Slashdot Mirror


Hints of Life Found On Saturn's Moon Titan

Calopteryx writes "New Scientist reports that in 2005, researchers predicted two potential signatures of life on Titan. Now, thanks to research done with the help of the Cassini spacecraft, both have been seen, although non-biological chemical reactions could also be behind the observations. NASA's writeup has further details: 'One key finding comes from a paper online now in the journal Icarus [abstract] that shows hydrogen molecules flowing down through Titan's atmosphere and disappearing at the surface. Another paper online now in the Journal of Geophysical Research maps hydrocarbons on the Titan surface and finds a lack of acetylene. This lack of acetylene is important because that chemical would likely be the best energy source for a methane-based life on Titan, said Chris McKay, an astrobiologist at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., who proposed a set of conditions necessary for this kind of methane-based life on Titan in 2005. One interpretation of the acetylene data is that the hydrocarbon is being consumed as food. But McKay said the flow of hydrogen is even more critical because all of their proposed mechanisms involved the consumption of hydrogen.'"

227 comments

  1. Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    two potential signatures of life on Titan

    Nice.... I still have a chance.

    1. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a date? To discover the life yourself? To find additional signatures of life? To clarify your statement?

    2. Re:Nice... by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      Going to make women think twice before they say, "Not even if you were the last man on earth!"

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
  2. Oh crap by Parlett316 · · Score: 1

    I hope the Silver Surfer will keep him from blowing up Earth!

    1. Re:Oh crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Swing and a miss...

    2. Re:Oh crap by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Silver Surfer won't keep him from it... in fact from /.'s earlier posting Guatemalan Sink Hole. The Silver Surfer is already helping to destroy the earth.

      Come on now folks, I know I'm not the only one that thought that when I saw the pic.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Oh crap by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Why do you people keep following me around and photographing where I live?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  3. I smell a movie... by stakovahflow · · Score: 1

    Oh, it's been done: Titan A.E.

    Slow day here, too...

    --Stak

    --
    Holy happy hippy crap!
    1. Re:I smell a movie... by RevWaldo · · Score: 1, Funny

      With methane-based life forms, that's probably an understatement.

      .

    2. Re:I smell a movie... by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Methane itself is odorless. I suppose you could be referring to the aromatic compounds that methane-based life might excrete. You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts joke. Yeah, imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    3. Re:I smell a movie... by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Wow. This short science fiction story may possibly be the fastest in the history of science fiction to become obsolete!

    4. Re:I smell a movie... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts joke.

      Obviously. Who ever heard of an -expensive- methane fart?

    5. Re:I smell a movie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!

      Ummm... Titan?

    6. Re:I smell a movie... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts

      "Hey--pull my pseudopod!"

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    7. Re:I smell a movie... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      You're probably just going for the cheap methane is farts joke.

      Obviously. Who ever heard of an -expensive- methane fart?

      Apparently someone hasn't tried caviar.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  4. I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Vandil+X · · Score: 1

    NASA routinely crashes its space probes after their extended missions to prevent any sort of contamination to possible life forms indigenous to the celestial bodies in the area.

    I wonder if the Huygens probe's plunge to the surface may have introduced contaminants to Titan's "biosphere".

    That would kind of suck. And now we'll never know, since future visits could very well detect readings caused/contaminated by Huygens.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    1. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It sounded like it was referring to heretofore unknown kinds of life that use completely different chemical processes than we see on earth, with the possible exception of really weird stuff that you find at the bottom of the ocean. Nothing that would have gotten onto our probe, in any case.

    2. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you misunderstand. The mechanisms that would cause life to consume the substances that are 'missing' are totally alien to life as we know it, but fit the model for methane based life very well. It could well be that there are non-biological chemical processes doing it, but the odds of it being from any contamination from Huygens is astronomically remote. Hugyens was also very, very carefully sterilized. Granted, a microbe or two might have made it to Titan, where it would most likely die rather than reproduce.

      I do see your point and we need to continue to be careful, but I see nothing in these findings that makes the Hugyens discussion at all relevant to this story.

    3. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Not only the impact of Huygens or any future probe would be miniscule - with certainly quite different chemistries of Earth life and any possible Titan life, plus with very precise list of probe components and "payload", there should be little chance of confusion...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

      I must be misinterpreting your comment. Can you explain how crashing a probe into a celestial body has LESS contamination risk than just letting it drift off into the void?

    5. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by butterflysrage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be fairly easy to tell earth based contamination from native stuff. For starters, I'm not aware of any bacterium that you would find on the surface of the earth that eats hydrocarbons in that way and can live in those conditions. Below the artic ice? maybe... but in a clean room in texas? not likely.

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    6. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Vekseid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Breathing hydrogen basically works in the opposite direction of terrestrial biochemistry. The proposed organisms are breathing hydrogen and presumably fixing it to something (say, oxides they've eaten) rather than the other way around as for Earth life.

      And even if it was possible, Huygens could not have contaminated things to such a degree as to affect widespread atmospheric phenomenon.

    7. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by sunspot42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The probe was sterilized, if I recall correctly. So it shouldn't be an issue.

      Keep in mind that in the long history of the solar system it's likely that material blasted off the earth by an impact event or events has made its way to the surface of Titan. So Titan may have already been contaminated with life from earth.

    8. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a pretty good suspicion that most life on Earth, even the extremophiles, would have a rather hard time living on Titan. The temperatures are extremely low, the solar energy and even Saturn's energy are much less combined than on Earth. The kind of biochemistry would be quite different than found here. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, but I think a planet like Mars would be far more likely to be able to harbor certain hardy organisms from Earth than a place like Titan. My understanding is that on a world like Titan, the solvent would be something like ammonia or an ammonia-water mixture, so we'd see considerably different organic chemistry that would likely kill of anything we left behind in a really big hurry.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Yup. And BTW the "seas" (lakes?) on Titan seem to be methane-ethane; so that's probably the main solvent. I think we use comparable chemicals for very low level disinfection...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by jgagnon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unless we've unwittingly invented terraforming? :p

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    11. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Galileo was crashed into Jupiter to prevent contamination of Europa, the idea being that it would crush and burn and never escape.

    12. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Carrying enough propellant to escape orbit again is much heavier than carrying enough to crash into something with gravity assist.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    13. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by owlstead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easy, drifting anything into the void contaminates the void.

    14. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by radtea · · Score: 1

      I wonder if NASA has been routinely sterilizing soft landers for decades to avoid exactly the kind of thing you are wondering about.

      I wonder if it might be possible to tell the difference between Earth-based contaminants and indigenous lifeforms by biochemical and (in the extremely improbable case of biochemical similarity) genetic analysis.

      I wonder if it's possible to post questions on /. without knowing the first thing about a topic.

      I wonder what I'll have for dinner.

      I wonder where my socks are.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    15. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by asukasoryu · · Score: 1

      They found those shrimp in Antarctica. There's deep ocean creatures that live without the sun, at low temperature, and high pressure. It doesn't seem too unlikely that Titan could support some kind of life. The tricky part will be to figure out how it got there.

      --
      There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    16. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Informative

      I must be misinterpreting your comment. Can you explain how crashing a probe into a celestial body has LESS contamination risk than just letting it drift off into the void?

      Generally, they crash it into a celestial body that has no capability to support life and, such as the case of Jupiter, is hostile to the biological processes of what could possibly contaminate it.

      No life from Earth will survive in Jupiter's atmosphere. The pressure is... extreme beyond that of the extreme on Earth.

      The pressure there would be 10,000 times greater than the pressure at the deepest point in Earth's ocean. 10,000,000 Earth Atmospheres compared to 1,000 in the Marianas Trench.

