New model predicts that we're probably the only advanced civilization...

[yallerdawg]

in the observable universe


Source: Universal-Sci, by Matt Williams

The Fermi Paradox remains a stumbling block when it comes to the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI). Named in honor of the famed physicist Enrico Fermi who first proposed it, this paradox addresses the apparent disparity between the expected probability that intelligent life is plentiful in the Universe, and the apparent lack of evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI).

In the decades since Enrico Fermi first posed the question that encapsulates this paradox (“Where is everybody?”), scientists have attempted to explain this disparity one way or another. But in a new study conducted by three famed scholars from the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) at Oxford University, the paradox is reevaluated in such a way that it makes it seem likely that humanity is alone in the observable Universe.

The study, titled “Dissolving the Fermi Paradox“, recently appeared online. The study was jointly-conducted by Anders Sanberg, a Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute and a Martin Senior Fellow at Oxford University; Eric Drexler, the famed engineer who popularized the concept of nanotechnology; and Tod Ord, the famous Australian moral philosopher at Oxford University.

In the end, the team’s conclusions do not mean that humanity is alone in the Universe, or that the odds of finding evidence of extra-terrestrial civilizations (both past and present) is unlikely. Instead, it simply means that we can say with greater confidence – based on what we know – that humanity is most likely the only intelligent species in the Milky Way Galaxy at present.

Read it all at: https://www.universal-sci.com/headlines/2018/6/22/new-model-predicts-that-were-probably-the-only-advanced-civilization-in-the-observable-universe

[wasupaloopa]

1. When you ask someone who believes in

extraterrestrials visiting earth how the travelers deal with time and aging and survival needs the answer is always “they are highly developed.”

I think you need to go deeper than that

[yallerdawg]

5. Gamers would say, "Obviously, we're going to have to level up!"

What if WE are the 'primordial ooze' from which intelligent life in the universe originates?

What if WE possess the originating code from which all else derives, glitches and improvements?

[wasupaloopa]

22. Not a gamer so you have me a bit confused

[Blue_true]

78. In order to reach us, they WOULD have to be tens of thousands of not

millions more years advanced that us, so be comparison to us, they would be highly developed.

[hunter]

2. It's not much of a paradox from my perspective.

Most disruptive species such as ourselves rapidly become extinct.

Those few who are "successful" vanish into universes of their own making, forever inaccessible to the universes they were born in.

Star Trek or Star Wars universes simply do not exist.

Faster-than-light travel, and/or time travel is simply not possible in this universe.

Looking for intelligent sentient life in outer space is nuts. It's the damned fucking saddest most pathetic thing that we humans tend not to recognize other intelligent sentient species here on earth.

[LanternWaste]

3. All one of them?

"Most disruptive species such as ourselves rapidly become extinct..."

[hunter]

6. This planet has seen many disruptive species come and go.

Exponential growth followed by crash.

We humans are not special.

A million years from now we are a peculiar layer of trash in the geologic record.

[jberryhill]

7. Other than some microorganisms, most species go extinct

I don't understand the qualifier "disruptive", but it is clear that human activity has had a significant impact on conditions in the biosphere in a relative blink of an eye:



We are, in fact, living in the middle of one the greatest mass extinction events of all time.

[MosheFeingold]

23. Agree and disagree

I concur that I suspect dominant, smart, species probably become extinct, probably because they are dominant and smart, so they war with each other until they die (or revert themselves back to the stone age).

Not sure about faster-than-light being impossible. We just don't know that, one way or the other.

And there are ways of making long distance trips possible -- like downloading consciousness to machines, for example -- or recording and downloading consciousness to a duplicate body sent ahead (e.g., "Altered Carbon&quot . So interstellar travel is still very possible, even at sub-light speeds.

And it's never nuts to explore. Humanity are explorers.

[EX500rider]

42. "time travel is simply not possible in this universe."

Time travel is certainly possible, but in a forward direction via time dilation when getting near relativistic speeds.

