Life is a collection of chapters, and some of them are undeniably painful to read. There is a popular sentiment that offers profound hope: “Don’t give up because of one bad chapter in your life. Keep going. Your story doesn’t end here.” This wisdom acknowledges that struggle is a part of the narrative, but it insists that it is not the final page. It is a call for resilience, a reminder that identity isn’t fixed by moments of failure or despair.
However, if we apply this metaphor to the crisis of homelessness and addiction on our streets, we must ask ourselves: Are we helping people turn the page, or are we simply buying them a new bookmark while they remain stuck in the same chapter?
The current approach to homelessness is often too passive, too willing to enable stagnation. It can be patronizing to assume that someone in the throes of addiction or living on the streets doesn’t need a hard response. By removing all expectations—by offering housing without requiring sobriety or a commitment to rehabilitation—we risk telling people that they aren’t capable of more . We accept their bad chapter as the whole book.
We need a shift from a handout to a hand up. This means coupling compassion with accountability. It means recognizing that allowing someone to continue using drugs without intervention is not kindness; it is a slow form of surrender . A truly compassionate response says, “Your story doesn’t end in addiction, and it doesn’t end on this street corner.”
Programs that are beginning to see success are those that provide shelter and support, but also demand recovery and work . They enforce rules, ban public camping, and use the leverage of the law to nudge individuals toward treatment. This isn’t about punishment; it’s about instilling the self-worth that comes from meeting expectations .
If we want to help people write a better chapter, we must stop editing around the margins of their misery. We must provide the structure and the hard line in the sand that says giving up is not an option. Because their story—and ours as a community—doesn’t have to end there.
One of the more daunting questions related to astrobiology—the search for life in the cosmos—concerns the nature of life itself. For over a century, biologists have known that life on Earth comes down to the basic building blocks of DNA, RNA, and amino acids. What’s more, studies of the fossil record have shown that life has been subject to many evolutionary pathways leading to diverse organisms. At the same time, there is ample evidence that convergence and constraints play a strong role in limiting the types of evolutionary domains life can achieve.
For astrobiologists, this naturally raises questions about extraterrestrial life, which is currently constrained by our limited frame of reference. For instance, can scientists predict what life may be like on other planets based on what is known about life here on Earth? An international team led by researchers from the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) addressed these and other questions in a recent paper. After considering case studies across various fields, they conclude that certain fundamental limits prevent some life forms from existing.
Artist’s impression of Earth during the Archean Eon. Credit: Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
The team considered what an interstellar probe might find if it landed on an exoplanet and began looking for signs of life. How might such a mission recognize life that evolved in a biosphere different from what exists here on Earth? Assuming physical and chemical pre-conditions are required for life to emerge, the odds would likely be much greater. However, the issue becomes far more complex when one looks beyond evolutionary biology and astrobiology to consider synthetic biology and bioengineering.
According to Solé and his team, all of these considerations (taken together) come down to one question: can scientists predict what possible living forms of organization exist beyond what we know from Earth’s biosphere? Between not knowing what to look for and the challenge of synthetic biology, said Solé, this presents a major challenge for astrobiologists:
“The big issue is the detection of biosignatures. Detecting exoplanet atmospheres with the proper resolution is becoming a reality and will improve over the following decades. But how do we define a solid criterion to say that a measured chemical composition is connected to life?
“[Synthetic biology] will be a parallel thread in this adventure. Synthetic life can provide profound clues on what to expect and how likely it is under given conditions. To us, synthetic biology is a powerful way to interrogate nature about the possible.”
The sequence where amino acids and peptides come together to form organic cells. Credit: peptidesciences.com
To investigate these fundamental questions, the team considered case studies from thermodynamics, computation, genetics, cellular development, brain science, ecology, and evolution. They also consider previous research attempting to model evolution based on convergent evolution (different species independently evolve similar traits or behaviors), natural selection, and the limits imposed by a biosphere. From this, said Solé, they identified certain requirements that all lifeforms exhibit:
“We have looked at the most fundamental level: the logic of life across sales, given several informational, physical, and chemical boundaries that seem to be inescapable. Cells as fundamental units, for example, seem to be an expected attractor in terms of structure: vesicles and micelles are automatically formed and allow for the emergence of discrete units.”
The authors also point to historical examples where people predicted some complex features of life that biologists later confirmed. A major example is Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 book What is Life? in which he predicted that genetic material is an aperiodic crystal—a non-repeating structure that still has a precise arrangement—that encodes information that guides the development of an organism. This proposal inspired James Watson and Francis Crick to conduct research that would lead them to discover the structure of DNA in 1953.
However, said Solé, there is also the work of John von Neumann that was years ahead of the molecular biology revolution. He and his team refer to von Neumann’s “universal constructor” concept, a model for a self-replicating machine based on the logic of cellular life and reproduction. “Life could, in principle, adopt very diverse configurations, but we claim that all life forms will share some inevitable features, such as linear information polymers or the presence of parasites,” Solé summarized.
The first implementation of von Neumann’s self-reproducing universal constructor. Three generations of machines are shown: the second has nearly finished constructing the third. Credit: Wikimedia/Ferkel
In the meantime, he added, much needs to be done before astrobiology can confidently predict what forms life could take in our Universe:
“We propose a set of case studies that cover a broad range of life complexity properties. This provides a well-defined road map to developing the fundamentals. In some cases, such as the inevitability of parasites, the observation is enormously strong, and we have some intuitions about why this happens, but not yet a theoretical argument that is universal. Developing and proving these ideas will require novel connections among diverse fields, from computation and synthetic biology to ecology and evolution.”
