Science: the earliest life

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

New research published this week on some famous Australian rocks thought to contain 3.5-billion year old fossils is thought to confirm, not only that the fossils are genuine, but also that the life was much more complex than previously thought. This is interesting because it adds support to the growing understanding that life on this planet almost certainly dates back 4 billion years - in other words, almost immediately after the planet became hospitable. Based on the two leading theories for the origin of life on Earth, this means one of two things:

1. Either an asteroid containing complex organic molecules or even simple bacteria just happened to crash into the planet immediately after it cooled enough to support organic life, or
2. Life arose spontaneously almost as soon as the planet allowed it.

Both of these possibilities fall at the extreme end of a probability distribution, and therefore both give rise to the same question, one that scientists are increasingly will be answered with an affirmative: is life in our universe actually very common?

Considering this summer's findings that Saturn's moon Titan contains complex organic compounds in the atmosphere, it may very well be the case that, not only is our universe very amenable to life, but the development of life itself is a very common occurrence.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The more common life is, the more interesting the Fermi Paradox is. I had always just assumed life was uncommon enough that none of our closest neighbors developed it. The huge size of space takes care of the rest. But if life is the default setting to solar systems, where the heck is everyone?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The more common life is, the more interesting the Fermi Paradox is. I had always just assumed life was uncommon enough that none of our closest neighbors developed it. The huge size of space takes care of the rest. But if life is the default setting to solar systems, where the heck is everyone?

Just because life is common, though, doesn't necessarily mean intelligence is.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Just because life is common, though, doesn't necessarily mean intelligence is.

True, as we discover on internet message boards. But the more life the greater the likelihood of intelligent life (the message board example notwithstanding).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

True, as we discover on internet message boards. But the more life the greater the likelihood of intelligent life (the message board example notwithstanding).

That's true. Do you remember the Hair & Hedman article from a few years back? In short, they developed some mathematical algorithms in order to model an advanced space-colonizing civilization, and found two things:

1. Even at a conservative pace, a civilization should colonize the galaxy in about 50 million years.
2. In a mere 250K years, enough of the galaxy should be colonized that interior uncolonized "voids" should be no more than 30 light-years in diameter.

The first conclusion is inconsistent with the fact that we are not now part of a galactic civilization. The second conclusion is inconsistent with the fact that we haven't made radio contact with another intelligence. Long story short, the paper suggests that the answer to the Fermi paradox is simply that we are alone.

Here's a link: https://www2.fgcu.edu/CAS/Math/files/Spatial-Dispersion.pdf

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's true. Do you remember the Hair & Hedman article from a few years back? In short, they developed some mathematical algorithms in order to model an advanced space-colonizing civilization, and found two things:

1. Even at a conservative pace, a civilization should colonize the galaxy in about 50 million years.
2. In a mere 250K years, enough of the galaxy should be colonized that interior uncolonized "voids" should be no more than 30 light-years in diameter.

The first conclusion is inconsistent with the fact that we are not now part of a galactic civilization. The second conclusion is inconsistent with the fact that we haven't made radio contact with another intelligence. Long story short, the paper suggests that the answer to the Fermi paradox is simply that we are alone.

Here's a link: https://www2.fgcu.edu/CAS/Math/files/Spatial-Dispersion.pdf

I think there is a third alternative, we grossly underestimate how hard colonization is.

Even assuming a planet has the resources to successfully build colony ships, they have to overcome two big issues. One is the swlf-extinctiob phase (Cuban missile Crisis) the other is the holodeck phase (if one can lounge in a virtual reality paradise with the most beautiful and charming people, why would one leave it to build a colony ship). The third trap may be Hawking's fear of our technology turning against us

Still, even with those traps, SETI should hit on something.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think there is a third alternative, we grossly underestimate how hard colonization is.

Even assuming a planet has the resources to successfully build colony ships, they have to overcome two big issues. One is the swlf-extinctiob phase (Cuban missile Crisis) the other is the holodeck phase (if one can lounge in a virtual reality paradise with the most beautiful and charming people, why would one leave it to build a colony ship). The third trap may be Hawking's fear of our technology turning against us

Still, even with those traps, SETI should hit on something.

