I think the proper term is circumstellar habitable zone. If there is other life out there, why are we assuming that it’ll have the same basic needs as our animals? The universe is seemingly infinite, and there’s endless possibilities of what’s out there, so why do we only consider planets that are the ‘perfect’ distance away from their star?
In: 46
We have concrete evidence of exactly one form of life – the carbon and water based life found here on Earth. This is the only form of life we can point to as proven possible. Every other form is theoretical.
And by theoretical, we mean “might be possible, but we don’t have the means to prove it”. Biological systems are so incredibly complex that we barely have the means to fully model carbon based life, and we are absolutely surrounded by it. The prospect of modeling a realistic, alternative form of life is beyond daunting. We’re nowhere close to being able definitively prove if other forms of life are actually possible. In fact, the best proof of possibility might even be a real life specimen – that is, we might only know if other life is possible if we see it in the real world.
Because of this, we’re looking at a lot of planets which we are entirely uncertain of their ability to harbor life, and a select few planets which we know *can* harbor life, but might not. Taking a deeper look will be very expensive, so we’re playing the probability game. Goldilocks planets may have, say, a 4% chance of harboring life. While other planets might have anywhere from 0% to 2% chance. With the resources we have, we’re going to bet on the more likely option.
Latest Answers