Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space NASA

Study Shows Some Exoplanets May Have Greater Variety of Life Than Exists On Earth (phys.org) 125

Posted by EditorDavid from the oceans-across-the-universe dept.
durini called our attention to some surprising results from research with NASA-developed software: A new study indicates that some exoplanets may have better conditions for life to thrive than Earth itself has. "This is a surprising conclusion," said lead researcher Dr. Stephanie Olson, "it shows us that conditions on some exoplanets with favourable ocean circulation patterns could be better suited to support life that is more abundant or more active than life on Earth....

"Our work has been aimed at identifying the exoplanet oceans which have the greatest capacity to host globally abundant and active life. Life in Earth's oceans depends on upwelling (upward flow) which returns nutrients from the dark depths of the ocean to the sunlit portions of the ocean where photosynthetic life lives. More upwelling means more nutrient resupply, which means more biological activity. These are the conditions we need to look for on exoplanets.... We found that higher atmospheric density, slower rotation rates, and the presence of continents all yield higher upwelling rates. A further implication is that Earth might not be optimally habitableâ"and life elsewhere may enjoy a planet that is even more hospitable than our own.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Shows Some Exoplanets May Have Greater Variety of Life Than Exists On Earth More

Study Shows Some Exoplanets May Have Greater Variety of Life Than Exists On Earth

Comments Filter:

  • The universe is large. The presence of intelligent life with developed technology may be quite limited though.

    • Re: Exophobic identified!!! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Way Smarter Than You ( 6157664 ) on Sunday September 01, 2019 @11:07AM (#59146480)
      Why are you such an exophobic earth supremacist? No need for such anti-exo bigotry here! We should be an open-atmospheric planet, welcome visitors from other places to stay and provide them the support they need to join our community or establish their own. And if they get confused and occasionally eat a baby or two, that's just part of the learning curve. We have a moral obligation to help our exo-neighbors.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Max_W ( 812974 )
      The problem is the Civilization Bottleneck. The intelligent life appears as a result of the natural selection. So as soon as the civilization reaches the nuclear technology it destroys itself via the nuclear world war inevitably.

      The Civilization Bottleneck is the only plausible explanation of the Great Silence, i.e. the total absence of the intelligent signals coming from the universe.
      • I always thought that theory was incredibly human-centric. Blindingly so. For starters even we have yet to wipe ourselves out with nukes or anything else for that matter. And who says an alien race will be anything like the Star Trek universe full of humanoids who all look and behave perfectly human except for skin color and a bit of shaped plastic on their nose, brow and forehead so the fans know they're an alien? It's a concept so unlikely it crosses well over the line of the absurd. Carl Sagan broug

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Max_W ( 812974 )
          I would agree that species could be absolutely different, but there will be the natural selection, survival of the fittest as Darwin put it. Survival means that there is the struggle.

          As soon as a civilization reaches the nuclear technology level, the nuclear weapons get involved into this struggle. And the civilization declines quickly after the nuclear confrontations.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sosume ( 680416 )

            I can imagine an alien race functioning like ants or bees, in a structured hierarchy. Such societies may not understand the concept of a nuclear weapon.

            • Ants or bees only cooperate nicely within the same colony, because they are all closely related through a single mother. They don't extend that courtesy to other colonies.

          • Again, you're anthropomorphising an unknown and unknowable alien race. Who says they'd even think of nukes? Maybe they don't even have uranium? Maybe they're ocean based with a biological technology instead of our industrial? Maybe they're just freaking nice to each other than we are don't kill the Orher on site? Maybe too many people watch Star Trek.

            • Maybe they're just freaking nice to each other than we are don't kill the Orher on site?

              It will still be survival of the fittest and the ability to kill your competitors is part of the fitness function.

              • Not necessarily. My aliens are a self sacrificing friendly bunch who are willing to help the whole of their race at cost to themselves. They have never killed each other but live on a dangerous world which kills the weak. As a prey animal on their world they had to learn to work together to survive the predators on their world. On your world, your aliens fight each other and eventually go nuclear. Why is yours the only way possible according to Darwin? He never said fitness meant war. He didn't even i

      • > The intelligent life appears as a result of the natural selection.