      Then you have the temperature. The hottest spot on Earth (the core) is about 7300K. On the liquid 'surface' of Jupiter, it is 10,000k. The most extreme of the thermophiles on Earth live in an area less than 400k. The core of Jupiter is hotter than the surface of the Sun.

      If you find me something that can survive 10,000k temperatures and 10 million atmospheres I'd bow down to my new overlord.
       

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    17. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      As someone who works for a company that subcontracts planetary instruments to NASA, the requirements im posed by NASA that you have to follow to prevent contamination are extreme to say the least.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    18. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it uses DNA or RNA (quite unlikely) then I guess that contamination is possible. But since we'd want to totally sequence whatever replicator molecule it used, it would be reasonably easy to determine whether contamination is even a reasonable hypothesis.

      Remember, all life on this planet is related to a measurable degree. If it's related, then we can figure out what it's most closely related to, and how long ago it diverged. (Remember, when the proto-moon collided with the earth it quite likely emitted fragments that went that far. But we could measure even that distant a relationship, albeit with less certainty.)

      But it's most likely that whatever molecule it uses for a replicator would be something not related to our nucleic acids. For one thing, the major solvents appear to be non-polar rather than polar, so anything water-based would be insoluble, where things that are lipid based would tend to be soluble. Also, the reaction rate is very temperature dependent, so it would be probable that the major chemicals of life on Titan would be unstable at STP (standard temperature and pressure).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Plekto · · Score: 1

      The main reason they sterilize their probes is to get "cleaner" data and no risk of contamination of future probe readings. After all, one cell is all they need to find. Any false-positive will be a disaster that they'd never live down.

    20. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Life doesn't have to "get" there. If the chemistry is right, it will start itself.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    21. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your socks are right by the laundry hamper where you left them. And, we're having spaghetti for dinner tonight. When you come to dinner please bring any dirty dishes and empty sodas from the basement up with you. Also, I'm going to wash a load of laundry tonight, so if you want something clean to wear to bed, don't forget to put your Ewok pajamas in the hamper.
      Love,
      Mom

    22. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by DM9290 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The main reason they sterilize their probes is to get "cleaner" data and no risk of contamination of future probe readings. After all, one cell is all they need to find. Any false-positive will be a disaster that they'd never live down.

      not to mention contaminating other components of the same probe.

      at least the discovery that earth life flourished on a celestial body would be scientifically interesting. A space probe that did nothing but detect that it was self-contaminated prior to launch and can't provide useful data would be a total failure.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    23. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by infinitelink · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I don't think his is a bad point. First off, we DON'T understand the metabolisms of most microbes on earth: most CAN'T be cultured in a lab because of this, experimented with, etc. etc.: only a little subset of the entire known microbial biota are even available for us to research. Beyond this, however, the known range of things that microbes can eat is expanding beyond our wildest imaginings: and not just on the bottom of oceans. That's why we now have microbes to use to eat oil spills, nuclear waste, and even metals (ummm....iron and steal, yum!). Not kidding about the bacteria that eat metals, by the way, which incidentally...DO IT BY HYDROGEN AND ELECTRON EXCHANGES. There's all sorts of stuff that one can tell you haven't even considered from the comment you just made: you need to do more dreaming "dream[er]...".

      P.S. bacteria have survived in the vaccum of space on the moon, so "[they] would most likely die" is also not a very informed statement. I don't mean to be too insulting here, just very frank about the state of knowledge on these things vs. what you wrote: that is rose to "5, Insightful" just demanded the bio nerd in me to respond.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    24. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by infinitelink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I need to mention that the microbes known no earth, with all their various metabolisms, sometimes seem as though they really are from separate planets. That said, enver underestimate their abilities to swap genetic material and re-synthesize their machineries for different environments. Knowing this, "there should be little chance of confusion" isn't so reassuring: it already is just with the "earth" based life, even trying to figure out whether this or that is related to that or the other, where such and such came from, etc. (the so-called maps of microbial relationships are extremely pick-and-choosy, subjectively prioritizing one or another criterium over others depending on the values of the researchers, and often more in favor of various formulations of theories instead of the barest and hardest facts or most critical considerations: honestly it's practically impossible to get past the sheer amount of information, that's ever-increasing by magnitudes, in order to do better, but much better can be done, it's just that complicated and as I said, confusing). Oh, and this, http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1675560&cid=32465806http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1675560&cid=32465806

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    25. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Well, temperatures in Jupiter's atmosphere vary a lot. You've got areas with room temperature gasses at 10x atmospheric pressure, which is an environment suitable for multiple Earth-based critters.

      Tardigrades can easily go up to 5,000 ATM and 100 C, so... yeah.

    26. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Well, temperatures in Jupiter's atmosphere vary a lot. You've got areas with room temperature gasses at 10x atmospheric pressure, which is an environment suitable for multiple Earth-based critters.

      The problem is that the areas with room temperature gas is just gas, and no trace of water.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    27. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by jackbird · · Score: 1

      I would think the whole 94K surface temperature business would stop any terrestrial microbe in its tracks.

    28. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      i'm fulling expecting this argument from the god botherers when they do find alien life. unfortunately if someone insists on being dumb you can't win by reasoning with them.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    29. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      If you find me something that can survive 10,000k temperatures and 10 million atmospheres I'd bow down to my new overlord.

      To quote the Four Yorkshiremen, luxury.
      How about conscious entities improbably generating and evolving on the quite stable surface of a pulsar? By the time I finish writing this post (including beer runs, bathroom breaks and all), several million rotations would have passed in the pulsar. If each rotation is the equivalent of a terrestrial day, and following our evolutionary pace, in the space between FIFA World Cups they'd go from microscopic tadpoles to Multiverse Overlords.

      BTW, Serenity is a +5 Insightful post with 0 replies, great sig.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    30. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Material blasted off the earth by an impact event or events has made its way to the surface of Titan.
      But those were massively violent events, involving impact-ejecta-transit-impact. By this standard, Huygens is the equivalent of gently scooping material here and gently placing it there.

      The probe was sterilized, if I recall correctly. So it shouldn't be an issue.
      Agreed. Speaking of contamination, no political or religious pamphlets tacked on Huygens either,
      "Game Players of Titan, vote YES on California's Proposition X, expanding reservation casinos", or
      "Game Players of Titan, repent! For the end is nigh".

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    31. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      What if we send them there during the winter when it's cold? /a'ight

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    32. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Life doesn't have to "get" there. If the chemistry is right, it will start itself.

      Maybe. Do you have any actual evidence that this is reasonable likely, or are you just guessing that since it happened on Earth, it must happen everywhere?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    33. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That seems like an Occam-worthy assumption, yes.

      If you're like me (and most serious scientists, I gather) and believe life on Earth formed spontaneously, then it's reasonable enough to assume it can happen again. We have absolutely zero ideas how easy this is to happen, so there's no good reason to claim it can't be happening all the time.

      If you're of a spiritual persuasion and believe life was kick started by some ghost or other, then you'll probably have to admit that there's no reason your omnipotent-being-of-choice doesn't do the same thing on every planet that it'd work on. Most holy texts are scrupulously silent on the subject of extraterrestrial life, so we mortals are left to just guess.

      In short, it seems more likely that it'd happen again than not. And for all we know, Titan is paradise incarnate for methane-drinking, hydrogen breathing life.

    34. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you're like me (and most serious scientists, I gather) and believe life on Earth formed spontaneously, then it's reasonable enough to assume it can happen again. We have absolutely zero ideas how easy this is to happen, so there's no good reason to claim it can't be happening all the time.

      There's no good reason to assume it is.

