Universe's first life might have been born on carbon planets

Universe's First Life Might Have Been Born on Carbon Planets
In this artist's conception, a carbon planet orbits a sunlike star in the early universe. Young planetary systems lacking heavy chemical elements but relatively rich in carbon could form worlds made of graphite, carbides and diamond rather than Earth-like silicate rocks. Blue patches show where water has pooled on the planet's surface, forming potential habitats for alien life. Christine Pulliam (CfA). Sun image: NASA/SDO

Our Earth consists of silicate rocks and an iron core with a thin veneer of water and life. But the first potentially habitable worlds to form might have been very different. New research suggests that planet formation in the early universe might have created carbon planets consisting of graphite, carbides, and diamond. Astronomers might find these diamond worlds by searching a rare class of stars.

"This work shows that even with a tiny fraction of the in our solar system can host planets," says lead author and Harvard University graduate student Natalie Mashian.

"We have good reason to believe that alien life will be carbon-based, like life on Earth, so this also bodes well for the possibility of life in the ," she adds.

The primordial universe consisted mostly of hydrogen and helium, and lacked chemical elements like carbon and oxygen necessary for life as we know it. Only after the first stars exploded as supernovae and seeded the second generation did planet formation and life become possible.

Mashian and her PhD thesis advisor Avi Loeb (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) examined a particular class of old stars known as carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars, or CEMP stars. These anemic stars contain only one hundred-thousandth as much iron as our Sun, meaning they formed before interstellar space had been widely seeded with heavy elements.

"These stars are fossils from the young universe," explains Loeb. "By studying them, we can look at how planets, and possibly in the universe, got started."

Although lacking in iron and other compared to our Sun, CEMP stars have more carbon than would be expected given their age. This relative abundance would influence as fluffy carbon dust grains clump together to form tar-black worlds.

From a distance, these carbon planets would be difficult to tell apart from more Earth-like worlds. Their masses and physical sizes would be similar. Astronomers would have to examine their atmospheres for signs of their true nature. Gases like carbon monoxide and methane would envelop these unusual worlds.

Mashian and Loeb argue that a dedicated search for planets around CEMP stars can be done using the transit technique. "This is a practical method for finding out how early planets may have formed in the infant universe," says Loeb.

"We'll never know if they exist unless we look," adds Mashian.

This research has been accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and is available online.


Explore further

Hunting for hidden life on worlds orbiting old, red stars

More information: CEMP stars: possible hosts to carbon planets in the early universe, arxiv.org/abs/1603.06943
Citation: Universe's first life might have been born on carbon planets (2016, June 7) retrieved 22 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-universe-life-born-carbon-planets.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1624 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 07, 2016
Nah, not possible. Can you imagine the global warming on a Carbon planet?

Jun 07, 2016
That was my first thought. Maybe if it was at the outer edge of the goldilocks distance from its star, to balance runaway greenhouse effects.

Jun 07, 2016
Impossible. Imagine the carbon taxes!

Jun 07, 2016
Fungus among us was my first thought. And I'm still pondering it.

Jun 08, 2016
To understand how life began, and why you are living, you need to first know your Creator.

That the inherent contradiction in this one sentence doens't occur to you is telling.

"A creator" would be life, too. So you have created an infinitely recursive argument (i.e. the most stupid kind). Bravo.

Jun 08, 2016
Fungus among us was my first thought. And I'm still pondering it.
1/5 (2)

Yeah, nothing grows in warm, damp, dark places. The artist's conception just _looks_ moldy. What was I thinking? Ijits...

Jun 09, 2016
To understand how life began, and why you are living, you need to first know your Creator.

That the inherent contradiction in this one sentence doens't occur to you is telling.

"A creator" would be life, too. So you have created an infinitely recursive argument (i.e. the most stupid kind). Bravo.
- a-p

And your evidence for the absence of such a 'Creator' is...?
Or did you find BartV's assertion much too attractively enticing to pass up, so as to follow it with a negative in spite of your probable inability to substantiate your own assertion/claim?
Your use of the word, "stupid" in referencing BartV's contribution to the topic of this thread is yet another exhibition of your hatred of those concepts (and posters) with whom you disagree.
You are calling BartV's kettle black, while your own pot is soiled.

Jun 09, 2016
This kind of mind-numbing fantasy that repeats phrases starting with "might have..." is not science and doesn't belong on science websites. To understand how life began, and why you are living, you need to first know your Creator.