        And technology may be a result of intelligence, and resources. What role did our oversized moon, which from models of our solar system seems to be quite unusual, have in creating tides and even continents on a world mostly covered with water? Places where species could move to land and have access to concentrated energy sources like fire, and easily mined metals?

      • How do you know there are no intelligent signals coming from the universe? Who is listening, and what percentage of the spectrum and sky have they monitored? Probably around 0.0001%

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • The intelligent life appears as a result of the natural selection. So as soon as the civilization reaches the nuclear technology it destroys itself via the nuclear world war inevitably.

        Yes, it might be that "discovering world peace" and "toning down a bit the kind of aggressivity and competition that was selected for at early evolution steps" are both necessary pre-requisite in a civilization's "skill tree" before being able to achieve a space faring civilization.
        Because obviously going to space requires mastering unimaginable levels of energy and if by then the civilization hasn't calmed down then risks are high that such high levels of energy might get diverted to blowing each other up.

  • God didn't make Earth the best? What the FUCK?

    • God didn't make Earth the best? What the FUCK?

      God was a cheapskate, and outsourced the making of Earth to a Chinese company on Amazon.

      Hey! The price was great!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Empiric ( 675968 )

      Funny, but as the obligatory rebuttal:

      1. Let's have some shred of observational evidence of a "better" planet first.

      2. There is not a claim in the bible that Earth (or man) is "the best". The statement is that they are "good". "Best" is for the afterlife.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gatkinso ( 15975 )

      Well, at least Jesus wrote the Bible in English.

      • You are correct except for 2 minor things:

        1. Jesus did not write the bible.
        2. English did not exist when Jesus allegedly existed.

        So apart from those 2 things, you are right.

        • Whoa now, I've been told that the King James version is the only real version of the Bible, dictated by God himself, and that all that Hebrew and Aramaic stuff was just the pre-print.

          • Also the King James Bible is written in Old English and not modern English. That is why the Bible verses seem strangely constructed because we are reading it with the wrong parser.

            • Wow. Just wow. Wrong on all counts.

              Work on the King James Bible began in 1604 and was published in 1611..

              Old English, a.k.a. Anglo Saxon, was was spoken from about 450 until 1066 when William of Normandy conquered England.

              Middle English was spoken up to 1500.

              Modern English began with the Great Vowel Shift beginning around 1450. Shakespeare and the King James Bible are most definitely considered to be written in Modern English.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Opyros ( 1153335 )
          It's a joke. [upenn.edu] And a rather old one.
    • It is not about what God made. It is about the steam-age economic models (over-the-top mass production is only sensible for a steam-driven factory; all other power sources can be easily started and stopped at will) that have attacked our biodiversity for a few centuries now. It would have really surprised me if other civilisations had worse monocultures than we have.

  • California and Chile have frigid cold water due to upwelling and are also very dry as moisture forms when warm water evaporates.

    • To maximize variety, you would want heavy geographical barriers between areas, not just life-supporting conditions. Otherwise you'll just end up with a monoculture.

  • "better conditions" =! "greater variety" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday September 01, 2019 @11:04AM (#59146476)

    At this time, it is unclear whether there is any life anywhere but on this planet. Please report facts, not fantasies.

    • Your anger is misplaced and wrong. First, the only place the word "variety" seems to be used is in the title of the article. The study talks about more habitable and, abundant, and active life, but not more variety. It looks like whoever picked the title was sensationalist and the title doesn't reflect the article.

      Second, there is definitely life off this planet. It's currently circling the sun on an orbit that takes it past Mars in a red Tesla. No, SpaceX did not sterilize the Tesla before they launched it

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Your anger is misplaced and wrong. First, the only place the word "variety" seems to be used is in the title of the article.

        a) What anger? Please stop the propaganda tactics. They are deeply dishonest.
        b) I was criticizing the title for the article and rather obviously so?

    • "At this time, it is unclear whether there is any life anywhere but on this planet."

