posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:51 AM
In my opinion, life outside of earth could be nearly anywhere.
Our current understanding of what life requires is limited to belief that all life must exist as we do. This is a constraint we ourselves have
developed, and I will show you why I think it is silly.
Let us step back and isolate ourselves first. Let us say that we haven't explored our planet. We catch rainwater to drink, so we have no lakes. To
us, life would only exist if it could move across land and was large enough for us to see, and would need temperatures to be similar to our current
habitat, say, a rainforest like area.
Next, we explore out and find a plain that is drier and more hot than our habitat. Now we realize that things can exist without dense foilage and
humidity. Without constant rain, and a wider temperature range between night and day as a desert would be.
Next, we explore a mountain. We find life in frozen areas we thought things could not survive. So we now pose a theory that any place that has land,
from a frozen area to a sweltering desert, can support life as we know it. Since we have not found a lake, river, or ocean yet, but, people have died
drowning in a large temporary puddle from a heavy rain, we also think that life could not exist underwater, for how could it possibly breath, move, or
survive in such a place.
Then we find lakes streams, rivers, and the ocean and all the life in it. We are amazed, and now we understand that somehow, life managed to exist in
such a place.
How many more discoveries must it take before we realize that life can exist nearly everywhere? We find life exists on an exponentially small scale
(amoeba, bacteria, etc.). We find life exists in the harshest enviroments like the vents on the ocean floor. In complete darkness. In toxic areas.
Just about anywhere on earth we thought was impossible, we still manage to find life.
So, why is it life must be carbon based, just because it is on Earth? We are on but a speck of dust compared to the universe. We haven't even left
our hut in our jungle.
What would you consider a lifeform that was composed of metallic sources? Would it be a machine to you, even if it lived, died, and gave birth the
same as what we call organic material based life? Even our own bodies require metals and rocks to sustain itself, although we call them vitamins and
minerals when we ingest them.
So, even if we haven't found evidence of life on our sibling planets and moons, to me, it doesn't negate the possibility that planetoids, regardless
of their environment, couldn't sustain life in a completely different way. Therefore, searching for life to me wouldn't mean just looking for
earth-like planets. Gravity could be next to nil, or far grander than we experience. Temperature ranges could exceed our ideas of reason. Energy
requirements (lack of sun or extra suns or proximity to it/them) are not a factor.
Yes, probability as far as our self-limited thought process, and it is a reasonable limitation for our limited knowledge of the universe, would be
searching for other carbon based life forms. What if most life does not follow our requirements?
To me, the sky is the limit, and since the sky is unlimited, so to are the possibilities.
Enough of that, the other possibility I see, other than life that we haven't found in our own solar system (whether or not they hide from us, though
not saying they exist), is that visitors could very well be from this planet itself.
This could be in two different ways.
One, a past civilization, seeing impending doom, left this planet with enough technology to sustain itself. It remains hidden because they evolved
differently and though this would be their home, they would no longer be considered native by the ones left behind that survived and forgotten them in
all but cave paintings and stories. They could have re-visited for resources and other various reasons, which could have added to our myths.
The other one I like, is that we were advanced and left the planet to explore. Trying to find similar places to our own. Over time, earthly
civilizations could have rose and fell many times. Our planet recycles itself, changes, and adaptation would also change the way we look over time.
If you take the things we find in coal and rock that points to possible advanced life, even millions of years ago, then too would these travelers have
adapted and changed. If they searched long enough, they may have even forgotten about their home star system. It could have changed in time, say, a
few moons destroyed and turned to rings around planets. A planet destroyed and the pieces dispersed and absorbed by the others, turned into comets,
etc. Their home planet changing through building mountains, land masses moving across oceans. Even if the system seemed similar, it could be so
different they may not even consider it being their home.
So, for me, 'ET' could be anywhere in any form. If we are visited, it could be life from this very planet.
I keep my mind open to near limitless ideas. I don't know what is out there, so how can I tell you what isn't? There is no evidence or proof that
supports or denies any possibility. Since most people can't even fathom the distance of 1 light year, let alone think about things billions of light
years away, there is no way I can allow science with such a limited understanding of our own planet dictate what is possible inconceivable distances
from us in all directions.
I am not worried what others believe. Most will believe what helps them sleep at night anyway. If someone wishes to believe that science has all the
answers, or believe we are the only life bearing planet out there, I shall not argue. I don't have proof otherwise, but I do have a sense of logic
that tells me otherwise. As long as the opposing view is discussed and not forced, I have no problems with it. I would argue that we are not that
intelligent ourselves, and possibly some other life on this planet may very well be more intelligent than humans. We just make better use of tools,
even if it is for the worse.