- BartV
It is called "speculative science" where the absolutes have not been concluded as yet. Theory is another word for speculation, which is in the realm of Philosophy, and both are purportedly dependent on past and well-known absolutes, but often are not. Thus, the preponderance of "studies" invoking non-absolutes such as "may be", "could be", "might be", etc.
Science is often illustrated by the parable of "the blind men and the elephant".

Jun 09, 2016

BartV 1.9 /5 (4) 21 hours ago
This kind of mind-numbing fantasy


From what I've seen of your posts, your mind has been numb from birth.

This is the problem with PO and so many trolls and cranks now that you get absolute human waste like OS reinforcing brain dead religious proselytizers like FartV.

Jun 09, 2016
And your evidence for the absence of such a 'Creator' is...?

And your evidence for the absence of unicorns is...?
See how stupid such a question is? That's not how logic goes.

You can't just claim "X exists - prove me wrong. You can't: therefore X exists".

If you claim "X exists" you must show proof/evidence. Evidence has to be testable. Just saying "clearly X exits" is not good enough. You must be able to devise a test with which one could delineate "X exists" from "X does not exist". So far no one has come up with such a test for gods. And as such gods are still very much in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" field

another exhibition of your hatred

I don't hate you (or him). I just think that people who actually come on a science site and take the trouble to post should know the absolute basics of how to think logically (or how to think at all). And in your (and some others') case that faculty is evidently(!) missing.

Jun 09, 2016
Your use of the word, "stupid" in referencing BartV's contribution to the topic of this thread is yet another exhibition of your hatred of those concepts...
Leave it to OS to defend infinitely recursive arguments...otherwise he'd have nothing to say.

Jun 09, 2016
Evolution is impossible without direct involvement of the intelligent being, who through his intellect, knowledge, technological capabilities, will and actions subordinate to its moral principles, establish and maintain a certain order in the physical systems through controlled use of energy and matter.
Any hypothetical evolutionary process without the participation of such an intelligent source of information is impossible, because it would break the laws of physics and the laws for the information. Information laws exclude any evolutionary process without the involvement of an intelligent being. But even with the participation of such an intelligent being, the evolutionary process is limited in its degree of complexity of the limits of intellectual and cognitive capabilities of this intelligent being.
The laws - physical or moral sуpports the origanaly established by inteligent being order. The can no t cause the increase of information in the systems.

Jun 09, 2016
Any hypothetical evolutionary process without the participation of such an intelligent source of information is impossible, because it would break the laws of physics and the laws...
You need to add tomatoes and onions for a proper word salad.

Jun 09, 2016
Evolution is impossible without direct involvement of the intelligent being...

It's demonstrated in the lab and in the wild every day that all you claim is very well possible without one.
Making an assertion in the face of evidence you can observe yourself if you just take the time to go outside is just dumb.

because it would break the laws of physics and the laws for the information.

Erm...no? Evolution breaks neither information nor thermodynamics (nor any other physical laws) at any point. What are you babbeling about? I think you have a very flawed understanding (read: no understanding) of physics and information theory.

the evolutionary process is limited in its degree of complexity of the limits of intellectual and cognitive capabilities of this intelligent being.

Meaningless blabber without any proof. What are these 'limits' that cognitive capacities impose (i.e. what test do you propose to delineate this limit)

Jun 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 09, 2016
just report it and move on
@BongThePuffin
you are correct
...and no offense but what good will it do (to report a post) if the site refuses to moderate?

certain posters get reported regularly for pseudoscience, religion, general stupidity, flaming/baiting, solicitation, racism, sexism, hate speech and worse... it's talked about in other forums
... yet still they are here posting

the report function seems to only make the person reporting the post feel better - other than that it's apparently useless considering the volume of reported posts and the fact that they're still here doing the same thing

.

.

@ChiefFartingDog
Love the moniker

Jun 09, 2016
And your evidence for the absence of such a 'Creator' is...?

That's not how logic goes.

You can't just claim "X exists - prove me wrong. You can't: therefore X exists".

If you claim "X exists" you must show proof/evidence. Evidence has to be testable. Just saying "clearly X exits" is not good enough. You must be able to devise a test with which one could delineate "X exists" from "X does not exist". So far no one has come up with such a test for gods. And as such gods are still very much in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" field

another exhibition of your hatred

I don't hate you (or him). I just think that people who actually come on a science site and take the trouble to post should know the absolute basics of how to think logically (or how to think at all). And in your (and some others') case that faculty is evidently(!) missing.
- a-p
You hate the whole concept of an omniscient God. Your personal nemesis?

