# Other Life using Nuclear Energy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 19, 2000, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713 "2000-09-19T13:26:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![cabbagefreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@cabbagefreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cabbagefreak)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/21 "2000-09-21T09:25:14Z")
but IMMORTALITY _IS_ POSSIBLE!!! just look at this site! this is incredible! [http://www.alexchiu.com/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=herozero](http://www.alexchiu.com/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=herozero) it seems silly to debate things when they’re still finding out important facts about human bodies, consciousness, and the universe? What a time to be alive! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![PerfectDark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ebca7d/32.png) [@PerfectDark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PerfectDark)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/22 "2000-09-21T11:22:18Z")
> [@](#): > > **cabbagefreak said;** but IMMORTALITY _IS_ POSSIBLE!!! So where all going to be around to see what actually happens are we?? Just touching on that topic, have any of you filled up all the memory in your computers hardrive? The human brain records quite alot and therefore stores it, like a computer, after millions… perhaps sooner depending on our brains capacity… of years wouldn’t all of our memory be used up??? Perhaps this is the reason why we aren’t immortal because our brains would have to grow outside of our heads and into the living room and then it would be like something in a sci-fi horror movie! > [@](#): > > **Bobort said;** I think those pesky laws of thermodynamics are going to pretty much ruin your day. The heat death of the universe is unavoidable. Is it?? The amount of matter and energy in the universe is fixed… Which means it is possible to interchange matter and energy as many times as you want over any time period! Future life forms will be able to manipulate the entire universe and everything in it. With this in mind it will be possible to reverse the sparse ‘death’ of the universe. > [@](#): > > **Max the Immortal said;** I don’t see the point of collapsing the universe and killing ourselves, as the OP suggested. Because we discovered everything? If we discover everything and decide that there is nothing left to do (not likely), what good would re-making the universe? Wouldn’t that just be more of the same? Besides, the universe is really, really big. We may not be able to explore all of it before the heat death thing that others in this thread mentioned does us in. Well I just ruled out the ‘heat death thing’. The very nature of the words ‘we discover everything’ means that there is nothing else to do NONE OF THIS ‘not likely’ business. Once life has done everything possible it either keeps repeating itself or life has to ‘forget stuff’ so that it can do it again as if for the first time! I am sorry, there is one hole in this theory, not everything has been done… destroying the universe and starting again hasn’t been done… So I change it to ‘The last thing that can be done’. Getting a little bit back to the original topic… > [@](#): > > **Max the Immortal said;** No life form (as we know it) would be able to survive for any appreciable length of time using this metabolism. Thankyou Max, '(as we know it), there is alot we don’t know so it could be possible that some alien lifeform has evolved to use either a radioactive element or fusion of hydrogen. I am just day dreaming now but what about a star that is covered, at a fair distance from the star, by a huge canopy of vine and leaves in a huge sphere. And then this huge sphere spourns seeds away from the sphere and out of the Star system, many years later when it approaches another star it’s light causes the seed to start growing and eventually it covers the star in a dome of vine that no light can escape. Any way this is REALLY far fetched and has been conjured up from the depths of my imagination but for the gigantic size of the universe it might actually exist somewhere out there… **PerfectDark** ---
**Author:** ![MJH2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@MJH2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MJH2)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/23 "2000-09-21T12:37:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PerfectDark \* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Bobort said;** I think those pesky laws of thermodynamics are going to pretty much ruin your day. The heat death of the universe is unavoidable. > > Is it?? The amount of matter and energy in the universe is fixed… Which means it is possible to interchange matter and energy as many times as you want over any time period! Future life forms will be able to manipulate the entire universe and everything in it. With this in mind it will be possible to reverse the sparse ‘death’ of the universe. I don’t know about that. Whatever you do to “reverse” heat death (e.g. converting energy into matter) is going to have an “equal and opposite” reaction somewhere else in the system. Provided you have the means, you can interchange mass and energy all you want; I will grant you that. But it will always “cost” you something to do this. Why do you think we haven’t mastered fusion yet? > [@](#): > > I just ruled out the ‘heat death thing’. The very nature of the words ‘we discover everything’ means that there is nothing else to do NONE OF THIS ‘not likely’ business. You haven’t ruled it out “the heat death thing”; you can’t without altering the laws of the Universe. But **BigDaddyD** touched on a good point: the “heat death” mandated by the Second Law only applies to closed (equilibrium