Life in the Universe
Author
Institution
Introduction
Having a clearer understanding of life in the universe has been one of the most fundamental journeys of many scientists. Life, in all its definitions, has been fascinating to many fields including religion, astronomy, philosophy, biology and even physicians among others. Of particular interest is its different forms, the different areas (and planets) in which it can be found, as well as the things on which it exists. Discoveries have been made pertaining to the existence of life, with each subsequent one discrediting previous thought pertaining to life or even supporting them. Questions, however, arise as to whether scientists are closer today than they were in the past to discovering life. While there may be quite a number of fundamental discoveries and developments in science and astronomy, it is evident that scientists are nowhere close to discovering life in which case it would be difficult for this feat to be accomplished in my lifetime.
In the recent times, there has been interest in the role of bacteria, carbon and water in life as it is currently understood to be. This is especially as to whether there is a possibility that life could exist without water and carbon. As Mark Power (classmate) there is a possibility as to the existence of a planet that is devoid of water but with larger life forms. He, however, thinks this is unlikely especially drawing from the current knowledge pertaining to the physical composition of all large animals in this planet. These animals have water making up a fundamental percentage of their bodies. He opines that the absence of water would necessitate that these animals incorporate an entirely different physiology from the one that is currently known. Mark quotes an article in the science daily where more than 20 species of microbes have been found to be existing in extreme conditions that are devoid of the things that scientists currently hold as fundamental for their existence. The soil in the slopes of Atacama region are seen as extremely uninhabitable as not only does it have no water but it is also extremely depleted of nutrients to the extent that the scientists could not detect the nitrogen levels (Lynch et al, 2012). In addition, the high-altitude environment experiences ultra-violet radiation that is twice as intense as that of a low-elevation altitude (Lynch et al, 2012). While it may be unclear how these microbes survive in this harsh condition, it undoubtedly raises questions about the commonly held notion as to the importance or necessity of water in the survival of all organisms. Michael Snow, in answering Mark Power’s question on whether earth-like conditions are necessary for the survival of large multicellular organisms, states that organisms may evolve so as to withstand the elements especially in instances where they have been exposed to such circumstances for long. This is especially considering that human species have undergone varied stages of evolution in an effort to adapt to their environments, in which case they can do it again, at least, in theory.
This notion seems to be supported by Tanner MacDonald, who quotes an article in Washington Post, which outlined a study done in 2010 on bacteria that lives in a Californian lake. Despite the fact that the arsenic (a highly poisonous substance) heavily pollutes the lake, scientists have discovered some species of bacteria that lives there (Kaufman, 2010). Interestingly, the bacteria swapped the toxic arsenic for phosphorus, as the examination of the bacteria’s DNA revealed. This pokes holes on the notion of phosphorus being one of the six fundamental blocks of life, as the discovery showed that arsenic can be used in its place and make a fundamental building block, as well (Kaufman, 2010). As the scientists note, the findings serve as a reminder that life may be much more flexible than it is imagined or assumed to be. It is also worth noting that the bacteria did not only replace a single useful element (phosphorus) with a another toxic one (arsenic), but that also have arsenic as a fundamental building block in their makeup. As much as they are yet to determine whether the arsenic existed in the bacteria right from the beginning or had replaced phosphorus as a form of adaptation, it is evident that quite a lot is yet to be known about life (Kaufman, 2010). In fact, the current knowledge seems to be flawed, with new discoveries discrediting it. It also changes the notion as to the things that could be examined in determining whether other parts of the universe have life as the six fundamental elements may be substituted with others making organisms live in areas where they were previously thought to be incapable of living. Ashley Saxton also explores the debate on what may be essential for survival of living things. While acknowledging that water supports the survival of “living’ organisms, she acknowledges that some forms of life survive without it. In essence, there may exist some other habitable areas that support some forms of life without water.
Needless to say, there is no consensus as to what life depends on or the things that may be termed as essential for the survival of life. Of course, the recent breakthroughs in science as the ones depicted above show that there is increased understanding as to the essentials of life. As much as they conflict previously held knowledge about the fundamentals of life, they add to the knowledge about the multiplicity of living organisms and their requirements. They expand the current knowledge on what may be the fundamentals for the existence of life in the universe. In essence, they cannot be seen as a reversion of the previously held notions or as rendering them inaccurate, rather they allow scientists to eliminate varied things that were thought as essential and circle around fewer things. However, they create the impression that even the commonly held knowledge pertaining to life may be built on sinking sand, in which case they can be disputed any time in the future as new discoveries are made. In any case, the recent discoveries do not only create doubts as to water and carbon as essentials of life but to all other elements as well (Karttunen, 2007). This means that rather than narrowing the field on the elements to examine through the elimination of these elements, the discoveries have actually expanded it and sent scientists to the drawing board as to the things that they should have been examining.