Take a space ship to near light speed for a year or three or 10 and centuries would have gone by by the time you get home.
Sounds like time travel to me.

No aliens in the neighborhood might be safer, they may be more BORG and less Federation Of Planets then we'd like.

[hunter]

46. Why bother with relativistic speeds?

This universe has only one speed and it's c, as in E=mc^2.

That equals sign in Einstein's famous equation doesn't mean "can be converted to..." it means "is."

We're all writ upon the light.

We don't need a space ship to go places, a lifetime is a lifetime wherever you are, wherever you go, and no matter how "fast" you think you're traveling. It's all c

Hey, hey, hey — don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. 'Cause, remember: no matter where you go... there you are.

-- Buckaroo Banzai

[zipplewrath]

101. Warped space

The whole concept of "warp" (which actually predated Star Trek) is that "speed" (velocity really) can be sublight and yet one is traveling in essence in "another dimension". Of course that means distorting space which no one yet knows how to do. Not to mention that all currently known ways would require unimaginable kinds of energy.

[hunter]

102. Maybe the dominant civilizations of this galaxy are highly evolved plant-like species...

... who never physically travel at all, but communicate on side channels of the physical universe unobservable to human beings and other highly mobile and impatient creatures such as ourselves.

To these sorts of beings traveling would involve expanding their awareness beyond themselves, beyond their home planet, maybe even sharing consciousness with creatures similar to themselves on distant planets.

Heck, maybe they even have the power to drop asteroids on planets where evolution doesn't seem to be favoring creatures such as themselves, a sort of hard biological reset to planets where evolution has gone "wrong" from their sessile plant-like perspective..

Good bye dinosaurs. Maybe good bye humans for destroying the natural environments of potentially intelligent plants or sessile animals.

Maybe the beauty of this universe is this "speed" of light that is absolute, with no loopholes allowing FTL warp or jump drives. This acts as a quarantine for impatient creatures such as ourselves and perhaps favors a kind of intelligence that needs no spaceships to "be" somewhere else.

[zipplewrath]

104. Death Stars

If there is any reason to believe that species tend to self destruct, it is that as they learn to harness, store and produce ever larger amounts of power, they increase their ability to destroy themselves and their habitat. Ultimately, one day, they do.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

103. I've always maintained that something is only "not possible" until someone

figures out how to do it. I'm sure if you hopped in a time machine and told people 100 years ago what's possible today, they'd call you crazy and wouldn't believe you. You think explaining the blockchain or nanotechnology to someone a century or more ago would've been easy and widely-accepted? I doubted.

I think intelligent life is probable, but I doubt their ability to visit us. I believe the majority of intelligent life is locked to their planet of origin and don't have the technology and resources to space travel...like Humans. I also believe that if you do have a civilization that can travel the stars, more than likely they've mastered things like cloning/bio-genetic engineering, organic-machine interfaces, and robotics to such an extent that they can just make duplicates of themselves or transfer their minds to android-like machines and live much longer than organic life. The intelligent alien races traveling the stars might all be Androids and other types of inorganic intelligent life lol

I also don't think FTL travel is the only way to get across the universe. I think wormholes are very likely and much quicker for advances civilizations and you're not violating any laws of physics. The problem is the amount of energy required to create a wormhole (much less know where you'll pop out on the other end) is massive. It's not feasible for humans right now to do that. Einstein showed that wormholes are scientifically-possible.

[lagomorph777]

4. That's idiotic. They just don't want us to know they're out there...

...until we mature past the Trump phase. Way too dangerous to mess with us at this point.

[jberryhill]

8. No, the government keeps covering them up

They can travel the galaxy at will, but are no match to the power of the US government to keep them from being known.

[lagomorph777]

9. The authors of the study are aliens; their mission to throw us off the trail.

[jberryhill]

14. Clever

So then, we now have PROOF of their existence right here!

Because, yeah, this is exactly what the aliens are trying to make us believe.