      This statement only holds true if you lack a basic understanding of physics and maths. We know for certain there is life elsewhere. What we don't know is where that life can be found, or what form it takes. We also don't know with certainty that we would be able to perceive it at all if we were to gain proximity, meaning that we can never rule out its existence if and when we do finally manage to travel through space suffici

      • i guess i'm stupid. what's the "physics and maths" proof that there is life elsewhere (that we didn't put there ourselves, as apoc.famine details)? i don't want a hand-wavy proof that "with high probability" there is (a la Drake "Equation"), or even a rigorous statement that "standard model universes produce life almost always w.r.t. probability measure \mu defined below...".

        i want to see the pure "physics and maths" proof that there is extraterrestrial life in this universe.

        • Space nutters have their own proof. You see: their first computer had 64KB, and their mobile phone now has 4GB and fits in their pocket. Thus, everything is possible and progress is inevitable. It is amazing what can be extrapolated from Moore's Law.

          • If ever I wonder if I might be wrong along you come to try to argue to the contrary and then I know what I wrote is certainly true.

            • That is because you are a "Space Nutter" (and probably "AI Nutter" and "Elon Musk Nutter"). You said: "This statement only holds true if you lack a basic understanding of physics and maths. We know for certain there is life elsewhere.". Everyone sensible knows that is untrue. Even you know it. But you won't admit it, because you are a Nutter. I do believe there is life elsewhere, but I would never claim that "we know for certain" or there is some "physics and maths" that prove it. Because I am sensible, and

        • I'm guessing your post was intended to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not all life is intelligent life. Good job!

          • so uh, is this your "proof"?

            • Show me where I said I a have a mathematical proof I will show you fucktard. Every time you post your idiotic protests to what I say God kills a kitten. Now, go ahead ... show me your proof what I just wrote isn't true. Only a moron demands mathematical proof that in an infinite universe life doesn't exist in a localized singularity.

              • you said the "... statement [that it is unclear whether life exists anywhere but on this planet] holds true if you lack a basic understanding of physics and maths. We know for certain there is life elsewhere."

                i'm just curious about how a basic understanding of "physics and maths" leads one to conclude, with certitude, that "there is life elsewhere" (apart from the trivial case where we brought it). usually results from "physics and maths" take the form of a proof or at least argument.

                • Knowledge of physics, especially astrophysics, allows you to have a reasonable idea how large the universe is, and an understanding of probability allows you to interpolate the likelihood that life on this planet constitutes a localized singularity. I literally said a basic understanding, and then you went on to ask for the complex proof surely few could understand. DOH!

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by noodler ( 724788 )

                    Knowledge of physics, especially astrophysics, allows you to have a reasonable idea how large the universe is, and an understanding of probability allows you to interpolate the likelihood that life on this planet constitutes a localized singularity.

                    None of that says that there IS other life, which was your original statement.

                    I literally said a basic understanding, and then you went on to ask for the complex proof surely few could understand. DOH!

                    But even with 'advanced' understanding there is no certainty like the one you expressed earlier. Even with advanced understanding we can't make the claim that there IS other life. We only expect it to be there, which is a completely different position.

                    And about the proof, if you're so bold to be certain what others (the scientists) think about this topic then you should at least be capable enough to repeat the reasoning that lead

                    • You are an incompetent self absorbed douchebag who actually believe the entire universe, as well as the animals with which we share this planet, exist solely to prop you up in your singular importance. Get over yourself. You aren't that special. You are like the number 13 standing up and saying "Look at me, I'm indivisible, and surely I am the only 1!" DOH!

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by noodler ( 724788 )
                      First of all, and again, why the profanity? Is your IQ really so low that you can't find another mode of communication?

                      Secondly, i haven't talked about being special or not. That is not what this is about. It is about the certainty you claim about things we have never ever observed. You see, normally in physics we only say something 'is' when we have actually observed that it 'is' so. So since you state that there 'is' other life, please show it (or any of its effects on the universe) to us.

                      In that respe

                    • I absolutely agree that due to my high intelligence I tend to expect people of moderate intelligence like yourself to function at a level they simply cannot acheive, so great link! Off you go now ...

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by noodler ( 724788 )
                      Yes, you make it quite clear that you think this is the case.

                      Unfortunately that's about all you manage to do.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Indeed.

