Probability of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence

[Jerry Wickey]

What do you think? Here's what I think. I am interested in finding flaws in my argument, so don't be shy.

Everyone has heard of the Drake equation, a quantification for the likelihood of the existence of extra-terrestrial civilizations. Most estimates for it parameters provide for a low to medium probability that humanity shall ever find a neighbor.

However, the equation rests upon an assumption which is not justifiable. It claims that all civilizations have a life span after which they expire, and that none are immune. It does not allow for the possibility that a civilization could survive for an indefinite period of time, billions of years even to the time of the end of the universe.

This article shows why, if even one civilization is not subject to a "life span" then the probability of a universe replete with intelligent life is near certainty. From which then arises the more important question why have they respected our privacy thus far?

I number the facts to make it easy for anyone disagreeing to identify my exact error. Find the two conclusions at 16 and 25

1)

Water is the key to natural habitability. And. . . entirely aquatic life is even more likely than terrestrial since water offers many advantages such as protection from ultraviolet radiation. There are three habitable worlds in our solar system alone, Earth and the moons Europa and Enceladus. And. . . there are about a hundred billion galaxies which are visible and each galaxy may contain as many as two hundred billion stars. And. . . recent planetary science reveals that maybe a tenth of star systems have multiple planets. And. . . if one planet in 20,000 is habitable (liquid water) then there are probably about a billion billion habitable worlds.

(It may be reasonable to think that some aquatic civilizations trapped in a world entirely covered in a sheet of ice might grow even more curious about what lies upward than we are. )

2)

The probability that, not just life but, civilization arise on any given planet must be greater than zero, because of course, we are here.

3)

It must be high enough that our own arising is not unreasonably improbable. By probability math, a probability of one in billion billion provides a 63% probability that civilization arose on at least one planet in a billion billion. One in a billion trillion allows only a 0.063% chance that we or anyone else arose anywhere. The true probability must be greater than one in a hundred million billion to allow for a reasonable chance that civilization arose somewhere at least once in the visible universe, which is we. That is a 6% chance that life arose at least once somewhere. (we)

4)

But it must be less than one because we find no intelligent life on Mars. It must fall between these two extremes.

5)

At present we have no means to determine where in this large range the true probability lies. So, given our current information, any given sub-range within this range is equally likely.

6)

The range lying between one in a hundred million billion and one in a billion is a very -very small range laying at the low end which terminates in near impossibility of civilization arising on any planet anywhere. Given that this sub-range is a very small part of the over all range, it is very unlikely that the true probability of civilization arising on any given planet actually lies in this small sub-range. Probability math tells us that there is a 99.9999999% chance that the true probability of civilization arising on any given planet lies in the range greater than one in a billion.

7)

It is near certainty (99.9999999%) that the true probability of civilization arising on any given planet is greater than one in a billion. Given a probability of one in a billion and that the visible universe probably has a billion billion habitable worlds, a billion civilizations probably arose over the course of the billions of years history of the universe. Simple life could be much more prevalent, maybe one in a million habitable worlds.

8)

In the diversity of life on this planet, we observe species which are very clever, but also without regard for others even of their own kind. Some smart mammals kill their own offspring. On the other hand we also observe, some relatively stupid species which exhibit affection or at least no aggressiveness toward their offspring. It is reasonable to presume no biological relationship between benevolence and cleverness. Any biological species can be both benevolent and clever or benevolent and stupid or malevolent and clever or malevolent and stupid.

9)

All extra-terrestrial species are also biological beings subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry as we observe on this planet. All species no matter where they are must reproduce. Otherwise, the species does not continue to exist.

10)

Of the billions of civilizations which likely arose, some exhibit each of the four biologic behavior permutations. Mankind may be malevolent and clever, while others may be benevolent and stupid.

11)

A civilization populated by stupid organisms may require many tens of thousands of years to arrive at a technological level which required humans only five thousand years.

12)

Any civilization which is clever is more likely to develop powerful weapons of mass destruction faster. Any civilization which is benevolent is likely to develop negotiation skills faster.

13)

Any civilization which has the good fortune to survive extinction level natural disasters long enough (some species do last a very long time, dinosaurs 200 million years) finds themselves at their own disposal. That is -they develop technology which could destroy themselves.

14)

A clever civilizations is likely to develop such technology before they develop negotiating skill. While a stupid and benevolent civilization is more likely to over populate before they developed weapons of mass destruction.

15)

Of course without weapons of mass destruction, overpopulation is self limiting. If there is not enough food, the population decreases rapidly until there is enough. And without weapons of mass destruction, such civilizations rapidly adapts efficacious negotiation skill. Only the best negotiators get to eat and survive and reproduce.

16)

Advancing population leads to competition for resources. More clever, but less benevolent behavior hastens the development of advanced technology which includes weapons of mass destruction and the inclination to use such in the competition for resources. While less clever and more benevolent behavior results in the same increased population and competition for resources, but with a extended period of time without weapons of mass destruction, leading to an increased chance of survival for members of that species who are most skilled at negotiation.

