Yes, I believe Extra Terrestrials exist. Whether single celled organisms in the seas of Europa or bipedal aliens walking a planet billions of light years away, I do believe that the chances are they do exist, somewhere in the universe in some shape or form.
That's 5 or 6 in 170 odd that could harbour some form of life and 1 in 170 odd that has sentient life.
On a quick google search there are between 200 and 400 billion stars in our galaxy? Not counting the rest of the universe. Doing another quick google search, there are at least 80 billion detectable galaxies?
Google may be an inaccurate way to do this, but am I missing something?
If 1 in 170 here has created sentient beings, surely 200 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy....aim low and say 100 billion stars on average in 50 billion galaxies, each with X amount of Solar systems which contain around 100 moons and planets, then you still have more chance than not that sentient life exists elsewhere?
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
And the odds of a star to have planets which could harbor life are?
And the odds of the same thing happening at one of these other star system are?
And the odds of this happening within the same timespan of our species' existence?
And the odds of all the above happening at a star system relatively close to ours?
And the odds of the same thing happening at one of these other star system are?
And the odds of this happening within the same timespan of our species' existence?
And the odds of all the above happening at a star system relatively close to ours?
Well we've only been able to clarify on 1 solar system, so that makes the odds 1/170.
Or do we assume that other solar systems don't follow the same odds?
Nobody knows, the sheer number of stars and galaxies makes it hard to believe there is not another kind of life somewhere and another sentient life form at that.
The species existence thing could be irrelevant as well, should they have had a start that lasted long enough for them to develop the technology to leave their own planet.
So, I guess, without evidence, this discussion is on a par with is there a god. Actually, it's more so, as there is no evidence for a god. We have evidence of sentient beings.
Do you know the odds of the things you have stated? I hate maths, which is why my research went no further than what I'd do when putting an accumulated sports bet on....which I usually lose.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Nope. What about the other stars around which we know life could not exist or develop for enough time?thebigm said:
thebigm said:
Of course! Any planets around a giant blue star will have a rather different (and shorter) history than those around a red dwarf, for example. We also already know that some stars systems seem to have planets in orbits which may indicate a very unpleasant sequence of events for life.
thebigm said:
Please note the conditions I stated- sharing our timeframe and relatively nearby our star.
thebigm said:
Not sure what you mean here. We can not be sure "they" survived, as a species, to the point of travelling through the stars. We don't know if we will!
thebigm said:
Nope. As you said, we know sentient species are possible. We just don't know how frequent they are. God is implausible, impossible and not required. At least as described in the major religions.
No one knows the odds for sure. If we knew them, then we would have a better set of answers for the Drake equation.thebigm said:
What I am pointing out is that even for our very solar system, the odds are not big and that the odds for sentient lifeforms nearby us (in space and time) are also unfortunately low. At least the way I see it.
Overpopulation is already a problem, so I don't think we need any extra terrestrials.
Generally agreed, but not quite with the bolded bit. Given the size of the universe, I think it's virtually impossible for there not to be intelligent alien life elsewhere (although given relativity, "this precise moment" is not really a meaningful concept when considering large distances). However, it's unlikely to be in this galaxy, and it's extremely unlikely we will ever know about it.
Precisely. It's a handy way to work out what we need to know in order to start thinking about the matter at all, but it's completely useless for actually telling us anything because we don't know a single one of the inputs with any accuracy.
Generally agreed, but not quite with the bolded bit. Given the size of the universe, I think it's virtually impossible for there not to be intelligent alien life elsewhere (although given relativity, "this precise moment" is not really a meaningful concept when considering large distances). However, it's unlikely to be in this galaxy, and it's extremely unlikely we will ever know about it.
Precisely. It's a handy way to work out what we need to know in order to start thinking about the matter at all, but it's completely useless for actually telling us anything because we don't know a single one of the inputs with any accuracy.
Sati1984
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 136
I believe, that extraterrestials exist, many different species on millions of planets outside of our Solar system. Some of them sentient, some are not.
But meeting either one of them is highly unlikely. Maybe if humanity conquers all the planets one by one in the close proximity of our Solar system, in the distant future we might run into some extraterrestials. Unfortunately, it won't happen in my lifetime. Or my grandkids'. Or my grand-grand-grand-grandkids. You get the idea...
But meeting either one of them is highly unlikely. Maybe if humanity conquers all the planets one by one in the close proximity of our Solar system, in the distant future we might run into some extraterrestials. Unfortunately, it won't happen in my lifetime. Or my grandkids'. Or my grand-grand-grand-grandkids. You get the idea...
