Why is life on planets "unable to sustain life" an impossibility?

[kaya'08]

I have always taken a huge interest in extraterrestrial life, what the implications on our modern world would be both in terms of science and culture, how it would change our fundamental understanding of biology and our own existence on this planet and - if this life is intelligent - what political implications there would be on world governments.

I'm not interested in alien or conspiracy cults, nor do i believe the US government withholds significant data pertaining to intelligent life in the universe, nor do i believe Area 51 holds futuristic alien nanotechnology.

I do, however, believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life from a scientific standpoint, be it intelligent life forms or simple microorganisms although i believe the latter is most likely currently existent within our own solar system.

I know NASA scientists have suggested life could be present in the upper atmosphere of Venus, deep in the ground of Mars or on one of the many moons that orbit the many planets near Earth. I find the discovery of Gliese 581 g an encouraging find because it is likely to be very similar to Earth in terms of habitability but mostly because it was found so easily, suggesting that maybe planets with Earth-like conditions is not such a rarity.


However, it does bring many fundamental questions to my mind that makes me wonder if modern science is currently approaching the search for life elsewhere with the required attitude.

Many planets have been dismissed as "unable to support life" since it does not have the necessary conditions to support organisms from Earth, or, because the conditions could not possibly support "life as we know it". Why are we looking for organisms that need certain conditions just because "life as we know it" requires it? Shouldnt we be expecting everything but life as we know it?

Only recent finds bring the planet Europa back into the scope of possibility for holding life due to recent finds on our own planet suggesting certain microorganisms can live on vents on the sea bed without sunlight. How many planets have we dismissed for habitability of microorganisms due to conditions that cannot sustain life as we know it when in fact they survive in those very same conditions on our own planet, we just dont know it yet?

Or how many freezing planets or hot planets have we rendered lifeless when it could be possible that space Extremophile's require such severe conditions to survive? Do you think that current search for E.T life is too narrow?

If microorganisms have developed and evolved in completely separate and isolated locations within Space, is it not unrealistic, if anything, to expect that they would need the same conditions as organisms on Earth to survive?

 

[StillBallin75]

Agree completely. I've wondered the same things.

 

[Tashah]

There are reasons why “organic chemistry” is thusly named.

 

[marduc]

The best we can do is extrapolate what we know of life (and chemistry) from here on earth to determine the conditions that are most likely to have life. This is not discounting all other possibilities, but rather it is focusing the search towards where our known samples tell us life would be most probable.

So no, I do not feel the search is too narrow, instead it is focusing limiting resources towards where -to the best of our knowledge- the probability of finding it is highest. After we start having a sample size greater than one planet to pull from, and after discoveries start to push the known boundary conditions where we know life can exist we can use what new information we have to deduce the "most likely" places that that points us towards, then we can expand the search.

 

[Goshin]

I have always taken a huge interest in extraterrestrial life, what the implications on our modern world would be both in terms of science and culture, how it would change our fundamental understanding of biology and our own existence on this planet and - if this life is intelligent - what political implications there would be on world governments.

I'm not interested in alien or conspiracy cults, nor do i believe the US government withholds significant data pertaining to intelligent life in the universe, nor do i believe Area 51 holds futuristic alien nanotechnology.

I do, however, believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life from a scientific standpoint, be it intelligent life forms or simple microorganisms although i believe the latter is most likely currently existent within our own solar system.

I know NASA scientists have suggested life could be present in the upper atmosphere of Venus, deep in the ground of Mars or on one of the many moons that orbit the many planets near Earth. I find the discovery of Gliese 581 g an encouraging find because it is likely to be very similar to Earth in terms of habitability but mostly because it was found so easily, suggesting that maybe planets with Earth-like conditions is not such a rarity.


However, it does bring many fundamental questions to my mind that makes me wonder if modern science is currently approaching the search for life elsewhere with the required attitude.

