XPost: rec.arts.sf.science, rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 5/2/2018 11:22 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > On 2018-05-02 23:16:37 +0000, J. Clarke said:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 2 May 2018 07:45:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 5/1/2018 11:21 PM, 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 you still haven't made ANY kind of suggestion for how to look for   
   >>> other life with the technology and knowledge we have.   
   >>   
   >> He's one of those idiots to whom any job that they don't know how to   
   >> do is trivially easy.   
   >   
   > It's amazing how many morons on the internet have reading comprehension   
   > issues. :-\   
   >   
   > I never ever said that it was "easy".   
   >   
   > I never ever said I know how to do it ... I'm not being paid to come up   
   > with such ideas, the scientists in that specific area are.   
   >   
   > Simply a plain and simple *fact* that looking for life ONLY where water   
   > is, or thinking life can ONLY exist where water is, or believing all   
   > life in the universe is the same chemistry / structure / requirements /   
   > etc. as life on Earth is stupidly blinkered.   
   >   
   What makes you think all scientists involved in the search for life   
   think only water-based life is possible?  Or that they wouldn't look for   
   other types of life if they could?   
      
      
   --   
   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)