SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hollywood films and science fiction literature fuel the belief that aliens are monster-like beings, who are very different to humans. But new research suggests that we could have more in common with our extra-terrestrial neighbours, than initially thought.
In a new study published in the International Journal of Astrobiology scientists from the University of Oxford show for the first time how evolutionary theory can be used to support alien predictions and better understand their behaviour. They show that aliens are potentially shaped by the same processes and mechanisms that shaped humans, such as natural selection.
The theory supports the argument that foreign life forms undergo natural selection, and are like us, evolving to be fitter and stronger over time.
[...] The paper also makes specific predictions about the biological make-up of complex aliens, and offers a degree of insight as to what they might look like.
[...] 'There are potentially hundreds of thousands of habitable planets in our galaxy alone. We can't say whether or not we're alone on Earth, but we have taken a small step forward in answering, if we're not alone, what our neighbours are like.'
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-31-aliens-may-be-more-us-we-think
[Also Covered By]: phys.org
Darwin's aliens (open, DOI: 10.1017/S1473550417000362) (DX)
Evolutionary exobiology: towards the qualitative assessment of biological potential on exoplanets (DOI: 10.1017/S1473550417000349) (DX)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:04AM (8 children)
I'm sorry, I don't see the attraction of the Oort Cloud for colonization unless you really want to get away from the inner system for some reason (e.g., the Alliance controls it with an iron fist).
First of all, assuming we can make a reliable fusion reactor, you need fuel for it. That usually means deteurium, He3, etc., not just H2 hydrogen. Stars can get away with simple elemental hydrogen because they have enormous mass and use that to force fusion. The fuel we'd need isn't that abundant, though there is supposedly a bunch of He3 on the moon. Of course, it's there because of the radiation from the Sun, so you're not going to find it in the Oort cloud. So where do you think fuel to keep these colonies going is going to come from?
Second, life in the Oort cloud would have little appeal outside your closed habitat. There's very little light that far from the Sun, so the views are going to suck. You can just stay in your closed habitat, but why bother going all the way to the Oort cloud for that? It's much easier to build colonies closer to the Earth, or even in space.
The simple fact is, if we have the tech to make closed habitats, the easiest thing to do will be to build large free-floating stations in some orbit not far from Earth, spin them for artificial gravity, and collect energy from the Sun. There's plenty of resources right here, on the Moon and nearby planets, or in the asteroid belt, or in asteroids that stay in or venture through the inner system. Radiation from the Sun is a problem, but in the Oort cloud cosmic radiation will be a problem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:28AM
there is supposedly a bunch of He3 on the moon. Of course, it's there because of the radiation from the Sun, so you're not going to find it in the Oort cloud.
Helium-3 is primordial. The Sun is making helium-4, not helium-3. The tiny amount that arrives on the Moon via the solar wind is offset by what solar heat drives off.The outer planets ought to have more helium-3 than the Moon does. They can retain it more readily because they are cold. [deepdyve.com]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:58AM (3 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:25AM
a good chance that many of them won't have all that many volatiles
Why would that be?
There was a story the other day [soylentnews.org] about the discovery of water ice on Ceres, which lies between Mars and Jupiter. Comets, which spend much of their time in th eouter Solar System, have substantial volatiles. I would expect the general trend to be the farther from the Sun, the more volatiles.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 02 2017, @01:09PM
Pluto is a pretty nice lump of ice and dust to work with, and it's not a planet because there are so many other Oortian objects out there of similar and larger mass.
No, they're not close together, but that isn't such a bad thing. The resources on Pluto should support a sizeable colony, say 100K residents, maybe much more if fusion fuel is abundant.
My main point is: we're using up the third rock, and we're all stuck here together. As a long term strategy, I'd rather have 7 billion humans spread across 7000 different colonies in the Oort clouds of 100 nearby stars, instead of 7 billion humans stuck on a single rock. It might take months, years, or lifetimes to travel between colonies, which should give the colonies opportunity to diversify, instead of homogenizing.
In my travels, I have enjoyed much more visiting places with different languages, cultures and foods, the ubiquitous McDonalds? not so much.
And, while physical visitation is not going to be easy, or even practical for most residents, light speed communication should work quite well.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:54AM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 02 2017, @01:48PM (2 children)
As for isotopes, while we are shying away from the endeavor, we've been capable of manufacturing all kinds of isotopes for 60+ years. Not saying that our current practices are efficient, or practical, but with practice they should improve. And, as for what raw materials exist in the Oort, I doubt we have even a fraction of an idea of what we could find there.
As for environments, yeah - tropical beaches will be in short supply, but with your own sun(s) and lots of water if a tropical beach is the priority, one should be manufacturable in a lifetime or less, which is a heck of a lot faster than they happen on Earth.
One HUGE advantage in the Oort is the lack of solar radiation, so radiation shielding is less of a requirement - not that radiation shielding at Earth's distance from the sun is impossible, but it is a big deal, and will be a similar (often harder) problem in the liquid water zone around other stars.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:56PM (1 child)
As for isotopes, while we are shying away from the endeavor, we've been capable of manufacturing all kinds of isotopes for 60+ years.
Using energy to manufacture isotopes to fuel reactors to create energy isn't going to work. We already can't figure out how to make fusion reactors energy-positive, even when the isotopes are a given. You could create the isotopes in the inner system using solar energy (like how they're naturally created on the Moon), and then transport them to the Oort cloud to fuel the reactors, but if you're going to do that, why not just stay in the inner system?
And, as for what raw materials exist in the Oort, I doubt we have even a fraction of an idea of what we could find there.
We haven't even bothered doing much serious investigation on mining raw materials here in the inner system or the asteroid belt. You want to skip all that and go way out to the Oort cloud, where there's probably far less total volume of material, and no apparent source of energy?
As for environments, yeah - tropical beaches will be in short supply, but with your own sun(s) and lots of water if a tropical beach is the priority, one should be manufacturable in a lifetime or less, which is a heck of a lot faster than they happen on Earth.
If you can manufacture artificial environments like that, why do you need to go to the Oort cloud? You can keep your space habitats here in the inner system.
One HUGE advantage in the Oort is the lack of solar radiation, so radiation shielding is less of a requirement
Except (IIRC) cosmic radiation is a much bigger deal in the Oort cloud because you don't have the Sun's magnetic field protecting you. You're going to need shielding wherever you go.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:19PM
So, I think you misunderstand me - I'm not saying we skip the inner system, I'm saying that's not where we ultimately end up.
Of course we'll need to practice asteroid mining before we can venture beyond Neptune to do things there, but the better and better we get at living independent of Earth support, the more we will be able to go anywhere cold and make it warm. Much harder to go somewhere too hot and keep it cool.
Cosmic radiation is a thing, and the Sun's field is a protection, but cosmic radiation is much less "pulsey" than solar storms - once you've got the cosmic radiation tamed to an acceptable level, you should be able to run much longer between worrisome events. I think the Apollo missions all had solar flare abort contingencies, and the probability of needing to do one was pretty high on a mission that just lasted a few days.
The bigger picture of the Oort cloud is that it's more of a cosmic commodity, and if you're talking about what kind of advanced aliens you might encounter, odds are that they will be coming from the commodity resources, not rare and special rocks.
🌻🌻 [google.com]