      In short, it seems more likely that it'd happen again than not. And for all we know, Titan is paradise incarnate for methane-drinking, hydrogen breathing life.

      It may or may not be more likely than not to happen again somewhere in the universe. None of this says anything about the likelihood of Titan having any kind of life. It most certainly doesn't justify grandparent's assertion that "If the chemistry is right, it will start itself."

      And, frankly, we don't know if methane-based life is even possible. We are speculating that it might, but we don't know any actual examples of it. Why are people always jumping from "coulde be" into "sure is"?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I consider it far more reasonable that the organic molecules found on Titan were "built" there, rather than mysteriously transported there from some other source, by forces or agents unknown, yes. The Miller-Urey experiment clearly shows that if the chemistry is right, some of the amino acids and other "organic chemicals" that make up life can be bootstrapped from water, CO2, and ammonia.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    36. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      There's no good reason to assume it is.

      All we know about life formation is that it happened once. That is to say, we know that life does form, as we've seen it happen the once. Unless there was something UNIQUE about this (and no-one has ever provided any serious suggestions that there was) it is perfectly reasonable to assume it can happen multiple times.

      GGGP may have been being a bit unscientific by saying "it will happen",but short of a truly astounding discovery that we haven't made yet (of the unique bit), consensus points to his sentiments being basically right.

      Not to say that Titan has life, mind you. As you say, we don't even know if that variety of life is possible yet.

    37. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      GGGP may have been being a bit unscientific by saying "it will happen",but short of a truly astounding discovery that we haven't made yet (of the unique bit), consensus points to his sentiments being basically right.

      Actually, "it will happen" implies that it'll happen for sure everywhere life can exist. The difference between "it might happen" and "it will happen" is the difference between universe with some life-bearing planets scattered here and there and one full of bug-eyed aliens. It's not being "a bit unscientific", it changes the nature of universe completely. That was my complaint.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    38. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Saying something isn't likely isn't the same as saying it is impossible. I never discounted the possibility of Earth born life surviving there. I simply said it was not a likelyhood, and it isn't. Perhaps your laungage parser needs some patches ;) I said exactly what I meant and with regards to probability there was nothing wrong with it. You simply jumped on your misunderstanding of my point.

    39. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it necessarily wrong to seed life onto other planets? The planets are baron

    40. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      If you're like me (and most serious scientists, I gather) and believe life on Earth formed spontaneously, then it's reasonable enough to assume it can happen again. We have absolutely zero ideas how easy this is to happen, so there's no good reason to claim it can't be happening all the time.

      There's no good reason to assume it is.

      Sure there is, chemistry is universal and life is just chemistry.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    41. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come one, we only have evidence that he's been to the moon.

    42. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      That hot, hugh? Me too if so.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    43. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh!!! Stupid me. You meant "Kelvin", didn't you? But for some darn reason my mind saw "thousand" there (which didn't make sense given that moon is so far out there), and before I'd even finished making another response for dreamchaser, "what a dummy I am".

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    44. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      Well I apologize for misconstruing anything, and hope that the comment was interesting for the general /. readership nonetheless. One it being remote, sure: the same, however, can well be said about microbes surviving in space on previous vehicles we've had up there. I just wanted to diminish any diminishing of wonder or thought that could be possible produced in the minds of readers by the statement of very bad likelihood of this possibly happening.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    45. Re:I wonder if Huygens contaminated things. by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      While you may be a bionerd, you're missing the point.

      All of what you say is correct, but here's the main point - nothing on earth lives in a habitat anywhere near that of Titan. Life is great at adapting to hostile environments, but it needs to adapt to those environments over the course of many, many generations.

      Also, there is a big difference between the ability to survive a novel hostile environment (like the bacteria that survived the moon trip) and the ability grow and reproduce in that environment. We're talking about the idea of a living, reproducing contaminant, which is laughable. Life on earth is based upon water. Period, full stop, no exceptions. Yes, there is a chance that something, somewhere exists on earth in some deep crevice that uses some other solvent, but there is nothing on earth that comes anywhere close to a liquid methane environment.

      So, sorry, I don't buy the idea that any terrestrial life could colonize Titan.

      And, yes, I am a molecular biologist.

  5. Looks like I WIN! by MediaCastleX · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I was in Jr. High, my science class had an assignment where we had to make-up a life form, based on the planet chosen's conditions and mine was Saturn. Of course my design was completely ridiculous, but the idea was pretty much close to what they're saying about Hydrogen consumption. This is pretty cool...I *heart* Saturn. "Pro'lly 'cuz it gots money with all them rings it has!" lol =P

    1. Re:Looks like I WIN! by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I was in Jr. High, my science class had an assignment where we had to make-up a life form, based on the planet chosen's conditions and mine was Saturn. Of course my design was completely ridiculous, but the idea was pretty much close to what they're saying about Hydrogen consumption. This is pretty cool...I *heart* Saturn. "Pro'lly 'cuz it gots money with all them rings it has!" lol =P

      So what grade did you get on that project last year?

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    2. Re:Looks like I WIN! by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Ring bling?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    3. Re:Looks like I WIN! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Zing!

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:Looks like I WIN! by ailnlv · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe the term you are looking for is "Bazzinga"

    5. Re:Looks like I WIN! by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean last month?

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  6. drunk lifeforms by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Those Titanians are constantly drunk. That's probably very smart as long as they don't drive.

  7. So, to sum up: Life possibly on Titan by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...or possibly not.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:So, to sum up: Life possibly on Titan by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sorry if real science just isn't all that exciting.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:So, to sum up: Life possibly on Titan by lgw · · Score: 1

      I just watched an episode of Dr Who (3rd Doctor, so 1970 I think) that had an "Actual Science Montage", or near enough for TV. I was amazed. Horrible rubber-suit aliens, but good, solid writing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:So, to sum up: Life possibly on Titan by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Horrible rubber-suit aliens,

      So not much has changed then: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/episodes/b00sm031/galleries/cold_blood_wallpapers

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:So, to sum up: Life possibly on Titan by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      GP didn't actually say "boring" or anything similar. It was accurate, though I'd say a better summary would be "The odds of life on Titan are slightly better now."

    5. Re:So, to sum up: Life possibly on Titan by lgw · · Score: 1

      ROFL! I wonder if that's the exact same story - I've been watching the 2nd and 3rd Doctors and seeing a lot of plots and plot elements that have be directly re-used in the reboot. I haven't seen the latest season, but I can say that the quality of the horrible rubber suits has gone way up. Compare those Silurians to the original.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  8. Oh jeez by Some.Net(Guy) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worst thing that could possibly happen for any form of life anywhere would be its discovery by us.

    1. Re:Oh jeez by morphotomy · · Score: 1

      The same could be said of humanity being discovered by more advanced beings. They would treat us as we treat cattle. A resource with nothing interesting to say.

    2. Re:Oh jeez by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nonense. If it weren't for us, many species (that probably deserve to) would probably have already went extinct. Does anyone think the Pandas would still be around if we weren't constantly working to try to get them to mate? It's taken more effort to get those things to reproduce than it took with Tom Cruise, for crying out loud. Seriously, if your species needs Viagra to stay viable, it's probably nature's way of saying your species just wasn't meant to be.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Oh jeez by unr3a1 · · Score: 1

      We have no idea how we would be treated by more advanced beings, and you cannot compare us to cattle. Cattle ARE a resource and have no reason to their thought process. They behave instinctively whereas humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought.

      Some.Net is correct. It would be the worst thing for any life form because of human arrogance and selfishness.

    4. Re:Oh jeez by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      human beings have a propensity to violence. We don't know if that would be true of other things, but it does increase the likeliness of us being screwed (and anything else) if either is discovered.

