>>17062230
The concept of superhabitability relates to planets as a statistical population group. The theory goes that some groups of planets are more likely to be life-bearing than others. It's a purely hypothetical exercise since the only known planet with extant life on it is Earth, but if/when enough life bearing worlds are identified, the population of habitable worlds can begin to be analyzed together. If Superhabitability isn't nonsense, there should be more life-bearing worlds that look like them than others. If there isn't a statistically significant shift in the distrubtion, it's bogus. But, again, wihtout a distribution to draw on, it's all hypotheticals and speculation. And probably a lot of self-indulgent intellectual wankery.

>>17062230
Well, what else do you want xenobiologists to do, it's not like they've got actual ayys to study, might as well cook up some mental masturbation. I don't even see anything wrong with the proposal; no reason to assume Earth is as good as it gets.

>>17062239
Earth is as good as it get, because we all evolved for it and adapted for it, superhabitability is horseshit unless it can be reduced to a shallow metric like "oh that planet has more biomass than ours".

honestly even if it was real i wouldn't want to think about humans discovering it and migrating and ruining yet another planet entirely
bradbury's martian chronicles made me be more sensitive to these kind of topics cause ojmgaga. atrocious!

>>17062230
any world where humans aren't present to make it unbearable is superhabitable to me

File: IMG_2052.jpg (2.74 MB, 1254x10000)

2.74 MB JPG

Wouldn’t that just be this?

>>17062275
>Earth is as good as it get, because we all evolved for it and adapted for it
An invasive species can be extraordinarily more successful in another part of the Earth, no reason to assume this couldn't also happen interplanetarily. And what's wrong with the "more biomass" angle anyway? A warm, wet, swamp ass planet orbiting a K-class star for billions of years would absolutely lifemog Earth. Just a gigantic stagnant pool of endless birth, death and decomposition.

>>17062304
>no reason to assume this couldn't also happen interplanetarily
adaptation to local conditions. we're super tied to Earth's conditions. not only temperature, luminosity, gravity, pressure, atmosphere composition, but also the symbiosis with other life here. we'd die without our gut and ass bacteria.
and even if just a few of these factors are a bit off it could massively complicate our experience there, the reason we'd want to take it over in the first place. we'd be talking at least few ly away from here, which comes with a minimum obligatory cost.
thus we might as well terraform local bodies to suit our need. the difference in time between now and when we'd have the tech to do it should be a blip in the grand scheme of things. certainly not worth it to build generational ships that have a low chance of getting anywhere to few ly away from here, to fuck over a different ayylmao species to get their not ideal world. it's just colonial brain rot

>>17062356
What point are you trying to argue against? That nobody should be interested in potential alien life because Colonialism? lol?

>>17062363
you can be interested in. I was attacking your statement:
>>17062304
>no reason to assume this couldn't also happen interplanetarily.
which is pretty colonial coded
in your case "being interested in" means killing them and taking over their shit

>>17062230
I'm crossed because some of this is complete utter garbage, and some other parts are potentially useful.

I didn't read beyond the abstract of the original 2016 paper, or beyond the wiki, but whoever is writing shit like
"The optimum surface temperature for Earth-like life is unknown, although it appears that on Earth, organism diversity has been greater in warmer periods."
needs a retard award.

>>17062376
It wasn't my statement. The concept of superhabitability and panspermia applies to all life, not just human beings, whether it's rats, mice, cats, dogs, or kudzu; it's entirely possible that some organism from planet Earth can outcompete local flora or fauna on another world, and vice-versa.

>>17062379
>it's entirely possible
*but not plausible. since what we have is adapted to local conditions

you do the same thing many "intellectuals" do, you use a shoddy assumption and build on it.
>>17062379
>panspermia
and you declare your conclusion as being very probable based on literally wrong assumptions. it's the what ifs of what ifs and you get to some certain conclusion in the end. retarded behavior

>>17062380
Your entire counter-argument is "nuh-uh, because Earth." I wouldn't go throwing stones in glass houses.

>>17062379
Not him but directed panspermia is mostly a microbe game.
I seriously doubt any Earth animal could integrate at all into an established alien ecosystem.

>>17062380
See comment above.

>>17062382
>microbe game
literally needs the conditions it operates in. without said conditions it can't do shit. chemicals/temperature/pressure

>>17062384
He says, speaking of conditions that exist as a range, rather than a fixed point.