You cannot predict the likelyhood of some occurance from a single example, particularly not in the absence of some explanitory theory. We don't really have a good explination for why sentience developed, nor do we have any means of predicting its development; therefore, until we find more sentient life (or fail to find it once enough effort has been put into the search that we can tentatively accept the conclusion that none is out there) we cannot state the odds of finding life. In this solar system one out of 170 planets/moons/etc has sentient life. That says nothing about the odds of sentient life outside of the solar system. It's always possible that our star is just plain weird, or that our planet is. Remember the Law of Large Numbers.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
There are several problems with this statement:
He didn't say "life intelligent enough to build spacecraft"
- even if he did, interstellar travel may well be so impractical that even an advanced civilization wouldn't do it
He didn't say "in our galaxy", he said "elsewhere in the universe"
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
What you say about relativity is true but if we put that aside for a moment and imagine that there is a "now" which extends throughout the whole universe. If we could be outside the universe, pause time at this precise second and then look at every single planet in the universe, would there be other intelligent life ("intelligent life" here being defined as life that has a comparable level of intelligence to ours or greater) in that "now"? I see no reason to suppose that there would be.
The way I look at it is this. Firstly, while for some species intelligence is a trait which facilitates survival, we've got enough stupid species which do perfectly well on this planet to make it perfectly clear that it's not necessary. Dinosaurs were thick as molasses and they ruled this planet for many times the length of time we've existed. Hell, bacteria have always ruled this planet, and they certainly can't be said to be intelligent. Furthermore, there's no reason to suppose that there's any particular reason for favouring our level of intelligence. We know that in this planet's history that it's only happened the once. So I don't think there's any reason to suppose that our level of intelligence is particularly likely to occur on any planet, even if it has a long history of thriving complex life.
Furthermore, our level of intelligence would seem to be something of a threat to long-term survival. We're still creatures of instinct and emotion. We evolved to see things in the short-term. We evolved as tribal, territorial and aggressive. These things have not changed, even though they are somewhat mitigated by our intelligence - but only somewhat. Furthermore, we've developed the ability to manipulate our environment in such a way as to be hazardous to ourselves. We have caused damage to our environment which will have repercussions for years to come (and are still doing very little to reverse it). We have weapons which could wipe out all life on this planet and it's not unthinkable that they could be used again one day (nuclear weapons have gone missing and still cannot be accounted for, North Korea has nuclear weapons, etc.). We are multiplying at a rate which, if left unchecked, will leave us unable to support our global population. And so on.
Again, all of these things are mitigated and it doesn't look likely that we're going to be wiped off the face of the Earth any time too soon, but who can say where we'll be in 100 years time? And who can say what position an extraterrestrial intelligence like ours could be in - what if their version of the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone a different way? I don't think it's unreasonable to say that our level of intelligence coupled with our inbuilt evolutionary traits (which I think it's not unreasonable to assume other species of our level of intelligence would possess, knowing what we know about intelligence and evolution) can be a danger to long-term survival for a species.
Then look at how short a time we've been around on this planet. Life has existed here for 3.8 billion years. Complex life has existed for 1 billion years. We've existed for 100,000 years. We've been around for 0.01% of the length of time that complex life has existed on this planet, and it's not unreasonable to say that we may be on the brink of extinction on a geological timescale. That's a tiny, tiny amount of time. Thousands of times smaller if you restrict it to when we've actually had technology of note, or much, much smaller still if restricted to our above-posited frozen "now".
For me, the chances that our possibly brief, brief span in this universe will coincide with the possibly equally brief, brief span of a comparable species takes the high probability of intelligent life existing somewhere at some time and turns it into a low probability of intelligent life existing somewhere right now. I mean, I'm happy to admit that I could easily be wrong. This is all just conjecture upon conjecture based on such a tiny set of data (or, even, on just one datum) that there's no way we can even say what is or isn't probable with any degree of certainty. But that's the way that I see it.
I'd like to point out that any discussion of whether our intelligence is beneficial or detrimental to our long-term survival is purely conjecture. Simply put, until we go extinct there's no data on what will drive us to extinction. It could very well be that we go extinct thanks to a nuclear war--it's also equally likely that we'll go extinct due to some freak accident like a bolide impact or gama ray burst. So the argument "Intelligence is detrimental, therefore intelligent ET life is unlikely" is built on an untested premise.
