Moontanman Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Most people think of the Earth as paradise for life, so much life and so diverse, and when you look at the planets of the solar system all you see is planets totally hostile to life. But is the Earth really all that perfect or is the Earth the equivalent of a desert with a mere shadow of the life that would be possible with more of everything the Earth already has. Life in the desert scrub land of the South West US has an amazing variety, if you had never seen a tropical rain forest or anything but those desert scrub lands you might come to the conclusion that those scrub lands are perfect for life, from giant cacti to annual flowers that carpet the landscape in color this "scrub land" can be full of life and if you only had this place as an example of an ecosystem you might think too much water would be a bad thing since many desert plants are killed by too much water. But lets apply this to a planet... Could another planet be better than the Earth for life? Even complex life? Is the Earth as good as a planet can be for life? (within natural limits) Or is life on Earth adapted to and limited by the Earth? Lots of parameters to play with but what would result in the Earth being even more hospitable to Life than it already is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Intelligent life would have evolved more rapidly and destroyed the biosphere at an earlier stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I am not sure how we should understand "perfect", especially as we have no other ecosystem to compare with ours. Earth is suitable for life, maybe we cannot really say more than that. However, life does seem to be everywhere on Earth and that is wonderful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 If we had a thicker atmosphere to stabilize the temperature better, maybe a little further out from the sun to cool it a little, then it would be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Is the Earth perfect for life? Yes. I think it is safe to say that, indeed, the earth is perfect for earth-based life. Life has adapted to the earth, so it would be more fair to say that earth-based life is perfect for the earth, rather than the other way around. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) Is the Earth perfect for life? Yes. I think it is safe to say that, indeed, the earth is perfect for earth-based life. Life has adapted to the earth, so it would be more fair to say that earth-based life is perfect for the earth, rather than the other way around. How about the idea that once Life got a sufficient foothold on Earth it started to adapt its surroundings (including the atmosphere) to suit itself better and thus makes it seem almost perfect now about 3 billion years later since it emerged ie it's not all passive adaptation to a changing environment; there is active homeostatic management going on by Life as a collective? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld Edited May 13, 2011 by StringJunky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 Intelligent life would have evolved more rapidly and destroyed the biosphere at an earlier stage. I see no reason to assume that life and or evolution has a tendency to evolve intelligent life or to have any real direction. If we had a thicker atmosphere to stabilize the temperature better, maybe a little further out from the sun to cool it a little, then it would be perfect. Yes, that is what I am getting at, can we conceive of conditions being better than they are here on the Earth, would a thicker atmosphere do it alone or are there other things that could be better? How about the idea that once Life got a sufficient foothold on Earth it started to adapt its surroundings (including the atmosphere) to suit itself better and thus makes it seem almost perfect now about 3 billion years later since it emerged ie it's not all passive adaptation to a changing environment; there is active homeostatic management going on by Life as a collective? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld That is a very good analogy but is there a limit to what this "active homeostatic management" can do with the limited resources of the Earth that it would do better with more "resources"? What would those resources be, or what resource would be the limiting factor to life on the Earth might be a better way to put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light Storm Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Is the Earth perfect for life? Yes. I think it is safe to say that, indeed, the earth is perfect for earth-based life. Life has adapted to the earth, so it would be more fair to say that earth-based life is perfect for the earth, rather than the other way around. I second this statement... Our atmosphere is basically acid to anything without millions of years of evolution. Also the Earth is not what it once was for the development of new species. Like the foundation of a new city, in the beginning there must have been a huge race and fast development in new species and evolutionary leaps with each new generation. I know in a single human life, where not going to see much change in the environment around us, but it feels like life is not striving forward like it did in Jurassic times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) That is a very good analogy but is there a limit to what this "active homeostatic management" can do with the limited resources of the Earth that it would do better with more "resources"? What would those resources be, or what resource would be the limiting factor to life on the Earth might be a better way to put it. One of the key resources that helps to maintain the homeostasis is the Earth's ice supply and possibly the final limiting factor. If you put an ice cube in a glass of water the temperature of the water will remain stable 'til it all melts then it will rise to ambient temperature. As long as the Earth's ice supply is available to act as a buffer to temperature rises and the heat absorption does not exceed the the total specific heat capacity of all the globally significant available ice homeostasis will help to be maintained...ice also has the property of reflecting warming radiation away from a its surface....so total surface area of ice is probably important too. If the colder seas at the more northerly and southerly extremes become too warm through loss of ice this will impact on the population of certain types of oceanic algae which produce dimethyl sulphide which is a significant nucleating particle in the formation of solar-reflecting rain clouds thus contributing to an additional negative effect on the Earth's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo. http://saga.pmel.noaa.gov/review/dms_climate.html Edited May 13, 2011 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) Great info stringjunky, feed back loops are a big part of why the Earth is the way it is but how does the idea of ice being part of the feed back account for long periods of time with no ice caps at all? I second this statement... Our atmosphere is basically acid to anything without millions of years of evolution. Our atmosphere is also bad for many things with billions of years of evolution as well, your statement makes no sense. Also the Earth is not what it once was for the development of new species. Like the foundation of a new city, in the beginning there must have been a huge race and fast development in new species and evolutionary leaps with each new generation. Can you back that up or is it this another one of your misrepresentations of reality? I know in a single human life, where not going to see much change in the environment around us, but it feels like life is not striving forward like it did in Jurassic times. It feels like? What does this have to do with the OP? Edited May 13, 2011 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Is the Earth perfect for life? Yes. I think it is safe to say that, indeed, the earth is perfect for earth-based life. Life has adapted to the earth, so it would be more fair to say that earth-based life is perfect for the earth, rather than the other way around. Indeed. Earth is perfect for life evolved on Earth just as a hole is a perfect fit for the puddle which resides in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 Indeed. Earth is perfect for life evolved on Earth just as a hole is a perfect fit for the puddle which resides in it. Yes, i do understand that concept, life in the desert seems to be perfectly suited for life in the desert but we can imagine a habitat less restrictions that would be better for life in general even if it wouldn't be better for desert life. Could the puddle be deeper or broader to hold more life? What could be changed to allow life to proliferate even better than current conditions. Realitycheck's idea of more air pressure seems like a good start, would that result in more life all by it's self? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyMcC Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) I think it is true to say that there was a time when the earth was in a very good state for the formation of life. Once life was underway it developed and evolved to make the best of what was available. As long as conditions on earth were good enough to support life then (IMO) life continued to adapt to the conditions. This makes the conditions seem perfect for life - but perhaps it is life that has evolved to perfectly fit the conditions? I think different conditions would have had a great effect on the development of life forms. Edited May 13, 2011 by TonyMcC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 One thing that limits life on the Earth is the availability of Nitrogen in the form of nitrates. Nitrogen fixing bacteria are slow and limited, we have to make huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizers to help our crop plants grow. Would a planet with a higher atmospheric pressure (as suggested by realitycheck) allow for more efficient nitrogen fixation and more life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now