this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
2 points (57.1% liked)
Space
1879 readers
48 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The question "could it be Earth 2.0" still doesn't matter.
We'll never have a way of getting there, unless we discover a fundamental misunderstanding about how the universe works.
Is it fascinating info that leads to a better understanding of nature and the universe? Yes. But that's irrelevant to the question posed. Had that been the focus, rather than a click-bait nonsensical title, it wouldn't receive the criticism it deserves.
"Earth 2" is just a way to say "a planet comparable to Earth", and subsequently "could it harbor life?", it is absolutely part of the inquiry. Do you read "earth 2" as "the planet we should migrate to?" I don't think that's implied although i can't speak for the author