Many planets have been dismissed as "unable to support life" since it does not have the necessary conditions to support organisms from Earth, or, because the conditions could not possibly support "life as we know it". Why are we looking for organisms that need certain conditions just because "life as we know it" requires it? Shouldnt we be expecting everything but life as we know it?

Only recent finds bring the planet Europa back into the scope of possibility for holding life due to recent finds on our own planet suggesting certain microorganisms can live on vents on the sea bed without sunlight. How many planets have we dismissed for habitability of microorganisms due to conditions that cannot sustain life as we know it when in fact they survive in those very same conditions on our own planet, we just dont know it yet?

Or how many freezing planets or hot planets have we rendered lifeless when it could be possible that space Extremophile's require such severe conditions to survive? Do you think that current search for E.T life is too narrow?

If microorganisms have developed and evolved in completely separate and isolated locations within Space, is it not unrealistic, if anything, to expect that they would need the same conditions as organisms on Earth to survive?

Science Fiction has speculated on many forms of life that differ drastically from our own. Silicon based, even based on Helium II on worlds as cold as Pluto. Deep space dwelling creatures, floating balloon-squid in the atmosphere of gas-giants like Jupiter, superdense beings, etc etc.

Thing is, we don't have any working models, as it were, of "life as we Don't know it".

To the human mind, exoplanets that might be habitable by life as we know it, is inherently more sexy than "Hey! This whole planet is as cold as the North Pole, and has no oxygen, but there MIGHT be life there anyway!"

Anyway... we have a huge lack of actual data on exo-life, so who knows... but right now most scientist think the smart money is on environments roughly similar to Earth.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Sheer economy of effort dictates we search (initially at least) for life as we know it, since that is the only practical parameter we have. A search for life as we do not know it would be problematic and wasteful, searching for something which was purely speculative.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Only recent finds bring the planet Europa back into the scope of possibility for holding life due to recent finds on our own planet suggesting certain microorganisms can live on vents on the sea bed without sunlight. How many planets have we dismissed for habitability of microorganisms due to conditions that cannot sustain life as we know it when in fact they survive in those very same conditions on our own planet, we just dont know it yet?

Sorry but I HAVE to correct you here. There is no planet in our system named Europa. Europa is the 6th moon of Jupiter.

Other than that I pretty much agree with ya.

 

[jamesrage]

However, it does bring many fundamental questions to my mind that makes me wonder if modern science is currently approaching the search for life elsewhere with the required attitude.

I often wonder that myself. I do believe scientists are looking at this with a closed mind,sure if they were looking for a potential planets to colonize then sure we should look for planets with a similar atmospheric and water. But who is to say life needs those things to actually survive. If we can find microbes that survive in temperatures of a 140 degrees F and higher.

Extremophile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Mark]

Personally, I think it possible that life could exist in any area of space, on any planet, and perhaps even inside stars.

Now, in many cases such might be artificial, as in if humans established a colony on the moon, mars, or some such. Living inside the sun might be a bit outside our technological capability at the moment...

But I won’t dismiss the possibility for other intelligent (or not, depending) life to exist in any place you could imagine.

 

[Temporal]

I'll play devil's advocate here. I read recently that there is potentially a brown dwarf star or Jupiter sized planet orbiting somewhere near the kuiper belt of our solar system, and it is hurling comets toward the inner system. (The data is being released in April.) There are a couple of new factors to consider in the Drake Equation. One is that, if our solar system is surrounded by debris, we have further protection from invading aspects of interstellar space. The other is, if we have a huge planet roaming out there hurling comets inward, it could have been responsible for sending life-giving materials to earth from way out.

They have already found ample hydrocarbons in many different rock samples from space, so the platform is there, we just don't know how to create life so we don't know what makes it. I think that for our type of life, the set of conditions must be extremely rare. But there may be other kinds of life out there that operate differently.

What happens if the earth-like exo planets we find are all just rock and water, with nothing else? It's a possibility. What then? I find it far more tantalizing to think about our expectations not being fulfilled, than to find what we are looking for.