Jun 09, 2016
(con'td)
People who post their views on religion (or THEIR religion) in Physorg threads do so, IMO, so that they can convince others of something in which they might not be as secure in their belief as they would prefer, thus offering what they may feel is thought-provoking to those who may provide them with that security, even if the offering is not taken well or is outright rejected. Quite often, being a target of rejection and ridicule gives a sense of reinforcing their beliefs through such poor attitudes received. It may not be an overwhelming need to proselytize their religion to others, but more of a conviction and validation that what one believes is correct and is an absolute.
While belief in a Creator is an intensely personal action, there are some who wish to advertise their feelings to anyone who will listen and understand. Not everyone chooses to understand or listen, and that is the sad part.
Rejection and ridicule is a product of misunderstandings & shallowness.

Jun 09, 2016
I'd rather hit the next pseudoscience idiot I meet.


Smelly canine attacks random citizen, scheduled to be put down.
(crowd of civil humans cheerfully discusses outcome)
- bschott
Yes, hopefully put down...anon. Same action here.

Bschott, do you recall that thread where CapnRumpy attempted to get you in a court of law before a judge in order to substantiate your invention wrt its effectiveness for cancer patients?
Rumpy was evidently looking to get you over a barrel like he did with Estevan57, antialiasP, gkam and others, where Rumpy/Otto would have your personal information in his/their possession so that you would become like the rest...unable to remove yourself from their strong grip, and your identity would have been compromised and stolen.

Hopefully, you didn't fall for that old devil's trick.

Jun 09, 2016
Quite often, being a target of rejection and ridicule gives a sense of reinforcing their beliefs through such poor attitudes received.
If ever there was an expert on being a target of rejection and ridicule; certainly the voice of experience, if not reason, has spoken.

Jun 09, 2016
attempted to get you in a court of law before a judge in order to substantiate your invention wrt its effectiveness for cancer patients?
so wait... you can't make your "celestial teapot" argument work for anyone over 10 so you want to change the subject to an abject failure on bs part that also demonstrates you are completely illiterate??

wow

oh, and BTW - the thread is here: http://phys.org/n...ant.html

]lets use the LEGAL definition of what constitutes evidence in a COURT...
important note:
IF you are willing to accept the terms of the secondary definitions re: evidence,
& IF you are also willing to include a third party judge (and Jury if you want it)
& IF you are willing to argue said points publicly

then i would be glad to also include another rider-bet

Loser pays all court costs
as in the cost of people's time, building rental, electricity, travel, etc

LMFAO
imagine that - an illiterate fundie

Jun 10, 2016
@bs and the magnetic uber super cancer fighting machine
...is actually defined as anecdotal verification...
and yet you/it still can't get FDA approval despite it's ridiculously low requirements for medicine in the US

...which include the ability to utilise anecdotal evidence, BTW, as noted in the req's i sent you

why is that?

is it because it is too effective and the FDA must protect big pharma?
is it a conspiracy?

by all means... tell us!

.

this is the reason people get conned, BTW
you are a walking posting advert for a pseudoscience medicine machine giving hope where there is only "blind faith" in a product that can't prove themselves under the mimiscule req's of US FDA

if your machine was as you claim it would have FDA approval

& the creators wouldn't include the disclaimer on their own site that the machine isn't guaranteed to do anything for them

http://www.primer...sclaimer

repeating a lie don't make it more true, bs

Jun 10, 2016
Cap'n, you're forgetting that we're ignorant of the wonderful magic of nature that BS/benni and their new age acolytes are aware of. There are many more forces in nature than we understand, that they have mastered, and they come here to deign to enlighten us.

They accomplish far more than we do. While we work for a living and have to earn our chops, benni/BS get to play the "I'm going to take up hobby breeding so that I don't ever have to work" card. Except these self-obsessed Gen X versions don't breed! Thanks for small mercies...but, what's your role in the household? Why does your SO have to work?

I think the word we're looking for is "whore".


repeating a lie don't make it more true, bs


It does for new age losers. Which means the internet echo chamber can actually manufacture facts! No wonder we're so unaware.

