200
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
200 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
60284 readers
3422 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I always like when people talk about potentially habitable exoplanets. It's like "this planet is not literally on fire or frozen solid, and it's atmosphere is 80% carbon dioxide with a measly 20% hydrochloric acid". Like we've got a planet here that we're struggling to not kill ourselves on from doubling the Co2 from 250 ppm to 500 ppm. We're never getting to that other planet, bro. If we were gonna, solving climate change would be trivial by comparison.
Nobody is seriously looking for 'habitable' planets because they expect humanity will someday inhabit them — this is all about the hunt for other life out there in the universe.
To astronomers, "habitable" just means that the planet gets to correct amount of energy from its star that liquid water could potentially exist on its surface. Liquid water may not actually be a requirement for life, but since we only have a single data point to work from, it makes sense to look for the preconditions of the kind of life we're familiar with on earth, of which liquid water is a big one. (Another is carbon chemistry, so finding lots of atmospheric carbon isn't necessarily a bad thing when searching for other life out there.)