Secondly, we do not have the ability to wipe out all life on Earth. The Chixilub Impact was calculated to be the equivalent of about ten times the energy that would be released if we fired off every atomic warhead ever made, at the same place, at the same time. It generated a relativley minor mass extinction. It clearly wasn't GOOD, but it also wasn't on the scale of the Permian Mass Extinction. Even with spreading out the explosions, it'd be impossible for us to wipe out all life. Lithophiles, for example, would continue more or less unchanged.
As you say, Sceptic Tank, your view is conjecture upon conjecture. Until we have something other than conjecture, however, I think this line of reasoning is futile.
Secondly, we do not have the ability to wipe out all life on Earth. The Chixilub Impact was calculated to be the equivalent of about ten times the energy that would be released if we fired off every atomic warhead ever made, at the same place, at the same time. It generated a relativley minor mass extinction. It clearly wasn't GOOD, but it also wasn't on the scale of the Permian Mass Extinction. Even with spreading out the explosions, it'd be impossible for us to wipe out all life. Lithophiles, for example, would continue more or less unchanged.
As you say, Sceptic Tank, your view is conjecture upon conjecture. Until we have something other than conjecture, however, I think this line of reasoning is futile.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
It is indeed.
Then feel free not to engage in it. I, on the other hand, find it interesting so will continue to engage in it.
Yeah, I realize that it came off more harshely than I intended after I wrote it. The consequences of posting during my lunch hour, while also dealing with other issues. My appologies.
My point was merely that as things stand right now, there's no real data one way or another about the evolutionary advantages of intelligence. Obviously there's some benefit--we're still alive--but long-term? We simply don't know. There are too many variables. In all probability, if there are intelligent ETs, they'll experience intelligence as both a benefit and a problem. Some will blow themselves up. Others will find ways to prolong their species' lifespan (meaning the lifespan of the species, not necessarily of the individual members). Still others may arive at some sort of stasis--the more industrialized countries on Earth have lower reproductive rates, after all.
My point was merely that as things stand right now, there's no real data one way or another about the evolutionary advantages of intelligence. Obviously there's some benefit--we're still alive--but long-term? We simply don't know. There are too many variables. In all probability, if there are intelligent ETs, they'll experience intelligence as both a benefit and a problem. Some will blow themselves up. Others will find ways to prolong their species' lifespan (meaning the lifespan of the species, not necessarily of the individual members). Still others may arive at some sort of stasis--the more industrialized countries on Earth have lower reproductive rates, after all.
I agree with Correa Neto.
It's fine to say life started as soon as it practicably could, but 3.8 billion years later we only have evidence of one creature evolving that developed radio.
That technology has been around under 150 years.
The chances of two such creatures developing radio level technology within (say) 3000 light year distance of each other, at precisely the right time are very , very, very, very small.
And how long do technological civilisations last ?
That doesn't mean I doubt the existence of other intelligent life - the universe is BIG - but the odds of finding it are like the odds of walking into a major library, pulling a book of the shelves at random and finding the exact item you were seeking.
It's fine to say life started as soon as it practicably could, but 3.8 billion years later we only have evidence of one creature evolving that developed radio.
That technology has been around under 150 years.
The chances of two such creatures developing radio level technology within (say) 3000 light year distance of each other, at precisely the right time are very , very, very, very small.
And how long do technological civilisations last ?
That doesn't mean I doubt the existence of other intelligent life - the universe is BIG - but the odds of finding it are like the odds of walking into a major library, pulling a book of the shelves at random and finding the exact item you were seeking.
Last edited:
USEagle13
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 600
Pfffffft I have you "smoked" on this one.
Obama cigarettes
Obama first president to be in video game while in office
USEagle13
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 600
Ummm eeer that was on the radio
No crap Sherlock
USEagle13
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 600
What is so wrong with that EHocking!? What do you watch on TV that is so great!?
I guarantee I can make faces go
over what you watch tooNot true. George W. Bush was. It was a small Flash game, where you could do...well, a great many things, including play catch with him, tickle him, throw fireballs at him, or slap him repeatedly. I remember quite clearly playing this game about a year after he was elected for his second term.
That's the question. I could argue it either way--either it'll be relatively short, or it'll be increadibly long. Technology provides both the means to kill ourselves and to keep our species alive nearly indefinitely.
Also, a thought just occurred: We're basing all of our ideas off of detecting things from Earth. The 3k lightyear radius brought it to mind--if we colonize other systems, that radius increases and so do our odds of finding other intelligent life. The statement "It's vastly unlikely" is good for local (say, Solar System) guestimates, but not for space-colonizing-species guestimates. We still have no clue what those odds are, however.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
There was also the one where you could throw shoes at him.