Jun 10, 2016
Which means the internet echo chamber can actually manufacture facts! No wonder we're so unaware.
@fckthierreyhenry
you are absolutely correct as demonstrated by the following study:
http://journals.p...2798.PDF

when the evidence isn't easily understood because the typical (above trolling idiot) poster or people are scientifically illiterate then the individual falls back on stereotyping and assumption

this leads to problems interpreting evidence (like bschott/benji et al's demonstrations in this thread and elsewhere) as well as making ASSumptions without facts present
(the old UFO analogy comes to mind: it can't be "aliens" if it is "unidentified")

100 stars for your insight!!

Jun 10, 2016
Otto_Szucks 1.8 /5 (5) 17 hours ago

...God. Your personal nemesis?


Amen, yes!

Jun 10, 2016
Which means the internet echo chamber can actually manufacture facts! No wonder we're so unaware.
@fckthierreyhenry
you are absolutely correct as demonstrated by the following study:
http://journals.p...2798.PDF

when the evidence isn't easily understood because the typical (above trolling idiot) poster or people are scientifically illiterate then the individual falls back on stereotyping and assumption

this leads to problems interpreting evidence (like bschott/benji et al's demonstrations in this thread and elsewhere) as well as making ASSumptions without facts present
(the old UFO analogy comes to mind: it can't be "aliens" if it is "unidentified")

100 stars for your insight!!


......all coming from someone who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve.....boy, am I ever impressed with the usual routine of this manner of expository.

Jun 10, 2016
......all coming from someone who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve.....boy, am I ever impressed with the usual routine of this manner of expository
This question may seem totally out of the blue and completely irrelevant to you but I have to ask: What do you think are the chances carbon-based life might arise on planet made of carbon?

Jun 11, 2016
all coming from someone who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve
that would require evidence... so this must be specifically in reference to someone like benji herself
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

http://phys.org/n...als.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...sts.html

http://phys.org/n...ial.html

http://phys.org/n...rse.html

http://phys.org/n...ers.html

Jun 12, 2016
It is extremely obvious (and noticeable) in the Physorg comment forums, that there are many odd type NON-scientist posters, such as CapnFrumpy and Theghostofotto, who appear to enjoy referring to others with whom they disagree (and from whom they have been unable to acquire personal identifying and business information), as members of the female sex; evidently as a malicious form of discriminatory accusation that conforms with Frumpy and Ottopussy's well-known hatred and loathing of women/girls.

"so this must be specifically in reference to someone like benji herself" - says CapnFrumpy

Since nicknames are most often of an indeterminate gender, (unless the owner of the nick volunteers such gender information), the usual protocol wrt nickname personas is to use the generic terms, "he" and "his".

In Frumpy and Otto's effort to garner support from their fans, both use the gender terms, "she" and "her" to evoke strong emotions against women in those who may also harbor a hatred.

Jun 12, 2016

(cont'd)
Of course, what CapnFrumpy and Theghostofotto have been doing wrt their fraudulent "female gender assignments" regarding those who were born male, such as myself, Benni, bschott, antigoracle and possibly others, actually reflects back on Frumpy and ghostofotto themselves. Their employing the terms "she" and "her" for the diminution of the importance of a man's opinion and/or science contribution speaks volumes wrt how they view the role of women in science and their importance to the cause of science. The terms, "she" and "her" are used by CapnFrumpy and Theghostofotto1923 as words of contempt, derision, mockery and ridicule against men with whom they disagree. These two trolls are obviously sexist.

It is a known fact that Theghostofotto1923 has accused women of stinking of fish smells, and the glaring evidence is in my post below this one.

,

Jun 12, 2016
(cont'd)

TheGhostofOtto1923

1.6 / 5 (7)
May 08, 2013
Do women find men with fishing poles more attractive? Doubtful..
If they are hungry yes. Fish is only a metaphor for womanly smells you know.
I checked out your theory with some experimentation. I walked around a mall holding my "wang" with some dangling. Oddly the women weren't attracted, in fact I found they abruptly walked in the other direction...
Were you singing? Try that.
Guitar is just a metaphor for weapon, which is just a metaphor for wang. Humans are so easy.
Here. Here is an example of which proves my point.
http://www.youtub...6Bb9X5fc

Women love this stuff.

http://medicalxpr...tar.html

Additionally, Theghostofotto1923 has a hatred of women simply because it is the female who gets pregnant and gives birth to their babies.
Otto hates any increase in world population and would prefer for women to not get pregnant at all, claiming that it kills them.