or near-equilibrium) systems, not to open (far-from-equilibrium) systems such as the Earth and its biosphere. The Second Law still _applies_ to open systems, but the manifestations of it are different; in an open system, increased entropy is manifested through increased organization (as in biological organisms). Therefore, biological evolution is not forbidden by the Second Law. The “heat death thing” supposes that the Universe is a closed system – which is true, if we accept that the total amount of matter plus energy remains constant. > [@](#): > > Thank you Max, '(as we know it), there is alot we don’t know so it could be possible that some alien lifeform has evolved to use either a radioactive element or fusion of hydrogen. Possibly, but Max is making a good general point; an organism’s structure (cells or whatever else it might be) must be able to survive its own metabolic/energy-releasing processes. And so far we know of no organic – and relativity few inorganic – forms which can survive the process of nuclear fission, or proximity to it, unharmed. ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/24 "2000-09-21T19:59:45Z")
The “heat death thing” is based on the topology of the universe. If it’s “open” or “flat” (which it seems to be), then it will end in heat death. If it’s “closed”, then it will collapse in a Big Crunch. The current understanding of the universe being “flat” already accounts for all the known/predicted matter & energy of the universe. Since the universe is all-that-is, there’s no way (as far as we know) to add more stuff to “close” the topology. ---
**Author:** ![MJH2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@MJH2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MJH2)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/25 "2000-09-21T20:39:43Z")
Phobos, if I understand correctly you using the terms “open/closed” in terms of whether the Universe can expand infinitely or not? If not, then I don’t quite follow what you mean by “topology”, “flat” etc. I am using “open/closed” in terms of energy flowing in/out of the system or not. I’m not clear on whether that amounts to the same thing you are speaking of. ---
**Author:** ![quasar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@quasar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quasar)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/26 "2000-09-22T05:46:45Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Muppetsoup_ > \*\* Sentience, however is not a requirement for life. \*\* Indirectly, sentience does imply the existence of life. Sentience means that sensorial perceptions are being interpreted consciously, and, of course, the basic life initiates with an organism awareness of its own existence; life resides at the edge of consciousness. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Derleth_ > \*\* Von Neumann device: Self-replicating machine.\*\* …which implies that it reproduces asexually and thus is incapable of the most unbridled, passionate form of ecstasy known to man. Not very fun, nope, not at all. My deepest sympathies for Von Neumann devices, I hope that whatever masturbatory actions they use to please themselves are sufficient to satisfy their latent sexual impetus. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by MJH2_ > \*\*.Anyway, back on topic: I think the capability to reproduce is one of the defining features of a distinct species, but not necessarily of life. \*\* But it is necessary to perpetuate life. Since every living being known to man is subject to death and thus has a finite existence, the ability to perpetuate life beyond a particular individual’s own life span is a necessity for the long-term survival of a species. As to the points in the OP, I am pretty sure that **Darkcool** is familiar with the process of stellar evolution, he just wants to speculate about other possible explanations not covered by the existent scientific body of knowledge. I assume he is familiar as well with the Gaia hypothesis that proposes that earth is a leaving organism. I, for my part, don’t believe that stars, planets, and celestial objects in general are conscious entities that have a direct saying in the way they evolve. They are instead forced to inadvertently function according to the arbitrary sets of laws and constants that govern the universe. Of course, that is as far as we know, eventually new discoveries might change our conceptions regarding the universe in general and stars in particular. Even though I am not in agreement with the theories presented by Darkcool, I must say that I appreciate the way he thinks. He sets himself free from the chains constituted by society’s paradigms and accepted dogma and, having armed himself with intellectual flexibility, allows his imagination to dip into the mysterious confines of the undiscovered, thus providing interesting speculation that can only be rebuked on the grounds of CURRENT scientific knowledge or generalized perceptions, bu cannot be decisively and categorically put down. And yes, the scenarios he outlines are plausible, however unlikely they might appear. I believe it was Kant who once set for himself the task of coming with a piece of knowledge that will forever escape human comprehension. He reasoned that, since stars were so far away, we would never be able to traverse the space that separate us from them and thus will never know their composition. Little did he now about spectroscopy back then… The point is that knowledge is dynamic and subject to constant refinement. Human spirit is curious and attentive to detail. Evolution has given humanity a great deal of intellectual capacity. In the future, if the human race is still around, many of the secrets that lay out there in the farthest reaches of space or even right here, in front of our unperceptive eyes, might cease to hide under the veil of mystery