    5. Re:Oh jeez by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      human beings have a propensity to violence.

      And that makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom in what way?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Oh jeez by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Especially if they are sitting on top of "exploitable resources".

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Oh jeez by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      They behave instinctively whereas humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought.

      There are things in the universe billions of years older than either of our races. They're vast, timeless, and if they're aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants, and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know, we've tried, and we've learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped on. - G'Kar

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Oh jeez by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that any form of life that has to compete for resources would favour the evolution of a "propensity to violence".

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Oh jeez by somersault · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well I don't know about you, but I probably wouldn't like being locked up and forced to have sex with some ugly fat chick..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they've seen any recent television, could you blame them for thinking that?

    11. Re:Oh jeez by Locke2005 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure, their reduction in number couldn't possibly have anything to do with the vast reduction in habitat caused by human activity! And their lack of hetero sex drive couldn't possibly be due to stresses caused by overcrowding and human activity, so siree! Just because pandas survived for millions of years before humans became so numerous in their vicinity doesn't imply any causal relationship between their precipitous decline and the corresponding rise in human population, it is obviously due to the fact that they are unfit to survive and destined to fail, it's just taken a few million years for the effect to kick in.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    12. Re:Oh jeez by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      If their first contact was with my wife, they would rightly conclude that we do indeed have nothing interesting to say!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:Oh jeez by unr3a1 · · Score: 0

      The difference again goes to the nature of the different species. We have reasonable thought. Which means that people CHOOSE to either be violent or not. Animals do not, and generally do not act violently for no reason. It is always for survival purposes for hunting, or acting defensively.

      We are the only species that acts violently for no reason. What reason does a man have to randomly abuse or kill a woman? Look at bull fighting, or dog fighting. These are things that are human incarnations of violence for the purpose of entertainment. Animals act violently out of defense, for survival, or because of disease (rabies).

      Again, the reason for this is because animals do not have reasonable though processes. They only ever act instinctively except in cases of sickness. This is where humans are different from animals.

    14. Re:Oh jeez by g253 · · Score: 1

      But if you were locked up anyway, you'd probably be glad to have the ugly fat chick around.

    15. Re:Oh jeez by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Try pissing off a Chimpanzee or a Baboon sometime, if you want to see what a real "propensity to violence" looks like!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    16. Re:Oh jeez by Reapman · · Score: 1

      Insightful? I know we seem rather big and important to you.. but honestly, we're not (on universe or "anywhere") type scale. Assuming for a moment that other life forms even exist out there, and assuming that there are some at various stages of development, you REALLY TRULY can not think of anything worse then Humans?

      I don't think we're as special.. either in a good way or a bad way.. as you think we are.

    17. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on be fair!!

      That's probably the only kind of sex some of the Slashdotters here would get!!

    18. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the animal kingdom kills when it's hungry and eats what it kills. Humans kill because the victim believed in a different fairy tale, had the wrong color skin, lived on the wrong side of an imaginary line on a map, wore the wrong gang colors, or in some cases just for the hell of it.

    19. Re:Oh jeez by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We are the only species that acts violently for no reason. What reason does a man have to randomly abuse or kill a woman?

      Rape is not unique to homo sapiens.

      These are things that are human incarnations of violence for the purpose of entertainment.

      I take it you've never watched a cat play with a mouse before killing it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:Oh jeez by mweather · · Score: 1

      They'd probably just run away from you unless you cornered them.

    21. Re:Oh jeez by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are the only species that acts violently for no reason. What reason does a man have to randomly abuse or kill a woman? Look at bull fighting, or dog fighting. These are things that are human incarnations of violence for the purpose of entertainment. Animals act violently out of defense, for survival, or because of disease (rabies).

      First of all, I'd contest that violence has no reason. The reason may not be good (objectively or subjectively), but I'd say that only truly insane individuals become violent for no reason.

      Beyond that, there is at least one other species out there that appears to be nearly as violent as we are, and that's chimpanzees. They've been recorded attacking members of their own tribe, perhaps as punishment (though we can never be quite sure), beating them to death (I saw one harrowing attack on a documentary where they literally ripped the genitals off one). Violence is used by dominant members to put lower members in line. Most chilling of all are several documented cases of wild chimp tribes making war on neighboring tribes.

      You're doing what I'd call reverse-anthropomorphization, you're ascribing to humans certain behaviors which you insist must somehow be special from other animals. It's a form of special pleading, really. Suffice it to say humans use violence as means to an end, and at least some other species use it for the same reason.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same could be said of humanity being discovered by more advanced beings. They would treat us as we treat cattle. A resource with nothing interesting to say.

      As evidenced by Twitter.

    23. Re:Oh jeez by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      The rest of the animal kingdom kills when it's hungry and eats what it kills

      You've never owned a cat, have you?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:Oh jeez by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you're being funny and are only pretending to be clueless as to how these species ended up in the situations that required us to save them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    25. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that any impact human beings have on another species in this manner is also part of nature. Many humans have a God complex in which they tend to separate themselves from the animal kingdom. While we may be capable of thought and reason, that is simply something that evolution has lent us over time. Any impact we make on the environment continues to be natural in its origins.

    26. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're in the middle of one of the most rapid extinction events in the history of this planet, generally speaking.

      Accidentally, it kicked in when we really got the hang of the place...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    27. Re:Oh jeez by unr3a1 · · Score: 1

      Rape is not unique to homo sapiens.

      While the literal definition of "rape" is not unique to humans, the REASON behind the act is still different only for humans. The animal "raping" another is not doing it for his own personal gain. He is acting INSTINCTIVELY. He can't control it. Humans can.

      I take it you've never watched a cat play with a mouse before killing it?

      Cats play with a mouse not for "fun" but to improve their hunting skills. It's a learning technique.

    28. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pelican fly

    29. Re:Oh jeez by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    30. Re:Oh jeez by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      So how many cats did you interview for your study to determine what their motivations are?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    31. Re:Oh jeez by al.caughey · · Score: 1

      And she's probably your cousin... which probably still accurately describes some /.er's sex lives

    32. Re:Oh jeez by sea4ever · · Score: 1

      There are things in the universe billions of years older than either of our races. They're vast, timeless, and if they're aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants, and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know, we've tried, and we've learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped on. - G'Kar

      I am the Overmind, the eternal will of the Swarm, and I approve this message.

    33. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, cattle aren't a resource, but a means of transforming resources. Quite inneficient one, even when compared to other demesticated mammals or specifically ruminants.

      And they behave like that because we bred that behaviour into them. Not that it's bad per se, even from their "point of view" - heck, being tasty to us makes them one of the most evolutionary succesful large land animals. At least for now.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    34. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Violence has always existed among animals, however we are the first to recognize it as what it is.

    35. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Look at correlations between people who "chose" to be violent and their background / enviroment which shaped them.

      You being (most likely) a not violent, "civilised" human is mostly an instinctive response to your enviroment, type of social interactions you were immensed in for a long, long time.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    36. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's true; we'd either eat them, enslave them or sex them.

    37. Re:Oh jeez by lupinstel · · Score: 1

      If they already caught the mouse they are playing with, what more do they need to learn?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
    38. Re:Oh jeez by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Compelling arguments, but your facts are entirely wrong.

      Cows have reasonable thoughts too. They just aren't as intricate or intelligent as ours. When it's cold and the wind is blowing into the cow's face, sometimes it will turn around to keep its face warm, and sometimes it will decide to keep eating its hay. Point being, if non-human animals behavior was based purely on instinct, then they would do exactly the same thing, every time, in a given set of conditions. And they don't.

      Just because a life form is not as smart as you does not mean that it does not have thoughts.