Jun 12, 2016
You hate the whole concept of an omniscient God.

Not really. the concept of gods was a nifty addition to role-playing games (you know...then pen and paper kind). Though the 'omniscient' kind are always somewhat boring.

I just hate that people waste so much time on such fantasies...and moreover that they are even prepared to kill for their fantasy. If people would just stop such idiocies and start being decent human beings like the rest of us the world would certainly be a better place.

Jun 12, 2016
Of course o_pervert downvotes me because he sides with the antiscience jihad.

- Pissypants1
Not at all. I am very much FOR the realities of science...not so much the make-believe kind that the Standard Einsteinian Model pushes so hard to prevent any alternate theories in having its day. I LOVE science. I use it on my job all the time. But I didn't know much about astrophysics and decided to study it by learning from Physorg articles, all because I don't have the time to go back to University to take on more classes. Too old for that now and my job is too demanding.
OK Pissy, I won't vote you down and you can keep your ill-gotten FIVE ratings as long as it means that much to you.
:P

Jun 12, 2016
You hate the whole concept of an omniscient God.

Not really. the concept of gods was a nifty addition to role-playing games (you know...then pen and paper kind). Though the 'omniscient' kind are always somewhat boring.

I just hate that people waste so much time on such fantasies...and moreover that they are even prepared to kill for their fantasy. If people would just stop such idiocies and start being decent human beings like the rest of us the world would certainly be a better place.
- a-p

So, do you hate ALL religions, or do you hate ONLY Christianity and its church members?
Have you considered traveling to Raqqa to talk with the Islamic head of ISIS (Islamic State Imam) regarding his call for adherents of radical Islam to kill as many Christians and Jews as possible, and by any means possible?
No?
And do you consider Christians more dangerous than ISIS, and more trouble? Would you trust a radical Muslim with your life more than a Christian or a Jew?

Jun 12, 2016
Thanks OS, I needed a few more words from you to complete your sample. I needed about 10k words from you, this thread should do it :)

Jun 12, 2016
Thanks OS, I needed a few more words from you to complete your sample. I needed about 10k words from you, this thread should do it :)

Good for you...now go take your meds.

Jun 12, 2016
Nah, don't need meds, just need to grab a few k words from pirouette and pussycat_eyes :)

Jun 13, 2016
, but why hate the morons ? They are free to think what they want.

Exactly. In any case - why waste (emotional) energy on people that don't matter? If they have chosen to take themselves out of reality then that's their choice. All I ask is that they leave the rest of us to deal with reality (and save their sorry behinds - because they obviously aren't capable of doing so themselves...no thanks needed)

I've never found it particularly advantageous to hate anyone. It's just too much bother. They're just "meh" to me.

Jun 13, 2016
Nah, don't need meds, just need to grab a few k words from pirouette and pussycat_eyes :)

@TehDog
ya gonna post the results here or build a blog/web page?

would love to see what you came up with!

Thanks

Jun 13, 2016
Will be both, summary and conclusions here, data and methods used detailed on a linked document, probably google docs based. I need big text samples, so it's a lot of boring copy/pasting :] Getting there tho :)

Jun 13, 2016
Quite frankly claiming that a several thousand year old babble about a super magic sky daddy written by stone age sheep herders is more likely to be correct than modern rigorous evidence is just plain flat stupid. And teh stupid, it burnz.

Get over it. Or give up modern medicine and die out so the rest of us can get on with life.

@antialias,
Exactly. In any case - why waste (emotional) energy on people that don't matter?
Because they're not just living in their own stupid- they want to make the rest of us live in it too in order to avoid looking at reality. See textbooks in Texas.

Jun 13, 2016
Because they're not just living in their own stupid- they want to make the rest of us live in it too in order to avoid looking at reality. See textbooks in Texas.

Sure they must be fought. But that still isn't a reason to hate them.

Fighting the unreasonable with reason is, however, a lost cause. It's the one weapon they are immune against.

If it weren't for their children (who are - unfortunately - in these idiots' "care") it would be as easy as you propose: Just have them choose which parts of science they accept and not let them partake of anything they don't accept...in essence do a full Amish/Jehova's witnesses on them.

Jun 13, 2016
I need big text samples, so it's a lot of boring copy/pasting
@TehDog
Build a bot targeting just specific users- https://www.pytho...wnloads/

.

