When life went global

Jul 07, 2014 by Johnny Bontemps, Astrobio.net
Is a planetary biosphere necessary for the long-term survival of life?

"An origin of life is not the same as an origin of a biosphere—that's an important distinction," says David Grinspoon, a planetary scientist and curator of astrobiology for the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

To illustrate the concept Grinspoon offers a simple analogy. Say you're starting a camp fire. It's easy to get it to spark up, but you have to tend it first or it may just die out. But then the fire reaches a critical moment when it catches on and becomes self-sustaining. Now you can leave it alone, and go back to drinking beers.

Grinspoon wonders: Did start out like little sparks that are vulnerable to extinction? And did it, once it transitioned to a global phenomenon, become like a self-sustaining flame?

False Start on Earth's Sisters?

Grinspoon's work focuses on the evolution of climate and atmosphere on Earth-like planets. At a recent conference themed Habitable Worlds Across Time and Space, held at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, MD, he discussed the implications of this viewpoint for Earth's nearest neighbors: Venus and Mars.

The three rocky planets formed around the same time, some 4.5 billion years ago. Just like Earth, Venus and Mars may once have been watery worlds. Today they seem dry and barren, but several lines of evidence suggest they both had oceans in their early days.

"Everything we know about them points to an early environment that was hospitable for life," Grinspoon says in an interview with Astrobiology Magazine.

Somehow only Earth held onto its water, and eventually burst out with the self-sustaining fire of life.

"Maybe what's rare is not the formation of watery planets, but the persistence of habitable environments over cosmological timescales," he says.

By the end of his talk, titled "Venus and Mars as Failed Biospheres," Grinspoon raises an intriguing question. Is a biosphere necessary for the long-term survival of life?

The Turning Point on Earth

The oldest signs of life on Earth date to about 3.5 billion years ago. But when did our planet transition from having organisms to having a biosphere?

Just like Earth, Venus and Mars may once have been watery worlds. Credit: ESA

"It's hard to tell—it's something that hasn't been studied enough," Grinspoon says. "But my guess is that once life has some kind of global influence, then you're transitioning to a biosphere."

To him the shift had likely occurred by 2.3 billion years ago, or around the time photosynthetic microbes began churning out oxygen into Earth's oceans and atmosphere, affecting life's survival everywhere on the planet.

However, life's influence went way beyond its power to shape the Earth's atmosphere. According to recent studies, life has shaped everything from Earth's interior to the diversity of minerals on its surface. As Grinspoon puts it, "Life has got Earth in its clutches in this deep, and not always obvious way."

Birth of a Living World

"Can a planet, in a sense, become alive?" Grinspoon asks.

It's not the first time he puts the concept forward. In his 2003 book Lonely Planets, Grinspoon introduced the "Living World" hypothesis, a slight variant the well-known Gaia hypothesis.

In the 1970s, the chemist James Lovelock and the biologist Lynn Margulis developed the idea that our Earth may be like a living organism, a self-regulating entity that employs feedback loops to keep conditions just right for life. They christened the potentially living planet "Gaia," from the Greek for Mother Earth.

The idea has since been hotly debated, mostly pegged as more philosophical than scientific. Still, many researchers agree that the concept has helped Earth system science move forward, allowing us to realize that many of Earth's cycles—the water, nitrogen, and carbon cycles; plate tectonics; and the climate—are deeply interconnected, and is modulating and being modulated by life on Earth.

"Gaia may just be a nice metaphor," Grinpsoon says, "but I wonder if it may be fruitful to think of life as something that happens not just on a planet, but as something that happens to a planet."

"You cannot easily separate the living and the non-living parts of Earth," he adds. "Life has made Earth the way it is to a large extent. That's the general meaning of the Gaia hypothesis, and the Living Worlds hypothesis is simply extending the idea to other planets."

Credit: ESA/NASA

Finding Life's Elsewhere

"The idea of an origin of life separated from the birth of a living world has interesting implications for life elsewhere," Grinspoon writes in Lonely Planets.

"If self-regulating Gaia is responsible for Earth's life longevity, then we need to find other places where this kind of global organism has evolved, not merely places where the of life might once have occurred."

In other words, our search for life should then target places with active geological and meteorological cycles, the potential tell-tales of a vibrant biosphere.

We've now found nearly 2,000 planets orbiting distant stars, and counting. While these worlds may be too far for us to find any direct evidence for life in the near future, researchers are becoming increasingly proficient at making out the composition of their atmosphere. That ability could perhaps one day allow us to distinguish between "failed biospheres" and potentially living worlds.

In the meantime, a Living World perspective may yield useful insights as we target our search for life closer to home, in our own solar system. Jupiter's icy moon, Europa, seems to have a young and active surface, while Saturn's moon, Titan, is meteorologically well-alive with methane raining down and filling rivers and lakes.