      And we'd run into the same problem with highly advanced species. If we were as dumb to them as cows are to us, then the same intelligence gap would exist. And it's extremely likely that, unless the aliens were non-aggressive and prone to study everything in-depth, they'd treat us similarly to the way we treat cattle - -namely, we're dumb animals unless someone's hungry, in which case we taste pretty good.

      BTW, chimpanzees act violently for "no reason" as well. As do cats, dogs, and many other species. And I put "no reason" in quotes because there's always a reason for the violence. We may not understand it, but there is a reason.

      I'm really not sure where you got the idea that animals only ever act instinctively except in cases of sickness. Why would they suddenly acquire the capacity for rational thought just because they get a virus?

      All animals act instinctively, including humans. Many animals also add a rationality component to their actions. Not to the degree that humans do, but it is there. You can see it all over. Even squirrels are capable of problem solving:

      http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80644294/

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    39. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Cats play with a mouse not for "fun" but to improve their hunting skills. It's a learning technique.

      Humans are violent not for "fun" but to improve their defense, survival skills. It's a learning technique.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    40. Re:Oh jeez by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      You better not be talkin' bout my kin again.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    41. Re:Oh jeez by stms · · Score: 0

      I for one just hope these new life forms are tasty when deep fried.

    42. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      PS. My cat has plenty of food. Still hunts, still plays with almost dead prey even if it has visibly no intention whatsoever of eating it. But having a toy which desperately tries to escape brings very clear joy.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    43. Re:Oh jeez by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      whereas humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought.

      Citation needed.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    44. Re:Oh jeez by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Any impact we make on the environment continues to be natural in its origins.

      And? You can define "natural" to be equivalent to "things that exist", but in doing so you've simply failed to say anything at all.

      Deforestation, industrial waste, air pollution and so on are all "natural". So what? That doesn't mean they are good ideas, or that we shouldn't be concerned with the consequences because those consequences are "natural". "Natural" in this context doesn't mean "okay"; that connotation is often inappropriate, but is right out with your definition.

      The very fact that we can reason about the consequences of our actions means we should do so, rather than wipe out entire ecosystems as if we were unthinking cyanobacteria releasing oxygen into the environment. Saying it's "natural" because anything that exists is "natural" is to just abdicate responsibility for using our reason, as if we don't have a choice. Well, we do.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    45. Re:Oh jeez by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Humans are violent not for "fun"

      Then how do you explain paintball wars?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    46. Re:Oh jeez by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      We are the only species that acts violently for no reason.

      Except that we don't. All instances of human violence can be attributed to defense, survival, territoriality, need to reproduce, etc. Just like other animals. Even our expressions of organized group violence (i.e. riots, wars, etc) are not unlike the activities of social groups in other species. Social groups of chimps and other apes will "attack" other social groups in order to obtain or defend resources. The only differences are that the resources we pursue are oil and precious metals, not bananas.

      There is no categorical difference between us and many animals, the only difference is one of scope. We are highly intelligent and highly social animals, this allows us to do some unique things that other animals are incapable of. We are capable of abstract mental representations, which allows us language (note: this is different than simple communication), and we are capable of disguising our affect, which allow us to lie and disguise our feelings. But we are not prone to violence for no reason. There is always a reason. Our intelligence and sociability allows us to disagree with other individuals reasoning, and can prevent us from even fully understanding the reasoning, but it is always present (even in cases of disease or defect).

      I find your point about choice to be very interesting. I don't meant to get into a deterministic debate, but what exactly do you think it is that gives humans the ability to make decisions that other animals do not have? If a starving dog is taunted and teased with a plate of food it attacks (naturally). A human would do the same. How can you say the human made a choice, but the dog only acted on instinct?

    47. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Evolving ever greater levels of intelligence is useful mostly for "violence". Compare predators and their victims on this planet. Or notice how uber apex predator of Earth is quite intelligent.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    48. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      And it's extremely likely that, unless the aliens were non-aggressive and prone to study everything in-depth, they'd treat us similarly to the way we treat cattle - -namely, we're dumb animals unless someone's hungry, in which case we taste pretty good.

      On the bright side, we have a high chance to be completelly unsuitable as food or at least quite toxic - assuming different chiralities for example.
      (and I'm not sure if "studying everything in-depth" would be a good thing... ;) )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    49. Re:Oh jeez by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      bingo. Thus, if anything finds us or we find it, we're both screwed.

    50. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I think family graphs are purdier than family trees.

    51. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Animals most likely do lie, too - there was even a recent /. story about some antilopes using this approach during mating. I'd also argue that the act of "posturing" in many animals while being threatened ("scared"/"terrified", most likely) is also a form of lie. Insects using false color signals probably goes too far, but...

      Humans demonstrably don't show much "choice" in their behavior either, statistically speaking. The most deciding factors which shape us boil down to "in what kind of environment you were bred?"

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    52. Re:Oh jeez by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Only if we decide its OK to eat them.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    53. Re:Oh jeez by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Imagine if a species of super-intelligent beings existed that make US look about as smart as cattle is to US. Then they would have no reason to not treat us like we treat cattle.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    54. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      w8, are we talking about fat chicks of the specie human or panda?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    55. Re:Oh jeez by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      You're doing what I'd call reverse-anthropomorphization, you're ascribing to humans certain behaviors which you insist must somehow be special from other animals.

      Happens all the time. Religious groups refuse to entertain the possibility of same sex mating in animals, stating it is solely the evils of humans. God's creatures couldn't possibly be gay.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    56. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their lack of hetero sex drive

      Are you implying pandas have a homo sex drive?

    57. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Thing is, our thought and reason allow us to monumentally outcompete every other complex organism on this planet, and yet we fail to realise that it's comparable to cutting a branch on which you sit.

      I don't friggin' care about survival of other species per se, "cuddly" or otherwise. But their continuing survival would be a positive sign about our complex and quite stable (for a long time...) environment, on which also we rely for comfort.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    58. Re:Oh jeez by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Except that we don't. All instances of human violence can be attributed to defense, survival, territoriality, need to reproduce, etc. Just like other animals.

      What a complete crock of shit.

      What about rape, murder and sexual molestation? What about those sick fucks who get off torturing animals? Humans contain the most depraved bunch of members of any species on the planet. Some members do evil acts just because they feel like it. There is no gain and no reason to it.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    59. Re:Oh jeez by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Depends. Maybe they are more like us, than we ourselves are. ;)
      Maybe we are very tasty and/or a easily harvestable resource to them.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    60. Re:Oh jeez by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What about rape, murder and sexual molestation?

      All of those happen in the animal kingdom as well.

      What about those sick fucks who get off torturing animals?

      What about my cat toying around with a mouse even though she's well fed and could easily kill it without allowing it to suffer?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    61. Re:Oh jeez by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Nonense. If it weren't for us, many species (that probably deserve to) would probably have already went extinct.

      Tell that to the Japanese Wolf, the Bali tiger, the North African Elephant and the hundreds of other species that went extinct due to mans' interference.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    62. Re:Oh jeez by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's just an outgrowth of tribalism, and there are certainly analogs to tribalism in some other animals. A lot of human behaviors, probably almost all of them, are derived from animal behaviors. That our larger brains alter them or expand on them doesn't mean, that in some primitive form, they don't exist elsewhere.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    63. Re:Oh jeez by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      What about my cat toying around with a mouse even though she's well fed and could easily kill it without allowing it to suffer?

