Talk:Carbon chauvinism

Gobbledegook
With respect, the following passage is gobbledegook. I have a PhD in Chemistry from the world's top university (Cambridge) and I can't even begin to understand what it's trying to say. I am, however, completely clear that the text does not even address the topic, let alone provide a cogent criticism.

The concise answer of science is that the chronicle of life on Earth refers to facts strictly connected to the cosmic physics and chemistry. Then, life on Earth is not dominated by eventuality, but life has been determined by the fundamental physical constants of the universe.[5] The emergence of life on our planet obeyed to the universal physico-chemical laws and occurred like a natural and basic process.[5]      This was originally posted by User:86.153.94.200 on 22:32, 3 July 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_chauvinism&diff=prev&oldid=437610267)


 * Agreed, I'll remove it, that bit doesn't make any sense and is totally irrelevent. Cliff12345 (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How is it incomprehensible that the laws of physics/chemistry apply throughout the universe? BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That bit is comprehensible, it's just irrelevant/its importance isn't explained. Cliff12345 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Original research
This article has a severaly dubious claim to validity, and reads like original research. A Google Scholar search turned up on 16 hits, none of which give a certain analysis of the phrase or its useage. If this article is not justified with credible citations within seven days I will nominate it for deletion. - Freechild 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has a long and volatile history. The article originally started as Carbon chauvinism has evolved into Alternative biochemistry.  At some point the article was retitle Alternative biochemistry and Carbon chauvinism was changed to a redirect link.  The content specifically dealing with Carbon chauvinism, however did not fit well into Alternative biochemistry.  In order to clean up the Alternative biochemistry page and streamline its rather long definition I removed the redirect page and extracted the content dealing with Carbon chauvinism.  There is a lively discussion on the Talk:Alternative biochemistry that I think illustrates that this article was not original research, but in fact the work of many contributors.  I am not sure if the content in the talk page should have been moved as well since it now make reference to both Carbon chauvinism and Alternative biochemistry.  Perhaps you might suggest?  I hope this addresses the issues you have raised. M stone 08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the lines "The term may be criticized as inaccurate since chauvinism is usually defined as unreasonable belief in superiority. The belief described, as carbon chauvinism is a belief that non-carbon based life is unlikely to exist, not a belief that such forms of life would be inferior if they did exist." Is there any source for criticism along these lines? 'Carbon chauvinism' could also be interpreted as "belief that carbon is superior to other elements as a basis for life", which would fit just fine with the belief that "non-carbon based life is unlikely to exist". Bryan Derksen 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Remake
There are basically two sources available on this, that I can see: the Reason article from 1999 and David Darling. While we all have some affection for Darling, we can't be sure he isn't mirroring us (or us, him). By itself, a David Darling article does not confer notability. However, the Reason reference predates Wiki, so OK on basic notability (I had wanted to AfD this). In any case this is a term at the moment—it's not a full-blooded concept that has been discussed. It seems to me that the iteration I came across today, like the initial one three years ago, wanted to run with two words into an OR maze. That initial page got moved to Alternative biochemistry partly to avoid this OR problem. This recreated page shouldn't make the same OR mistake. It should talk about the term (are there other reliable mentions?). But it can't be a platform for "well ya, actually, carbon is great" or its opposite until a reliable someone has actually used this term in that regard. Marskell 19:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, Carl Sagan also used the term, so that could be a third source. --Itub 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "he is not "crediting" him..." True enough. It would be nice to find earlier uses. Let's see now:


 * It's a sub-chapter title in a bio of Sagan: http://williampoundstone.net/Sagan.html
 * He uses the term 'chauvanism' in a speech but not in relation to carbon: http://seti.sentry.net/archive/public/1999/5-99/00000351.htm
 * There's this, but no idea the reliability of the source: http://www.quantumnow.com/trek/life.html Marskell 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/cosmyth.pdf. Marskell 10:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sagan used it in 1973, in The Cosmic Connection. That's the earliest use I've seen so far. --Itub 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Itub, do you actually have the copy? We might add the quote. Marskell 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. I should read down before posting.

Reference and question
Following up on what user Itub wrote above, Sagan employs the term about three-quarters of the way through chapter 6 of The Cosmic Connection. Here is the reference:



If this "carbon chauvinism" article is in Wikipedia, then how about articles on the other points Sagan mentions, such as oxygen and temperature? To those one might add articles on molecular chauvinism, matter chauvinism, type-G-star chauvinism, and so forth. Habitable-zone chauvinism? Absence-of-intense-magnetospheric-radiation chauvinism? It seems that the list of "chauvinism" articles could get out of hand. Would a single, more-general article on factors related to life, with separate sections on each, be better? -- Astrochemist 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Astro, do you have a quote to go with that ref?