Furthermore, if NASA or another space agency found life, would you expect them to tell us? For all we know they've already found it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'll play devil's advocate here. I read recently that there is potentially a brown dwarf star or Jupiter sized planet orbiting somewhere near the kuiper belt of our solar system, and it is hurling comets toward the inner system. (The data is being released in April.) There are a couple of new factors to consider in the Drake Equation. One is that, if our solar system is surrounded by debris, we have further protection from invading aspects of interstellar space. The other is, if we have a huge planet roaming out there hurling comets inward, it could have been responsible for sending life-giving materials to earth from way out.

They have already found ample hydrocarbons in many different rock samples from space, so the platform is there, we just don't know how to create life so we don't know what makes it. I think that for our type of life, the set of conditions must be extremely rare. But there may be other kinds of life out there that operate differently.

What happens if the earth-like exo planets we find are all just rock and water, with nothing else? It's a possibility. What then? I find it far more tantalizing to think about our expectations not being fulfilled, than to find what we are looking for.

Furthermore, if NASA or another space agency found life, would you expect them to tell us? For all we know they've already found it.

Wow..another thing to correct. There is no Brown Dwarf star orbiting around the Kuiper Belt. If there was we could see it with our naked eye. Hell we can see brown dwarfs over a hundred light years away with a telescope...why couldn't we see a brown dwarfs at the outer reaches of our solar system?

Now the planet...it MIGHT be possible that there is another planet out that far. As big as Jupiter though? Doubtful, but possible I guess. I wold imagine that any planet as big as jupiter being out that far would affect the orbits of the astroids and such in the Kuiper belt to a very noticable degree.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The reason life on planets "unable to sustain life" is considered an impossibility is the same reason the flying spaghetti monster is considered an impossibility. We have no reason to believe in either because we have no evidence that such a thing is possible. As Wittgenstein said, of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.

 

[kaya'08]

The best we can do is extrapolate what we know of life (and chemistry) from here on earth to determine the conditions that are most likely to have life. This is not discounting all other possibilities, but rather it is focusing the search towards where our known samples tell us life would be most probable.

While i understand your point completely, even with financial constraints in mind, labeling a planet "unable to support life" is different to saying "unlikely to contain life" which from a realistic standpoint is more of an accurate statement (and concentrating resources accordingly). Since we have no idea what to expect, it would be scientifically inaccurate to deduce that Earth-like conditions is necessary for all life since even by looking at our own planet, we know in many instances that may not be true. We can take into account recent finds on Arsenic based lifeforms.

Furthermore, if NASA or another space agency found life, would you expect them to tell us? For all we know they've already found it.

Why wouldn't they? NASA is pretty transparent so i think such a big find would be hard to shush. Space bacteria hardly constitutes a national security threat.

 

[kaya'08]

Also, i would like to add that the comet that hit the Earth which killed the Dinosaurs probably uprooted enough rock and debris to shoot it into space. These Earth materials would inevitably contain microorganisms.

Do you think it is a possibility that these organisms could survive on these specimens and possibly be transported to neighboring moons or planets?

 

[Guy Incognito]

While i understand your point completely, we already know about organisms that need Arsenic to survive,

That example is overblown. A single species of what were once phosphorus based life, living in an arsenic-rich lake adapted to their environment. So it does not show that arsenic based life could ever develop on its own.

Moreover, arsenic mimics properties of phosphorus on the metabolism, which is why arsenic is so poisonous to most forms of life. This species was able to adapt to arsenic because of this similarity. So this is categorically not evidence that alien life could develop from any old chemical, such as silicon as you discuss below.

and it has already been rendered likely by many scientists that Silicon and Hydrogen could be possible substitutes to the elements that many Earth organisms require.

Reread what you just wrote. It is considered likely by many (not most) scientists that silicon and hydrogen could be possible substitutes...

Four degrees of uncertainty by my count. Doesn't sound great.

 

[kaya'08]

That example is overblown. A single species of what were once phosphorus based life, living in an arsenic-rich lake adapted to their environment. So it does not show that arsenic based life could ever develop on its own.

