60% of Americans believe life exists on other planets

[blike]

A recent poll released by National Geographic indicates that 60% of Americans believe that life exists on other planets. Some other interesting results:

 

• More men believe that life exists on other planets than women (69% men / 51% women)
  
• Women are more likely to feel 'nervous and afraid' if we learn that life exists elsewhere (27% women /13% men)
  
• Regular church goers are less likely to believe that life exists elsewhere (46% church / 70% nonchurch)
  
• Republicans and Democrats are just as likely to believe in life on other planets
  
• 70% of Americans believe that these life forms would be similar to humans, and 80% believe they would be more technologically advanced.
  
• 90% of those who believe life exists elsewhere feel that we should respond if we were to receive communication.
  

You can find all of the results on the National Geographic site

[Flareon]

[*']70% of Americans believe that these life forms would be similar to humans...

 

Too much Star Trek?

 

Or more likely, many theists believe that even extraterrestrial life was created, just as humans, "in god's own image," which would appeal to the notion of universality of their god.

[ecoli]

Too much Star Trek?

 

Or more likely' date=' many theists believe that even extraterrestrial life was created, just as humans, "in god's own image," which would appeal to the notion of universality of their god.[/quote']

 

Not that "in his image" is supposed to be a literal physical image, anyways.

[ecoli]

• 70% of Americans believe that these life forms would be similar to humans' date=' and 80% believe they would be more technologically advanced

Wait...these numbers don't make sense...

[Phi for All]

Wait...these numbers don't make sense...

Why not? Does the lack of human form preclude increased technological advancement?

 

I think they are saying, "Of those Americans that believe in extraterrestrial life...."

[ecoli]

no, not that... unless I'm reading the percentages wrong, 70+80 does not equal 100. Are people believing two different things to be true?

 

edit: oops, sorry I was reading wrong. I though it meant that 70% thought the alien technology would be similiar to humans and 80% though alien technology to be better then humans.

 

 

I do see a flaw with this poll, though. It doesn't allow people to consider the possibility that aliens with techs both greater and less then humans to exist. I mean if the universe is infinite, then isn't there an equal probability that both situations exist?

[Phi for All]

I do see a flaw with this poll, though. It doesn't allow people to consider the possibility that aliens with techs both greater and less then humans to exist. I mean if the universe is infinite, then isn't there an equal probability that both situations exist?

Absolutely. I remember reading once how likely it was that there were intelligent beings all over the universe, even in our own galaxy, who simply didn't (or won't) survive their discovery of the power of uranium.

 

Most of our weapons progress along with our social abilities to keep ourselves from being wiped out by those weapons. But uranium means a millionfold leap in our destructive power which must be matched by a similar leap in our ability to avoid war.

[Crash]

crazy stats (wheres the crazy smilie?), wonder if someone will do this on NZ, i hope so, i tink there is life out there, i just have no idea of what i would think it was intelligence wise, looks etc etc.

[john5746]

I think they should have added a question regarding how many planets or stars are contained in the universe. I think many people don't realize how huge the number is.

 

Regarding intelligence, I think this is probably common, but species like ourselves might not be. We have no evidence that any other species has produced life that can wield technology, etc like ourselves. And within our own species, we probably helped stomp out any competition.

[ecoli]

Absolutely. I remember reading once how likely it was that there were intelligent beings all over the universe' date=' even in our own galaxy, who simply didn't (or won't) survive their discovery of the power of uranium.

 

Most of our weapons progress along with our social abilities to keep ourselves from being wiped out by those weapons. But uranium means a millionfold leap in our destructive power which must be matched by a similar leap in our ability to avoid war.[/quote']

 

Equally we have to consider the possibility that there are alien species who have never even recognized the destructive power of uranium, and only use it aas a source of energy, and are able to clean up the wastes...or whatever.

[brad89]

What I wonder is how people can almost doubt it. It is true that the probability of life developing on earth even was slim to none. However, the universe is an awfully big place. Hell, the galaxy is an awfully big place. Should we even doubt that there is life elsewhere in the universe?

[brad89]

I really wonder if the government truly knows something about it that they are not willing to tell. Why would it even hide something of such high regard. The government is made up of people just like us, and if stripped to nothing but themselves, they are also people. Why should certain people be let in on something we don't, simply because they have a government career? The people they run include them, even George Bush won't be in government forever, yet he is let in on something. It is seriously a load of bull!

[brad89]

Absolutely. I remember reading once how likely it was that there were intelligent beings all over the universe' date=' even in our own galaxy, who simply didn't (or won't) survive their discovery of the power of uranium.

 

Most of our weapons progress along with our social abilities to keep ourselves from being wiped out by those weapons. But uranium means a millionfold leap in our destructive power which must be matched by a similar leap in our ability to avoid war.[/quote']

 

I have to say that theoretically, does uranium necesarily exist on a different planet elsewhere. I don't mean it couldn't, but If life were to develop from carbon, does it need uranium? It would probably contain carbon, water, oxygen, or maybe such a civilization could evolve to breathe in nitrogen and exist from boron. Does life seed from oxygen and carbon alone? We barely scraped the possibility of such things being true. Besides all of this, maybe if life developed connected altogether, the civilization would connect as one. Maybe there is no overall government, but an order of all life elsewhere. Do we know this for sure? No, but leave your imagination open to thoughts that others might consider far fetched.

[JohnB]

Personally, I would think it likely an ET would be more advanced than us.

 

The Universe began some 15 billion years ago while our System was formed some 5 billion YA ergo there are more stars that are older than ours v stars that are younger. No matter what statistical chance there is for life evolving, there are always twice as many candidates in the "older" group.