 * I agree with the implication that this article might not even belong at all. At this point, we have independent mentions, which is good, but still only a handful. We might add a bit more and then offer it up on AfD to see if people feel it should merged somewhere.


 * "A single, more-general article on factors related to life." Given that we already alternative biochemistry (arrived at from the original iteration of this), carbon-based life and, of course, life, I think a new page would be redundant. Those other "chauvinisms" would only require addition somewhere if others beyond Sagan made reference to them. Actually, the Reason article does mention molecular chauvinism, I think. Marskell 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure either that there is enough about this topic to justify a full article. But the idea could probably be included in the astrobiology article. --Itub 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Justifying my revert
I'm reverting this recent edit with the comment "I replaced the section that ideolgoically motivated hacks have removed". I'm not opposed to the content. However, it is provided with no source, and as a result appears as Original Research, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. If a source can be provided for the content, I'd have no problem with it being restored. Alternatively, a previous paragraph that was removed here did have citations, and I've yet to examine it. Perhaps it is appropriate in it's place; I'll look into it.

I do hope that editors will take care to Assume Good Faith in their edits. Referring to editors as "Ideolgoically motivated hacks" is a presumption, and a Personal attack. -16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This article desperately needs real sources
I'm too busy/lazy to work on it myself, but I'll leave this pointer in case someone is inclined to work on it. Search Google books:. The term carbon chauvinism was used by Carl Sagan (it is quite likely that he coined it, but I'm not sure). I especially recommend The Cosmic Connection, where he discusses it together with other "chauvinisms" such as temperature chauvinism, oxygen chauvinism, planetary chauvinism, water chauvinism, etc. --Itub 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to explain to someone how it's only carbon and silicon that are a) abundant b) likely to form complex compounds. There is also the fact that these compounds need to form in a solvent which in the case of carbon is water but for silicon the only option would be a much rarer chemical that I can't remember. All of the above is only half remembered factoids by someone with no real chemistry knowledge. If there is any truth to it I wonder if someone who actualy knows the facts could add it to the article, seems to be the key argument in favor of Carbon Chauvinism. 124.191.6.13 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Arsenic based life ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1

As the closest thing we have from a non carbon based life... i think it is worth a mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.31.113 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No mention of that is warranted because it has nothing to do with non-carbon based life. That thing is still carbon-based; it can sometimes use arsenic in place of phosphorous, but that has absolutely nothing to do with it being carbon based or not. Phosphorous is not carbon. RyokoMocha (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, it is not at all an established fact that those bacteria are able to use As instead of P; if anything, they seem resistant to arsenic but dependent on phosphorus, just like all other known living beings, to build their nucleic acids [1 ][2 ]. 80.103.74.18 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Silicon: to the contrary?
> Silicon is more reactive than carbon

If I understand correctly, that stark statement in the article is false and its opposite is true: chemical reactions in silicon-based molecules progress at app. 1/10th rate compared to carbon. (That's why silicon "oil" lubricants and silicon "rubber" sealants are so efficient and long-lasting even under adverse conditions.) On the other hand, considering that carbon-based life forms took app. 13.7 billion years to become self-aware, just 10 million years ago in us, hominidae, then 1/10th paced silicon-based life could not become sentient through mere natural selection during the remaining life of our universe. That means carbon-based sentience is a mandatory stepping stone to "thinking silicon", i.e. humans must create computers, robots and develop them until they reach full AI / technological singularity and can continue to evolve on their own. 78.131.76.69 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Victor Stenger quote, and further need for article
Why was the Victor Stenger quote from Reason removed from this article? This reduces this article's already sparse reference list directly referring to "carbon chauvinism" down from 3 sources to 2.

The only significant portion of this article left is the section on carbon alternatives, which I think can be subsumed into better articles (if not already covered), such as the already-existing section in the article Hypothetical types of biochemistry on non-carbon-based biochemistries.

I don't really see the need for this term to have its own standalone article, without more sources being added. Solaris967 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Worth Revisiting in Light of AI?
Carl Sagan coined the phrase "carbon chauvinism", but the term may become useful beyond his original intended scope. I speak to the evolving nature of humanity's relationship with AI.

A good example would be Geoffrey Hinton fearing our creation of AI that is more intelligent than we are. I don't think this is a risk in the near term, but if we pulled it off, I wouldn't be averse to passing the torch. Are people who disagree with me engaging in carbon chauvinism?

If you run through the seven categories used to categorize particular chain reactions of chemicals as life or not life, envisioning the ticking of each with silicon-based brains and materials science is now an engineering problem rather than a physics problem.

Does the phrase "carbon chauvinism" need to be extended to terrestrial applications? Is it not inevitable? Should we think ahead? 208.72.67.3 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)