Moreover, arsenic mimics properties of phosphorus on the metabolism, which is why arsenic is so poisonous to most forms of life. This species was able to adapt to arsenic because of this similarity. So this is categorically not evidence that alien life could develop from any old chemical, such as silicon as you discuss below.

It does show us natures capacity to survive in an environment that "Earth-like" species or "life as we know it" could not usually survive in. Now you mentioned it, it really does highlight natures ability to adapt, change and survive outside of biological "norms" or thrive whenever the conditions arise even if those conditions meet the bare minimal criteria for sustaining life (and we cant really say we even know what this is). Why does it make it any less likely that life outside our own planet could adapt, change, develop or thrive in harsh environments or areas we would not usually consider habitable?

Reread what you just wrote. It is considered likely by many (not most) scientists that silicon and hydrogen could be possible substitutes...

Four degrees of uncertainty by my count. Doesn't sound great.

Since we have no idea what to expect from a species of a completely different evolutionary background, approaching this search with an open mind is fundamental and necessary for any measure or hope of success.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Why does it make it any less likely that life outside our own planet could adapt, change, develop or thrive in harsh environments or areas we would not consider habitable?

This question presupposes that life could develop outside of our planet at all, a premise for which there is no evidence. But if it were to develop, and if it were based on DNA or RNA (the only ways we know of that life can developed), then, chemically, it has to occur in a certain zone of habitability.

If we are to speculate about life developing by some means other than DNA, then we're just speculating and we're not really talking about science, we're talking about science fiction. Frankly, I'm more interested in science.

 

[kaya'08]

This question presupposes that life could develop outside of our planet at all, a premise for which there is no evidence. But if it were to develop, and if it were based on DNA or RNA (the only ways we know of that life can developed), then, chemically, it has to occur in a certain zone of habitability.

If we are to speculate about life developing by some means other than DNA, then we're just speculating and we're not really talking about science, we're talking about science fiction. Frankly, I'm more interested in science.

That really brings us back to the argument if life on our own planet even formed natively. If it is possible that life was transported from an unknown source through our solar system and landed hear, it may be possible for such a thing to happen to planets that do not have the typical conditions of Earth whereby organisms developed biological mechanisms to adapt and survive to harsh conditions much like our own Earth bound extremophiles. It may be possible even that the comet collision 66.5 million years ago which sent a lot of debris into space could have transported Earth life to other moons and planets.

Unfortunately the search for extraterrestrial life itself is speculative. It is stupid to expect that E.T organisms would definitely have X,Y or Z.

 

[Guy Incognito]

That really brings us back to the argument if life on our own planet even formed natively. If it is possible that life was transported from an unknown source through our solar system and landed hear, it may be possible for such a thing to happen to planets that do not have the typical conditions of Earth whereby organisms developed biological mechanisms to adapt and survive to harsh conditions much like our own Earth bound extremophiles. It may be possible even that the comet collision 66.5 million years ago which sent a lot of debris into space could have transported Earth life to other moons and planets.

The lack of understanding of abiogenesis presents and truly interesting question. But panspermia theories don't answer the question, they just push it back a step. Instead of life forming on Earth, it happened in space. Doesn't really tell us anything about how it happened.

There's no god evidence for the extraterrestrial abiogenesis of life. Ockhams razor would dictate that we assume it occurred on Earth absent extraordinary evidence to the contrary.

The thing about science is it isn't sexy, like speculative fiction. But the scientific method is there for a reason, to protect us from getting carried away by our own flights of fancy (which, as threads like this demonstrate, can be quite extravagant).

Unfortunately the search for extraterrestrial life itself is speculative but it is fundamental for our own development and understanding of our existence here on Earth.

This is a non sequitur. The conclusion that searching for ETs is fundamental to our understanding does not follow from the premise that any such search cannot truly be based in science. In fact, it cuts the other way. The fact that SETI, etc. is just a load of sci-fi hogwash goes to show that it is a waste of time and resources.