[brush]

56. Silliness. How much of the universe have we observed? Not much.

And wasn't a recent "model" out about the multi-verse?

[lagomorph777]

60. Yes, that seems to be gaining ground.

So out of at least trillions of nebulae and hundreds of billions of galaxies, we're unique?

[Blue_true]

80. Yeah, the claim is laughable.

Whatever makes people feel special when they wake up in the morning I guess.

[Mariana]

112. That wasn't the claim, although the headline writer seems to think so.

That has to be one of the most dishonest headlines I've read in a very long time. From the article, and included in the OP:

"In the end, the team’s conclusions do not mean that humanity is alone in the Universe, or that the odds of finding evidence of extra-terrestrial civilizations (both past and present) is unlikely. Instead, it simply means that we can say with greater confidence – based on what we know – that humanity is most likely the only intelligent species in the Milky Way Galaxy at present."

That isn't so laughable.

[Blue_true]

116. It is laughable.

The Milky Way Galaxy may be 30,000 Parsecs or more long and an unknown number of Parsecs wide. From our position in the Orion Arm of the Galaxy, we can see maybe 20% of the rest of the Galaxy, if that. BTW, 1 Parsec is around 20 TRILLION miles.

As an engineer who does research and development, I know how new investigations are done, even when they are made using mathematical derivations, a person or team make a number of important assumptions, either one being wrong crashes the entire effort. Once assumptions are made and a derivation is done, an effort starts to try to prove or disprove the conclusions drawn from the derivation.

The possibility is that there is a far greater chance of there being other life, a lot of it, in the Milky Way Galaxy than the opposite. But I don't want to insult people's religious values, whatever people are lead to believe is ok with me, I assume personal experiences or insight led them to believe as they do. As long as they don't hurt other people, I am cool with them.

[Blue_true]

79. If they know we are here and can reach us.

They are advanced enough to kill us all with a flick of a finger if they chose.

[Crunchy Frog]

90. Maybe we're about as interesting to them as cockroaches are to us.

And about as desirable to get to know.

[Blue_true]

95. Yeah, maybe. Possibly they have concluded that we are not worth their time. nt

[lagomorph777]

100. "No intelligent life down there ...next planet...?"

[bronxiteforever]

10. Reptilians live among us and have an orange skin color

Don’t need no SETI or Fermi paradox to convince me.
Believe me brothers and sisters They Live!

All kidding aside- thanks for posting! Science is welcome break from the daily sh#t show in the WH.

[kysrsoze]

11. "...in the observable universe."

That phrase is key. There is so very little we are able to “observe” in our own galaxy, and our understanding of this galaxy is still changing. We are only now able to sense (not see) near-earth sized objects within a relatively small number of light years from our planet. Still, we’ve already found hundreds with our feeble sensory abilities. Given our tiny time of actually being an “advanced” civilization, I’m sure there have been many out there which have existed before us and there will be many after us. I think the markers are just too hard to see for us right now. We threw our own markers out, like gold records and Elon Musk’s car, but there wil almost nothing left of the car in a few years. Space is harsh.

To say we’re likely all that’s out there, in terms of advanced civilizations, seems unlikely to me. However, making contact with any other civilization due to the gigantic distances between solar systems, galaxies, etc., is a huge hamper to our efforts.

[haele]

21. Time and technology is a major factor here.

Think of it. It's like we've been in a room with no windows, and five minutes ago, we found the light switch and turned on the light to look around the room. We are at the cosmological point where we have walked over to the door along one wall and figured out how to open it so we can see the other side of a hallway going out either side of the door.
We haven't even really stepped into the doorway to look up and down the hall.

There's a span of billions of years for an advanced civilization to have evolved; and most certainly, the only ones we might be able to detect now would have had to have been close enough to leave either physical evidence, radio, radiation, or microwave signals that we currently have the technology to see. And we've only had that technology for a little over a hundred years.

