Life elsewhere, thoughts.

[Iota]

I don't have anywhere near good enough of a grasp on evolutionary biology nor cosmology, let alone combined, to seriously consider this idea. This is more a thought provoking idea that I wanted to share and hear others' thoughts than an answerable question of any sort. I think the chances of life elsewhere in the universe is almost certain. I think the chances of intelligent life elsewhere is high (only intuitively, of course, so perhaps ignorantly too). The idea of us coming across fellow intelligent life in the universe is probably extremely low to nil (just going by the vastness of space and the fact that we can only predict how other life in the universe may come about, and its chance, coupled with the chance of it being intelligent). My thought-provoking hypothetical, and maybe seemingly pointless question is this: statistically, are the chances that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe has gazed upon our galaxy significantly greater than that of actually coming into contact with other intelligent life in some form. Or does the sheer stupendous unlikely-hood of either events happening making the difference in probability negligible?

 

It might help slightly if I explain why I though this in the first place. We can view galaxy clusters which are ridiculous distances from Earth, which could easily contain life. So much so, that the light from the suns in these galaxies that we're viewing, was emitted way before Earth and our sun even formed, and so the stars we're seeing light from, probably no longer exist. So, aliens billions, even trillions of years from now, on the other side of the universe, might view light coming from the suns in our galaxy. I can't really explain why the thought of the probability difference between that and coming into contact with intelligent life came about, but there you go. Any thoughts? Even if your thoughts aren't even that related to what I said above it'd be interesting to hear still.

[Enthalpy]

Since planets have been detected around other stars, and life was observed on Earth under conditions previously considered very hostile, the guess of scientist has shifted towards "life on many places in each galaxy".

 

Though, with nearly no significant information to support one answer or an other, the status of this question has barely moved from "pure philosophy" to "this question is scientific but has no answer yet".

 

As for intelligent life, one uncertainty is how long it stays. An other is: how intelligent? An ant? A raven? A chimpanzee? A sapiens sapiens with books?

 

As for distance: the planets we detect are few tens of light-years from Earth. Given the importance of an other civilization, we could wait that long. And maybe information or matter can travel faster, though this fits nowhere in our working theories.

[EdEarl]

The Millennial Project by Marshall T. Savage (intro by Arthur C. Clarke) tells how we may inhabit the galaxy. While it is a plan for colonizing the galaxy, it is the work of only one man, not updated since the early 1990's and should be considered more fiction or a general plan than complete roadmap of the future.

 

It does make a good case for intelligent life colonizing the galaxy. If in fact his plan can be done, one must wonder why we have not found ET.

Edited July 27, 2013 by EdEarl

[Iota]

It does make a good case for intelligent life colonizing the galaxy. If in fact his plan can be done, one must wonder why we have not found ET.

 

So do you think intelligent life could likely exist in our galaxy? I know there's no way of telling, but how big is our galaxy roughly for you to think that (if that's what you're saying)?

 

 

Since planets have been detected around other stars, and life was observed on Earth under conditions previously considered very hostile, the guess

As for distance: the planets we detect are few tens of light-years from Earth. Given the importance of an other civilization, we could wait that long. And maybe information or matter can travel faster, though this fits nowhere in our working theories.

 

I looked up the estimated size of the universe, one place said it could be ~93 billion light years, some scientists predicted it's infinite and so on. If we were to assume that life is almost certainly propping up all over the universe, and because of the vastness of the universe there is therefore large numbers of life elsewhere- some of it is likely to be at least far more intelligent than us, with far superior technology. Technology that we may never achieve as a species. If this is likely the case, does this mean we have little chance of ever meeting other intelligent life.

 

As for other life in general, i.e. not nescesarilly deemed 'intelligent' by some definition, that's a different case. Given the discovery of life on Earth that can survive extreme conditions, as you said, I think we will find other life.

[EdEarl]

The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy 100,000–120,000 light-years in diameter containing 100–400 billion stars. It may contain at least as many planets.