 

[kaya'08]

The lack of understanding of abiogenesis presents and truly interesting question. But panspermia theories don't answer the question, they just push it back a step. Instead of life forming on Earth, it happened in space. Doesn't really tell us anything about how it happened.

There's no god evidence for the extraterrestrial abiogenesis of life. Ockhams razor would dictate that we assume it occurred on Earth absent extraordinary evidence to the contrary.

The thing about science is it isn't sexy, like speculative fiction. But the scientific method is there for a reason, to protect us from getting carried away by our own flights of fancy (which, as threads like this demonstrate, can be quite extravagant).

You have failed to state why this is a run-away thread. Since the search for E.T life is a very real thing, something that NASA dedicates much time and resources too, it is not unrealistic, nor is it in violation of scientific methods, to use examples of Earth extremophiles as examples of the adaptability of biological structures in nature to exist in conditions that are not considered habitable and applying this basic concept to planets in space which fall within this range.

This is a non sequitur. The conclusion that searching for ETs is fundamental to our understanding does not follow from the premise that any such search cannot truly be based in science. In fact, it cuts the other way. The fact that SETI, etc. is just a load of sci-fi hogwash goes to show that it is a waste of time and resources.

How have you concluded that? The discovery of extraterrestrial life would of course provide key answers to our own biological time tree. It would mean we are not alone, that life is commonly replicated and that intelligent life forms could possibly exist elsewhere.

In this sense it would benefit science since it would answer so many questions as well as change our fundamental understanding of biology. All this would benefit the development of humanity and broaden our understanding of life.

 

[Walter]

I have always taken a huge interest in extraterrestrial life, what the implications on our modern world would be both in terms of science and culture, how it would change our fundamental understanding of biology and our own existence on this planet and - if this life is intelligent - what political implications there would be on world governments.

I'm not interested in alien or conspiracy cults, nor do i believe the US government withholds significant data pertaining to intelligent life in the universe, nor do i believe Area 51 holds futuristic alien nanotechnology.

I do, however, believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life from a scientific standpoint, be it intelligent life forms or simple microorganisms although i believe the latter is most likely currently existent within our own solar system.

I know NASA scientists have suggested life could be present in the upper atmosphere of Venus, deep in the ground of Mars or on one of the many moons that orbit the many planets near Earth. I find the discovery of Gliese 581 g an encouraging find because it is likely to be very similar to Earth in terms of habitability but mostly because it was found so easily, suggesting that maybe planets with Earth-like conditions is not such a rarity.


However, it does bring many fundamental questions to my mind that makes me wonder if modern science is currently approaching the search for life elsewhere with the required attitude.

Many planets have been dismissed as "unable to support life" since it does not have the necessary conditions to support organisms from Earth, or, because the conditions could not possibly support "life as we know it". Why are we looking for organisms that need certain conditions just because "life as we know it" requires it? Shouldnt we be expecting everything but life as we know it?

Only recent finds bring the planet Europa back into the scope of possibility for holding life due to recent finds on our own planet suggesting certain microorganisms can live on vents on the sea bed without sunlight. How many planets have we dismissed for habitability of microorganisms due to conditions that cannot sustain life as we know it when in fact they survive in those very same conditions on our own planet, we just dont know it yet?

Or how many freezing planets or hot planets have we rendered lifeless when it could be possible that space Extremophile's require such severe conditions to survive? Do you think that current search for E.T life is too narrow?

If microorganisms have developed and evolved in completely separate and isolated locations within Space, is it not unrealistic, if anything, to expect that they would need the same conditions as organisms on Earth to survive?

Even suggesting that "Life" exists anywhere other than earth is an act of FAITH as there is no Objective, Testable, Observable Method to produce repeatable experimentation that confirms even the existence of ONE LIFE external to earth, the best that can be concluded are Probability studies based upon the Prima Facie evidences that can be observed here on earth with countless ASSUMPTIONS applied...i.e., PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE DOGMA. The main assumptions that must be held by faith only are....

1.) Life is abundant in the Universe

2.) A Significant fraction of the planets on which life exists give rise to intelligent species.