that surrounds them now; instead revealing magnificent scenarios and conceptions impossible to accept, or even visualize, at such an early stage of our intellectual development. As such, openness of mind and speculative character must accompany us in this intellectual journey we are embarking on. Denial of speculative proposals based on the grounds of psychological perceptions or sensorial and technological limitations act only as constraints to the prowess and enlightenment of the human race. And, since I have totally deviated from the subject, I invite you to read the following posts, which are more likely to contribute more to the discussion than this small dissertation of mine on the limits of human thought. PD. Darkcool, If you like that sort of speculation, check out the Fantastic Four comic books. One of their nemeses, Galactus, is a planet like organism that feeds off the energy of living beings. ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/27 "2000-09-22T12:49:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MJH2 \* > \*\*Phobos, if I understand correctly you using the terms “open/closed” in terms of whether the Universe can expand infinitely or not? If not, then I don’t quite follow what you mean by “topology”, “flat” etc. > > I am using “open/closed” in terms of energy flowing in/out of the system or not. I’m not clear on whether that amounts to the same thing you are speaking of. > \*\* Yes, in cosmology, open/flat/closed are ways of describing the structure (topology) of the universe. Sorry if I confused it with your discussion of thermodynamic open/closed systems. The universe is thermodynamically closed (nothing enters from other universes), but is cosmologically flat (Euclidean geometry, eternal expansion resulting in heat death). ---
**Author:** ![jb\_farley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@jb\_farley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jb_farley)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/28 "2000-09-22T22:09:05Z")
1. Reproduction as necessary for life- this is true on the scale of the animal, as well as the special. Just because a mule can’t successfully bring forth child doesn’t mean it ain’t reproducing. The cells inside the animal’s body are reproducing at a fairly steady pace. Once that stops, said donkey is dead. 2. vines on stars thing- really really farfetched. It would have to have the ability to withstand incredibly intense solar pressures, temperatures, and radiation. Not only that, it would have to turn solar energy directly into matter, in order to create enough vines to be considered growing around the sun. Stick with the idea of life outside of our conception, mang- I reallydug the living stars idea. Kind of off topic, but Clarke wrote of complex arrangements of gases and vapours having brought forth life in the atmosphere of Jupiter in 2010 (I think). Basically, conscious whorles of methane. Pretty badass, mofo. 1. Freyr, good effort, but bad logic. You say that only warm-blooded creatures are capable of cognition, and then as evidence point out that no cold-blooded creatures are cognizent. Remember that cold-blooded creatures have pretty much the same range of body temp we do, and that most of our metabolism is used to heat our bodies. I don’t think it has much to do with countereffecting our entropic climb. 2. As for genetic material being necessary, that is true. And it is readily agreed to be true. As long as we are talking about terrestrial life. Besides that, all bets are off, and I think most scientists would agree. Keeping in mind that this OP is precisely about forms of life different from those we know, it is rather disingenuous to offer lack of DNa as a reason to stop the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2000, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/29 "2000-09-23T06:51:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _by quasar_ > > which implies that it reproduces asexually and thus is incapable of the most unbridled, passionate form of ecstasy known to man. It implies no such thing. All species are made up of self-replicating machines. Having sex just requires a partner to self-replicate, and it means that the copy will not be perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2000, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/30 "2000-09-24T04:15:49Z")
It is my understanding that these terms do not describe the shape of the universe, but rather its fate. Open meaning that it will continue to expand forever, closed that it will eventually slow down, stop, and collapse, and flat meaning it will gradually slow down, but never actually stop expanding. And opinions of which it is are constantly changing. ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2000, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713/31 "2000-09-27T21:40:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BigDaddyD \* > \*\*It is my understanding that these terms do not describe the shape of the universe, but rather its fate. Open meaning that it will continue to expand forever, closed that it will eventually slow down, stop, and collapse, and flat meaning it will gradually slow down, but never actually stop expanding. And opinions of which it is are constantly changing. \*\* continuing the hijack… Those terms do describe the fate of the universe, but they also describe the topology. Two parallel beams of light will remain parallel in a flat universe, they will converge in a closed universe, and will diverge in an open universe (after traversing a significant portion of the universe). There has been a lot of debate as to which is correct, but very recently, a lot of cosmologists now agree that it is flat (the latest evidence is from the BOOMERANG experiment). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/other-life-using-nuclear-energy/33713.md?page=1)