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

 

There may be more than a billion Earth sized planets, but there is insufficient evidence to estimate the number of planets with conditions capable of sustaining intelligent life with a technological culture, AFAIK. My guess is there are fewer than 1 in a billion. Thus, I guess 0.1 to 10 such civilizations per galaxy.

[Ophiolite]

One answer to the Fermi paradox is that we are the first. There is sound evidence that make this solution plausible: namely the requirement for high metallicity GMCs to deliver habitable envirnments and the times required to generate sufficient volumes of such GMCs; and the extensive length of time (a significant proportion of the age of the universe) for intelligence, with a technological capcity, to emerge.

[swansont]

One answer to the Fermi paradox is that we are the first. There is sound evidence that make this solution plausible: namely the requirement for high metallicity GMCs to deliver habitable envirnments and the times required to generate sufficient volumes of such GMCs; and the extensive length of time (a significant proportion of the age of the universe) for intelligence, with a technological capcity, to emerge.

 

Yes, if intelligence and an advanced technology requires heavier elements, as ours does, one has to wait for a few generations of stars for the supernovae and any other processes to form these elements. Also, our history thus far has relied on fossil fuels, so our technology is dependent on the fact that intelligence arose after hundreds of millions of years of other life had come and gone and formed carbon-containing deposits in the ground that we were able to exploit. Thus, older intelligent life may have been at a disadvantage in terms of developing our current level of technology. There could be intelligent life out there that was not able to make it out of their bronze or iron age for a lack of coal and oil.

[Iota]

Interesting,

 

Yes, if intelligence and an advanced technology requires heavier elements, as ours does, one has to wait for a few generations of stars for the supernovae and any other processes to form these elements. Also, our history thus far has relied on fossil fuels, so our technology is dependent on the fact that intelligence arose after hundreds of millions of years of other life had come and gone and formed carbon-containing deposits in the ground that we were able to exploit. Thus, older intelligent life may have been at a disadvantage in terms of developing our current level of technology. There could be intelligent life out there that was not able to make it out of their bronze or iron age for a lack of coal and oil.

 

But do you think perhaps if we didn't have crude oil, natural gas, coal to rely on, other means could easily have been innovated as a result? For example, another civilisation elsewhere might have far superior solar utilising technology because it was their only plausible energy solution. Or radiation, energy from other chemical sources etc. So what I mean is, does it necessarily have to put them at disadvantage not having Earth like conditions? Bearing in mind I recognise you used words such as "may have" and "if" whilst saying this, and were speaking in terms of the Fermi Paradox idea.

 

One answer to the Fermi paradox is that we are the first. There is sound evidence that make this solution plausible: namely the requirement for high metallicity GMCs to deliver habitable envirnments and the times required to generate sufficient volumes of such GMCs; and the extensive length of time (a significant proportion of the age of the universe) for intelligence, with a technological capcity, to emerge.

 

Thanks for contributing that. I'll be reading into this Fermi Paradox it looks interesting- I had a quick read already. The time length of these processes really does sound like a limiting factor then. Has it be known anywhere in the universe that these processes speed up significantly or are they always so lengthy? Is the Fermi Paradox essentially saying that the universe is young in some respect- and that further down the line life will be more common in the universe because there will have been time for more of these GMCs to form? Young is a relative term and we have no way of knowing how long our universe will be (I've heard of heat death for example), but in general terms.

 

Edited July 30, 2013 by Iota

[swansont]

Interesting,

 

 

But do you think perhaps if we didn't have crude oil, natural gas, coal to rely on, other means could easily have been innovated as a result? For example, another civilisation elsewhere might have far superior solar utilising technology because it was their only plausible energy solution. Or radiation, energy from other chemical sources etc. So what I mean is, does it necessarily have to put them at disadvantage not having Earth like conditions? Bearing in mind I recognise you used words such as "may have" and "if" whilst saying this, and were speaking in terms of the Fermi Paradox idea.

