygen is required, carbon is required, water is required.. and based on what evidence? We have a sample size of one - Earth. It's laughable that we're therefore so committed to defining requirements for life.
We don't really understand the mechanism that spawns life, so we can't say we understand its requirements.
- dotnet00 2y agoIt's implied that what's being discussed by requirements is for life "as we know it".
- ricksunny 2y agoImplication is not explicit and therefore subject to each reader's interpretation. i.e. what seems to be implied to one's perspective may not actually be implied from all's perspective.
- dotnet00 2y agoThis kind of thing is implied in most science communication, every statement of fact has a "unless or until conflicting information is found" tied to it by common sense.
- blueflow 2y agoWe also know of the Great Oxidation Event [1], and that life on earth is older than that. Animals are recent-ish (~500mya) but single cell organisms that do not require oxygen must exist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
- dotnet00 2y agoAnaerobic microorganisms do exist, but the article is talking about animals.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Jedd 2y agoWell, we've got some pretty good hypothesis about the mechanisms that spawn life, and we can extrapolate from there a little - though I do understand your point that we are burdened with an embarrassingly small sample size. For instance, the alkaline thermal vent origin hypothesis stands up to scrutiny - it may well end up being wrong, but the other contenders are not so robust. We know carbon is probably key, because of its properties, notably abundance and ability to oxidise (as Nick Lane, I think it was, quipped something like 'try growing a body with sand' (ie. silicon based lifeform)). I think the surprise here is the assumptions made around multi-cellular / mitochondria / krebbs (ATP) were so consistently observed, that an exception really stands out. Your tone suggests we shouldn't speculate about what requirements life has - but I don't think the intent is as full of malice as you appear to believe. I take it more as a curiosity meets a (prinerdial) need to catalogue everything, and then getting frustrated when things aren't so easily pidgeon-holed.
- blueflow 2y agoBecause it enables journalists to make their articles more interesting.
- rolisz 2y agoLee Cronin is working on Assembly theory, which should enable measuring complexity in substances, with high complexity implying some life there. His interviews with Lex Friedman are pretty good.
- coldtea 2y ago>Why do we keep acting like we know what the requirements for life are? Because of our empirical experience and study of hundreds of thousands of organisms from all kinds of species. >We have a sample size of one - Earth. It's laughable that we're therefore so committed to defining requirements for life. We also have sample sizes of many other nearby planets and astral bodies with no signs of life.
- dotancohen 2y agoWe also have samples of other nearby planets and astral bodies that do have signs of life. Signs, not evidence. Mars, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, and some other places have signs that life might be present. Might be. Don't bet on any of them, but there is still a lot to be explored.
- lukas099 2y agoWe didn’t think oxygen was required for life. We knew about plants.