We could have missed the nearest civilization when it was last in a physical form we might be able to understand by 100 years and not known it.
Or there can be Earth 2 evolving hundreds of Light Years away right now - maybe just on the other side of the ORT cloud - and we will never know it, because by the time they get to the point they first send radio waves out to start explore the universe around them, we'll be somewhere or something else and our technology, if we're still around, will be using a totally different form of communication that manifests across different medium or dimensions.

Haele

[kysrsoze]

33. Agree. There is so little we know or can see from our vantage point.

The whole notion of this theory strikes me as arrogant.

[BannonsLiver]

55. +1

As are some of the responses in this thread. Comically arrogant, to be more precise.

[EX500rider]

43. Yeah I tend to agree.

The window when a advanced civilization emits radio/microwaves might be brief before the switch to laser/fiber optics/LIDAR and then on to something like quantum entanglement or something we haven't even thought of yet.

[mythology]

12. Or we aren't able to imagine non-carbon based life

But given there are about 100 billion stars in the Milky Way

[jberryhill]

19. That's simply not true

Regardless of the number of stars in the Milky Way, the chemical properties of elements, and the relative abundance of elements produced by stars, is going to be the same everywhere.

A lot of work has gone into figuring out what sorts of chemical systems and structures would be suitable for metabolism and reproduction, so there is hardly a lack of "imagination":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

That, combined with the relative stability of stars within known spectral emission ranges, puts some hard limits on the complexity and stability capable with different chemical systems receiving stellar radiation as their primary energetic input.

[exboyfil]

26. What do you think about the recent

paper regarding the lack of phosphorus in the Crab Nebula. I am hoping that a wide ranging study is funded because I think it is important work.

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1143956-absent-phosphorus-questions-possible-life-on-other-planets

[JoeOtterbein]

36. I just read it, very interesting

thanks for the link.

[Blue_true]

81. Oh brilliant.

We define the Universe and even the Milky Way in terms of our limited knowledge. Look, we know less than 0.000000002% of what goes on in our own Galaxy. Until recently, it was thought that stars that had a mass greater than x number of Suns could not exist, guess what, several have just been found on our side of Sag A (we assume the other side of Sag A is similar to our side, but have no way of proving that).

Stars come in colors that range from orange to ultraviolet, because of that, the type of life forming under a star takes on a very large number of possibilities.

[Turbineguy]

13. There are intelligent beings in the universe

the proof lies in the fact they haven't contacted us.

[enough]

16. A wonderful novel by Cixin Liu, called The Three Body Problem, postulates

that any advanced civilization anywhere in the universe would make sure that their existence and whereabouts were absolutely hidden and undetectable by others.

[EX500rider]

44. I tend to agree with that also..

.....with many civilizations being older or newer by millions of years the tech difference possible especially as regarding weapons would make hiding a good idea, you could have the equivalent of stone tipped spears against an aircraft carrier with neutron bombs.

I read a SciFi once where the exploring scout ships basically had orders to eliminate any witnesses they met or blow themselves up to avoid any chance of their homeworlds location being discovered.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. I don't get the "paradox" in the first place-- it's like asking Columbus why he couldn't...

see the creatures living on the bottom of the ocean he was sailing over. The universe is pretty damn big, and we didn't know how big until a few years ago. We still don't really know.

And the Drake equation is silly-- it is all assumptions with no basis in fact.

The question of alien life is simply an unanswerable mystery at this point.

Will it ever be answerable? Maybe.

Next question-- what was here before the big bang?

[exboyfil]

17. The interesting thing is that

the more exoplanets that we find, the more we understand that our particular situation is pretty unique (violating the mediocrity principle). We drew the Powerball lottery ticket.

Here are just a few examples of why we may be pretty special in this galaxy.

