Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 30 2015, @03:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the "X"-marks-the-spot dept.

Life probably arose on Earth some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, but all records of the momentous event have vanished—here on the Blue Marble, at least. Traces of our lost origin story might instead be buried on the Moon, according to new research published in the journal Astrobiology.

“Unlike the Earth, the Moon has been geologically quiet for billions of years, meaning there is a good chance these organic and volatile records remain relatively intact,” Richard Matthewman, the study’s lead author, told me.

Last summer, scientists concluded that escaped chunks of Earth could have brought fossil microbes to the Moon. But whether such critters could then be preserved for eons, creating a useful archive of early Earth life, remained unknown. Now we have evidence that they can. Matthewman and colleagues discovered that organic molecules can remain intact, possibly for a very long time, if they get trapped beneath ancient lunar lava flows.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-origins-of-life-could-be-buried-on-the-moon?

[Abstract]: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2014.1217

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 30 2015, @06:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 30 2015, @06:09AM (#139384)

    If it took millions of years to restart civilisation, it wouldn't be our civilisation, nor would those who restarted it be us. In millions of years, evolution would have gone on and the people would likely no longer be human.

    That said, how hard do you think it is to grow food? Not particularly hard, in temperate climates. We're not going to forget that, and we're not going to forget how to build things.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday January 30 2015, @09:59AM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday January 30 2015, @09:59AM (#139424) Journal

    Correct. Our current civilisation went from bashing rocks together to supercolliders in just a few tens of thousands of years, we won't need millions to restart - especially when you consider that will be books, texts and artefacts to help relearn what was lost. Also, they will benefit from all the mining that we've done, pulling valuable elements up from the depths, purifying them and leaving them on the surface in the form of goods and machines and so on.

    THe main problem thay are likely to face is fuel - we've burned up all the easy to get coal and oil and gas. Kick-starting civilisation without a ready power supply would be challenging.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 30 2015, @01:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 30 2015, @01:32PM (#139458)

      Also, they will benefit from all the mining that we've done, pulling valuable elements up from the depths, purifying them and leaving them on the surface

      Yes, all that wonderful lead!

    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday January 30 2015, @02:32PM

      by tibman (134) on Friday January 30 2015, @02:32PM (#139488)

      Coal/Oil/Gas comes after burning plants (for steam) and hydro. So they'll be able to generate electricity just fine but they'll lack a high density (and portable) energy source. In the Ringworld series there were primitive cars that ran on biofuels (grasses i think). It would be interesting to see how a society develops without fossil fuels.

      I'm not excusing our society from extracting all the easy to get fossil fuels though.

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 30 2015, @06:58PM

        by khallow (3766) on Friday January 30 2015, @06:58PM (#139592) Journal

        but they'll lack a high density (and portable) energy source

        There's always oil and its equivalents like biofuels and coal-based synthetic fuel.

        I'm not excusing our society from extracting all the easy to get fossil fuels though.

        I sure am though. There's clearly not much we could do with fossil fuels that we just leave in the ground.

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday January 30 2015, @07:49PM

          by tibman (134) on Friday January 30 2015, @07:49PM (#139614)

          I doubt a smoker would smoke 800 cigarettes in a day because it would be a waste to leave them in the cupboard : )

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 30 2015, @07:57PM

            by khallow (3766) on Friday January 30 2015, @07:57PM (#139618) Journal

            I doubt a smoker would smoke 800 cigarettes in a day because it would be a waste to leave them in the cupboard : )

            Oil consumption scales better than individual cigarette consumption does.

            • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday January 30 2015, @08:10PM

              by tibman (134) on Friday January 30 2015, @08:10PM (#139625)

              Agreed. Current oil based problems are still very localized. Smog and acid rain for example.

              --
              SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.