      Does you cat pour gasoline on animals and light them on fire? What about tying their tails together and throwing them over a power line? Only humans have the capacity for really sick acts of depravity.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    64. Re:Oh jeez by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      All I'm sayin' is "unfitness" in an environment that has been massively changed by Man in a short period of time doesn't mean that a species should be written off as a failure. Evolutionary change takes time. Deer with reflective stripes so cars don't hit them don't evolve overnight!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    65. Re:Oh jeez by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You are wrong.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    66. Re:Oh jeez by unr3a1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are correct in everything you say, but only in the basic form of comparison that you are using. Yes, every violent act is done for some reason or another, but because of our highly developed level of intelligence, we have a sense of right and wrong reasons.

      Few would say it's wrong to violently defend yourself if you are being assaulted in an alley or in your home. On the opposite side of the coin, few would say that it is right to violently "defend" yourself if someone accidentally stepped on your foot.

      Animals perceive things in a very basic way. Take this example:

      A few nights ago a couple of friends came over to my apartment for dinner and to hang out. One of them had a 14 month old baby. I have two cats, Suzy is very outgoing and sure of herself, and Molly on the other hand is a very much more nervous and easily scared. Both cats hid initially but as expected, Suzy came out to investigate who these new people were very quickly.

      As soon as the baby saw Suzy, he started to move over towards her. Now, being the first time that Suzy saw an infant, she didn't understand his behavior. So when the baby got close and was raising his hand towards her, Suzy started to back up while still facing him. Her ears went back, she was squinting, keeping her tail close to her body, and was backing up less and less.

      Now, knowing her, she would have only backed up to a certain point where she would then feel cornered. Even though she wasn't physically cornered, by her body language I could tell she was starting to feel that way. I immediately got between them, and Suzy ran straight into my bedroom, and I closed the door. Now lets look at the potential for that situation had I not gotten between the two.

      Suzy could have reacted in a defensive nature towards the baby and swiped at him. Would it have been her fault if she did swipe at him and scratch his face? No. Would it have been the baby's fault? No. Because neither one of them are at a level of rationalization or understanding to realize what the other is doing.

      The baby is just trying to pet her and isn't able to understand that she is behaving in a defensive manner, and Suzy doesn't understand that he is only trying to pet her. For all she knows, he could be attacking her. She also had never seen a baby before that, so she didn't really know even what he was.

      The difference is that the baby will grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future.

      Suzy will always act defensively if even I were to make aggressive gestures towards her, regardless if I am really attacking her or not. Now of course, I will never attack my cat, but I am using it as an example.

      Sorry for the thesis (lol) but I hope it clarifies more what I am talking about.

    67. Re:Oh jeez by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      Sounds like humanity is a bit of drunk football team crashing your place for a party. Once they know where the fridge is, and once it's empty, it suddenly ends up in the pool.

    68. Re:Oh jeez by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Nonense. If it weren't for us, many species (that probably deserve to) would probably have already went extinct.

      Tell that to the Japanese Wolf, the Bali tiger, the North African Elephant and the hundreds of other species that went extinct due to mans' interference.

      Those were the ones we didn't like/weren't tasty/were tasty but hard to raise/got in the way/ate us/weren't cute. Cows and chickens are doing great though!

    69. Re:Oh jeez by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you mean by "outcompete". By mass, there are a lot more termites on the planet than people, and they have almost as much effect on their environment as we do. Species such as cockroaches, rats, even cats and dogs that have learned to cooperate with people seem to be doing just fine to. Even white tailed deer seem to be at historically high populations since we've eliminated their predators and we actively feed them. When you're competing with a diabolical predator such as man, being "cute" does have it's advantages...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    70. Re:Oh jeez by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      I suppose we do have a choice, but then you are posting on slashdot and so it is fair to assume that you are not exactly is a rush to start living at one with the environment, like, forex, the bushmen of the Kalahari.

    71. Re:Oh jeez by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      And it's extremely likely that, unless the aliens were non-aggressive and prone to study everything in-depth, they'd treat us similarly to the way we treat cattle - -namely, we're dumb animals unless someone's hungry, in which case we taste pretty good.

      On the bright side, we have a high chance to be completelly unsuitable as food or at least quite toxic - assuming different chiralities for example.
      (and I'm not sure if "studying everything in-depth" would be a good thing... ;) )

      We can be ground up and used as fertilizer for the red weed.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    72. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      That's why I was writing about complex organisms (with the effects being that of a spectum of course, not a clear cutoff - supposedly oceans were quite a sight in the past, almost swarming with various whales...), and meaning mostly what is perceived as "higher orders" of life.
      Even many of your examples rely either directly on our modifications (which might turn out badly in the end) or, at the least, the same relatively stable environment.

      And hey, when looking at mass and influence, the microorganisms merely somewhat tolerate our presence already, always have been; would be funny, in a way, if we are basically setting up the stage for their new remainder who owns this place

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    73. Re:Oh jeez by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      Good grief! I thought it was only religious people who were meant to continually bring up religion without provocation?

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    74. Re:Oh jeez by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      whereas humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought.

      Citation needed.

      He said humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought. That's not the same as saying that one of them ever has.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    75. Re:Oh jeez by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ...whereas humans are able to make decisions from reasonable thought.

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    76. Re:Oh jeez by unr3a1 · · Score: 1

      I said that they are able to. I never said they actually did.

    77. Re:Oh jeez by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You're quite correct. I'm advocating continuing to live a technological lifestyle without being oblivious to the consequences to the environment, or using the lame "but everything is natural!" excuse to not care about them.

      It's subtle, I know.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    78. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She might even lose some weight in there locked up. Unless she's like the fat dude in Lost.

    79. Re:Oh jeez by cusco · · Score: 1

      There was a time when the most feared sound in Europe was not 'Grrr' or 'Roar', but 'MOOO!' Half ton, foul-tempered, moderately intelligent animals that tended to stampede in herds towards, rather than away, from danger were nothing to fool with. The behavior of domestic cattle has as little to do with their wild state as the domestic turkey has to do with the wild turkey.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    80. Re:Oh jeez by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Dolphins are complete dicks as well. Gangs of dolphins swim through the ocean, and bludgeon to death baby porpoises. Now, porpoises don't eat the same kinds of food as dolphins, so there's really only two reasons biologist have come up with for why they might do it.

      1) For the lulz
      2) To get practice for killing baby dolphins.

    81. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that cats are sick fucks to the best of their physical capability, as are humans. Just because humans have gasoline and opposable thumbs doesn't give us a monopoly on depravity.

    82. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If insane individuals become violent for no reason, then the reason is that they are insane ;-)

    83. Re:Oh jeez by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I think that any form of life that has to compete for resources would favour the evolution of a "propensity to violence".

      Not true at all. Co-operation is nearly always more productive than conflict.

    84. Re:Oh jeez by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Maybe against humans (but certainly not always...) but only then because they recognize that we are bigger. It's well documented that are violent as fuck against their own kind or other animals though.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    85. Re:Oh jeez by aqk · · Score: 0

      human beings have a propensity to violence.

      And that makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom in what way?

      Reason. And violence.
      Figured it out yet? No? then, ask a cow. or a horse.
      Keep thinking, little grasshopper.

    86. Re:Oh jeez by aqk · · Score: 0

      Well I don't know about you, but I probably wouldn't like being locked up and forced to have sex with some ugly fat chick..

      Well then, Pilgrim... I guess you really DON'T know about me!

    87. Re:Oh jeez by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have never dated one.

    88. Re:Oh jeez by Macrat · · Score: 1

      The rest of the animal kingdom kills when it's hungry and eats what it kills

      You've never owned a cat, have you?

      Many of them. They were always vomiting up the bones of mice and birds they had eaten.

      One even drug home a rabbit to leave on our door step.

