Talk:Carbon chauvinism

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Original research

message: 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)
thread_title:  Justifying my revert 

message: 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)
thread_title: This article desperately needs real sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  No mention of Arsenic based life ? 

message: > 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)
thread_title:  Silicon: to the contrary? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victor Stenger quote, and further need for article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worth Revisiting in Light of AI?