In addition, it is imperative that one takes into account the recent developments in discovering life especially in the outer space. A group of astronomers under the auspices of Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been looking for indicators that there exists intelligent life in the outer space (Seeds & Backman, 2011). In this endeavor, they make use of varied techniques with the most promising one being listening for any messages that are sent across the sky based on the assumptions that the extraterrestrial are trying to contact the people in planet earth (Karttunen, 2007). Currently, SETI is yet to get any radio signal to that effect, but scientists note that they have just started the search. In any case, there exists numerous radio wave frequencies to examine, as well as numerous galaxies (Seeds & Backman, 2011). However, it is encouraging to note that technology is becoming better and more enhanced than before, in which case it allows for the conduction of more sensitive searches. Scientists point out that the answer as to whether these extraterrestrial beings are sending signals should be known within about 25 years at least going by the progress made (Seeds & Backman, 2011). As much as the engineers are doing an incredible job of advancing signal processing and radio technology, there exists no way of telling whether there exists aliens out there, or even whether they are making any effort to contact us in planet earth (Wills & Wills, 2001). In essence, despite the technological advances, scientists are unsure as to exactly what they should be looking for and are left to make wild guesses and channeling efforts to them while hoping that they pay off in the long term (Karttunen, 2007). There, in fact, exists no guarantee that even after the 25 years there will be positive results, rather the scientists are simply hoping to get such waves, which would then allow for the exploration of the outer space and the conditions that favor life there (Wills & Wills, 2001). This creates doubts as to the hope that there will be discovery of life in the universe in the near future.
On the same note, there have been fundamental developments in the world of planets which have cast doubts as to any discovery about life in the universe. Until recently, scientists had only identified nine planets including Pluto, which was later downgraded from this status. However, there were discoveries of other planets that orbit other sun-like stars. Of course, this bred the knowledge pertaining to the existence of other planets (Anderson, 2013). It is worth noting that nearly 800 other planets have been found since 1995 with the numbers growing every week. Scientists opine that about half of all stars have planets, with the planets outnumbering the Milky Way’s 200 billion stars (Seeds & Backman, 2011). There is no knowledge as to the number of these worlds look like planet earth as the numbers run into millions and possibly billions (Anderson, 2013). This not only adds to the volumes of planets that must be examined to discover life but also makes it more complicated to know the fundamentals of life. Needless to say, if the fundamentals are different in varied places of planet earth, it is only logical to assume that they would be different between planet earth and other planets (Anderson, 2013). Unfortunately, the same paradigms that were used in looking for life in these areas cannot be entirely accurate as they have been found as flawed even in planet earth.
In conclusion, scientists have been fascinated and extremely interested in discovery of life, its nature and every aspect of it. As much as there are fundamental strides made in this respect, there is no indication that such a thing will be accomplished in my lifetime. This is especially considering that scientists are yet to determine what exactly they should be looking for both in planet earth and other planets. Their knowledge as to what the essentials of life are has been discredited by new discoveries. In addition, there have been new planets discovered in the recent times, which increases their volume of work. Despite technological advances, scientists are basing their experiments on hopes and aspersions especially with regard to determining whether extraterrestrial organisms are trying to create contact or send messages to planet earth.
References
Kaufman, M (2010). Bacteria stir debate about ‘shadow biosphere’. Washington Post. Retrieved 31st March 2013 from HYPERLINK “http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120203102.html” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120203102.html
Lynch, R.C., King, A.J., Farías, M.E., Sowell, P., Vitry, C & Schmidt, S.K (2012). The potential for microbial life in the highest elevation (>6000 m.a.s.l.) mineral soils of the Atacama region. Journal of Geophysical Research. Excerpt in Article “Unique Microbes Found in Extreme Environment”. Science Daily. Retrieved 31st March 2013 from HYPERLINK “http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120609152438.htm” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120609152438.htm
Karttunen, H. (2007). Fundamental astronomy. Berlin: Springer.
Seeds, M. A., & Backman, D. E. (2011). Foundations of astronomy. Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Wills, S., & Wills, S. R. (2001). Astronomy: Looking at the stars. Minneapolis, MN: Oliver Press.
Anderson, M. (2013). Pioneers in astronomy and space exploration. Chicago: Britannica Educational Pub.