>>17062385
>what if what if what if
ok so what if there's a planet with similar conditions to Earth and what if it cooms some local microbes from here right up to over there a few ly aways, in that particular case is it possible it would outcompete local fauna? is that the scenario?

>>17062296
boy that's depressing

>>17062392
it isn't. someone will refuse to and will turn all of it off kek

>>17062230
>post any vaguely science related topic
>say some incredibly retarded bullshit
>successful thread
Why is 90% of /sci/ like this?

>>17062388
That is the hypothetically possible end-point of the notion of super-habitability, yes. The point isn't that Earth life will ever end up in such a place, just that if it hypothetically did, it could hypothetically thrive above and beyond the conditions available for life on Earth.

>>17062396
Most of the posts are by the OP, all it takes is spam if you classify thread as "successful" based on post count. OP got blown out by first post like usual.

>>17062401
What the fuck happened to this board. Like there was always a lot of shit posted here, but there were enough genuine threads to make it worth shifting through to find them. Now its rare to find a genuine thread which isn't some highly esoteric maths topic.
Even if you do find a decent science thread chances are its rails will get bombed out by shit posters and schizos.
I swear the ratio of shit to gems has gone from like 2:1 to 10:1

What about a superhabitable world with all the right conditions for Earth life to thrive but on which life never developed? Nothing, not even single cell organism. A planet full of weather and geologic change but no life anywhere on it altering anything. What would colonization of such a planet look like?

>>17062407
>but on which life never developed
statistically impossible considering our sample size of 1 combined with the fact that as soon as it was possible life did form here. like ... as soon as conditions allowed. like right the instant it was possible it developed.
since we had no wait time for it to show up it seems it does instantly show up, if the conditions allow.
so, if I were a betting man, and we would find a similar planet with similar conditions, I'd wager it has some kind of "life".

>>17062404
This is still theoretically decent thread because it's made in good faith (just by a retard). Most of the board is made by spambots and/or in bad faith is the answer to your question.

There will obviously be some out there if Nasa are to believed. Hundreds of millions of planets, most that we cannot see. They are the better option due to how long, with current tech, some of these terraforming plans can actually take. Earth like gravity would be a god send. Some of the space guys are looking at sending earth microbes to planets with water to make sure there is no space disease in the water, clean it, grow new humans from bacteria into fish like what happened here or whatever. Nerds like Elon are trying to conquer space with tech but using shit we already have to keep things as normal as possible is probably a better idea. Having babies in space the environments people are building for us to have babies in space is a nightmare for development, logistics and space junk for example. If we can find earth like gravity, with relatively open spaces we don't have to have babies on pyhsical fitness and mental health programmes.

And life, could be anything from a bit of fauna or bacteria to turbo rapist aliens. Finding a tree on another planet would technically be life to space guys and a great marketing scheme for more private investment lmao.

The original paper is wrong because worlds more massive than Earth are almost certainly water planets because they have more hydrogen from their formation and higher gravity means land sinks faster and experience much faster erosion. Deep oceans lack diversity or density of life. This concept is inherently bunk.

>>17062419
>still theoretically a decent thread
Atleast get your grammar right before playing the "im smarter than everyone" card.

>>17062296
Terrible comic. Too much exposition, too many panels, it's not funny, it's not interesting, nothing.

>>17062599
I didn't say I was smarter than everyone, I just called OP a retard which is just factually and obviously true.

>>17062230
What about superdangerous worlds?

>>17062230
Superhabitable just means that a good chunk of the planet is like the Amazon or Washington state and the Black Forest, and it has less deserts, not some magical stuff

>17062296 (You)
>completely unrelated to the thread topic
What causes this?

>>17062356
>adaptation to local conditions. we're super tied to Earth's conditions. not only temperature, luminosity, gravity, pressure, atmosphere composition, but also the symbiosis with other life here. we'd die without our gut and ass bacteria.
Invasive species bro. Take Australia for example, it was extremely isolated biologically for a very long time, and they've nevertheless had many issues with invasive species being absurdly successful over there. Of course, another planet would be even farther removed, but if we're assuming life has similar requirements for nutrients and temperature, and that the chirality of their organic molecules is preserved, there's no reason why *some* of Earth's species might not have a field day over there. Hell, look at our extremophiles, some of them might throw a party even if the other world is remarkably different.

