
The last survivors of the end of the world - Serene
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/224-news-2013/2299-the-last-survivors-of-the-end-of-the-world
======
fragsworth
I don't understand why everyone immediately dismisses the possibility of
"life" on planets like Jupiter, Venus, and even the Sun.

We have an extremely limited understanding of these places. We barely have an
inkling of how elements and compounds behave in such
temperatures/pressures/environments, particularly with respect to each other.

Even on Earth, places we consider to be "harsh" environments are often found
to be thriving with life.

~~~
sktrdie
What kind of "life" would be possible on the Sun? I don't think basic life
form - even the rawest form you can think of - can survive at those
temperatures. It's hostile even to complex chemistry.

"harsh" environments on Earth, such as the depths of the oceans, are still
quite life-friendly compared to places like the Sun, Venus or Jupiter.

Nobody is dismissing the possibility of life on the Sun, Venus or Jupiter...
it's just _very_ unlikely. I would personally rate more life-friendly places
such as Europa or Titan. The oceans of Europa could be thriving with sea-life
and it's so exciting to have that possibility right in our own solar system.

~~~
phaemon
> What kind of "life" would be possible on the Sun?

Life is a kind of pattern that can replicate itself in a certain environment.
We usually consider it as chemical reproduction but why should it be. There's
more energy in stars and complex magnetic structures. Who's to say that over
billions of years some of them couldn't become replicating?

~~~
fragsworth
Right, the problem is people give life the arbitrary prerequisite of being "in
a solid/liquid state".

All you need is an energy source and a structure that can absorb the energy
and contain enough information to reproduce. It can be made of anything and on
any time scale.

------
maxharris
This article is based on the assumption that we won't figure out a way to
manage and/or refuel the sun, even in a _billion_ years.

Given the incredible technological progress since the industrial revolution
(cooking by fire to walking on the moon and nuclear power in under two
centuries), I am highly skeptical of this assumption.

The only things that can stop us are regressions to the primitive, of which I
know of only two forms: the first is belief in the supernatural and its
primacy as the basis of abstract thought. The second is nihilistic hatred of
man and progress masked as practical necessity and love of nature.

I stand for life, and for progress. I am proud, and you should be, too.
Whatever challenges nature holds in store for us, we can figure it out!

~~~
phaemon
> (cooking by fire to walking on the moon and nuclear power in under two
> centuries),

I really don't know what to make of this. You surely can't think that "cooking
by fire" was the height of technological sophistication in the year 1813?

~~~
herval
I'm pretty sure he meant 2 thousand years (obviously, not two _centuries_ )...
but I'm not sure what to make of your comment.

~~~
phaemon
Really? You think that saying "cooking by fire was the height of technology
2000 years ago" is a _reasonable_ statement?

My comment is wondering what he really meant; your explanation makes him sound
like an idiot, frankly.

~~~
maxharris
Sorry guys, I meant "cooking over an open fire." Setting campfire smores and
charcoal grills aside, this is a pretty primitive way of cooking. If you came
from a place where this was your only option for heating your food, you'd be
astounded at the cleanliness and ease provided by any modern gas or electric
range.

For most of human history, the vast majority of people cooked their food over
open fires. Cooking with anything more advanced is an aspect of modern living
that is only a very recent development, especially given that the time scale I
was addressing is a _billion_ years long.

------
tehwalrus
presumably he has guessed the path evolution will take? It seems rather far
fetched to be able to predict something so uncertain and dependent on e.g.
anthropomorphic behaviour (including the behaviour of whatever we evolve
into), geology, climate, sun, solar system events, etc.

~~~
ams6110
Evolution requires natural selection pressure, which we've largely eliminated.
I don't think our species will evolve much more unless we deliberately start
selectively breeding.

~~~
yaks_hairbrush
Evolution requires selection pressure, whether natural or otherwise.

And there's still selection pressure from so many sources. Partial list: Some
people die before they reach breeding age, some people refuse to have
children, some people are born unable to have children, some people have
children with dead-beat spouses, some people are simply incapable of caring
properly for kids, some people are prohibitively undesirable as mates, and so
on.

------
theorique
Evolution itself is evolving.

