Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saturn moon 'able to support life'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 268 posts

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#51

Post by c517402 »

nostrademons wrote: post #36
ddinh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about space artifacts? Out in the vacuum stuff corrodes/degrades much slower - would satellites still be around or would they have had their orbits degraded and burned up in the atmosphere? Also, how detectable would the stuff we've left behind on Moon (the mirror, perhaps? Only thing that can probably destroy evidence of our presence on the moon would be asteroid impacts) be to a civilization that doesn't know…

Most satellite orbits should decay and burn up in the atmosphere long before a few million years has passed. Most of the near-earth orbits become unstable within decades, and the ones that don't are subject to gravitational perturbations from the moon and other planets. The stuff on the moon will remain there for a very very long time, but until another civilization acquires the technological capability to explore a…

There are corner reflector arrays on the moon that might make someone curious, if millions of years of moon dust doesn't effect them or they aren't destroyed by an asteroid impact.

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#52

Post by scythe »

milquetoastaf wrote: post #38
ars wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to say which species was first to become intelligent, but I'm pretty sure humans weren't the first. And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. It's not just a matter a degree ("more" intelligent), it's a completely different category. So that means your definition of intelligent is flawed because it is unable to capture that distinction. Perhaps you need a new word…

>And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. Lol no we are not. We share 98 percent of our DNA with various simians. We share 97 percent of our DNA with mice. Are we the only species to communicate? No. Are we the only species to communicate symbolically ? No. Great Apes use hand gestures. Are we the only species to recognize themselves? No. Plenty of animals do. In fact, even…

My answer to this is simple: we have Turing machines. Somehow, our communications are Turing-complete, whereas other species's aren't.

(I make no assumption as to why we have Turing machines, but note that implementing one usually requires some work)

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#53

Post by GlennS »

nostrademons wrote: post #17
charles-salvia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the developments in exo-planet research along with discoveries like this over the past couple of years, I would conjecture that life is ridiculously common. But by life, I mean microbial life. I would imagine that multi-cellular life is much rarer, and life capable of reaching human-level intelligence and beyond is probably absurdly rare, on the level of something like one species per galaxy. It's all worthl…

I'm kinda curious if there's any evidence that would support or rule out intelligent life having existed on earth before. I mean, if humanity goes extinct and it's another 65 million years before another intelligent species evolves, what evidence would they have of our existence? All our buildings would've long since crumbled into dust or been crushed by plate tectonics. Metal will corrode and rust away after a few t…

Largest stone monuments gone after 10,000 years? Are you sure?

The pyramids are already approaching 5,000 years old. Do they show any signs of disappearing?

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#54

Post by andrewflnr »

ars wrote: post #33
charles-salvia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the developments in exo-planet research along with discoveries like this over the past couple of years, I would conjecture that life is ridiculously common. But by life, I mean microbial life. I would imagine that multi-cellular life is much rarer, and life capable of reaching human-level intelligence and beyond is probably absurdly rare, on the level of something like one species per galaxy. It's all worthl…

> Based on the developments in exo-planet research along with discoveries like this over the past couple of years, I would conjecture that life is ridiculously common. In that case you must not ignore the corollary: If there is no life on those moons, then it must follow that life is ridiculously rare. And in that case, then it's pretty likely we are indeed alone in the universe.

(Life on enceladus -> Life is common) does not entail (No life on enceladus -> Life is rare) by any length of proof, much less one short enough to let you call it a "corollary" with a straight face. This would be so even if "Life is common" and "Life is rare" were perfect logical complements, rather than being endpoints on a wide spectrum.

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#55

Post by BurningFrog »

nostrademons wrote: post #17
charles-salvia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the developments in exo-planet research along with discoveries like this over the past couple of years, I would conjecture that life is ridiculously common. But by life, I mean microbial life. I would imagine that multi-cellular life is much rarer, and life capable of reaching human-level intelligence and beyond is probably absurdly rare, on the level of something like one species per galaxy. It's all worthl…

I'm kinda curious if there's any evidence that would support or rule out intelligent life having existed on earth before. I mean, if humanity goes extinct and it's another 65 million years before another intelligent species evolves, what evidence would they have of our existence? All our buildings would've long since crumbled into dust or been crushed by plate tectonics. Metal will corrode and rust away after a few t…

One thing we can observe is that parts of the planet have been completely isolated from each other for many millions of years, until very recently when human travel has brought "invasive species" to places where they've never been.

