6 ms·

In addition to what others have pointed out (chloroplasts), I think this makes another mistake. Although only the mitochondria and chloroplast lineages remain,

In addition to what others have pointed out (chloroplasts), I think this makes another mistake. Although only the mitochondria and chloroplast lineages remain, it is possible it happened other times but those lineages were out-competed, for whatever reasons, and are now extinct.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it is possible it happened other times but those lineages were out-competed, for whatever reasons, and are now extinct Chlorophyll probably outcompeted retinal [1]. (The stuff in our eyes.) The reduced form of my claim is that mitochondrial life so freakishly outcompetes its competitors as to be in a class of its own. Which still yields a rare Earth, albeit a first among many. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Earth_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Earth_hypothesis
- aydyn 2y ago
  Does it yield a rare Earth? If we didn't have mitochondria and had something say 20% less efficient, why couldn't multicellular life still exist?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > why couldn't multicellular life still exist? We don't know the fundamental energy requirements of complex life. The threshold may be 2%. It may be 19.995%. If non-mitochondrial metabolism is common, the Earth would still be rare in that we'd be the "fast" biosphere. The high-octane species. Given how power-intensive intelligence is, that might be material. (Or it might not.) More fundamentally: we have no plausible alternate chemistries that don't bootstrap on mitochondrial life. (We do for photosynthesis.)
    - aydyn 2y ago
      I think that's a little farfetched since a lot of prokaryotes show the beginning stages of complex multi-cellularity.
      - jibal 2y ago
        I don't understand why anyone would commit to so adhering to a speculative hypothesis H as to call themselves an "H-er", especially one so pointless and vague as "Rare Earth". There is some probability that a random star has intelligent life on orbiting planets, but we have no idea what that probability is. The original "Rare Earth" proposal suggested that the Earth may be the only such planet in the galaxy, but at that rate there could be hundreds of billions of Earths.
        rgbswan 2y ago
        > There is some probability that a random star has intelligent life on orbiting planets, but we have no idea what that probability is. 100%. The evolutionary pattern of our solar systems formation and earth ending up, temporarily, in just the right spot isn't rare but (was) a matter of time/timing. Now one could argue that the stellar objects carrying specific components necessary for life did not hit every or many solar systems but every single simulation (in my head) of the big bang's aftermath reveals that it's at least multiple hundreds of thousands, given how much the observable universe has revealed so far in the places that we looked.
    - addaon 2y ago
      > Given how power-intensive intelligence is I’m not convinced there’s a reason to think intelligence is inherently power-intensive. Based on our limited samples, it’s certainly energy intensive, but there’s no reason it couldn’t be slowed down. In a world with less power available to life, one would expect speeds of e.g. predators and prey to be slower, allowing a slower intelligence to still provide an advantage.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > not convinced there’s a reason to think intelligence is inherently power-intensive Sure. But we know it empirically is. Our brains are expensive.
        addaon 2y ago
        > Sure. But we know it empirically is. Our brains are expensive. But our brains have mitochondria. As do our prey, and our predators. Is there any reason to suppose that the absence of mitochondria implies less potential for intelligence, instead of the potential for equal but slower intelligence? Mitochondria are about power production, not energy production -- they are a very dense source of ATP, but the reactions they use would provide equal energy even if less concentrated.
- jjk166 2y ago
  In an evolutionary process, one lineage running away is the most likely outcome. It's very unlikely that two competing lineages would evolve to be exactly equal at the same time and remain equal for an extended period of time.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > In an evolutionary process, one lineage running away is the most likely outcome What are you basing this on?
    - quantadev 2y ago
      It's based on the fact that one explanation of why there's not even millions more species of all life, is because the more successful ones simply cannibalized the less successful ones. This would've started even before complex life, almost at the chemical level. I say cannibalized, because avoiding eating your own species is a higher brain function that would've came far later, so it came down to eat or be eaten. Still is frankly.
      - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        >I say cannibalized, because avoiding eating your own species is a higher brain function that would've came far later, Two convergent intuitions as to why this is true, but for the wrong reasons: Species (maybe only [di?]morphic ones) rarely kill other instances of their own species, only maim - usually to the point of socially/reproductive shame/selective behavior; as infra-species violence is usually done for sexual signaling. Like squirrels neutering each other, giraffes ruffling neck-fights, etc, it is not generally advantageous to actually hurt the opponent more than needed to signal dominance in a social hierarchy - this "gentleman" agreement is similar to all emergent collusion behavior exhibited by "free agents" in a limited pool; even without communication, the self-interested incentive to all follow a convergent rule will eventually emerge. Whether it be price fixing, social norms, or any other system where partially-regulated complex systems compete. Additionally, for cannibalizing to be a positive-selective-trait, the species would had either adapted to eating the liver - the "resilience/filter" of a system, or had been "lucky" enough to identify/delineate/get repulsed by it. Eating your own species liver would be nearly self-defeating-ly impossible from an evolutionary point of view and avoiding it but still eating your own species is too "taboo" (evolutionary artifact) of a benefit to ever randomly stumble into, especially against the benefits of 'good-sportsman-ship'.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it is possible it happened other times but those lineages were out-competed, for whatever reasons, and are now extinct Chlorophyll probably outcompeted retinal [1]. (The stuff in our eyes.) The reduced form of my claim is that mitochondrial life so freakishly outcompetes its competitors as to be in a class of its own. Which still yields a rare Earth, albeit a first among many. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Earth_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Earth_hypothesis

