• bentropy@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Show me the scientists who are surprised by the fact that we haven’t found life on another planet yet. Where are those scientists? Are they even real?

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, isn’t the entire concept of the Fermi paradox that given the universe is so large and old, it seems surprising that we see no signs of aliens anywhere, and therefore some explanation must exist for why we have not? That’s more focused on intelligent life than extraterrestrial life of any sort I suppose, but given it’s even named a paradox in the first place, someone must find it surprising

      • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My argument of that is that we’ve only just started looking in a massive, massive, massive universe. Like, the other day. The big bang theory is less than a hundred years old and we only just discovered cosmic background radiation in 1964

        We JUST started looking and we probably have no idea what we are looking for or at.

        Also, these earth like planets are a fucking guess, a giant maybe. They make their host star, which we make assumptions of about their size, make a tiny hardly perceptible dip in light and we measure the wavelengts that were filtered out.

        The more I learn about how this science is done, the more it all just looks like a big fucking maybe that someone spouts so confidently as fact. Like, the track record for fact is pretty thin in science.

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Fermi Paradox feels like someone sticking their finger in the water at the beach and confidently declaring there are no whales in the ocean because they didn’t touch one.

  • Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember Venus is a Earth like planet and even relatively close to the habitable zone (depending on your definitions and error bars). Just because it’s a planet like Earth, doesn’t mean it would support life.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t be particularly surprised to find out Venus has life. Complex life, probably not, but something like the life we have around undersea volcanic vents seems more than possible.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really don’t see how. Yes there is life at undersea volcanic vents on Earth, but they don’t live like in the vent itself. It’s where the temperature gets lower there is life.

        As far as I know nothing can survive boiling temperatures for long and Venus has been way above boiling for millions of years. There are extremophiles that survive a little above boiling, but 400+ degrees I really don’t see how.

        There is a chance in the atmosphere where there are parts with reasonable temperatures and pressures. But there is also a lot of acids floating around, which is sorta incompatible with life. If some photosynthetic life was present in the atmosphere, floating around and living on sunlight, we would have seen it by now. There would be seasonal blooms, similar to plankton in the oceans on Earth.

        It’s cool to think about and I remember reading old sci-fi with Venus as a forest planet, since it’s so like Earth in a lot of ways. But in reality it’s dead dead.

        Same for Mars I feel like. We might find indications life once lived there, which would be a huge deal. But as far as actual current life, I think chances are slim to none.

          • Thorry84@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The article you post specifically states the observed lifeforms to be limited to 130 degrees C (and even then they don’t live long) with a theoretical max of 150 degrees C. Life as we know it (in all its wonderous forms) cannot exist above that temperature. The processes needed simply can’t work and the structures can’t exist. Maybe there’s some lifeform that uses a neat trick to remain alive trough a short stint of say 200 degrees, but that’s a far cry from living at 400+ all the time. Extremophiles usually can’t live at boiling temperatures for long, they can only tolerate it for short durations, living most of their lives in less than 100 degrees. Which is still really cool, since most lifeforms die at half that temperature.

            Now there could be some form of exotic stuff that may be called life, but that’s well into speculation and science fiction.

            Personally I’m not convinced by extremophiles, yes they can exist in very harsh environments, but they are always specialized forms of life that evolved in simpler conditions. It’s not clear whether life can make the jump from mild to extreme or even start out in an extreme environment. My bet is that’s not possible. So that could mean stuff on Mars, since we know it was probably very mild in the past and extremophiles may have persisted that can live in the current environment since that time (unlikely, but possible). But probably not on places like Venus where as far as we know it’s been super hot for ages now, too long for anything to survive if it was even habitable to start with.