XPost: rec.arts.sf.science, rec.arts.sf.written
From: dtravel@sonic.net
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.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