          And when you get into "high probability" speculation, we have this one that everything is a simulation anyways (usually claimed with "almost absolute certainty"). Of course, with slightly different base assumptions, this is complete nonsense. And none of these base assumptions are mote than speculation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        "At this time, it is unclear whether there is any life anywhere but on this planet."

        This statement only holds true if you lack a basic understanding of physics and maths. We know for certain there is life elsewhere. What we don't know is where that life can be found, or what form it takes. We also don't know with certainty that we would be able to perceive it at all if we were to gain proximity, meaning that we can never rule out its existence if and when we do finally manage to travel through space sufficiently. An understanding of the definition of the words "might" and "may" would bring to completion your understanding of why you are wrong on all counts.

        And you, my friend, do not understand the difference between "Science" and "Fantasy". The actual scientific state-of-the art is that we have no clue whether there is life anywhere else. We have some guesses based on some assumptions. And that is it. As to "basic physics and maths", I have an engineering PhD that pretty much certifies I have a bit more than just the basics. But you seem to be sorely lacking there.

      • This statement only holds true if you lack a basic understanding of physics and maths. We know for certain there is life elsewhere.

        By this 'logic' people driving while drunk could be charged with vehicular homicide. Work out why they are not, and why specific DUII laws have to be used instead, and the riddle will solve itself for you.

        • People driving while drunk are often charged with and convicted of vehicular homicide. Learn the definition of homocide and manslaughter, realize that intentionally killing someone with your car and being drunk are not mutually exclusive, and you too can finally realize you are an idiot.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Wow, you really are mentally deficient and miss the most obvious things. Fascinating.

            • I didn't miss the fact that the idiot made an incorrect assertion. I didn't miss the fact that you like to make up definitions and then claim that nothing those words describes could possibly exist. Feel free to tell me what you think I missed and I'll be glad to explain to you why anyone with an average or above IQ would realize your assertion is ridiculous.

      • We know for certain there is life elsewhere.

        Assertion, not fact. Even if there is only one in however number of planets there are in the universe that there is only ours with life, that is still an odds and reality may have landed on it. You..do..not..know. 'great odds' != known.

        • Ah, yes ... the ever popular "really we don't ever know anything" children's philosophical argument. When the odds are 99.9999999% we say we know it. I know the sun will rise in the morning, but I could be wrong. I know if I drop a ball from the top of a building it will fall, but it may not happen this time. How do I really know for sure? I don't know for sure I exist. Still I say that I know I exist. This is what is meant by a fact. It is a fact that I exist, even though there exists the possibility, ever

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lurcher ( 88082 )

            "I know the sun will rise in the morning, but I could be wrong."

            But you would not know that after your first day on earth having only seen one sunrise. I agree its unlikely that life of some sort does not exist elsewhere, but that is not proof in a mathematical sense or evidence in a scientific sense.

            • I didn't say I posses a mathematical proof. What I said is that a basic understanding of math and physics fuels an intuitive understanding that, of course, we are not the only life in the universe. The odds against this planet being the only place where there is life are, excuse the pun, astronomical.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by lurcher ( 88082 )

                You did in effect say you had a mathematical proof when you posted "We know for certain there is life elsewhere." What other meaning could I put on "certain"?

                • I am certain that if I have all the peas in the world I can't add 2400 peas until 2400 more are grown and o obtainable. I cannot offer you a mathematical or agricultural proof of this, yet it is only through a basic understanding of math and agriculture that I may be certain of this fact. This is the kind of "unprovable cerainty" to which I refer.

                  • This is the kind of "unprovable cerainty" to which I refer.

                    Ain't no such thing in science, a subject which you clearly have no understanding of.

              • What I said is that a basic understanding of math and physics fuels an intuitive understanding that, of course, we are not the only life in the universe.

                Oh, so now you are finally reducing your
                claims of certainty to that of "an intuitive understanding".
                About time.

      • We know for certain there is life elsewhere.

        That is true if and only if we have actually found that life.
        Which we haven't.

    • But is it clear that all the chemical elements from the Periodic Table are all over the universe? And that they behave the same?