aydyn 2y ago
Does it yield a rare Earth? If we didn't have mitochondria and had something say 20% less efficient, why couldn't multicellular life still exist?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > why couldn't multicellular life still exist? We don't know the fundamental energy requirements of complex life. The threshold may be 2%. It may be 19.995%. If non-mitochondrial metabolism is common, the Earth would still be rare in that we'd be the "fast" biosphere. The high-octane species. Given how power-intensive intelligence is, that might be material. (Or it might not.) More fundamentally: we have no plausible alternate chemistries that don't bootstrap on mitochondrial life. (We do for photosynthesis.)
  - aydyn 2y ago
    I think that's a little farfetched since a lot of prokaryotes show the beginning stages of complex multi-cellularity.
    - jibal 2y ago
      I don't understand why anyone would commit to so adhering to a speculative hypothesis H as to call themselves an "H-er", especially one so pointless and vague as "Rare Earth". There is some probability that a random star has intelligent life on orbiting planets, but we have no idea what that probability is. The original "Rare Earth" proposal suggested that the Earth may be the only such planet in the galaxy, but at that rate there could be hundreds of billions of Earths.
      - rgbswan 2y ago
        > There is some probability that a random star has intelligent life on orbiting planets, but we have no idea what that probability is. 100%. The evolutionary pattern of our solar systems formation and earth ending up, temporarily, in just the right spot isn't rare but (was) a matter of time/timing. Now one could argue that the stellar objects carrying specific components necessary for life did not hit every or many solar systems but every single simulation (in my head) of the big bang's aftermath reveals that it's at least multiple hundreds of thousands, given how much the observable universe has revealed so far in the places that we looked.
  - addaon 2y ago
    > Given how power-intensive intelligence is I’m not convinced there’s a reason to think intelligence is inherently power-intensive. Based on our limited samples, it’s certainly energy intensive, but there’s no reason it couldn’t be slowed down. In a world with less power available to life, one would expect speeds of e.g. predators and prey to be slower, allowing a slower intelligence to still provide an advantage.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > not convinced there’s a reason to think intelligence is inherently power-intensive Sure. But we know it empirically is. Our brains are expensive.
      - addaon 2y ago
        > Sure. But we know it empirically is. Our brains are expensive. But our brains have mitochondria. As do our prey, and our predators. Is there any reason to suppose that the absence of mitochondria implies less potential for intelligence, instead of the potential for equal but slower intelligence? Mitochondria are about power production, not energy production -- they are a very dense source of ATP, but the reactions they use would provide equal energy even if less concentrated.
jjk166 2y ago
In an evolutionary process, one lineage running away is the most likely outcome. It's very unlikely that two competing lineages would evolve to be exactly equal at the same time and remain equal for an extended period of time.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > In an evolutionary process, one lineage running away is the most likely outcome What are you basing this on?
  - quantadev 2y ago
    It's based on the fact that one explanation of why there's not even millions more species of all life, is because the more successful ones simply cannibalized the less successful ones. This would've started even before complex life, almost at the chemical level. I say cannibalized, because avoiding eating your own species is a higher brain function that would've came far later, so it came down to eat or be eaten. Still is frankly.
    - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
      >I say cannibalized, because avoiding eating your own species is a higher brain function that would've came far later, Two convergent intuitions as to why this is true, but for the wrong reasons: Species (maybe only [di?]morphic ones) rarely kill other instances of their own species, only maim - usually to the point of socially/reproductive shame/selective behavior; as infra-species violence is usually done for sexual signaling. Like squirrels neutering each other, giraffes ruffling neck-fights, etc, it is not generally advantageous to actually hurt the opponent more than needed to signal dominance in a social hierarchy - this "gentleman" agreement is similar to all emergent collusion behavior exhibited by "free agents" in a limited pool; even without communication, the self-interested incentive to all follow a convergent rule will eventually emerge. Whether it be price fixing, social norms, or any other system where partially-regulated complex systems compete. Additionally, for cannibalizing to be a positive-selective-trait, the species would had either adapted to eating the liver - the "resilience/filter" of a system, or had been "lucky" enough to identify/delineate/get repulsed by it. Eating your own species liver would be nearly self-defeating-ly impossible from an evolutionary point of view and avoiding it but still eating your own species is too "taboo" (evolutionary artifact) of a benefit to ever randomly stumble into, especially against the benefits of 'good-sportsman-ship'.