Well, two of those three can be subsumed in "we're alone." I.e., if we accept that "alone" doesn't mean "the only life," but rather that there is no life that developed enough to become space-faring on a galactic scale. That middle option, though, the holodeck one, that's interesting, because it suggests the possibility that a species might be capable of colonizing the galaxy, but chooses not to.

However, I think I can counter it. A species that has developed the capability of space travel has almost certainly also gained the same knowledge we have about stellar evolution. I.e., they would know that their home planet has an expiration date, and long-term survival requires colonization. Now, for our planet, that reality is so far in the distance that it might not seem that important right now, but the Milky Way is about 13 billion years old. Although it would have looked quite different back then, that strongly suggests to me that at least one of these potential holodeck-addicted species would have already found itself on a planet getting uncomfortably close to the buzzer.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, two of those three can be subsumed in "we're alone." I.e., if we accept that "alone" doesn't mean "the only life," but rather that there is no life that developed enough to become space-faring on a galactic scale. That middle option, though, the holodeck one, that's interesting, because it suggests the possibility that a species might be capable of colonizing the galaxy, but chooses not to.

However, I think I can counter it. A species that has developed the capability of space travel has almost certainly also gained the same knowledge we have about stellar evolution. I.e., they would know that their home planet has an expiration date, and long-term survival requires colonization. Now, for our planet, that reality is so far in the distance that it might not seem that important right now, but the Milky Way is about 13 billion years old. Although it would have looked quite different back then, that strongly suggests to me that at least one of these potential holodeck-addicted species would have already found itself on a planet getting uncomfortably close to the buzzer.

Use global warming as the buzzer and restate the question. If our species is a proper example, the ability it rationalize the buzzer is high. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Use global warming as the buzzer and restate the question. If our species is a proper example, the ability it rationalize the buzzer is high. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Good (and depressing) point. Maybe ignoring impending doom is the ultimate cultural universal, and other intelligent societies all went the way of Krypton.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Good (and depressing) point. Maybe ignoring impending doom is the ultimate cultural universal, and other intelligent societies all when the way of Krypton.

I think there is a tendency to believe something will happen to end the threat. Like Hari Seldon has planned out history and knows disaster will be averted. Using AGW, we get the "we will develop a technology to end the threat". The catch is the people that say that flatly reject spending to find this technology. It will just magically appear.

Many may have a religious belief that makes them accept the technology appearing. But many cannot use that crutch.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Using AGW, we get the "we will develop a technology to end the threat". The catch is the people that say that flatly reject spending to find this technology. It will just magically appear.

Or it will appear when it's profitable, that is, when governments and the rich are desperate. If I had discovered the tech, I'd keep it in a vault until I could sell it for trillions. Right now, it might bring millions. Even if it's billions, why be a good Samaritan to the likes who are now in power? Rather bring them to their knees, both existentially and financially.

 

[UncleMark]

Like Hari Seldon has planned out history and knows disaster will be averted. Using AGW, we get the "we will develop a technology to end the threat". The catch is the people that say that flatly reject spending to find this technology. It will just magically appear.

It'll happen now. We just needed to relieve the innovators of their tax burden.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think there is a tendency to believe something will happen to end the threat. Like Hari Seldon has planned out history and knows disaster will be averted. Using AGW, we get the "we will develop a technology to end the threat". The catch is the people that say that flatly reject spending to find this technology. It will just magically appear.

Many may have a religious belief that makes them accept the technology appearing. But many cannot use that crutch.

To be honest with you, as much as I care about the issue of global warming, when it comes to stunting our development as a species and preventing interstellar travel, I don't know that AGW is the biggest concern. I think it's fossil fuel usage. Because of how long it takes to produce fossil fuels naturally, and because of how many we've already used, I think this is probably the only chance we get at an industrial age. We need renewables - whether solar or synthetic FFs - and we need them soon, because if we hit an era of permanent energy crisis to the point that society begins to regress, I don't think it will be possible to recover.

