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

NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

jpl.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#41

Post by Florin_Andrei »

madaxe_again wrote: post #30
Thieum22 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.

The great filter theory is subject to our own filter bubble. As I see it, there are other possibilities - Intelligent life doesn't want to be found - at least by us. Intelligent life tends towards simulation, rather than expansion. Further to the above, we are the only intelligent life in the simulation in which we reside. Intelligent life is far more of an aberration than we realise. Intelligent life is actually ver…

> Intelligent life tends towards simulation, rather than expansion.

Someone didn't take the Internet away from them when they were young, so they grew addicted to it. Bunch of navel-gazing nerds.

> Intelligent life is actually very dumb on a macro scale, and falls prey to Malthusian collapse, either by falling into a significant energy gap or by destroying their biosphere.

Looking at the Homo "Sapiens" species with a critical eye, I fear this is the most likely explanation.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#42

Post by bdamm »

snowwrestler wrote: post #23
greggarious wrote: post #6

Here's a fun exercise in speculation: How long does HN think it will be between confirming life (e.g. bacteria), confirming life (e.g. mammals / bugs), and confirming intelligent life? (Never is an an acceptable answer for all 3, but please state why you hold your position)

I think we will confirm life within 50 years by reading the spectra of distant planets and finding free oxygen in the atmosphere. As far as we know, that can only happen if living creatures are replenishing it. I think it's unlikely that we will find life anywhere else in our solar system. It's possible that we'll evidence of past life on Mars, but not current. Basically, it's just way too cold or way too hot everywh…

There are regions of relative temperature stability, such as towards the poles.

I think the outlook for intelligent life in the solar system, other than us, is very bleak for them. If there are whales on Europa, Titan, or Enceladus then it would seem easier for us to damage their ecosystem than the other way around. Unless, of course, they've infiltrated our political systems and are steering us towards self destruction.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#43

Post by jackkcaj »

codeshaman wrote: post #39

Totally unscientific impulse based speculation, but here it is, I want to be the first. A long time ago (billions of years), our ancestors lived on Mars. The climate was changing due to human activity and shrinking of the Sun. Shit was getting serious and humanity needed a way to escape. The third planet from the Sun was chosen for seeding life into, due to it's proximity to the star and life-supporting characteristi…

That's quite a narrative.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#44

Post by gojomo »

greggarious wrote: post #6

Here's a fun exercise in speculation: How long does HN think it will be between confirming life (e.g. bacteria), confirming life (e.g. mammals / bugs), and confirming intelligent life? (Never is an an acceptable answer for all 3, but please state why you hold your position)

There's a respectable contingent of scientists that believe Martian microorganisms were already confirmed 38 years ago by the Viking Lander experiments:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120413-nasa-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experi...

A future mission should definitely include a biologically-useful microscope, as suggested by USC neurobiologist Joseph Miller in the National Geograhic article linked above. Miller, also a former NASA space shuttle program director, is one of the proponents of the idea that the 1976 Viking results already demonstrated life.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#45

Post by anigbrowl »

madaxe_again wrote: post #30
Thieum22 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.

The great filter theory is subject to our own filter bubble. As I see it, there are other possibilities - Intelligent life doesn't want to be found - at least by us. Intelligent life tends towards simulation, rather than expansion. Further to the above, we are the only intelligent life in the simulation in which we reside. Intelligent life is far more of an aberration than we realise. Intelligent life is actually ver…

Or intelligent life doesn't leave the sort of markers we have been looking for up to now. I don't buy the sim theory at all and think it's a dreadful philosophical cop-out.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#46

Post by bsder »

exratione wrote: post #34
madaxe_again wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great filter theory is subject to our own filter bubble. As I see it, there are other possibilities - Intelligent life doesn't want to be found - at least by us. Intelligent life tends towards simulation, rather than expansion. Further to the above, we are the only intelligent life in the simulation in which we reside. Intelligent life is far more of an aberration than we realise. Intelligent life is actually ver…

The important thing to realize about the Fermi Paradox is that all generalizations about behavior fail automatically as explanatory theories. It only takes one small group within one species to generate a self-replicating probe, at which point all of the galaxy is visited in a few million years. A solution to the Fermi Paradox has to explain why that event has never happened despite the fact that some element of our…

> It only takes one small group within one species to generate a self-replicating probe

And what would that probe look like?

For it to be a useful to the sending civilization, it needs to go out, replicate, and send information back.

The first two are easy. Send out lots of meteorites with bacteria on them.

The third is not so easy. Creating a self-replicating machine which can then transmit back across interstellar distances or store information in its replication program and then send more of itself out is hard.

Or, you help life evolve and then wait for the results to reach the point where they can send out their own probes and signals...

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#47

Post by InclinedPlane »

r0muald wrote: post #20

I totally understand being very cautious about their findings, but the wording of this paragraph struck me as odd: > The ratio that Curiosity found in the Cumberland sample is about one-half the ratio in water vapor in today's Martian atmosphere > suggesting much of the planet's water loss occurred since that rock formed > However, the measured ratio is about three times higher than the ratio in the original water su…

Correct.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#48

Post by cbd1984 »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #40
aaroninsf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe OP shares your sentiments, and that you mistake the usage here. 'Shame' as used here is shorthand for 'that's a shame,' which used colloquially to express disappointment colored with sympathy and understanding, does not imply that any of the nominal subjects is being criticized. Source: I'm a native English speaker.

Isn't 'pity' fairly similar, or is it more commonly used in British English?

'Pity' would be a Britishism in this context, yes.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#49

Post by maaku »

Thieum22 wrote: post #16
swombat wrote: post #3

For those eager to read ahead, they are very, very careful in this article not to imply in any way that this is definitely from any sort of living sources. > Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has eve…

It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.

Great filter theory is nonsense. The period between intelligent life evolving and it taking over the universe at near the speed of light is so short, in cosmic time, that any civilization anywhere should expect to see an empty universe (in their light cone).

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#50

Post by tomrod »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #13
TallGuyShort wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is not the case in the US, at least in my experience. In South Africa people say "shame" to express pity for someone else (or even just when something is adorable) but when I say it hear I get weird looks :)

Native U.S. English speaker here: we do use the word "shame" as GP describes. We use "shame" both to say that someone should be ashamed and also to express general disappointment. (Though we would not use the word to talk about something that's merely adorable.) To my U.S.-English ears, swombat's use of the word "shame" seemed clearly of the "general disappointment" variety.

In the U.S. don't we generally use "for shame" when berating?
Post reply on HN