Extraterrestrial life virtually has to exist

[Edtharan]

Hmmm.. that sounds oddly familiar, did you quote/paraphrase that from somewhere?

Not consciously . However, it is a commonly discussed situation whenever "Deep Time" is discussed in relation to archaeology (or even palaeontology).

[Rom]

Clearly life has, and will continue to spring up amongst the countless other planets. But just like us they will eventually die out. Life is unstable. We are the most unpredictable entity in the entire universe. Simply put, we're a glitch, a flaw, a disregarded speck soon to be wiped clean. So never mind the Aliens, go out and get loaded, twisted, laid, or do whatever the hell you want. (thats actually a little bit critical. I'd say we have a good few generations left. Its all relative to the age of the universe!)

 

Edited June 4, 2008 by Rom

[antimatter]

Though we've arrived pretty late on in the Universe's 'lifespan', and we don't seem to be here for any specific reason, I wouldn't say we're a mistake.

Edited June 4, 2008 by antimatter
Spelling mistake

[ecoli]

Though we've arrived pretty late on in the Universe's 'lifespan', and we don't seem to be here for any specifict reason, I wouldn't say we're a mistake.

agreed. Saying "mistake" implies that there IS a reason for other things, except that it was some bizarre accident that got us here.

 

Saying 'mistake' also implies reason.

 

We're just chance (unless you believe in a deity)

[antimatter]

Right, and I don't think any of us believe in deity.

 

If there are extra-terrestrials, then they were most likely created in the same fashion.

Though even if there is no higher being, there still evolution for a reason? Right?

Unfortunately I can't really give any examples of the top of my head, but it doesn't really make sense that EVERYTHING is chance.

[iNow]

But it's not just "chance." Each subsequent generation builds on the one which came previous. Also, assigning a "reason" to evolution is rather arbitrary, and satisfies human insecurity more than offering an accurate representation or description of the process.

 

To my first point, here's a really cool lecture called "Climbing Mount Improbable." I really enjoyed it, and suggest it to anyone interested.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&q=climbing+mount+improbable&ei=VrlGSJeeDaDk4AK_voGSDA

 

 

 

It's from the "Growing up in the Universe Lecture Series," and is one of the five. If you like it, I encourage you to view the others as well:

 

http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

[Rom]

iNow is quite right. We don't need (although we may eventually find) a purpose/reason to exist or evolve.

 

I didn't mean to imply that mankind was a mistake (although, so what if it was?), simply that on the scale of things we pose no immediate significance to the universe's inner workings.

[antimatter]

I didn't mean to imply that mankind was a mistake (although, so what if it was?), simply that on the scale of things we pose no immediate significance to the universe's inner workings.

 

Did you even bother to read ecoli's response?

A mistake implies there is a reason for things:

 

Saying "mistake" implies that there IS a reason for other things, except that it was some bizarre accident that got us here.

We're just chance (unless you believe in a deity)

[Blakka.inc]

I feel that one of the things preventing us from finding extraterrestrial life is that we are focusing on "intelligent" life living on "earth-like" planets with "similar" technology. We're looking through a very narrow window at the whole universe.

If you think about it, what percent of life on earth can be considered "intelligent?" Of one hundred million species on this planet, how many can be called "intelligent?" So why would we expect to find "intelligent" life on another planet.

That said, Who says life needs a planet to exist? Why not look at moons, asteroids, comets, etc...

There is life on this planet that exist simply because it can. Organisms that seem to thrive in the least habitable nooks and crevasses in the earth. Which says to me, life exist...everywhere. I accept that i could be wrong, but until we find life elsewhere, we can only imagine. What do you all think?

[EdEarl]

I feel that one of the things preventing us from finding extraterrestrial life is that we are focusing on "intelligent" life living on "earth-like" planets with "similar" technology. We're looking through a very narrow window at the whole universe.

If you think about it, what percent of life on earth can be considered "intelligent?" Of one hundred million species on this planet, how many can be called "intelligent?" So why would we expect to find "intelligent" life on another planet.

That said, Who says life needs a planet to exist? Why not look at moons, asteroids, comets, etc...

There is life on this planet that exist simply because it can. Organisms that seem to thrive in the least habitable nooks and crevasses in the earth. Which says to me, life exist...everywhere. I accept that i could be wrong, but until we find life elsewhere, we can only imagine. What do you all think?

Who is the "we" that are "focusing on 'intelligent' life."

