Humans are composed of mostly water, right?  Nothing can survive w/o water.  The earth is 2/3 water.  Any thoughts?
131778
You can go with whatever you want.
621761
as humans we are carbon based but in order to live we need Oxygen\n\nYeah I think there are millions of things out there living on other gases.
591633
I can agree with that. The earth is changing. So many will not make it through but some will. \nLove & Light\nSharon\nOne Planet = One People
141742
This is interesting question. My opinion is: why not!! Maybe some forms of life that we don't know. There is some life forms even 11 km under the sea, under extremely high pressure. Some kinds of bacteria live without air too. Fish don't use the same air like us, but they are alive. There is so many different forms of life even on planet Earth, so why not on other planets? After all, if we did not see something, don't mean this don't exist!
627304
Living things are always adapting.\n\nWe are already able to live in an atmosphere that is 21% elemental oxygen (a poison!) that has been excreted by anarobic bacteria for the last 3 billion years.  \n\nThe method we use to get it into our lungs, then our bloodstream and then to each cell is a marvel of chemical engineering.  Eventually, we and other breathing vertibrates will get used to other atmospheric chemicals, so, YES, it's true.
51603
Of those water is the most important. If need be we could survive for about a month without eating, living only off of our fatty reserves. Shelter would reduce the amount of water we would require to survive, say in a desert, but even still we couldn´t survive for many hours completely without water.\nIf you are in a spaceship and all your oxygen disappeared you would die within minutes...
502562
It would post probably be sunlight.......some plant organisms may survive without water for long periods of time, such as ones in the desert....... but sunlight is required for green plants to make food  which unlike for humans......... food is the bigger priority than water
584040
If humans are on space stations at the time of the apocalypse, wouldn't they have to come back for food, water and oxygen?  Thinking that may be their end too.\n\nOther planets?  I guess if you think people are on other planets, they'd be safe?  Maybe, don't know anyone on any other planet myself, so have no idea.\n\nYou think demons are floating around in space?  Well, then, don't have a clue, but maybe they'd survive with those people on Pluto?
144781
If Mars still has a molten core and there are small vents in deep caves, there could possibly be a 'biosphere' or place that life can live. It would look like cave bugs probably. Im assuming there wasnt enough time for things to learn how to fly and that pools of liquid large enough to support populations of fish-things arent around. Who knows? Maybe its little fuzzy slime-molds that move like inch-worms?
37899
>>>What are all the planets and moons besides earth and Europa that have liquid H20 water on them? \n\n\nAs you point out the three gas giants are all believed to have layers of liquid water. Added t that there are trace droplets of liquid water in the atmosphere of Venus but they don’t last long individually.\n\n>>>>>My astronomy book says Uranus has water on it underneath a massive layer of liquid hydrogen but this can't be right. It says the temperature there is -360 degrees F and water freezes at 32.\n\nThe ‘surface’ temperature is –360oF. Just as the surface temperature of Earth is 80oF. But as you get deeper into the Earth the temperature increases until it is hot enough to melt rock and iron. And in exactly the same way as you get deeper into the centre of a gas giant the temperature increases until you can melt ice. \n\n>>>>>>. Could life exist with the h20 but virtually no solar radiation? Primitive simple life forms I mean.\n\nIf conditions are relatively stable then where primitive simple lifeforms exist, advanced complex lifeforms can exist even more easily.\n\nCould life exist under such conditions? Sure. It wouldn’t be life as we are normally used to it, but it is perfectly plausible. Life on the surface of the Earth today is almost entirely dependent on solar energy only because that is the most efficiently harvested energy source. It allows those organism that use it to outcompete any rivals using alternative energy sources.  But life didn’t start out relying on solar energy, and the vast majority of all life on Earth today doesn’t rely on solar energy.\n\nLife started out harvesting energy directly from the rocks. Those first lifeforms used iron and sulfur for energy, not sunlight. And even today the weight of the bacteria deep underground that  rely exclusively on energy form rocks is far greater than the weight of those organisms that cling to the surface and rely on sunlight.\n\n\nThere is no reason why life on other planets couldn’t survive perfectly well using similar systems of energy harvesting. And the only reason mineral consuming lifeforms never got very complex on earth is because the Earth is volcanically active, which make sit hard for big complex creatures to survive.  On a gas giant at the interface between the atmosphere and the oceans that wouldn’t be a problem, and life could evolve to become as complex as it liked.
626116
My thought is air as well. Air is composed of around 2/3s part of Nitrogen. Oxygen is a much smaller amount
19062
i agree with the second one.  water is clearly defined as having two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.  if it doesn't have oxygen, then it can't be water.\n\nit is possible that the "water" is actually liquid hydrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.  if the "water" is a solid, it can be the frozen of anything above plus lots of other compounds or elements.\n\nif this meteorite was found on earth, then it probably wasn't any of those either since it would have melted.  if it was still a meteor in space, then it could be.  comets are known to have "ice" and dust as their tail.  this isn't really ice as in water turned to ice, but ice is used to refer to other elements or compounds in the solid form (dry ice is CO2).\n\nif you read that in an article in a magazine or newspaper, they were probably try to make it easier to understand what they were trying to say, and decided to use water to describe a liquid or ice to describe the solid that they found.
413883
The earth and human race can be eliminated by various things, both internally and externally. Internaly our earth could lose heat and use up valuable resources due to pollution and over production. Externally comets and meteors could crash into earth. The sun wont blow up for a few more million years so you dont have to worry about that.
86693
scientists have discovered a few life forms on earth that do survive without oxygen and water.\n\nhowever these are not as abundant as water/oxygen based life forms. \n\nearly life on earth might have started with methane/ammonia/some chemical other than water/oxygen.\n\nthis life might have been "slower" to grow move etc.\n\nOxygen helps to build faster/more efficient organisms.\n\nthe search for life, or search that is like -- needle in a haystack or some grain of sand on the beach --- is a game of probabilities. \n\nsearchers try to increase their probabilities by adding more creteria.\n\nresources are limited....however the potential candidates are in trillions of trillions.\n\nFor example search for oil under the ground...you try to increase your chances of success by adding creteria from knowledge you have accumulated over the years.\n\nwe think the probabilities of life are higher where there is water.\n\nits all about working with probabilities when the resources are very limited and you are trying to reduce the number of potential "candidates" that are in trillions of trillions.\n\nexistance of water also means that the temperature,  pressure and some of the other environment conditions are more hospitable to life (on that place/planet) as we know it.
385219
Like the person said above.  0.038% of the atmosphere is made up of CO2.  That's 3.8 parts per million.  So that's why it won't take very much for people to double the amount of CO2 that is naturally occuring.
23532
We are pretty enduring.  \nMankind can do things to the planet no animal as far as we know, has ever done.  If you look at the ice cores from Greenland, you will see the variance in temperature before man is significant on the earth, is greater than man has seen while being on the earth.  Is it possible to overheat something that will heat itself far beyond any heating we could do?  While we can influence the earth's climate, we can not stop it or start it at will.  We party because as inhabitants we pale in comparison to the natural cycle the earth can and has gone through.  I only hope we are smart enough to manage the climate the earth can throw at us.
631113
Well humans only inhabit 10% of the earth's surface and if everyone was to do it they would be able to hear people around them or if they were alone, just themselves, but if you didn't and you went somewhere like the sahara you probably wouldn't be able to hear it. The world is just too big i'm afraid, its like the fact that if the whole of China stamped their feet, there wouldn't be enough energy to boil a kettle.