back

by freakynit·11mo ago·view on hn ↗
The transfer of life from one planet to another("panspermia") seems plausible in principle. However, the immense energy released during asteroid impacts makes survival unlikely in many cases, as the very organisms hitching a ride may be destroyed in the process. That said, evidence suggests that microbes shielded deep within rocks could potentially endure the violent stages of ejection, space travel, and planetary re-entry.

Beyond panspermia, I lean toward another perspective:

Life exists because it serves as a natural means of accelerating "entropy" production. In an otherwise relatively stable system, life provides a shortcut, catalyzing processes that dissipate energy gradients far more efficiently than non-living chemistry alone.

At the microbial level, metabolism drives the dissipation of redox gradients, pushing chemical systems toward lower free-energy states. While cells locally maintain order and complexity, their activity increases the overall entropy of their environment. In this sense, life is not a violation of thermodynamic laws but a direct expression of them.

If this is true, life may be extremely common in the universe, arising naturally wherever the right conditions exist to favor energy dissipation.

What may be rare, however, is complex life. Complexity requires not only a lucky balance of stability and change, but also the ability to endure, or even be forced forward, by catastrophic events such as mass extinctions, without wiping out all of it. Earth's active techntonic plates provided yet another means to enable evolution.

1 comments
> If this is true, life may be extremely common in the universe

It should be observable. Planets with life as entropy generators should absorb light from their star and reemit it as thermal radiation. More so than a lifeless planet of the same type. It is the case for Earth.

I have seen this idea somewhere, though I don't know how serious it is.

You’re right. If life really does boost entropy production, then in principle it should leave a footprint in how planets handle energy. The tricky part however, is telling apart what's due to biology versus what's just weather, geology, or atmosphere.

Of course, to notice something like this from such vast distances, the energy transformations would have to be happening on a very large scale. So, it's possible life is out there, but just not at a scale on those planets that our current instruments could pick up.

By any chances, do you have any good reading references for this: "I have seen this idea somewhere" .. I am genuinely curious to read more on this.