Science and Society

I'd like to think there are more planets similar to ours. If we were the only ones, that would make the universe a pretty lonely place.

Another outstanding study on the improbability of life is The Privileged Planet. The book makes the case that not only is intelligent life exceedingly improbable, but also that the earth (and its atmosphere) just happen to be in the best place (and of the type - transparent, unlike atmospheres with more carbon which are much more common) in the universe to learn about ourselves and our universe. This scientific work, together with the exceeding improbability (or some say impossible) of complex life arising from macro evolution, is the basis of intelligent design.

I think it interesting that scientists believe that intelligence as a survival mechanism is somehow more successful than something like size, strength, or ferocity. Certainly, on an individual level, there is much to be said for it, but when an entire species comes to rely on it as humans have - it could well be our undoing. Different species of dinosaurs existed for millions of years, while H. sapiens has been around for about 100,000 years. I think it likely that any species developing intelligence has a high probability of self-extinction. We're likely to encounter many different versions of crocodiles and cockroaches.

The senses, knowledge and intelligence of man are limited, and therefore the instruments and calculations of man are also limited. We are as insects under a glass bowl on the kitchen table, and therefore should be humble enough to accept the ancient writings now available to us on our universe, why it even exists, and our purpose within it. Those writings are called collectively "The Vedas".

Well, if we only have about a billion years left before we fry, and we are most likely very alone, then that should alleviate any ethical concerns about Terra-forming potentially colonized planets. I say go after Mars first, it's next in line so when Earth gets too hot, Mars ought to be warming up nicely. Introduce some plant life and try and transfer some of Earths water to there before it evaporates and we could have a viable 2nd planet to call home. Then do the same for the next planet we find w/ similar circumstances as Earths', so as to perpetuate our species. I think that there is a reason we were endowed w/ intelligence...perhaps to eventually be masters of an empty (of life) universe. Perhaps we will be the ones to introduce life to other planets, and spread it throughout the galaxies. I'm a firm believer that everything, including our intelligence, has a purpose.

~ok...maybe I'm just drifting into sci-fi mode....but wouldn't that be awesome?

Lawrence is echoing Carl Sagan's idea that if we're indeed alone in the universe, it's a heck of a waste of space. Actually, given the vastness of space and the amount of "stuff" floating around therein, there's no reason why the odds would not permit life to exist somewhere. If here, why not in another corner?

Andy - I think we'll find that the universe is chock full of life. I just think intelligence is way overrated. It causes some of us "intelligent" beings to believe we're the sole cause for the existence of the universe.

It's not a question of where life might be... but when. Our star is but one of so many - all on different points of their life cycle. A civilization might have been around 1 million years ago... or might not be around until a million years from now (and the time scales here are probably more like billions). I think it's not where that is the hard question, when looking for a civilization like ours... but when. The odds of two worlds at the point where they could contact each other being around at THE SAME TIME is almost ZERO. We will not find anything - ever - and that's a real bummer.

With so many billion of stars, and so many galaxies, for as little the odd that might exist, there is a big a55 number for them to have chances.

i agree with a comment like benjalamelami's... but again, it's when. A civilization like ours could exist now... but if it's a million light years away (which is nothing in terms of cosmic distance) that means we wouldnt get a signal from them for a million years. SETI I think is cool - I just dont see it ever picking anything up. AT BEST, a very weak signal from a civilization that died millions of years ago... which in itself would still be amazing and probably the best anyone could hope for - as far as finding any kind of sign.

"Now comes Dr. Andrew Watson, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain,"......a climate scientist.....I guess we start off with faulty methods right from the start. Despite his eqation I believe it to be matmatically impossible to be alone in the universe. If one goes by the big bang theory that all matter came from the same place, the fact that there are only a qazillion, qazillion suns out there it only stands to reason that certain forces are quite common in the creation (non-religious meaning) of these suns. The fact we are now finding planets around many suns also goes to this process. These materials that make up our universe can be formed in many ways but those materials are everywhere...just in different proportions.While there are still undiscovered materials out there, there is only a finite number of different material (building blocks). Given the size of our galaxy (billions and billions of stars) and the fact that there are millions if not billions of galaxies is would be extremely unlikely to the zillonth power that the same combination of elements does not exist elsewhere in this universal that would permit life. This is just a snap shot picture of the universe at this moment. The universe has been around for billions of years......a world could have easily developed and died out even before we as life on this planet ever got out of the soup. This is not to say we will ever locate it.....I'm just saying we aren't alone.....just lonely.