      • No it isn't clear. We haven't been all over the universe to find out.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        As far as can be observed, it seems to be at least a reasonable assumption for the laws of Physics which would then cause the laws of Chemistry to follow. But the observations are very, very partial, pretty imprecise and cover only a tiny part of the universe. So to any person with a clue, the answer is "no".

        • So we don't know the Sun is made of hydrogen and has helium in it because of its spectrum? After all, we've never been there.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Where did I say anything about "being there"? Oh, right, I did not.
            Also, do you have even the slightest idea how the distance to the sun compares to the size of the universe?

            • So the Periodic Table is local?

              • Possibly. How do you know it is not?

                • Then all observations of the universe beyond our local bunch of planets are suspect.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by gweihir ( 88907 )

                    Then all observations of the universe beyond our local bunch of planets are suspect.

                    They are. Even local observations are somewhat suspect. It still makes sense to assume basic Physics (and hence Chemistry) is the same all over the Universe, but the reason is that it will make it more obvious if we run into something observation to the contrary. But it is necessary to understand that it is an assumption, not an established fact.

  • We have no idea what life actually is (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Sunday September 01, 2019 @11:54AM (#59146624)

    We have no idea what life actually is. Yeah, we get to a molecular level, imagine the gray goo and yadda yadda, it comes alive.

    But... what gives that original molecule, or tangle of molecules, the desire to persist? That is, it seems to me, the core criteria for life. And there's a dichotomy - the underlying force which animates the first molecule, and the first molecule itself. The underlying force wishes to persist, and thus it imbues in the physical host the desire to reproduce and consume resources; and the desire in the physical host to persist as well.

    Don't look at viruses or prions - these things are probably much more sophisticated than the original molecule which came alive. Today's life forms have been honed by billions of years of evolution.

    What's my point? There might be an entire layer of the universe that is hiding in front of us - within us - and we haven't discovered it yet. So, who's to say what environment life will arise in. Ultrahot, ultracold, high pressure, low pressure - we have no idea about the true nature of life. We just have a rough idea of how life forms in an earth-like environment. A very rough idea.

    • The underlying force wishes to persist, and thus it imbues in the physical host the desire to reproduce

      A single molecule doesn't have any "desires". I just works as a catalyst to help create more copies of itself, similar to how a small ice crystal causes surrounding liquid water to conform to the same structure and grow the crystal. There is no "wish" or "desire", just atomic forces.

      • So, in one speculation, there could be a catalytic and/or crystalline structure. At what point does it go from inanimate to animate? UCSB has an interesting website where they receive questions and send curated questions to scientists. [ucsb.edu] Someone asked, "Is fire alive [ucsb.edu]" - and they launch into a discussion of what exactly it means to be alive. Khan Academy had a couple of interesting discussions ("What is life [khanacademy.org]" and "Are viruses alive or dead [khanacademy.org]"?) The summary is that it's not clear at the molecular level.

        What are

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by noodler ( 724788 )

          When though is it alive, versus simple molecular machinery? Which goes back to my point of "be careful about making blanket statements about where life can and cannot exist because we can't define it at the most basic levels."

          In my opinion something is alive when a mechanism involves and maybe more importantly, maintains a collection of information for dealing with events inside and outside of the mechanism.

          Fire would not be alive because it doesn't have specific structures that regulate it so that is maintained. The maintenance (the 'life') of fire is completely decided by external factors. Living cells, on the other hand, have many systems/mechanisms that help them maintain themselves and these mechanisms are maintained in th

    • Unless you're gonna dive off into some unknown "force" fantasy, the true nature of life is molecular, so you'll have to limit the environments to one, those that allow molecular movement and two, don't tear molecules apart faster than they can operate. We need to deal with tangible stuff here.

      • Unless you're gonna dive off into some unknown "force" fantasy, the true nature of life is molecular

        Maybe it's molecular, atomic, or subatomic. I have no idea, nor does anyone else it seems.

        Obviously, we are only familiar with the earth, one tiny speck of an environment in the universe. We have speculation about how life started in this environment - but even with that speculation, we have yet to fully define life at its earliest, simplest, most basic possible level. As a result, it seems a bit presumptuo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by noodler ( 724788 )

      But... what gives that original molecule, or tangle of molecules, the desire to persist?