File: Anime_SmugContempt_Kaiba.jpg (47 KB, 1070x602)

47 KB JPG

>>17062230
>Do /sci/ actually believe in this shit?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhabitable_world

Uuuuuuh, sure, lemme have a look.
>A superhabitable world is a hypothetical type of planet or moon that is better suited than Earth for the emergence and evolution of life.
>Instead, they proposed a biocentric model that prioritized characteristics affecting the abundance of life and biodiversity on a world's surface.
>If a world possesses more diverse flora and fauna than there are on Earth, then it would empirically show that its natural environment is more hospitable to life.
>In other words, a superhabitable world would likely be larger, warmer, and older than Earth, with an evenly-distributed ocean, and orbiting a K-type main-sequence star.

The thing about it is:
-If the definition of a "superhabitable" is measured in biodiversity then the listed conditions are wrong. Earth's staggering biodiversity is in part due to a combination of periodic extinction events and proceeding period of biotic recovery "breaking the glass ceiling", and a nice range of staggered temp. and climate zones create varied ecosystems for animals to adapt and evolve to.
-However, if it's defined by just the sheer weight or amount of plants and animals then sure: these conditions would probably produce way more fish, corals, jungles, bugs, lizards, etc.. By weight. But if the planet is a homogenous realm of shallow seas and small-to-medium tropical islands and archipelagos it'd be dominated by generalists. I'd expect actual "diversity" to be fairly low.

Granted, we're a sample size of one, so this is all fantasy.

File: images(154)(1).jpg (26 KB, 588x366)

26 KB JPG

>>17063680
A good challenge and breeding ground for hyper-predators

>see: The Kodoku Experiment - manga by Yukinobu Hoshino

>>17062275
>Earth is as good as it get,
himalayas
arctic + antarctic
oceans are kind of empty
deserts
russian tundras
mongolia and kazakhstan

earth can be kind of fukken inhabitable

>>17064389
>it's just like in the anime

>>17064392
>earth can be kind of fukken inhabitable
not for us. we're not there as we have better places to live in. but if need be we'd be able to survive there as well. especially using technology

>>17064402
>especially using technology
I dont think this counts as habitable

>>17064405
buddy Canada would be unhabitable without technology. clothes are technology. hell even north of USA would be uninhabitable without clothes and fire, for humans.

>>17064405
Only if technology becomes a permanent baseline condition forever, or we use technology to revert to the fitness typical of fauna, thus overcoming dependancy towards technology while retaining it

>>17062230
Useless "sointists" making up more nonsense busy-work to keep pretending they're actually doing any science

>>17064352
>I'd expect actual "diversity" to be fairly low.
Jungles have the highest biodiversity on the planet by far. It's entirely possible that some kind of alien built 100% jungle planet would have magnitudes more biodiversity than earth simply because it's just 100% jungle. Not to mention that natural planets do have gradients. We could comfortably heat earth up several degrees without losing any biodiversity because the poles are currently frozen shitholes. A natural jungle planet wouldn't have those and thus just automatically win even if the jungles reached up well into current temperate zones.
It's the same thing with oceans, oceans are biologically dead zones. A single good coastal biome can have more diodiversity than the rest of the ocean. There's no real reason why Atlantic or Pacific have to be that big and if you spliced up part of the Pacific say Hawaii and plopped it in the middle of Sahara, took another part of Indian Ocean and placed that in Mongolia and piece of Atlantic and put that down in Nevada (and the equivalent islands in said places) the planets biodiversity (and biomass) would both go up.

>>17064477
>alien built 100% jungle planet would have magnitudes more biodiversity than earth simply because it's just 100% jungle
what would be the purpose of that? lower life forms have a shit experience here. always stressed they're going to get killed, or die of hunger.

>>17064469
The weird little tart who was all over the media for several years as being the youngest astronaut and the first person on Mars eventually had a reality check when she got to college and couldn't hack aerospace engineering. She ended up transferring down through several schools before ending up at Florida Tech to study astrobiology. She'll no doubt have several decades of doing nothing productive while pulling in a large salary for being a dumb tart teaching that useless crap to the next generation of parasites.

>>17064499
astrobiology
>we came from stardust
kukuku. I see now there is more than one way to neet.

I don't get it, do they propose single-biome planets who are covered entirely in forests and jungles? Because we've been doing that in science fiction for a long time

>>17062230
Seek the spirit world instead

File: IMG_2053.png (1.25 MB, 800x4280)

1.25 MB PNG

>>17063680
Like this?