3.) A significant fraction of intelligent species transmit messages for our enlightenment.

Those assumptions are the only HOPE in proving that life exists external to what can be observed here on earth.

There is not even a general consensus about the supposed number of Stars that might harbor life....the numbers range from ONE BILLION to FORTY BILLION with all making claims to having objective evidence to back up their numbers. The problem with such assumptions and following mathematical formulas being used as evidence? There is no viable source of Calibration...without calibration there can be no CONSTANT STANDARD, with no constant Standard there can be no viable REPRODUCTION to any physical experiment that might be applied. The Entire Field in searching for E.T. is based entirely upon PHILOSOPHICAL COSMOLOGY...not Physical Science.

The major problem with such studies is the fact that VERTICAL EVOLUTION is being used to measure those probability studies in SPACE when Vertical Evolution has not even been demonstrated to be a PHYSICAL FACT here on earth as per the evidence obtained in the Scientific Method of Observed, Reproducible Experimentation.

But there is nothing wrong with DREAMS. I enjoy the hell out of a good Science Fiction Novel. I enjoy the quote from Isaac Asimov -- "There are so many books on E.T. Life ( I have written some myself ) that they would almost seem to be a cottage industry. This in a way is totally surprising, since we have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH PHENOMENON AS LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS EXISTS." {Science Digest, 1982, pg. 36}

 

[JMax]

I read recently that there is potentially a brown dwarf star or Jupiter sized planet orbiting somewhere near the kuiper belt of our solar system, and it is hurling comets toward the inner system. (The data is being released in April.)

whoa... this means the nibiru theory is possible

2012 Doomsday Nibiru | Are Aliens Real? (real alien sightings video footage, alien abductions, space aliens exist, ufos pictures, extraterrestrials)

 

[Kal'Stang]

Thinking that there is life elsewhere in this universe is, imo, not faith based at all. Think about it. It is obvious that life does exist. We see it every day in our little blue world. Millions of life forms on this one little planet. Simple logic would dictate that if it formed here...or formed at all period, then there is no logical reason that it cannot form on some other planet. Especially when you consider just how FREAKING HUGE the universe is.

Take a look at the below picture from NASA's Hubble telescope.

Each and every one of those points of light is a galaxy. In one small section of the sky. With billions of stars in each one. The law of averages would dictate that there is life other than ours out there.

 

[indica]

Kaya'08: Many planets have been dismissed as "unable to support life" since it does not have the necessary conditions to support organisms from Earth, or, because the conditions could not possibly support "life as we know it". Why are we looking for organisms that need certain conditions just because "life as we know it" requires it? Shouldnt we be expecting everything but life as we know it?

Only recent finds bring the planet Europa back into the scope of possibility for holding life due to recent finds on our own planet suggesting certain microorganisms can live on vents on the sea bed without sunlight. How many planets have we dismissed for habitability of microorganisms due to conditions that cannot sustain life as we know it when in fact they survive in those very same conditions on our own planet, we just dont know it yet?

Or how many freezing planets or hot planets have we rendered lifeless when it could be possible that space Extremophile's require such severe conditions to survive? Do you think that current search for E.T life is too narrow?

If microorganisms have developed and evolved in completely separate and isolated locations within Space, is it not unrealistic, if anything, to expect that they would need the same conditions as organisms on Earth to survive?

I really like this and I agree.
Maybe it's because we don't have the knowledge or technology to go looking for life we know nothing about.
Think about as you're trying to prove your results for an experiment... you would compare it to something you already have or have knowledge of.
If we can't compare our lives to those of another planet, the first thing that pops into our minds is that this planet has no life at all.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Thinking that there is life elsewhere in this universe is, imo, not faith based at all. Think about it. It is obvious that life does exist. We see it every day in our little blue world. Millions of life forms on this one little planet. Simple logic would dictate that if it formed here...or formed at all period, then there is no logical reason that it cannot form on some other planet. Especially when you consider just how FREAKING HUGE the universe is.

This is not logic, it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.