    89. Re:Oh jeez by somersault · · Score: 1

      Depends on the level of resources. At some stage (if your species is good at reproducing or if another species is using the same resource) you get to "have to compete". Maybe propensity is too strong a word, but you definitely have to have the capability for violence to stop yourself getting pushed around.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    90. Re:Oh jeez by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Religion and the stupid crazy things that people do under the excuse of religion have very little to do with one another.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    91. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To improve their defense, survival skills. It's a learning technique.

    92. Re:Oh jeez by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No, this isn't even CLOSE to a real extinction event.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    93. Re:Oh jeez by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      It helped the koala bear survive. Before man; they were ugly, vicious predators. After they encountered us, they adapted the "cutest thing in the world" defensive features and now they get to sleep all day in the safety of zoos.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    94. Re:Oh jeez by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I'll say to them the same thing I would say to the millions of species that went extinct long before man even existed--tough luck, buddy.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    95. Re:Oh jeez by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the baby will grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future.

      Suzy will always act defensively if even I were to make aggressive gestures towards her, regardless if I am really attacking her or not. Now of course, I will never attack my cat, but I am using it as an example.

      Maybe Suzy has grown up to be like this, but it cannot be generalized to all animals. For example - growling at a dog while baring front teeth is universally accepted to be an aggressive gesture toward the dog. Most dogs will attack humans if humans behave in such a manner to them (though other circumstances matter too). As a rule, dog trainers would discourage you from trying it with any arbitrary dog. But my uncle's (late lamented) Labrador was trained to accept it as normal and he had quite a lot of fun with my 10 year old cousin growling at it. I would surely consider it that the

      "Labrador had grown up and learned what basic defensive (and non defensive) gestures from humans look like and was able to make rational decisions with that information in human encounters in the future".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    96. Re:Oh jeez by unr3a1 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that if you look at dogs and cats and the way they behave, there is always a hierarchy. It's necessary for survival in the wild. Which means that there are different personalities. Some dogs or cats have really dominate, aggressive personalities. Others are more docile.

      If your cousins Lab never showed any defensive gestures towards anyone who acted aggressively, that's just because of the dogs personality. He's more docile. Now, if it only allowed its household masters to do this, but anyone else would be attacked, then he would have a more dominate personality, but loyal to who he's familiar with. It's not rational thought.

    97. Re:Oh jeez by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It's not rational thought.

      Just because a dog exhibited it? A few posts ago, you were describing this self-same behaviour ("grow up and learn what basic defensive gestures from animals looks like, and be able to make rational decisions with that information in animal encounters in the future") to be the distinctive factor of humans. Now that a dog exhibited it, it was its innate nature and not rational thought?

      Maybe you are backwards defining rational thought to be whatever humans can do but animals cannot? At least after a chimpanzee military general, our assumption of human-supremacy should be restrained. Though I am pretty certain the dog would have scored abysmally low on the Graduate Record Examination.

      PS: I have fond memories of that dog. Its dead so I cannot experiment with his nature now. I don't remember anyone else growling at it though. In any case, it cannot be considered docile - though it was friendly. I say it because its default assumption on approach of a human being was one of friendship. But there are various examples of the dog's non-docile-ness : once my cousin (aged maybe 11 at the time) went to sleep on the sofa while watching TV. Her father's brother (moderately familiar with the dog) tried to carry her to bed to get her to sleep comfortably. The Labrador forcefully (by threat of serious violence) prevented the grown-up, well-built uncle of hers to carry her to bed. Only when she woke up by the racket created by the dog, she half-sleep-walked to her bed which was allowed by the assertive dog.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    98. Re:Oh jeez by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      You're a Republican aren't you?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    99. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      You're sure?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

      In 1995, the rate of species extinctions was conservatively estimated at 100 times the background extinction rate (the average between mass extinction events).
      ...
      A few biologists believe that we are at this moment at the beginning of an accelerated anthropogenic extinction.[4] E.O. Wilson of Harvard, in The Future of Life (2002), estimates that at current rates of human disruption of the biosphere, one-half of all species of life will be extinct by 2100.
      ...
      the vast majority of biologists believe that we are in the midst of an anthropogenic extinction. Numerous scientific studies since thensuch as a 2004 report from Nature,[5] and those by the 10,000 scientists who contribute to the IUCN's annual Red List of threatened specieshave only strengthened this consensus.
      "We have driven the rate of biological extinction, the permanent loss of species, up several hundred times beyond its historical levels, and are threatened with the loss of a majority of all species by the end of the 21st century."

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    100. Re:Oh jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not in the middle of a huge extinction event. The research that showed this was from a signal paper written over 30 years ago that has since been shown to be flawed. The number of species on Earth, by today's best science, shows that it's approx. equal to what it was 100 and 1000 year ago.

    101. Re:Oh jeez by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Hell, even "wild" relatives, surviving here and there, don't behave like that. I have quite large population of wisents at my place; but there's not that much of a difference in behavior from cattle by now, just mostly them being not accustomed to humans so much. But since all few thousands are descended from dozen captive individuals... (the wild population became extinct at one point)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  9. I smell a novel... by bunratty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...The Sirens of Titan.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    1. Re:I smell a novel... by aqk · · Score: 0

      Just keep those big obnoxious blackbirds away from MY backyard!

    2. Re:I smell a novel... by X10 · · Score: 1

      Nasa should hire Kurt Vonnegut, he's the expert on the subject.

      --
      no, I don't have a sig
    3. Re:I smell a novel... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Dead people tend to make poor employees.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:I smell a novel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I work it's the live ones...

  10. Luckily, new mission maybe quite soon (relatively) by sznupi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Mare_Explorer (hopefully not postponed to be part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Saturn_System_Mission )

    Titan, and Saturn system generally, is a really big thing for our distant future. People like to imagine the colonisation of Jupiter system, but the radiation belts there make it not exactly feasible; only Callisto out of 4 big moons might be fine. Saturn doesn't have this problem; is still decently close and with huge system of moons.
    Discovery of life on Titan might of course complicate things...OTOH, with it (if any) being probably so vastly different, there's little risk of crosscontamination in either direction.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  11. Now this razor was made by a fella named Occam by Yergle143 · · Score: 1

    Come on. This is so weak and wrong. Now if you excuse me I'm going to go make myself a hydrogen and acetylene sandwich.

    1. Re:Now this razor was made by a fella named Occam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science does not work that way.

    2. Re:Now this razor was made by a fella named Occam by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor suggests that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. It does NOT mean "Reject a hypothesis because someone thinks it's not simple enough." Is there an obvious, simpler hypothesis that I'm not seeing?

      Actually it doesn't matter. You test hypotheses, you don't just misuse occam's razor to assume one is right. We'll be sending another probe to Titan eventually and that will settle it.

    3. Re:Now this razor was made by a fella named Occam by josteos · · Score: 1

      Or Titan will send a probe to Earth and things will get very interesting.

      --
      Save the Music; Save the World at http://www.TuneTriever.com (Our latest Android game)
  12. Upstart monkeys by edittard · · Score: 1

    Attempt no landings there, either.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:Upstart monkeys by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Or over there. That spot, that spot right there? that spot is right out!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  13. 2010 by jerkmark · · Score: 1

    All these worlds are yours, except Titan. Attempt no landings there.

    --
    Pain is God trying to be funny. That's how out of touch It is. -- Jeff Lint
  14. Methane-based Overlords by by+(1706743) · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one welco...ah, screw it.

    1. Re:Methane-based Overlords by Rusty+KB · · Score: 1

      I don't. They smell.

    2. Re:Methane-based Overlords by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      They are titanic. When they are present you dont want to tell them that they smell, that would be racist, or humanist, or something similar, And you definately dont want to play, swim, or specially sink with them.