1. The abundance of phosphorus. A recent study showed that a typical nebula did not contain phosphorus. An earlier study, of a less common nebula, showed the presence of phosphorous.
2. The eccentricity of our planetary system orbit. It is a the far low end of those solar systems that we have already detected. Part of that is selection bias (easier to see with radial velocity) but this trend has extended over to the transit method as well.
3. The presence of hot Jupiters. These are disruptive to rocky orbit planets.
4. Our tides and our orbital stability coming from our very unusual moon. Our moon is not just a typical wondering asteroid picked up, but the result of a protoplanet collision at just the right path to form a stable double planet system.
5. In addition to our water Goldilocks zone, we also live in a galactic Goldilocks zone (location somewhat out of plane and away from the more active portion of the galaxy).
6. We have only 2 billion years left before Earth is out of the Goldilocks zone because of the growth of the Sun. This means we used up 70% of our allotted time just getting to this point.

On a galactic scale, so far no evidence of Type III galactic civilizations in the observable galaxies surrounding us. I frankly think that will be the first direct evidence of extraterrestrial technology that we will find. The second most likely would be from our transit observations (something like Tabby's star which showed unusual features but is most likely a natural cause).

Signals and visitations are far down the list of likely first observations.

[jberryhill]

20. We drew the Powerball lottery ticket

....and if we hadn't, we wouldn't be talking about it.

[exboyfil]

25. You got that right

That is the most important thing to remember about statistics. If the multi-universe hypothesis is correct, then we have had an infinite number of potential chances to be the one. It may take that to develop technological life (I don't think so, but our mere presence signifies nothing).

[StevieM]

32. I have often wondered if maybe most planets where animal life develop never get beyond

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2018, 10:31 AM - Edit history (2)

the dinosaur-type creature phase. Maybe that asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, and allowed for the rise of the mammals, was a truly extraordinary thing. Maybe it was just the right size and hit in the worst possible place.

[exboyfil]

35. That has been speculated on as well

We had complex land animals that even after the different orders faded away were replaced by other animals that looked distinctly like the predecessors because form follows function. During all that time until our epoch, no sophisticated tool users evolved (I would love to be proved wrong if we find a raptor with a hand axe at the same time). We very well could still be in the age of the dinosaurs without the asteroid. The non-avians lived from 245-66 bya. That is nearly three times longer than the mammal dominating epoch of today. Where dinosaurs ever capable of evolving into tool use??? I think we have a few other mammal candidates after primates (rodents, raccoons, etc)

I am listening to an interesting book called The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs right now.

[Yupster]

48. I just finished reading that

Really good new info and the author is a really good writer. Kept me interested the whole way through.

His conclusion that the dinosaurs were still at their peak when they died out was sobering. And that after a 100 million year run.

[StevieM]

62. I edited my post. I think you know what I had meant to write.

I said "the asteroid that wiped out the mammals." I meant to say "the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, and allowed for the rise of the mammals."

I haven't been able to find any articles talking about the possibility of dinosaur-type creatures dominating most planets with advanced life. If you know of any, I would love to read them.

[exboyfil]

63. I think any alien ecosystem

where complex life developed would be so different than our own, that you wouldn't be able to clearly define the types of niches we see here. Physics and chemistry put limitations on what is possible, but the life we see around us was the result of so many serendipitous events I wouldn't even be able to hazard a guess.

Our science fiction is limited because, in the end, literature has to appeal to the human condition so anything that is too alien is difficult to write about.

You only need to tweak a single input (ie the K-T asteroid) to change everything.

[lagomorph777]

40. There are numerous findings in the opposite direction.

1. Phosphorus - TWO studies done so far on TWO nebulae. Really, does that seem statistically significant to you? Another way to view is that 50% of nebulae studied have plenty of phosphorus. Which might be replaceable by Arsenic anyway.

2. Eccentricity. Yes, selection bias, and a bit of eccentricity may be perfectly fine.

3. Hot Jupiters. Definitely high selection bias here. They are so much easier to find. We probably had a hot Jupiter for a while. Actual Jupiter probably moved around a lot in the early solar system. That probably helped shape the solar system to suit our needs, and yes, appears may be common.