16)

Therefore: Of the billions of civilizations which arose, those which exhibit benevolent behavior but are less clever are more likely to survive into their development of advanced technology.

17)

Once any civilization adopts benevolence and advanced technology, (beyond our own level of technology) they became able to colonize other habitable worlds.

18)

Colonization is only one of many possible solutions such peaceful and powerful civilizations might device for population. But colonization of other worlds has a powerful advantage which probably does not go unnoticed by advanced civilizations.

19)

Once any civilization chooses to colonize other worlds, they become immune to any global civilization ending natural catastrophe and has already demonstrated benevolence in administering advanced technology. Political turmoil is far less likely also because they exhibit benevolence and skill at negotiation, but even political turmoil, war, is not likely to effect all planets in such a civilization to an extinction level. War has never been as good at population control as famine and other natural disasters. Such a civilization becomes immortal.

20)

Population growth is dependent upon availability of resources. An advanced civilization which choose to answer population by colonizing other worlds brings advanced technology with them. The colonizers have satellite images of the new world at their disposal to select the best places for agriculture and for dwelling centers. They can exploit the new world's resources to their best long term advantage. They are not constrained by the thousands of years it took their ancestors on their home world. Population growth on a new world will grow at the maximum rate that is comfortable to them.

21)

A civilization without advanced technology may take thousands of years to grow from a population of one million to one billion, but with technology they can easily grow from just one hundred organisms to one hundred billion in only twenty reproductive generations. This is slower than the rate of human population growth in the last fifty years.

22)

If each of the member worlds of such a civilization colonize another world only once every 2000 years, then the number of worlds colonized exceed a billion billion in far less then one million years. (120,000 to be exact) This leads to expansion at a rate faster than the speed of light, colonizing planets so fast that the rate of the civilization's radius expansion exceeds the speed of light.

23)

Any such immortal civilization could have had their beginning from about 10 billion years ago, the beginning of high metallically stars to the current. Half of them arose more then 5 billion years ago and half less than 5 billion. 99% of all such civilization arose more than a hundred million years ago. 90% arose more than a billion years ago.

24)

If just one single civilization of billions of civilizations arose more than a billion years ago and chose to become such as described, then if superluminal travel is possible, they have already colonized the entire visible universe long ago. If superluminal travel is impossible, it would require less than 200 such civilizations randomly spaced throughout the universe to have colonized the entire visible universe.

25)

Therefore: There is an extreme likelihood that the entire universe is populated by many peaceful species who participate in a single cooperative civilization which for some reason choses non-interference with humans. They may have chosen this same path for many worlds which they found already inhabited by less advanced civilizations. Or there may be other more likely reasons.

[CharonY]

All things considered this is highly speculative so, I'll move it to that section for now.

[Jerry Wickey]

Well if you are a mod, then I won't argue with you.

 

However, if you claim it is speculation, then which point in particular might be in error? I've numbered them to make that easier.

 

A useful and apropos tautology. If none are incorrect, then all is correct.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Jerry Wickey

[Delta1212]

#6 is the same type of reasoning with probabilities that leads people to conclude that the world is about to end, because if it continues for an appreciably longer time, there will be many more people who live later than now than lived before now, and the probability of them living now instead of later is very small. Thus, it's likely that the world ends soon.

 

To put this another way, I don't know exactly what the odds of someone being born with my DNA are. I know it is greater than zero, because I exist, and less than 1, because I know people who don't have my exact DNA.

 

There have been better than 100 billion people who have ever lived, so let's say that the odds of someone being born with my exact DNA are greater than one in a trillion, to give myself decent odds of being born.

 

The sub-range of all odds between 1 in a trillion and 1 in a billion is very small, even smaller than the sub-range falling between one in a hundred million billion and one in a billion that you describe. Therefore it is likely that the true odds of being born with my exact DNA are greater than 1 in a billion.

 

Therefore it is highly likely that there are at least 7 people alive today with my exact DNA.

[Jerry Wickey]

Good try. But I don't think you understand point 6

 

This is what I want. People to give it their best thoughts.

 

It is true that the sequence of your DNA occurs at least once, in you. And you are correct. That does not mean that the chance that any sequence of DNA must be one in seven billion.

 

Also it is not true that the sequence of an organism's DNA is dependent upon the organism's existence. The sequence arises then the organism of which it is genetic might come to fruition or it might not. There is not dependency on seven billion to give rise to your particular sequence of DNA. Your particular DNA sequence comes from a number of permutations greater than the number of atoms in the entire universe.

 

However, in case of the arising of intelligent life, That is dependent upon the existence of the planet first.

 

It is not true to say that the chance that any sequence of DNA occurring is one in the number of living organisms.

 

It is true to say that the chance of civilization arising on any given planet is the number of civilizations over the number of planets.

 

Do you agree? Is the chance that civilization arises on any given planet the number of civilizations divided by the number of planets?

 

And do you agree that the chance that your particular DNA sequence arose in you has nothing to do with the number of people who have DNA?