 

[iuwclurker1]

To be honest with you, as much as I care about the issue of global warming, when it comes to stunting our development as a species and preventing interstellar travel, I don't know that AGW is the biggest concern. I think it's fossil fuel usage. Because of how long it takes to produce fossil fuels naturally, and because of how many we've already used, I think this is probably the only chance we get at an industrial age. We need renewables - whether solar or synthetic FFs - and we need them soon, because if we hit an era of permanent energy crisis to the point that society begins to regress, I don't think it will be possible to recover.

lol

You actually think interstellar travel will be accomplished with fossil fuel?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

lol

You actually think interstellar travel will be accomplished with fossil fuel?

I'm surprised that was unclear. Perhaps I was assuming things from previous discussions you weren't part of.

The point is that the history of civilization and technology seems to suggest that an age of industrial and technological expansion based on fossil fuel usage is a necessary stepping stone to an age of self-sustainable energy, which would likely be necessary for interstellar travel, considering the energy demands. Because we've already used so many of the available fossil fuels, this is probably the only shot we get at it.

Put as simply as possible: if we don't solve the energy problem before we run out of oil, rather than travelling to the stars, we'll probably be stuck in the middle ages forever.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I'm surprised that was unclear. Perhaps I was assuming things from previous discussions you weren't part of.

The point is that the history of civilization and technology seems to suggest that an age of industrial and technological expansion based on fossil fuel usage is a necessary stepping stone to an age of self-sustainable energy, which would likely be necessary for interstellar travel, considering the energy demands. Because we've already used so many of the available fossil fuels, this is probably the only shot we get at it.

Put as simply as possible: if we don't solve the energy problem before we run out of oil, rather than travelling to the stars, we'll probably be stuck in the middle ages forever.

I get it.

It's a relatively simple problem of potential differences and though oil is the most potent and effective (nuclear not yet contained) energy source we have, it's still way down at the low end of the spectrum of potential differences.

Anyway, back to your assertion, I think it's pretty obvious that we're going to (or have the ability to) suffocate the planet before we run out of oil. The rest of the world is just kicking into gear and despite climate accords and such lip service, no one wants to live without. The real technology we need asap is handling that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I get it.

It's a relatively simple problem of potential differences and though oil is the most potent and effective (nuclear not yet contained) energy source we have, it's still way down at the low end of the spectrum of potential differences.

Anyway, back to your assertion, I think it's pretty obvious that we're going to suffocate the planet before we run out of oil. The rest of the world is just kicking into gear and despite climate accords and such, no one wants to live without. The real technology we need asap is handling that.

Don't get me wrong, I still take AGW very seriously, but Marvin and I are specifically talking about species reaching the capability of interstellar travel. I don't see AGW as an extinction event, or even a societal-collapse event. I see it as an event that, in the worst case, will demand severe behavioral changes by our species, including population patterns, but the species can still survive, recover, and move past the problem. Eventually.

Failing to develop sustainable energy in time, however, can permanently stunt the development of the species, preventing interstellar travel from ever becoming possible.

In other words, none of this is to downplay the immediacy of the AGW threat, only to point out that, as it specifically relates to interstellar travel, I think there is an even bigger hurdle we are coming up on.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Don't get me wrong, I still take AGW very seriously, but Marvin and I are specifically talking about species reaching the capability of interstellar travel. I don't see AGW as an extinction event, or even a societal-collapse event. I see it as an event that, in the worst case, will demand severe behavioral changes by our species, including population patterns, but the species can still survive, recover, and move past the problem. Eventually.

Failing to develop sustainable energy in time, however, can permanently stunt the development of the species, preventing interstellar travel from ever becoming possible.

In other words, none of this is to downplay the immediacy of the AGW threat, only to point out that, as it specifically relates to interstellar travel, I think there is an even bigger hurdle we are coming up on.

Got it.

I see it differently. Developing the energy source for interstellar is a function of knowledge and not dependent on having oil. Scientists aren't approaching the problem correctly and that's probably a good thing. Our current "civilization" isn't mentally ready to handle the power you're talking about.

To me, if we ran out of fossil fuels yesterday, it wouldn't be soon enough.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Got it.

I see it differently. Developing the energy source for interstellar is a function of knowledge and not dependent on having oil. Scientists aren't approaching the problem correctly and that's probably a good thing. Our current "civilization" isn't mentally ready to handle the power you're talking about.

