Hacker News Reader

Comment by brooke2k | Hacker News Reader

Well, being a Continental World I would assume our Habitability is at 80% (although we've employed a lot of Terraforming so perhaps we're higher than that now) - but if we could locate a Gaia World in any Hyperlane-adjacent system, that would certainly be a great 100% Habitability target for any future colony ships.

View on HN

Considering how unlikely even the most ideal world would be to cater to the exact conditions we've evolved to adapt to, I'd say "more habitable than earth" is impossible without extreme terraforming of a lottery ticket planet.

What would more habitable than earth even mean?

Some guesses: Easily breathable atmosphere + liquid water + pleasant temperatures. Predictable weather? Mediterranean climate year round across whole planet? Entire world spanned by archipelagos, no continents (naturally condusive to smaller localised community building?) No native plants but rich soil for growing whatever plants we choose? Abundant sunlight with gentle constant breeze but few strong winds or storms? No volcanic or tectonic activity?

I'd say no pathogens but they'll come with us regardless.

> I'd say no pathogens but they'll come with us regardless.

I think NOT bringing the "right" microbes would be the problem, since it's not well understood. Childhood leukemia is linked to over cleanliness (lack of hepatitis A) [1]. Fecal transplants are being tested for neurological disorders, with some positive results!

Similarly, germ free rats have all sorts of problems, from under developed intestines to significant problems with brain development!

Who knows what's required, that we just happen to pick up while kids, sharing snot and mud with each other.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9684709/

I like this view, thanks for the link. Hep A was listed as a proxy for hygiene in that study, so the inverse correlation with acute lymphoblastic leukemia was not directly causal. Hep A itself likely doesn't prevent or treat leukemia, rather something about low hygiene conditions does. Maybe some common bacteria or other virus. The core point stands, we live in and depend on a messy biome, in particular ways we don't yet understand precisely.

Same climate across whole planet is not really possible for normal planets orbiting a star.

Perfectly doable for heavy terraforming, worldhouses or habitats thought.

it seems to me there must be at least some temperature gradient, but I imagine it could be sharper or shallower than on earth. Thus an egypt like equator and a milan like pole (or near to pole at least) seems plausible

On that note, there are some very interesting possibilities, like a tidally locked planet that has a thin ring of habitable space with everything in one direction too hot and to cold in the other. Of course if this would really be habitable and not pummeled to dust by storms due to the big temperature gradient is another question.

I assume they mean "more habitable for humans". We're currently adapted for ice caps, abundant liquid fresh water, protective ozone layer and 21% oxygen levels, which is one moment in a 4 billion year history for this planet.

We also need tectonics, vulcanism and erosion. Just "not where I live, thank you" tectonics.

That's the is-ought fallacy. We know humans can survive on many different levels of oxygen saturation, and it's clear that very high oxygen content is sometimes helpful. We are not "adapted for ice caps", and they are clearly not a requirement for our survival. Sure, ice caps help maintain Earth in a climate that is favorable to us, but think about all the many different climates that humans have existed in for thousands of generations. There's no real reason to assume ice caps are necessary for a favorable climate. Not to mention the fact that ice caps seem pretty common in the universe.

Similarly, the ozone layer is not a requirement, the requirement is that we have some protection against harmful radiation. I don't know how many different possible ways there are to produce a world with minimal UV light, but I'm sure it's more than 1. And besides: are you seriously suggesting that Earth is clearly optimally habitable regarding UV light, when a large percentage of all humans have to take active measures to protect their skin from frying every time they go outside for more than 30 minutes? It's actually very easy to imagine worlds where it's much more pleasant to be outside.

Why would you even think humans require tectonics, vulcanism, and erosion? This is the most obvious is-ought fallacy. Humans cannot live on a planet unless it has earthquakes and giant death-gas-spewing lava mountains? What?

Abundant fresh water I'll give you. This is something that all our evidence suggests Earth is definitely S-tier at, and rare in our neighborhood of the universe.

No need to leave though, we have unlocked gene tailoring and we should we able to research glandular acclimatation now, right?

> we have unlocked gene tailoring

Tell me that when we can gene tailor hair back in our heads. When genetic therapy becomes a routine esthetic rather than edge medical procedure, we're almost there.

We just need to rush Artificial Personality Matrix research so we can complete our Synthetic Ascension. Habitability will be a non-issue.

Both star sector and Stellaris have this mechanic right? I can't even tell which game you're making fun of here.

I was referencing stellaris but I should check out star sector

Starsector has hazard ratings, similar to Stellaris' habitability, but in reverse. I think it caps out at 300% hazard for airless irradiated balls of magma and/or gas giants in unmodded games.

Hmm, without googling: I'd guess something like Stellaris, given how popular it is? (never played it, but I'm a fan of the genre)

I am pretty sure it is not from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

yes and? you are just saying obvious shit "a super cool Planet would be dope as fuck and mog earth" ok thats true theoretically but its a nothingburger

lmao I'm just referencing a video game mb bruv

Reply on news.ycombinator.com