I think this proves that there was no civilization advanced enough to travel between continents for however many millions of years the evolutionary isolation can be proven. I'm guessing it's at least some dozen Megayears.

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#56

Post by outworlder »

civilian wrote: post #16
marktangotango wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, deep sea, thermal vent life is predominantly blind on earth at least. One may postulate this form of life is much less likely to form technological civilizations thus moderating such. Thoughts?

So-- there are caveats. A lot of deep sea life are able to see, and it's because deep sea life also generates their own light. It's a way to communicate to mates, and a way to notice prey, and a way to bait smaller predators. I also think that echolocation has potential to be equal or better to eyesight! Bats and dolphins do great with it, and I think that it's easy to think of echolocation as being a _visual_ stimul…

On the other hand, imagine the neat tricks they could come up with using magnesium alone.

Would they have to be underwater, though? They could use the sea surface, provided the atmosphere is not toxic to them.

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#57

Post by 36bydesign »

outworlder wrote: post #56
civilian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-- there are caveats. A lot of deep sea life are able to see, and it's because deep sea life also generates their own light. It's a way to communicate to mates, and a way to notice prey, and a way to bait smaller predators. I also think that echolocation has potential to be equal or better to eyesight! Bats and dolphins do great with it, and I think that it's easy to think of echolocation as being a _visual_ stimul…

On the other hand, imagine the neat tricks they could come up with using magnesium alone. Would they have to be underwater, though? They could use the sea surface, provided the atmosphere is not toxic to them.

Isn't the surface frozen?

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#58

Post by losvedir »

Swizec wrote: post #35
ars wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to say which species was first to become intelligent, but I'm pretty sure humans weren't the first. And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. It's not just a matter a degree ("more" intelligent), it's a completely different category. So that means your definition of intelligent is flawed because it is unable to capture that distinction. Perhaps you need a new word…

How do you know it's a completely different category? We used to think all animals are incapable of intelligence and everything they do is "instinct". Now we know they can think, organize, have complex social structures, even imagine and form plans. Many show evidence of being self aware. So we're not special enough anymore and we have to come up with a new word? I don't buy it. It's likely that humans' extraordinary…

Heh, I originally started this comment "oh come on!" as I thought you were being needlessly obtuse.

Agriculture, written language, metal smelting, universities, space shuttles, nuclear bombs, radio, computers, etc.

It was obvious to me that we're in a whole other category from other species. But then I thought about human tribes in the rain forest that don't have any of those. Are they not as intelligent us? But they are us... Hm, well you've made me think. Thanks!

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#59

Post by milquetoastaf »

ams6110 wrote: post #47
milquetoastaf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. Lol no we are not. We share 98 percent of our DNA with various simians. We share 97 percent of our DNA with mice. Are we the only species to communicate? No. Are we the only species to communicate symbolically ? No. Great Apes use hand gestures. Are we the only species to recognize themselves? No. Plenty of animals do. In fact, even…

Biology notwithstanding, no other species has deliberately transformed its environment and improved it longevity and standard of living like humans have. Not even slightly.

Animals transform their environments all the time, deliberately (I don't get why people act as if animals don't do deliberate things?). What of the great honey fungus in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, a living organism whose size is measured in miles - it deliberately transformed its environment in a way we, the species Aristotle put at the top, can barely even comprehend.

The difference is in degree, not of kind.

Re: Saturn moon 'able to support life'

#60

Post by milquetoastaf »

scythe wrote: post #52
milquetoastaf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. Lol no we are not. We share 98 percent of our DNA with various simians. We share 97 percent of our DNA with mice. Are we the only species to communicate? No. Are we the only species to communicate symbolically ? No. Great Apes use hand gestures. Are we the only species to recognize themselves? No. Plenty of animals do. In fact, even…

My answer to this is simple: we have Turing machines. Somehow, our communications are Turing-complete, whereas other species's aren't. (I make no assumption as to why we have Turing machines, but note that implementing one usually requires some work)

Your answer is as simple as it is unsatisfactory and arbitrary. Humans have turing machines, sure. But we have yet to truly translate an animal language (though we do know they exist) so your point is rather moot.

My point isn't that humans aren't amazing, it's that we perhaps think too highly of ourselves in relation to our incredible relatives.

Post reply on HN