 

I don't see us making the jump from water power and burning wood to solar and nuclear, without coal and oil in between. Or even perhaps a century or two of coal. That would be asking us to basically skip the 20th century, and some (or all) of the 19th. Lots of innovation was driven by, or made possible by, the industrial revolution.

[Danijel Gorupec]

...statistically, are the chances that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe has gazed upon our galaxy significantly greater than that of actually coming into contact with other intelligent life in some form.

 

I believe the probability that other intelligent beings are gazing at galaxies is 1. I believe the probability that out there exist at least one civilization that is aware of any other civilization is also close to 1 – but among all civilizations, I believe, only an extremely small fraction ever detected others.

 

I believe that the probability that there is at least one civilization that detected our civilization is 0. Our civilization is only detectable in about 100ly radius (our radio waves had no time to spread any further) – unlikely any other civilization is located that close.

 

...

 

You also asked for wider PERSONAL OPINIONS on life and intelligence… I believe in life, in a sense that life is resilient. Once the life forms, it will find ways to sustain and will spread to every possible niche it can reach – including intelligence. (It is my opinion that there are many intelligent species on Earth. Few of them even evolved to become technology capable.)

 

Therefore, to me the most important question is – what is the probability for the life to form from non-live mater. There is no clear evidence that life formed on Earth more than once. Therefore, it is possible that life-creation event is a very rare affair. Still, I choose not to believe so.

 

But once the life forms, it is on a safe track. If there ever was a life on Mars, then I believe it is still there – maybe in a form of very resilient spores (I wonder if they ever tried to create favorable conditions on Mars soil samples, just to check what will come out.)

 

The probability of a technology-capably intelligence is obviously low (as far as we know, it only happened few times here on Earth, and only from one evolution line). The probability of technological civilization is even less likely because some further favorable conditions are needed. (Swansont ‘rudely’ mentioned coal and oil – I said ‘rudely’ because I think that there are so many other possible favorable conditions that even mentioning one as an example is rude, in a sense)

 

I am sad because our civilization is placed in the middle of the nowhere. I would like to live close to the galaxy center – there a 100ly year radius would provide some hope. I believe, our civilization will never make the Contact. Most likely we are going to die alone.

[swansont]

The probability of a technology-capably intelligence is obviously low (as far as we know, it only happened few times here on Earth, and only from one evolution line).

But that's exactly the probability that we're talking about — that some species of intelligent life arises. That it happened on earth tells us nothing about the probability, and there are evolutionary reasons to think it would not happen with multiple species at once.

 

 

 

The probability of technological civilization is even less likely because some further favorable conditions are needed. (Swansont ‘rudely’ mentioned coal and oil – I said ‘rudely’ because I think that there are so many other possible favorable conditions that even mentioning one as an example is rude, in a sense)

That must be a definition of rude of which I am not aware. What are these other favorable conditions?

[Danijel Gorupec]

But that's exactly the probability that we're talking about — that some species of intelligent life arises. That it happened on earth tells us nothing about the probability, and there are evolutionary reasons to think it would not happen with multiple species at once.

 

That must be a definition of rude of which I am not aware. What are these other favorable conditions?

 

First, the 'rude' is probably bad word choice. Sorry... I was thinking that it is somehow 'impolite' to pretend that we even know what a favorable condition could be. Their world could have, say, a hundred times faster wood production than our world - so they could use it for burning. Or they could have an animal that is ten times as strong as horse and very easy to work with... But this are all pale examples because we cannot even imagine what would be favorable for them. (What would be a favorable condition for orcas, I wonder?)

 

For the intelligence probability... Intelligence happens often on earth. All species capable of learning, I would say, posses intelligence... For the tech-capable intelligence, I mostly agree with you. It is a bad sign that it first happened so late in evolution (after 4b years) as it means low probability. I beleive that the difference between human and animal intelligence is only quantitative (not a major step for evolution), and therefore I must conclude that there is not much evolutionary pressure toward tech-capable intelligence.... Still, romantically, I beleive there are so many evolutions out there that many tech-capable intelligences exist anyway.