 

Add to that most of our advancement has come in the last 6,000 years or so, a flyspeck in the life of the planet. There will be both more and less developed races out there, but probability makes me think that most of them are more advanced.

 

The only certainty is that there is no-one else at our level of advancement.

[ecoli]

The Universe began some 15 billion years ago while our System was formed some 5 billion YA ergo there are more stars that are older than ours v stars that are younger. No matter what statistical chance there is for life evolving' date=' there are always twice as many candidates in the "older" group.[/quote']

 

But that does not mean that life started to evolve when the planet formed. Take Earth, it's about 4.5 billion years old, right? But life didn't start evolving until it was about 3.5 billion years old.

 

What if life on other planets began evolving later because planetary conditions weren't right for life, or the evolution rate is slower, or the type of life that exists, we wouldn't even recognize as life... and so on. Just because there are solar systems that began earlier doesn't mean that there aren't systems that formed later.

 

Add to that most of our advancement has come in the last 6' date='000 years or so, a flyspeck in the life of the planet. There will be both more and less developed races out there, but probability makes me think that most of them are more advanced.

[/quote']

 

But what's to say that the advancement of other sentinent beings is n't slower. I'd say that there's an equal chance of Alien life forms being less or greater in technological acheivement, and to beleive otherwise is probably a result of Hollywood Alien movies.

 

The only certainty is that there is no-one else at[/b'] our level of advancement.

 

Why not... There are so many stars and the unverse is so big, isn't their a slight chance for this to occur?

[ku]

Americans must be watching too much Fox. Hasn't microscopic life already been found on Mars? Or did the survey specifically exclude microbes?

[Mokele]

Hasn't microscopic life already been found on Mars?

 

No, they thought they did, but it turned out to just be mineral deposits.

 

Mokele

[Ophiolite]

The Universe began some 15 billion years ago while our System was formed some 5 billion YA ergo there are more stars that are older than ours v stars that are younger. No matter what statistical chance there is for life evolving' date=' there are always twice as many candidates in the "older" group.

[/quote']The initial composition of the Universe was hydrogen and helium: not very productive when it comes to producing life. So, all the older Population II stars, with low metallicities, were incapable of producing planetary systems with terrestrial planets, and the gas giants that might have developed were devoid of the ingrediants of life.

It required the larger of these to go through life cyles, ending in supernovae, to generate the 'metals' (elements heavier than hydrogen and helium) that would go into Population I stars. These are the first that are candidates for producing planetary systems comparable with the sun's and that contain the raw materials (CHON) for producing life.

That knocks a few billion years at least off of the available time.

[ecoli]

The initial composition of the Universe was hydrogen and helium: not very productive when it comes to producing life.

 

Correction... That should read "...when it comes to producing life as we know it."

 

It's possible for some sort of hydrogen/helium life form to evolve, that could obtain energy from the chemical reactions from the sun. Our definition of life is sketchy at best, this may be the reason why we haven't found life yet. Hey, who's to say alien life form would even exist in 3-demensions, like us?

[Mokele]

Hey, who's to say alien life form would even exist in 3-demensions, like us?

 

I think numerous racoons, squirrels, possums and armadillos can attest that life in less than 3 dimensions doesn't work very well, at least when one has to undergo a rapid conversion from 3D to 2D. ;-)

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

I think numerous racoons' date=' squirrels, possums and armadillos can attest that life in less than 3 dimensions doesn't work very well, at least when one has to undergo a rapid conversion from 3D to 2D. ;-)

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

wow...it took me far too long to get that joke

[H2SO4]

I dont get it.

[silentsailor]

I dont get it.

 

Roadkill

[JohnB]

Ecoli, perhaps I didn't make my reasoning quite clear.

 

My main assumption is that there is nothing "special" about our world. I'm assuming that it is average in all ways. There may not be any proof of this, but there is nothing to really refute the idea either.

 

On that basis, there will be stars that form planetary systems both faster and slower than ours. Those systems that generate life will do so at a faster or slower pace. The life thus generated will evolve at a faster or slower pace than we did.

 

If our world is average, then all these factors cancel out. For any group of stars the same age as our sun that have advanced life the odds are 50/50 whether they are ahead of us or behind us.

 

My argument is simply that since there are more Population I stars older than our sun than there are Population I stars younger than Sol, the odds move in favour of the ET being more advanced. On average. There will of course be some that are less advanced than we are. If we have this conversation in 5 billion years time, I will answer the other way as there would now be more younger stars than older ones. See what I'm getting at?

(Just in case we do have this conversation then, I will immediately bury a case of malt scotch in my backyard so we can celebrate. )

 

As to ET being at our level, yes there is a slight chance. Although given that most of our advancement has come in the last 200 years or so, not even the proverbial coat of paint on the roof of a hundred story tower when compared to the life of our world, it is highly unlikely.

 

By analogy, two hunters that do not know each other decide to go into the woods. Neither knows which day the other is going or where he will be. Once in the woods, they each fire one bullet into the air. What are the chances of those two bullets hitting each other?

 

Yes, it might be possible, but I would expect my automated lathe to turn out a cash register full of money first.

 

If you were to expand the idea to "around" our level (say plus or minus 2,000 years), then the possibility increases dramatically.

[CanadaAotS]

life could be extremely diverse... I dont see why it needs carbon, oxygen, liquid water, or any of the other things "needed" for life. Imagine a planet full of heavy metal elements... you could have metal beings, or you could have crystal beings trapping photons for energy... life could be made of anything, and get energy in anyway...

 

and chances are there is every type of life we could think up, when you think of the hugeness of the universe