 

I realize SETI is focusing on intelligent life, because the technology available to them for the time period they have searched cannot detect other kinds of life forms.

 

NASA has spent considerable time and effort toward detecting any kind of exobiology within our solar system. Pictures from Spirit and Opportunity rovers of Mars landscapes clearly do not show anything living on Mars surface. Moreover, there have been about 20 successful Mars missions, and more failures, that have not detected life. The Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory is the latest mission to mars, and among its missions are the search for evidence that life could have ever existed nearby.

 

Currently, NASA believes that if life does exist on Mars, it will be buried beneath the surface near subsurface water (if subsurface water exists). And, there is some evidence that water does still exist beneath the Mars surface. Although, a bit of (probably) water ice was found at the Martian north pole, but it evaporated after being uncovered. In addition to Mars, several moons of Jupiter and Saturn are being considered as places where life may exist. However, they are more difficult to visit than Mars, and no remote technology is capable of detecting subsurface life, so far.

 

Finally, extrasolar planets and moons are considered possible places for life, including but not limited to intelligent life When the James Webb Space Telescope is launched, NASA will have the first tool that may be able to detect signs of life on extrasolar planets and moons by spectroscopic studies. The JWST is scheduled to launch around 2018.

Edited July 12, 2013 by EdEarl

[Airbrush]

The Rare Earth Hypothesis seems reasonable to me. Consider that Kepler has discovered many planets, but the vast majority of them are not good for life to evolve over a long time. Earth-like planets are probably so rare that the nearest is hundreds or thousands of light years away.

 

The idea of intelligent ETs seems very interesting, we would like to know about them, and yet we should hope we NEVER meet one. Encounters between civilizations is not good for the less advanced civilization. Them arriving here would probably be our doom. Advanced life is probably predatory and predators have no mercy.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Airbrush

[Moontanman]

The Rare Earth Hypothesis seems reasonable to me. Consider that Kepler has discovered many planets, but the vast majority of them are not good for life to evolve over a long time. Earth-like planets are probably so rare that the nearest is hundreds or thousands of light years away.

 

The idea of intelligent ETs seems very interesting, we would like to know about them, and yet we should hope we NEVER meet one. Encounters between civilizations is not good for the less advanced civilization. Them arriving here would probably be our doom. Advanced life is probably predatory and predators have no mercy.

 

 

Recently three Earth sized planets have been found orbiting in the Goldilocks zone of one star

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/153822-nasa-discovers-three-earth-sized-planets-right-in-the-habitable-zone

 

 

 

And large moons may not be as rare as thought...

 

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-proportionally-large-moons-planets-rare.html

 

IMHO intelligent life might not colonize planets at all, in fact if the planet was suitable for colonization it might mean the colonists would be susceptible to diseases they have no immunity to.

 

IMHO artificial colonies are a more likely option for intelligence to colonize the galaxy, avoidance of gravity wells is a good reason and everything needed to live is freely available in space. Building colonies out of available materials and spinning them to produce artificial gravity negates the need for planets and such colonies could be made big enough to imitate planets on a small scale. They might resemble a valley rolled up into a torus similar to an endless suspension bridge...

[Delta1212]

Saying that Earth-like planets are rare because we've found barely any is like saying atoms don't exist because you can't see them with a magnifying glass.

 

We mostly see gas giants not necessarily because most planets are gas giants, but because until the last few years, gas giants were the only planets big enough to see outside of our own solar system with the available technology.

 

That has improved recently, and the last few years we've been finding more and more rocky planets only a bit larger than Earth. This year especially there's practically been a flood of them.

[EdEarl]

Some evidence suggests we would not exist, except for the moon being as large as it is and Jupiter where it is. If true, earth like planets with intelligent life are likely to be rare, because the probibality of all three occurring elsewhere is smaller than any earth size rocky planet in the habitable zone.

[Airbrush]

Saying that Earth-like planets are rare because we've found barely any is like saying atoms don't exist because you can't see them with a magnifying glass.

 

We mostly see gas giants not necessarily because most planets are gas giants, but because until the last few years, gas giants were the only planets big enough to see outside of our own solar system with the available technology.

 

That has improved recently, and the last few years we've been finding more and more rocky planets only a bit larger than Earth. This year especially there's practically been a flood of them.