To me, if we ran out of fossil fuels yesterday, it wouldn't be soon enough.

Knowledge builds on knowledge. And it also requires production capability. If we run out of fossil fuels, we'll go back to living in the 1400s, and we'll be stuck there forever. You can't build a solar cell out of wood and leather.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Solar cells, oil, coal, water, nuclear are all on the same level of potential difference.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Solar cells, oil, coal, water, nuclear are all on the same level of potential difference.

I don't even know what that means, but you're missing the key point: producing the capability for solar or nuclear power requires massive amounts of energy. To get into and through the industrial age, a jump start of readily available, efficiently-stored, easily-released energy is required. In other words, we need fossil fuels in order to get to nuclear and solar power. And because fossil fuels are a limited resource, we probably get only one shot at making that transformation.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I don't even know what that means, but you're missing the key point: producing the capability for solar or nuclear power requires massive amounts of energy. To get into and through the industrial age, a jump start of readily available, efficiently-stored, easily-released energy is required. In other words, we need fossil fuels in order to get to nuclear and solar power. And because fossil fuels are a limited resource, we probably get only one shot at making that transformation.

Goat, listen to me: I'm not missing your point. I get that you think that's true. You're missing my point. All those types of energy you're talking about are on the same level of potential difference and they're all at the low end, so yes, they're drastically inefficient and require lots of energy to create and sustain themselves or each other.

By way of illustration, if you picture this graph:

all the sources of energy you're mentioning fall between points 1 and 2. Interstellar travel is upwards of point 10. Nothing between 1 and 2 gets you to 10.

I'll say my point differently: You need to think outside the box you're thinking in. I'll leave it at that. Consider it your weekly riddle to ponder, if you so choose. You seem to like science.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goat, listen to me: I'm not missing your point. I get that you think that's true. You're missing my point. All those types of energy you're talking about are on the same level of potential difference and they're all at the low end, so yes, they're drastically inefficient and require lots of energy to create and sustain themselves or each other.

By way of illustration, if you picture this graph:

all the sources of energy you're mentioning fall between points 1 and 2. Interstellar travel is upwards of point 10. Nothing between 1 and 2 gets you to 10.

I'll say my point differently: You need to think outside the box you're thinking in. I'll leave it at that. Consider it your weekly riddle to ponder, if you so choose. You seem to like science.

Your point is a good one, but unresponsive to mind. So either you really don't get the key point I'm making, or you're ignoring it. Ponder that.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Your point is a good one, but unresponsive to mind. So either you really don't get the key point I'm making, or you're ignoring it. Ponder that.

I did respond to it. Let me try again. You assert: "To get into and through the industrial age, a jump start of readily available, efficiently-stored, easily-released energy is required." My response is,

"No, that's not necessarily true. Maybe you can get to point 10 from point 1, that is using your heavy, inefficient sources of energy, but if you think in terms of potential difference, you would see that you're making an unwarranted assumption.

Energy comes from potential differences, yes? Yes. The potential difference between points 1 and point 2 on the graph is obviously very small. The potential difference between points 8 and 9 is far larger. To achieve a potential difference of point 9 minus point 8 does not require using anything from points 1 and 2. You just use points 8 and 9."

That's directly responsive to your point. Your problem (and you don't need to take this as an attack -- we're just discussing this) is evidently you can't imagine any source of potential difference outside the 1 to 2 range, which is where all of the energy sources you've listed so far lie.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I did respond to it. Let me try again. You assert: "To get into and through the industrial age, a jump start of readily available, efficiently-stored, easily-released energy is required." My response is,

"No, that's not necessarily true. Maybe you can get to point 10 from point 1, that is using your heavy, inefficient sources of energy, but if you think in terms of potential difference, you would see that you're making an unwarranted assumption.

Energy comes from potential differences, yes? Yes. The potential difference between points 1 and point 2 on the graph is obviously very small. The potential difference between points 8 and 9 is far larger. To achieve a potential difference of point 9 minus point 8 does not require using anything from points 1 and 2. You just use points 8 and 9."

That's directly responsive to your point. Your problem (and you don't need to take this as an attack -- we're just discussing this) is evidently you can't imagine any source of potential difference outside the 1 to 2 range, which is where all of the energy sources you've listed so far lie.