4. Special gyroscope moon. Moons themselves may be great candidates to expand the pool of habitable bodies. Look at Europa and Enceladus! They are warmed by interaction with their planets. Given the very wide range of multi-star systems out there, I expect multi-planet-moon situations are also common and varied, offering numerous additional ways to spawn life. I don't think we're capable of detecting most of those yet.

5. The outer reaches of the Milky Way are by far larger than the inner reaches. Not as dense, but that's a good thing.

6. We (or our successors such as insects) could accomplish a lot in 2 billion more years - getting to multicellular "wasted" most of the previous time.

Type III? That's not necessary for discovery of life.

And I also dispute the claim that we are an advanced civilization. I'll believe that when we oust Trump.

[exboyfil]

41. Nice response

I would like to see a debate with astronomers and biologists on this topic. I would then like to see them change sides and debate the topic again.

And we need to keep looking and doing good science. I have hope.

[lagomorph777]

50. Obviously science is endangered right now.

But I have hope. We won't un-know everything if we get past the political crisis.

[SonofDonald]

18. I think there may be life out there but

Even if intelligent it doesn't mean they have the capability to contact or visit us.

We've sent probes out into the darkness and other races may have also but due to the vastness of space and time needed to travel it the odds of any discoveries of such is astronomical, pun not intended.

Our probes are not programmed to find a planet with life and then stop and try to contact them, why would any other civilizations?

My shaking of the head is reserved for those folks on "Ancient Aliens", according to them everything down to the kitchen sink came to us via others.

They state that it's a theory then switch to another dreamer that then talks like its a fact, over and over on every show.

In the real world proof takes a bit more than supposition and outright BS.

I believe but I want to see proof not tinfoil hats.....

[Blue_true]

85. One problem with every probe we send out is fuel is exhausting.

Even the nuclear power for Voyager I and II will run out in something like 50 years. Unless a probe has a power source that allows it to continuously accelerate (and not basically drift), there is no way a probe from us reach anything. The vastness of space makes it almost impossible that one of our probes will come across an alien probe or spacecraft. It is unlikely that we are alone, but you are right, we might as well be because of the logistics of reaching out to other life.

[SonofDonald]

97. they'll just be dead cold metal things

Before they get anywhere, space junk.

Had a funny thought

"Star Trek The Motion Picture"

VGER 🚀

[0rganism]

24. life is tough on type 13 planets

(on deciding whether to turn planet Earth into spaceship fuel)

[malchickiwick]

27. If what we got going on is considered "advanced civilization," please stop the planet...

... I want to get off.

As Eric Idle sang:

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

[get the red out]

28. Kind of a stretch to call us advanced

Just sayin'

[Runningdawg]

29. I would never have gussed there were this many skeptics

on a Democratic forum.

[jberryhill]

30. Since when is the probability of extra-terrestrial intelligent life a political issue?

"Faith based reasoning" tends to predominate on the other side.

[Runningdawg]

34. Political?

I didn't think it was but with 31 posts all negative I am rethinking that position.

[exboyfil]

37. I think Carl Sagan has been mugged

by the 20 years of additional findings in astronomy and biology. I was once one of those wide eyed individuals expecting alien signals at any point. I still hope, but I keep that separate from being rational. Maybe that comes with age as well. What is exciting is that we have tools that both increase scientific knowledge as well as indirectly facilitate the search for technological life (looking for exoplanets and cataloging the observable galaxies). It seems more active than trying to guess the wavelength and signal type some alien would send a lighthouse signal at.

[BannonsLiver]

54. You're confusing arrogance with skepticism

[Oneironaut]

83. Calling one viewpoint "wrong" is rather pointless, given that we have no evidence

either way. We may honestly never find out, which is kind of depressing.

[BlueJac]

31. Intelligent species would run the other way from our madness...

they would only want resources which they could find many places with their capability.

[exboyfil]

38. You know what you do when you find a wasp's nest

near your house.

Well..

[Saboburns]

39. Time is the key variable regarding this.

Humans been around 100,000 years give or take. Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Observable Universe 14 Billion years old.