      As far as we know, nothing.

      It's simply just so that the things that happen to persist, persist. There is no desire behind it. There is a filtering mechanism we call evolution . You're basically asking what gives the stones that don't fall through the sieve the desire to not fall through. The stones do't have a desire, they're just selected out by the sieve from the stuff that falls through.

      • I was looking at the Khan Academy requirements list for life. They are:
        1. Organization
        2. Metabolism
        3. Homeostasis
        4. Growth
        5. Reproduction
        6. Response [to stimuli]
        7. Evolution

        From the UCSB link (I pulled out additional pieces from the answers):
        1) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity of inheritance.
        2) Response to Stimuli
        3) Information gathering mechanism (e.g. DNA)

        Every one of these items is a component of the "desire to persist". Think of a tree data structure. "Desire to pers

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by noodler ( 724788 )
          Yes, well, i don't quite agree with all of those and in the end i think the containment and use of information is more basic than the things in this list.

          In some ways homeostasis is the closest to my definition but it doesn't define it in terms of information.

          Others, like metabolism, mostly serve to keep the information contained, or in other words, to maintain homeostasis.

          Reproduction is something a bit different i think, since if there was no reproduction we would never see anything like life in the f

  • One of Jerry Pournelle's planets, heavy gravity, big oceans and continents, and everything on it was more advanced than on earth. Even orcas had to hide in protected waters because in the open ocean they got ate by the real predators.

  • Other factors? Moon? Iron core? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mnemotronic ( 586021 ) <mnemotronic@@@gmail...com> on Sunday September 01, 2019 @12:17PM (#59146702) Homepage Journal
    I though Earth's rotating molten metal core generated the North/South magnetic fields and protected the planet from excessive solar radiation? There was a series on PBS that, I think, hypothesized that something happened to the core of Mars which caused it's protective magnetic field to collapse which permitted the solar winds to strip away any atmosphere it had at the time.

    Also, how important is a moon? It affects tides, but does it do anything else, like shield Earth from asteroids? Is it's gravity powerful enough to cause stress & strain on the Earth's mantle? And how important is it that Earth's moon is rotating at a rate that causes the same side to always face the Earth? In the overall cosmic game of odds, that seems like a low probability. Seems weird that "Earth has life. Earth has a moon that has same side always facing the planet". Yea, I know, coincidence / causality / causation.

    • And how important is it that Earth's moon is rotating at a rate that causes the same side to always face the Earth?

      That's something that will happen automatically. This article explains how : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      The basic idea is that the gravity of the Earth causes tidal effects on the Moon, distorting its shape, and causing tidal bulges to circle the lunar surface. The bulges on the surface act like handles for Earths gravity to pull on, and change the rotational speed until it matches the orbital speed.

  • "may have" (Score:3)

    by Darren Hiebert ( 626456 ) on Sunday September 01, 2019 @12:40PM (#59146748) Homepage

    What makes a study that concludes "may have" any better than a wild-ass guess?

    We have never even discovered any form of life anywhere off of this planet, so how does any responsible journalist, or researcher, conclude some other place "may have" a greater variety of what hasn't even been discovered in any form?!!

    And, while perusing the original article, I noticed at the bottom of the page the "Related Articles"—3 of 6 of whose titles contain the words "may reveal", "may protect", may "contain". What shitty clickbait journalism.

  • Life on Earth is not a passive recipient of its host planet's habitability. In the case of upwellings, these returns of the nutrients in the depths back to the surface, we have species like the salmon which feast in the oceans, but spawn in shallow freshwater streams, amidst the forest. This directly yields to oceanic nutrients feeding bears, and then in turn the surrounding trees. The scene of salmon spawning is also a showcase for a key ecological concept - the nutrient pump. The members of a function

  • So other species can flourish.

  • It's actually an interesting scientific question as to how factors that we think are conducive to life might differ on other exoplanets.

    However that's not getting us to the point of quantifying how 'habitable' a planet is.

  • All we have is n=1. n=1 in planet we visited with life. n=1 in solar system visited. Condition known on other planets : n=0. This study pretty much rank as wild speculation.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close