The difference between energy output and/or efficiency of two different sources doesn't determine whether or not one is required for the other. Solar energy collectors/converters require a production capability that itself requires significant energy expenditures. In other words, we can't build solar cells without first burning fossil fuels. Points 1 and 2 on your graph are absolutely necessary to getting to point 3 and beyond. It's not possible to jump from wood fires to nuclear generators, at least as far as human history suggests. There is no path from the Middle Ages to Star Trek that doesn't first go through a fossil fuel-dominated Industrial Age.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The difference between energy output and/or efficiency of two different sources doesn't determine whether or not one is required for the other. Solar energy collectors/converters require a production capability that itself requires significant energy expenditures. In other words, we can't build solar cells without first burning fossil fuels. Points 1 and 2 on your graph are absolutely necessary to getting to point 3 and beyond. It's not possible to jump from wood fires to nuclear generators, at least as far as human history suggests. There is no path from the Middle Ages to Star Trek that doesn't first go through a fossil fuel-dominated Industrial Age.

Sounds like you've thoroughly convinced yourself of your absolute statement. But now you're slightly changing your argument. We're already in the fuel-dominated Industrial Age. The question is can we rise higher even if we run out of oil?

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. We will develop better forms of energy (not piddling "renewable" forms like solar and wind) and the real and present danger is not running out of oil or AGW but man himself. Will we be sane enough to throttle that immense power? After all, with the energy for interstellar travel, incinerating a planet is child's play.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But now you're slightly changing your argument. We're already in the fuel-dominated Industrial Age. The question is can we rise higher even if we run out of oil?

I'm not changing my argument. That question has been and remains central to what I'm talking about. Fossil fuels are a limited resource. If we are going to survive as a technological species, eventually we have to move past them. But because they are currently so central to our technological development, the answer to your question is quite probably, "No, we can't." If we are going to rise higher, as you put it, we need to do it now, before fossil fuels become scarce.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. We will develop better forms of energy (not piddling "renewable" forms like solar and wind)

Again, it does matter, because our dependence on fossil fuels gives us only a limited window to develop those better forms of energy.

You're also discounting the true power of solar, which is likely the future, both in terms of having an advanced civilization on Earth, and producing the energy necessary to travel the cosmos. I'm not talking about solar panels on your roof. I'm talking about giant satellites orbiting the sun and beaming energy back to Earth wireless in the form of microwaves. I'm talking about a Dyson structure. If we develop beyond our current technological state toward some super-advanced civilization, it is very likely only the sun that will be capable of providing the necessary energy.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Again, it does matter, because our dependence on fossil fuels gives us only a limited window to develop those better forms of energy.

You're also discounting the true power of solar, which is likely the future, both in terms of having an advanced civilization on Earth, and producing the energy necessary to travel the cosmos. I'm not talking about solar panels on your roof. I'm talking about giant satellites orbiting the sun and beaming energy back to Earth wireless in the form of microwaves. I'm talking about a Dyson structure. If we develop beyond our current technological state toward some super-advanced civilization, it is very likely only the sun that will be capable of providing the necessary energy.

I assume you're giving me the latest and greatest inside the box so that's reassuring because, as I said, we're not mentally stable enough to handle serious energy quantities.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I assume you're giving me the latest and greatest inside the box so that's reassuring because, as I said, we're not mentally stable enough to handle serious energy quantities.

If you don't think harnessing the output of the sun constitutes a "serious energy quantity," I don't know what to say. I assume you're imagining some future technology that breaks the known laws of physics.

 

[iuwclurker1]

If you don't think harnessing the output of the sun constitutes a "serious energy quantity," I don't know what to say. I assume you're imagining some future technology that breaks the known laws of physics.

Just too much effort for the return. It's not necessarily about breaking known laws, just expanding the knowledge to more powerful forms of energy conversions. Look what happens in computers. We don't need to increase the energy input to increase the computing power. We don't need to harness the energy of an entire sun to create a super computer.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Just too much effort for the return. It's not necessarily about breaking known laws, just expanding the knowledge to more powerful forms of energy conversions. Look what happens in computers. We don't need to increase the energy input to increase the computing power. We don't need to harness the energy of an entire sun to create a super computer.