 

[he he... maybe some tech-capable intelligence existed on earth long time ago, but had not enough oil and coal to make a mark.]

[Iota]

 

I don't see us making the jump from water power and burning wood to solar and nuclear, without coal and oil in between. Or even perhaps a century or two of coal. That would be asking us to basically skip the 20th century, and some (or all) of the 19th. Lots of innovation was driven by, or made possible by, the industrial revolution.

Good point I probably should have seen it.

 

 

 

First, the 'rude' is probably bad word choice. Sorry... I was thinking that it is somehow 'impolite' to pretend that we even know what a favorable condition could be. Their world could have, say, a hundred times faster wood production than our world - so they could use it for burning. Or they could have an animal that is ten times as strong as horse and very easy to work with... But this are all pale examples because we cannot even imagine what would be favorable for them. (What would be a favorable condition for orcas, I wonder?)

 

I was thinking on similar lines but wood can't produce comparable energy results to that of fossil fuels. Who knows maybe other civilisations will exploit simple nitrogen-based substances for their explosive reactions and harness said energy. The conditions on their planet could result in this, or numerous other energy alternatives perhaps. The potential for nitrogen based life forms is still being researched I think, due to its similarity to carbon in many respects.

[swansont]

First, the 'rude' is probably bad word choice. Sorry... I was thinking that it is somehow 'impolite' to pretend that we even know what a favorable condition could be. Their world could have, say, a hundred times faster wood production than our world - so they could use it for burning. Or they could have an animal that is ten times as strong as horse and very easy to work with... But this are all pale examples because we cannot even imagine what would be favorable for them. (What would be a favorable condition for orcas, I wonder?)

 

I think you have to look at this in some more depth. Plants that grow faster are still limited by how much sunlight they can get, and further, the issue with wood isn't limited to the growth rate. The energy density of coal is half again higher than that of wood, meaning coal makes a more profitable fuel that can be transported to locations where it isn't grown (e.g. cities) or has been depleted, or used on mobile platforms (trains, ships). Oil/gasoline is twice that of coal, and can be piped, and also used in more compact and generally more efficient engines (internal combustion vs steam).

 

Scientific development is tied to economic development — you have to have scientists, which means you need the labor saving devices that allow them to work in the lab rather than farming, and you need to be able to pay them. Coal and oil are more efficient in terms of raw energy and by extension, the economy.

 

A stronger horse has to eat more. There's a reason we went to burning hydrocarbons rather than using more horses.

 

In short, there are physics basics that you can't get around.

[EdEarl]

Without plate a molten core, plate tectonics, an vulcanism the Earth would not have its magnetic field, which would mean solar storms would erode its atmosphere and oceans, leaving it like Mars. With a molten core, carbon based life would probably form as it has on Earth with plant like life making oxygen and leaving fossil fuels buried. There was no oxygen on early Earth to support animal life.

 

The moon which stabilizes the Earth's rotation would seem to be a rare occurrence. Without that rotational stabilization, Earth's climate would be more variable making complex life more difficult, and possibly making technological culture impossible.

 

 

It appears plausible that in most exoplanetary systems, there are one or two giant planets with orbits comparable in size to those of Jupiter and Saturn in the Solar System.

Thus, the large planets that attract comets, which could cause mass extinction events, is apparently common; thus, increasing chances for alien technological culture.

 

One can only guess at other factors that may improve or impede evolution to higher intelligence. Would a slightly warmer or cooler temperature help or hinder. How would a slightly different gravity affect evolution. What would be the effects on evolution of a different star color or variation in size. The gross differences make easy analysis. Subtle differences, as the butterfly effect, are difficult to analyze.