    3. Re:Methane-based Overlords by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Cows far flung.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Methane-based Overlords by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      -1 Pedantic, but methane itself is odorless.

    5. Re:Methane-based Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Methane-based Overlords by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      The cannot smell. They have no noses.

  15. Re:Luckily, new mission maybe quite soon (relative by Vekseid · · Score: 1

    Titan, however, has the problem of being damned cold. I don't think it's a given that radiation is harder to deal with than that amount of greenhouse engineering.

  16. Re:Luckily, new mission maybe quite soon (relative by sznupi · · Score: 1

    That is its only major problem though (well, that and the atmosphere being highly toxic to humans - essentially with the addition of...Zyklon B). Other than that it offers protection, stability of conditions, "zero pressure difference" (ok, you would probably want to maintain a slight overpressure inside the base, due to toxicity - together with the cold outside that might make any leaks largely self-closing); greatly simplifying things compared to many other places, so you can concentrate easily on thermal isolation.
    We already have bases in the Antarctic, and with tech progress...

    BTW, you probably don't want to warm whole moon - unless you intend to have a waterworld.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  17. All It Is by MrTripps · · Score: 1

    Nothing down there but Chrono and the blue birds.

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
  18. In related news... by Sta7ic · · Score: 1

    ...signs of zombies were discovered on Planet Earth when there was a distinct absence of intelligence in recent observation. This would indicate the presence of brain-eating zombies, as all their feeding mechanisms drain intelligence from the local biosphere.

    (sorry, couldn't help it.)

  19. Yea yea yea - the important question is ... by DeadJesusRodeo · · Score: 1

    How does it taste?

    1. Re:Yea yea yea - the important question is ... by Bugamn · · Score: 1

      Tastes like chicken.

    2. Re:Yea yea yea - the important question is ... by city · · Score: 1

      mmmmmm methane-based hydrogen fed chicken

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
  20. Wasn't there an AC Clark book about this? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember a movie, also, something about a computer run amok and life on one of the moons near Saturn... ...or was it Jupiter?

    1. Re:Wasn't there an AC Clark book about this? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2, Informative

      The original printing of the book 2001, they went to Saturn. In the film they went to Jupiter. After seeing the film Clarke thought that made more sense, so he wrote the sequel based on the film, not his book.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)#Differences_from_the_film

      As far as I care, it's fair game as long as it isn't Europa. We should attempt no landings there.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    2. Re:Wasn't there an AC Clark book about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 2001 series by AC Clark dealt with Jupiter, and life on Europa (2061 IIRC).

      There was also a mid-90s book by Stephen Baxter named "Titan", that included a similar discovery of potential methane life on Titan, and a manned expedition to investigate.

    3. Re:Wasn't there an AC Clark book about this? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember a movie, also, something about a computer run amok and life on one of the moons near Saturn... ...or was it Jupiter?

      More than one book and/or movie with such a subject. 2001 a Space Odyssey,Saturn 3 and so forth.

  21. Re:Luckily, new mission maybe quite soon (relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that and the atmosphere being highly toxic to humans - essentially with the addition of...Zyklon B

    Sweet, when can we send all the kikes there?

  22. Obligatory Stargate Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now McKay can get the 2nd gate from Area 51 placed on there. Well wait, that won't work, Stargates target via gravity wells and Titan isn't large enough to target from the gate system, too much noise.

    Well maybe he could contact the Asgar... oh wait.

  23. Re:Luckily, new mission maybe quite soon (relative by The+Moof · · Score: 1

    Knowing our luck, we're going to just crash some crap into Titan, either killing off whatever lives there or starting a war with it.

  24. Take off every 'zig' !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what you doing.
    Move 'zig'.
    For great justice.

  25. Re:You know where hints of life WEREN'T found? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats what she said!

  26. Don't fall for it! by PatboyX · · Score: 1

    That's just a pool that has life painted on the bottom.

  27. What should these creatures be called. by anonymousNR · · Score: 1

    Aliens Of Cow Fart Land

    --
    -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
  28. Giant Laboratory by pankajmay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Titan is a young celestial body - with its own dense atmosphere and the only body until now in the solar system that has surface liquids apart from us.

    Sure it can be hypothesized that since Titan is young - it probably is taking a course that Earth took millions of years ago. With the distance from Sun rendering it cold and the fact that it orbits Saturn being the primary differences.

    Of course finding Life would be an enormous discovery. But if we start with what we already know - that Organic reactions are taking place on Titan's surface, and that it is a giant Organic Soup -- It gives us a huge interesting laboratory to study and experiment!

    We can even direct Titan's course of life by controlled introduction of earth's anaerobic life on its surface -- since we already know a hypothesis on how our own Earth's atmosphere has evolved into the current air composition -- we can *test* and use those theories to change Titan's atmosphere, in turn not only validating our theories, but may be making Titan inhabitable like Earth!

    Exciting to say the least! If only we humans can, just for a second -- stop bickering amongst ourselves and look outwards to this possibility!!

    1. Re:Giant Laboratory by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      ship all of our carbon dioxide there to make it warm enough to live on!

    2. Re:Giant Laboratory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can even direct Titan's course of life by controlled introduction of earth's anaerobic life on its surface -- since we already know a hypothesis on how our own Earth's atmosphere has evolved into the current air composition -- we can *test* and use those theories to change Titan's atmosphere, in turn not only validating our theories, but may be making Titan inhabitable like Earth!

      We can but I think we probably ought not to. Domes perhaps, but Titan should belong to the natives no matter how primitive they are. It seems to me that if we have the technology to build a colony so far away or realistically contemplate terraforming anywhere we probably have the tech. to solve our problems right here.

  29. Lack of acetylene by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well, there's a lack of McDonald's hamburgers on this world too, so perhaps there is human life down there after all, consuming all the hamburgers.

    While the hypothesis is cute, it doesn't "prove" anything.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Lack of acetylene by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      The hypothesis wasn't intended to 'prove' life exists on Titan, its only an observation that one of the things we suspect would be needed, actually exist. Stop acting like such an idiot, comments like this add nothing to the conversation whatsoever. Nobody said it was proving anything. Nobody even implied it was proving anything. Im so glad you're here to discredit the scientific research being done on a moon around another planet from that big armchair of yours. Really.

    2. Re:Lack of acetylene by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Do you feel better now that you have fought the evil monster and saved the internet?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Lack of acetylene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One troll at a time...

  30. No acetylene means... by dvh.tosomja · · Score: 1

    No acetylene means somebody is welding down there.

  31. DHS Issues ... CODE Purple ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On news that NASA has discovered methane-based life on Titan the Department of Homeland Security ... no doubt doing their homework ... and connecting the dots ... has just issues the first warning of Earth Invasion ... CODE PURPLE.

    DHS crack scientists have been intercepting .... transmissions, i.e. SIGINT ... Singnals Intelligence ... from Titan!

    The Titans have been excited by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by BP PLC.

    Intercepts, translated, indicate that the methane breathing Titans are building fleets of craft to descent upon Earth to suck the oil from the Gulf of Mexico.

    Obama has already issued a statement to the Titans throught the radar telescope Aricebo saying "SUCK OFF!"

    Linguists at the National Academies are puzzled by Obamas words.

    Specilists are reviewing episodes of the '70s sit-coms, Diff'nt Strokes to assertain a true meaning to Obama's statements.

  32. McKay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that the dude who discovered fossils of Martians in some space rock 15 years ago? Oh wait - no, that was his brother. *facepalm*

  33. The primary impact is statistical by Metasquares · · Score: 1

    If life independently exists on Titan - in our virtual backyard - then life is probably far more common in the universe than we had previously thought.