Jupiter’s icy moon Europa, with its young and active surface, is a good candidate to be looking for life. Credit: NASA/JPL/Ted

Even our closest neighbor, Venus, long viewed as a hellish world with its extreme heat, crushing pressure, and clouds of sulfuric acid, could potentially host some kind of life, if vigorous cycles are any indicators of a healthy , as Grinspoon argued in his 1997 book, Venus Revealed.

For Mars it would be a different story, with its stale atmosphere of carbon dioxide and its rusty, quiet surface.

"From a living worlds perspective, the new wave of interest in life on Mars is highly questionable," Grinspoon wrote in Lonely Planets.

But even if Mars seems dead now, it may not be the end of it for the Red Planet. By 2030, the mission "Mars One" will aim to establish the first human settlement. In the end, the "fire" which started on Earth 3.5 billion years ago could soon leap and catch on elsewhere.

Explore further: Climate change may prevent contact with alien civilisations

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What astrobiology teaches us about living well on Earth

Nov 08, 2013

When a Mars rover leaves a trail of tracks in the Martian dunes, is it a tragic imprint of human intrusion on a pristine alien landscape billions of years old, or the first hopeful sign of intelligent life ...

Is life on Mars related to life on Earth?

Jul 31, 2013

The idea that there is life on other worlds is humbling and exciting, and finding life on another world would change everything. This has been a driving force for scientists for decades. We find life wherever ...

How life could have produced most minerals on Earth

Apr 30, 2014

While astronomers are trying to figure out which planets they find are habitable, there are a range of things to consider. How close are they to their parent star? What are their atmospheres made of? And ...

Looking for life in all the wrong places

Feb 03, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists have long focused their search for extraterrestrial life on Earth-like planets – but that may be a mistake, according to a McMaster researcher.

Recommended for you

Image: NASA's SDO observes a lunar transit

5 hours ago

On July 26, 2014, from 10:57 a.m. to 11:42 a.m. EDT, the moon crossed between NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory and the sun, a phenomenon called a lunar transit.

Image: Tethys in sunlight

5 hours ago

Tethys, like many moons in the solar system, keeps one face pointed towards the planet around which it orbits. Tethys' anti-Saturn face is seen here, fully illuminated, basking in sunlight. On the right side ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
The researcher inevitably raises the catch-22 situation:
Does life require a biosphere to get going in the first place or is it the biosphere that requires life to develop? Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Unless and until such time as scientists can come up with a robust and scientifically defensible explanation of how life could get started from non-life, the kind of reasoning the researcher is following is simply pure speculation, unfortunately.
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2014
Carbon recycling started earlier though. Ecoglite diamonds tell of subduction and recycling ~ 3 billion years ago.

I don't think a fullblown recycling of all nutrients is necessary. E.g nitrogen may have been the latest to recycle, since only some cyanobacteria fixates it efficiently. That happened 1-0.5 billion years ago.

What increased recycling gives you is increased biosphere lifetime. Conversely, our biosphere has had a long lifetime without any of many extinction events making life disappear or retreat to patchy refugia.

Gaia is universally panned among scientists I think, since there are no evidence of the predicted stabilizing feedbacks. "Nevertheless, the Gaia hypothesis continues to attract criticism, and today many scientists consider it to be only weakly supported by, or at odds with, the available evidence." [ http://en.wikiped...pothesis ] Funny how Grinspoon, who is a great scientist, supports that.
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2014
@JVDM: Ah, so you are a creationist trolling science! Now I feel bad to trying to correct your claims re planetary accretion in the other thread.

As we all know, evolution (the biosphere) is a process independent on how the first population started, it describes how population changes into populations. Same as how general relativity is independent on mass mechanisms like the Higgs field but describes how masses acts on masses.

And the problem since 50 years back was not to "come up with a robust and scientifically defensible explanation" how life emerged, we had many of those. The problem was to get rid of the pathways not taken.

But 2013 was the year that astrobiologists connected geophysics almost-life systems with modern life systems phylogenetically, i.e. by evolutionary means same as all life. So we got rid of sufficiently many pathways and now we know not only that it happened (since inflation results in an initial universe without life) but how it happened.
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2014
The key was the prediction and later find of geophysical systems that share cellular traits with life, e.g. submarine alkaline hydrothermal vents. Those were the most common hydrothermal systems in the Hadean/Archean too, by the way.

Now the pathways shake down so that there are smaller bottlenecks left. I just had the opportunity to survey them, there are 3 minor which seems to have the same solution. The problem is that it will take 5 years to test _those_ too, and then there will appear newer. But it is the same "there are no transitions [transitional fossils]" mistake that creationists always do, the sum of it is that the generic problem is solved.

[Of course there are still contenders, but they are at the moment not so well off.]