[Danijel Gorupec]

I think you have to look at this in some more depth. Plants that grow faster are still limited by how much sunlight they can get, and further, the issue with wood isn't limited to the growth rate. The energy density of coal is half again higher than that of wood, meaning coal makes a more profitable fuel that can be transported to locations where it isn't grown (e.g. cities) or has been depleted, or used on mobile platforms (trains, ships). Oil/gasoline is twice that of coal, and can be piped, and also used in more compact and generally more efficient engines (internal combustion vs steam).

 

Scientific development is tied to economic development — you have to have scientists, which means you need the labor saving devices that allow them to work in the lab rather than farming, and you need to be able to pay them. Coal and oil are more efficient in terms of raw energy and by extension, the economy.

 

A stronger horse has to eat more. There's a reason we went to burning hydrocarbons rather than using more horses.

 

In short, there are physics basics that you can't get around.

 

I understand this all... I made some bad examples. However note that I agree that some favorable conditions are necessity to develop a tech-civilization. I am only thinking that your example (coal and oil) is misleading because readers here might assume that probability of coal-and-oil forming has anything to do with probability of tech-civilization forming. Those two are not related, because, I believe, there are zillions of other options for a tech-wannabe-civilization.

 

But I am not sure what we are now talking about? Tech-civilization can exist without coal and oil (I would call old Egypt a tech-civilization, wouldn’t you?). Tech-civilization can exist with only mild energy sources. Do we talk about inter-stellar-communication capable civilizations – is this why we are talking about cheap energy now?

[swansont]

 

I understand this all... I made some bad examples. However note that I agree that some favorable conditions are necessity to develop a tech-civilization. I am only thinking that your example (coal and oil) is misleading because readers here might assume that probability of coal-and-oil forming has anything to do with probability of tech-civilization forming. Those two are not related, because, I believe, there are zillions of other options for a tech-wannabe-civilization.

 

But I am not sure what we are now talking about? Tech-civilization can exist without coal and oil (I would call old Egypt a tech-civilization, wouldn’t you?). Tech-civilization can exist with only mild energy sources. Do we talk about inter-stellar-communication capable civilizations – is this why we are talking about cheap energy now?

 

In the context of the OP, a tech civilization is indeed one capable of some kind of communication with another that exists on another planet. You have to get your level of technology to that threshold, and my argument is that it's much more difficult without (or with a severely reduced supply of) coal and oil. Which is one more factor that dictates the starting point for when you might expect a higher probability of communication capability.

[Danijel Gorupec]

 

In the context of the OP, a tech civilization is indeed one capable of some kind of communication with another that exists on another planet. You have to get your level of technology to that threshold, and my argument is that it's much more difficult without (or with a severely reduced supply of) coal and oil. Which is one more factor that dictates the starting point for when you might expect a higher probability of communication capability.

 

Without oil-and-coal, our development would be delayed for 300-400 years, but that is nothing compared to intelligence evolution time. You might be afraid that without oil-and-coal we would never manage to get over some threshold level, but I am confident we would… I think it is not oil-and-coal that made us the high-tech civilization, but introduction of the experiment into the scientific method. This was The Moment. The oil-and-coal was only a lucky shortcut we found on our way.

 

So, if tech-capable intelligence gets created by evolution, all it needs is some time in peace. Few hundred years more or less to grow into communication-capable civilization is not a big deal. The favorable conditions that I think are needed for tech civilization to emerge are mostly concerned about stability and sustainability.

 

 

Now, this is my one-hundred post and I opened a beer bottle .

[Iota]

Few hundred years more or less to grow into communication-capable civilization is not a big deal.

 

It all depends but I agree. I think when there's a will there is a way, and maybe oil and coal are very convenient to have, but it's by no means the only path. Other simple chemical processes are usable, namely by using simple oxidation and can be modified to be more effective as knowledge grows. Although it's not immediately obvious what can fill in the gap that coal an oil do, or how comparably effective it'd be. But then I'd go back to your point of such time spans to account for these disadvantages are insignificant next to the time taken to evolve into intelligent beings in the first place.

