The dumbest science question ever?

From NASA/Wikimedia commons: The Hubble image shows the paired galaxies very close together with streams of stars being pulled out of the galaxies. The colliding "parent" galaxies lose their shape and smoother galaxies are formed. The whole merging process can take less than a billion years.

I don’t know if this qualifies as the dumbest science-related question ever, but it’s one that’s been bothering me for, oh, years. If you google it, the hits that turn up are, ironically, all religion related, and no help at all.

The question: Why was life such a hit? Rephrased: Why did life, once it got going, persist?

Maybe you know what I mean. Everywhere we look on Earth (almost), we find life. In places where you’d think nothing could evolve, much less survive. There are the bacteria living two miles deep in the Earth, the life flourishing in lava tubes, the organisms that surprised us in such inhospitable places as geothermal vents, Antarctic lakes, and yes, Mono Lake in California.

Why was life such a big hit once Nature got things going? In a more evolutionary context, what benefit do natural processes derive from life? Even after cataclysmic losses in mass extinctions, life bounces back.

Yes, of course, after those extinctions, niches were more readily available than a cheap foreclosure in Las Vegas. And of course, when life first arose, the world was one big niche just waiting to be partitioned. But why are there no boundaries on the blue planet? Hardly anywhere to go where life isn’t?

Like I said, this could be the dumbest science-based question ever asked. I’m assuming some kind of evolutionary context for life itself in the larger backdrop of the physical world, a world that evolves ever so inexorably to a universal heat death that our little minds (or maybe it’s my little mind) can scarcely encompass. Do life and its many processes get us there faster, urge entropy’s expansion? That, of course, assumes some ultimate, seemingly predetermined goal of transformation into heat and an ultimately messy demise.

That assumption may be and probably is a huge misstep. After all, the universe has got some pretty big transformation engines without turning to a teensy little mechanism like life. In other news, it would actually link the second law of thermodynamics and evolution directly, instead of leaving them as fodder for arguing creationist worldviews.

But it feels like a big question. The related question is, Is it a big, stupid question?

%d bloggers like this: