From: nuny@bid.nes   
      
   On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:21:37 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:   
   > On 2018-05-01 22:30:24 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:   
   >   
   > > On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:   
   > >> Gene Wirchenko  wrote in   
   > >> news:88bhed578t3ec2ujs5ajnsgdk85tabsr48@4ax.com:   
   > >>   
   > >>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke   
   > >>>  wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko   
   > >>>>  wrote:   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer   
   > >>>>>  wrote:   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> [snip]   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type   
   > >>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.   
   > >>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest   
   > >>>>>> what we should look for?   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> We already know about that one.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us   
   > >>>>> understand   
   > >>>>> our case.  (Just as knowing more than one language helps one   
   > >>>>> understand one's own language better.)   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have   
   > >>>>> chemicals   
   > >>>>> converting back and forth.  (As with the oxygen - carbon   
   > >>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.)  This is, of course, no   
   > >>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals   
   > >>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Of course not.  I am no expert in the area.   
   > >>   
   > >> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.   
   > >>   
   > > I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching   
   > > about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only   
   > > looking for life like us.   
   >   
   > It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that   
   > they lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.   
      
     And how do you know they're lazy? What surveys have you taken to determine   
   that no scientists are looking for non-carbon/water-based life because they're   
   lazy?   
      
     What literature searches have you undertaken to determine that none ever   
   have, because they were lazy too?   
      
     Are you too hypocritically lazy to prove your claims?   
      
     Or are you just Starfaker using a nym and an ever so slightly improved   
   writing style?   
      
      
     Mark L. Fergerson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)