I'm not saying we do. I'm just pointing out that you don't need to fantasize about some heretofore unrealized energy source. We have an energy source. We just need to continue to develop the technology to harvest it efficiently.

At any rate, none of this is pertinent to my original point. Whether you're talking Dyson spheres or trilithium crystals, whatever the futuristic energy source is that allows us to develop into a galaxy-faring species, we need to develop it before fossil fuels become scarce (or at least, we need to develop the next step on the ladder between fossil fuels and that future energy source).

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm not saying we do. I'm just pointing out that you don't need to fantasize about some heretofore unrealized energy source. We have an energy source. We just need to continue to develop the technology to harvest it efficiently.

At any rate, none of this is pertinent to my original point. Whether you're talking Dyson spheres or trilithium crystals, whatever the futuristic energy source is that allows us to develop into a galaxy-faring species, we need to develop it before fossil fuels become scarce (or at least, we need to develop the next step on the ladder between fossil fuels and that future energy source).

Would a civilization with the energy to build a Dyson Sphere actually need to build It?

I get Goat's point about having one shot to move past fossil. We do know there is a tipping point with fossil, the next rung in the ladder has to be in reach when we get there or civilization is in trouble. Big trouble, medieval farming and transportation will not allow the populations we have. The black death will have been a small inconvenience compared to what awaits.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Would a civilization with the energy to build a Dyson Sphere actually need to build It?

I really doubt a complete Dyson Sphere would be realized*, but I do think a smaller-scale Dyson Swarm might be an important stage between intra- and interstellar colonization. And we might not even need a large-scale swarm complete with solar sails and whatnot. If they are efficient enough, a few well-placed collectors at the Lagrangian points might be enough to provide all the energy Earth needs.

I get Goat's point about having one shot to move past fossil. We do know there is a tipping point with fossil, the next rung in the ladder has to be in reach when we get there or civilization is in trouble. Big trouble, medieval farming and transportation will not allow the populations we have. The black death will have been a small inconvenience compared to what awaits.

I was really just focused on the "one shot" aspect of it, but you are right to point out there would be a very real human cost, as well.

* At least, not around a relatively short-lived yellow dwarf like ours. A species developing around a red dwarf, looking at trillions of years of potential history in the future, might think differently.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

A species developing around a red dwarf, looking at trillions of years of potential history in the future, might think differently.

That is a really good point, pur only experience is with our sun. It is hard to know how a civilization around a red dwarf would play out, given their time scale advantage.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That is a really good point, pur only experience is with our sun. It is hard to know how a civilization around a red dwarf would play out, given their time scale advantage.

Of course, a species advanced enough to build a complete Dyson Sphere might also decide that, even if their star will last another couple trillion years, they might not want to put all their eggs in one basket, anyway, because there are other ways to lose the galactic lottery, such as a rogue black hole barreling through the system (especially since many of these red dwarfs will still be in their prime when Andromeda and other local group galaxies merge with the Milky Way).

 

[iuwclurker1]

...

 

[Bruce1]

New research published this week on some famous Australian rocks thought to contain 3.5-billion year old fossils is thought to confirm, not only that the fossils are genuine, but also that the life was much more complex than previously thought. This is interesting because it adds support to the growing understanding that life on this planet almost certainly dates back 4 billion years - in other words, almost immediately after the planet became hospitable. Based on the two leading theories for the origin of life on Earth, this means one of two things:

1. Either an asteroid containing complex organic molecules or even simple bacteria just happened to crash into the planet immediately after it cooled enough to support organic life, or
2. Life arose spontaneously almost as soon as the planet allowed it.

Both of these possibilities fall at the extreme end of a probability distribution, and therefore both give rise to the same question, one that scientists are increasingly will be answered with an affirmative: is life in our universe actually very common?

Considering this summer's findings that Saturn's moon Titan contains complex organic compounds in the atmosphere, it may very well be the case that, not only is our universe very amenable to life, but the development of life itself is a very common occurrence.

Haven’t you seen the latest Star Wars? It demonstrates life!

 

[Marvin the Martian]

With all the science discussions we have had, you HAVE to appreciate today's SMBCC.