 

By the way, what beer are you opening?

 

 

Edit:

 

This being said, I just checked out the table on energy densities Swansont posted, I thought explosive nitro compounds (as an example) would be quite high, but TNT ranks lower than wood lol. Just goes to show higher explosiveness greater instability doesn't mean more energy.

 

Until a simple and effective substitute can be found, I guess we'll have to assume that without oil and coal, it's still not looking good for the aliens.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Iota

[Danijel Gorupec]

 

By the way, what beer are you opening?

 

Oh, the most common Croatian beer called "Ozujsko Pivo", or "Zuja" for short (both 'z' letters actually have a small inverse hat above them - common in Croatian language.)

 

 

Sure, few hundred/thousands years longer to develop technology means a bit more probability for a large comet/meteor strike or similar event that will reset any progress. Therefore, some lucky 'shortcuts' do slightly improve probability that the high tech level will be achieved.

[Iota]

 

Oh, the most common Croatian beer called "Ozujsko Pivo", or "Zuja" for short (both 'z' letters actually have a small inverse hat above them - common in Croatian language.)

 

 

Sure, few hundred/thousands years longer to develop technology means a bit more probability for a large comet/meteor strike or similar event that will reset any progress. Therefore, some lucky 'shortcuts' do slightly improve probability that the high tech level will be achieved.

 

I often go for a beer that happens to be native to a place near you, Peroni, from Italy. A bit more expensive than the regular brands, but brilliant stuff. Enjoy your Zuja!

[TransformerRobot]

I've been wondering if maybe we are the first in what is to be a long line of civilizations across the galaxy.

 

What if we were to maybe colonize certain planets, but would have to be genetically altered to live on them? That would end up dividing the human race into different species, just like millions of years ago when Homo Sapiens existed alongside Neanderthals.

 

If one was to be genetically altered to live on, say, Triton, what would they need to receive in order to survive the cold?

[swansont]

This being said, I just checked out the table on energy densities Swansont posted, I thought explosive nitro compounds (as an example) would be quite high, but TNT ranks lower than wood lol. Just goes to show higher explosiveness greater instability doesn't mean more energy.

The energy density of TNT is slightly lower than that of a chocolate chip cookie. (Lower because part of the mass is taken up by having an oxidizer as part of the compound)

[TransformerRobot]

 

So do you think intelligent life could likely exist in our galaxy? I know there's no way of telling, but how big is our galaxy roughly for you to think that (if that's what you're saying)?

 

 

 

I looked up the estimated size of the universe, one place said it could be ~93 billion light years, some scientists predicted it's infinite and so on. If we were to assume that life is almost certainly propping up all over the universe, and because of the vastness of the universe there is therefore large numbers of life elsewhere- some of it is likely to be at least far more intelligent than us, with far superior technology. Technology that we may never achieve as a species. If this is likely the case, does this mean we have little chance of ever meeting other intelligent life.

 

As for other life in general, i.e. not nescesarilly deemed 'intelligent' by some definition, that's a different case. Given the discovery of life on Earth that can survive extreme conditions, as you said, I think we will find other life.

 

What life forms on Earth are able to survive the conditions you mentioned? They're likely not creatures I've heard of.

[Iota]

 

What life forms on Earth are able to survive the conditions you mentioned? They're likely not creatures I've heard of.

 

One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

 

"For example, tardigrades can withstand temperatures from just above absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water, pressures about 6 times stronger than pressures found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than would kill a person, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for nearly 120 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce."

 

Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

The energy density of TNT is slightly lower than that of a chocolate chip cookie. (Lower because part of the mass is taken up by having an oxidizer as part of the compound)

 

Yeah I saw carbohydrates in the table too, although I didn't know the reason for it ranking above TNT. So basically what you're saying is cookies make better bombs than TNT?

Edited August 1, 2013 by Iota