.

a reason to hate them
@AA_P
i don't think it's hating them as hating what they are trying to do: to replace reason, critical thinking, logic and a proven methodology with their own delusion which has proven, in the past, to suppress and punish science and logic... all while utilising the technology that was extrapolated *from* the science/tech that they are admonishing.

if we go back to religious leadership we will end up back in the dark ages throwing nonfunctional computers at one another as weapons fighting a holy war of persecution because [insert faction] says they're not true believers
a lost cause
they are immune, but we can teach the young to combat the stupid with reason
it is why THEY target the youth, to establish a foundation of delusion

use their own tactics against them

Jun 13, 2016
Because they're not just living in their own stupid- they want to make the rest of us live in it too in order to avoid looking at reality. See textbooks in Texas.

Sure they must be fought. But that still isn't a reason to hate them.
Oh, I don't bother hating them. It would be like hating lepers or psychotics. Sillyness.

Fighting the unreasonable with reason is, however, a lost cause. It's the one weapon they are immune against.
There isn't much else.

If it weren't for their children (who are - unfortunately - in these idiots' "care") it would be as easy as you propose: Just have them choose which parts of science they accept and not let them partake of anything they don't accept...in essence do a full Amish/Jehova's witnesses on them.
Meh, I don't propose that, I just wish they would, and think it would be consistent. I point that out every time I get a chance.

Jun 13, 2016
Looks like Cap'n S. and Phys1 have my back. :D

I do however have contempt for them, as Phys1 does. It's the thing that gets across. It gets them where they live. That's why they keep trying to say it's hate: to avoid noticing that they're despicable.

As far as hate goes, I, too, hate what they do.

Jun 13, 2016
Well, too much hate is certainly damaging but there are things that are worthy of hate; they're generally selfish and short-sighted acts. The world is what it is.

On the other hand I can't really think of any people I hate. Dislike? Yes. Despise? Yes. Hate? Not so much. To really hate someone I'd have to be willing to stand by and see them killed, and I'm pretty much not. I might hate someone that much if they killed my wife; then again I might not. I don't know and I hope I never find out.

Jun 14, 2016
That's why they keep trying to say it's hate: to avoid noticing that they're despicable
Absolutely true - this is why they also retreat into the regular arguments that also have been disproven
repetition of rhetoric reinforces their own belief - which is exactly like religion
there are things that are worthy of hate
again, Absolutely true
things that intentionally cause harm to others due to a blatant disregard for the known and validated science/physics, like religion and pseudoscience, deserve to be hated for what it does to others

as it is a choice, then it is also a personal decision... keep it personal

however, when you attempt to mitigate your pathetic self loathing by spreading the bullsh*t around to others, then that action becomes destructive and as such, worth fighting against, IMHO

i've only a select few people i can say i "hate"; but for good reason
of course, they also know it and take great pains to never be in the same state as i am
meh

Jun 14, 2016
Hate is a damaging emotion
@Phys1
actually, this depends on the situation, really

hate uses adrenaline and this means there are good and bad things that can come of it

it can also assist you in focusing on a specific task as well as allow you to ignore certain limitations that would typically inhibit you from completing a task as well

blind hatred, rage and unfocused hate is definitely destructive and damaging though

Jun 14, 2016
use their own tactics against them

It's what is being done: by making kids go to school. As DaSchneib points out: they have finally figured out that actual knowledge robs them of any chance for hooking the children so they're trying to sabotage the educational system.

As far as hate goes, I, too, hate what they do.

Agreed. The people themselves, though, I merely disrespect - when I even bother to notice (as I do anyone who doesn't bother to be self-consistent. There's really not much point in aguing with someoone who doesn't respect consistency. As they will never be swayed by argument.At some point they just say "but I don'
t want this to be true" and that's that ).

When their ignorance hurts themselves: I couldn't care less (while always being open to lending a helping hand if asked).
When their ignorance hurts others: That's when a line is crossed.

Jun 14, 2016
use their own tactics against them

It's what is being done: by making kids go to school. As DaSchneib points out: they have finally figured out that actual knowledge robs them of any chance for hooking the children so they're trying to sabotage the educational system.
I'm not nearly as concerned about what happens to their kids as to all the rest who are then forced to use textbooks that are full of BS.

When their ignorance hurts themselves: I couldn't care less (while always being open to lending a helping hand if asked).
When their ignorance hurts others: That's when a line is crossed.
Same here.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more