# Talk:Galactic habitable zone

We have, self-evidently, experience of life on only one planet - our own. There is no reason at all to suppose that life must necessarily depend on water, or oxygen, or what we consider to be equable temperatures. Life as we know it, yes, but life as we do not know it could as far as we know, take virtually any form at all and have virtually any kind of metabolism. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is very true. However, there are many reasons why carbon-based life forms like ourselves are preferred to other alternative biochemistries-from the abundance of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and others in the Universe to the chemistry of carbon. Of course, there may be somewhere, some life based on alternate biochemistry. But carbon-based life is most likely. I will update this message later. Wer900 • talk 18:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. But as it now appears that many G, F and K type stars (at least) have planets, and as the number of stars just in this galaxy is, as you clearly know, very large, there is at least in theory room for almost infinite variety. And even if we discount the possibility of silicon-based life, there is surely scope for carbon-based life not dependent or water or oxygen? Only speculating.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not denying the possibility of alternative biochemistry. However, the galactic habitable zone would still hold in many cases; you need a high-mass planet to maintain an atmosphere, and you need abundant heavy elements for that. At the same time, you cannot be so close that sterilization would happen at the galactic center. These requirements apply to any life, whether or not carbon-based. Wer900 • talk 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Galactic habitable zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409002532/http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=157 to http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=157
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that the corotation radius does not lead to a wiki valid link  however I can find the corotation circle in wikipedia   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corotation_circle .  Maybe the link should be corrected?  I do not know how to to this so I will let better poeples do it 
Thank you
Yves Crepeau January 25th 2017

His statements are just clarification and accurate definition of the term, not criticizm of idea. It is inadequate to place such statements within "criticizm" section. Lexey73 (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)