 

If you study the Kelper findings carefully you will find that a very tiny percentage of the planets discovered so far are Earth-like. Kepler wants to see 3 transits before confirming a planet. Kepler was launched 3-07-09 and has been watching for about 4 years already, and considering that 75% of stars in Kepler's visual field are Red Dwarfs, we would expect to see at least 3 transits for Earth-like planets in the habitable zone ALREADY. And yet, Earth-like planets are STILL a very tiny minority of planets discovered. Kepler is not going to find many more, no matter how long the mission continues.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_mission

Moontanman: ".....IMHO artificial colonies are a more likely option for intelligence to colonize the galaxy, avoidance of gravity wells is a good reason and everything needed to live is freely available in space. Building colonies out of available materials and spinning them to produce artificial gravity negates the need for planets and such colonies could be made big enough to imitate planets on a small scale. They might resemble a valley rolled up into a torus similar to an endless suspension bridge..."

 

This is a good point. If an ETI is very advanced it would not be seeking habitable planets. It could manufacture space colonies, as you say, anywhere, just using materials from asteroids, which are easily available. That would be more practical, considering how far it is for them to travel to an Earth-like planet.

 

However, if they did stumble upon us, I think we would be very interesting to them, since intelligence is so rare in the universe. In that case, they would not want to colonize our planet, but rather just secretly study us. This would explain why ETs visiting Earth would use stealth. Maybe they are just careful enough to remove evidence of their surveillance of us, so we cannot prove they are here. We may take vague photos of UFOs, but they know more about us than we know about ourselves. They would know EXACTLY the threshold of information that would give them away to us. They simply keep their activity below that threshold and will never be proven to exist. For them to evade us is about as easy as it is for us to evade an ant colony.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Airbrush

[EdEarl]

"In July 2013, the spacecraft remained in 'Point Rest State', but with recovery efforts planned for later in the month. Wikipedia-Kepler

 

Sorry, my tablet does not show the widgets with quote bubble etc.And, my laptop is NOP ATM.

 

A space colony with artificial gravity can be done with either an O'Neill Cylinder or a Stanford Torus.

[zapatos]

Some evidence suggests we would not exist, except for the moon being as large as it is and Jupiter where it is. If true, earth like planets with intelligent life are likely to be rare, because the probibality of all three occurring elsewhere is smaller than any earth size rocky planet in the habitable zone.

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that planets with intelligent life are likely to be rare based on the evidence that we would not be here without the moon and Jupiter. You seem to be making the assumption that a large moon and Jupiter like planet are somehow required for intelligent life. There could be millions of different configurations that are conducive to life and evolution.

[EdEarl]

Jupiter is thought to capture an deflect comets that would otherwise hit Earth. The moon is thought io stabilize the rotation of the Earth; thus, mediate the weather. Perhaps you are right, that other factors can help protect life on Earth like planets. What are they?

[arc]

Jupiter is thought to capture an deflect comets that would otherwise hit Earth. The moon is thought io stabilize the rotation of the Earth; thus, mediate the weather. Perhaps you are right, that other factors can help protect life on Earth like planets. What are they?

 

 

You may want to take the Earth and remove one life sustaining attribute at a time and see how far you could deconstruct an ideal life sustaining planet. At what point can you say it has X amount of chance to have life of the most basic form.

 

Mars is our ideal laboratory, we are quite fortunate to have it to study. It is most likely to be at or just past that X point of possible life. If it is there it is probably deep under ground near volcanic sources where stable temperatures and water are present in a chemo-synthesis derived biological environment, far from the lethal radiation that has sterilized the planets surface.

 

To consider what it takes to provide intelligent life a possible chance anywhere is really a long shot in anyone's book.

Edited July 19, 2013 by arc

[zapatos]

Jupiter is thought to capture an deflect comets that would otherwise hit Earth. The moon is thought io stabilize the rotation of the Earth; thus, mediate the weather. Perhaps you are right, that other factors can help protect life on Earth like planets. What are they?

I of course have no idea what they are since we don't know what is required for life other than our own. However, if comets are your concern, perhaps there are planets without a Jupiter like planet where life simply starts later in the evolution of their stellar system, when impacts are less frequent. Perhaps life evolves on larger planets where comet impacts are not global catastrophes, but local catastrophes. Perhaps stellar systems form in such a way that comets are not nearly as common as in our system.

Regarding weather mediation, perhaps life develops in areas of planets where wild swings in weather are naturally mediated, such as beneath the surface of the planet.

Perhaps you are right that Jupiter like planets and large moons like ours are required, but have we looked at all the other possible alternatives?