and here's another point... even though the milkyway has a hundred billion stars - perhaps only the outer stars are capable of supporting life - the middle of a galaxy is a very bad place to be. There are many more stars packed into a given space as you near the center of any galaxy - which means many more super novas... which means lots of energy frying planets. Earth is some 25,000 light years from the center of our galaxy... so maybe far less of the average galaxy can support life. maybe only the outer stars. and if that's the case we would probably never hear from stars on the other side of the galaxy - just too far away.

"In Search Of The White Crow"-all we need to find to negate the null hypothesis is one: more then us!
Which is why the martian meteorite was so exciting, even if it was just and only an extinct mini-microbe from long ago although not-so far away.
As it stands there is NO 'evidence' of life anywhere else in the universe which not only implies a 'terrible waste of space' a la Sagan but also a great many other things both philosophical and otherwise.
'If' this is it, the 1 and only show in reality, 'we' aren't being very conscientious stewards of the most precious jewell in existence.

Nor are we the shining star of this crown either-intelligence apparently being way over-rated if only because in 4 billion years it hasn't arisen or repeated very often. (Indeed most viruses and anaerobic life forms have gotten it so right from the very beginning that they haven't had to change/evolve very much since!)

But that's the rub and the excitement of the mystery. For life may be exceptionally rare or incredibly abundant. Liquid water, ammonia alternatives, silicon or germanium life or even 'consciousness' in swirling clouds of magnetized and ionized nebulas. (For what is OUR 'consciousness' except the EM patterns and flows of our synaptic interchanges?)

God only knows and isn't telling except for what we can glean on our own.

with time the truth will be known,we are not alone,never,check out how vast the universe,humans have not yet made it to mars the nearest planet,there are many questions to the answers,right now milky way,andrea are the universes we even cant tell about it all,tell me what you think,its just common sense.

I think the Earth is much more rare than most people seem to think. You have to be in just the right place, just the right size, have just the right type of other planets, just the right type of moon, just the right type of magnetic field... it goes on and on. Just consider that the seasons are caused by only a slight wobble in Earth's axis of rotation. A couple of degrees one way and everything freezes over, a couple of degrees the other way and everything bakes under sweltering sunlight. Its a VERY fine line indeed.

Everyone seems to assume that life can form only on Earth-like planets. Who says life has to be carbon-based?

Intellgent design is a fake science brought up by bible thumpers to try to provr thier is a god. Nothing more nothing less. What we need to do is look at the observations around us to get a good concept of what may be happening on other worlds. This study assumes that all life is a carbon based life forms and also assumes that all planets must meet earths critera for there to be life present. However I'm not saying thier isn't a god but there is alot more we don't know about the universe than we do. I for one don't think life's orgins started on this planet I think they were brought by a comet. Also I think we will find life on other moons/planets in this solar system once we get out more and find it. We need to fund NASA like it or not the key to human survial is to get off this rock.

The problem with Panspermia, Joe, is that it just pushes the 'origin' question back a step, and into a place we can't even see or get to.
But then as Catskill seems to assume earth and life are a razor edge proposition involving an incredible confluence of 'just right' conditions.

That may NOT be true-we just don't know enough yet. But what is known is that when life DID first come into being the conditions were far from the perfection mentioned. A hot planet with a HUGE moon (Just after it splashed loose it was VERY close!)and massive tides and maybe no magnetic field at all (yet) and a 'poisonous' atmosphere and NO ozone and a whole long list of conditions quite anti-thetical to what is 'assumed' as essential.

Both the drake equation and the new findings are based on too many unknowns to be useful. It requires guessing things - like what percentage of planets support life and what percentage of time planets exist that support life. Of course, there are probably a lot of planets, so that even a small percentage is a big number of planets with life like ours. But probably isn't science to me - and neither is the Drake equation or this. It is faith or belief, and this article will not change anyone's belief either way - in my opinion.

The surest sign that there is inteligent life out there is the fact that it is smart enough to not make itself know to us. When we stop destroying everything they may show up, or if they need help fighting something else.