How the hell would we know if any other intelligent others have been here or not? Hells bells we've only been flying around our own atmosphere the past 100 years. Around near earth orbit 50 years.

Chances are we wouldn't even recognize intelligent others if they didn't want us to anyway. They could be around right now and if they didnt want us to we would never know it.

Besides the longer I live the more I am covinced that the entire observable Universe is just some alien's 7th grade science project that is in their locker at some middle school somewhere.

[Blue_true]

86. The human strain is around 13 million years old.

Exactly have the upright walking jerks called us have been around, maybe 1 million years?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. Which is sort of depressing

if you think about it.

[ck4829]

47. In other words... We're the first. We need to start acting like it.

On a pure cosmic scale, the universe is still pretty young. We can go trillions of years and there will still be dust forming stars and planets.

[brush]

57. Thinking we're the first and only is silliness beyond belief.

How much of the observable universe have we explored?

Not very much in the very brief time we've been able to send objects into low Earth orbit. Hell, the very first ones we sent out in the 60s to leave the solar system just passed into actual deep space in the last year or so.

That's not even the equivalent of a drop of water in the ocean.

So the "model" of thinking that Earth is the only spot in the entire universe (or multiverse, another fairly recent "model" that expands exponentially the possibilities of places with life), can only be described IMO as anti-science provincialism worthy only of flat-earthers and climate change deniers.

[ck4829]

58. I'm just going with the research in the moment, we may not be the only civilization

[jberryhill]

67. Depends on what you define as "the observable universe"

You don't have to travel to the cosmos to understand some very basic things about matter which are no different here than they are 10 million light years away. Our understanding of matter is pretty good, and explains things that we can observe happening in other galaxies beyond this one. We know how stars evolve, where the collection of elements comes from, the processes that drive the production of elements, and how those elements form molecules capable - or not - of reproduction and metabolism (even non-carbon systems). These are things we can know, from what we've figured out thus far right here, without going anywhere.

It is not at all comparable to being a "flat earther" or a "climate change denier", as those are both species of belief which REJECT evidence.

Now, saying "here are reasons why we don't have evidence for something that might hypothetically exist", but for which we quite obviously have zero evidence, is extremely different from saying "I reject the evidence of existence of a round earth or climate change."

To believe without evidence, or at least a solid predictive theory, is simply faith.

Yeah, sure, anyone should be open to new evidence or the predictions of a theory for which there is reason to believe it has predictive value. But I can't see how you can equate skepticism of a proposition for which there is zero evidence, with positions that are based on the rejection of existing evidence.

[brush]

69. Get to the point. Do you believe Earth is the only place in the universe/multiverse with life?

[jberryhill]

70. I have no reason to believe either way

I guess that's what's always appealing about people who have unsupported "answers" to questions for which there is no answer.

I have no reason to believe there is or is not other intelligent life in this universe. None.

You might as well ask me "There is a man in a room in a house down the street. Do you believe he is wearing a red shirt?"

Being intelligent and informed is inclusive of knowing when there is not a basis for an answer to a question and accepting it as an unknown. Anything else - either way - is purely arrogant.

Certainly there is no evidence for it. Just as certainly, there are reasons why, even if there were, we would not have evidence for it. So it remains stuck on "don't know."

[brush]

71. So many words to say you're not sure.

[jberryhill]

72. I don't know why you feel the need to be insulting

But lack of knowledge, or a reason to believe something, is the gap into which snake oil salesman of all stripes ply their trades.

Saying "there is no reason to believe either way" is not "nothing". It is an affirmative statement that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to form a belief on the question.

There are always people who are going to think that not only is the guy who has "an answer" knows more than the guy who doesn't. Those people are typically even more trusting of the guy who is CERTAIN he has an answer and that his answer is correct, over the guy who actually knows more about the subject enough to recognize when there is not an answer.

Sometimes "I don't know, and you don't either" IS the correct answer. Comparing that to flat-earthers or climate deniers is silly.

[brush]

73. I don't get why a simple answer takes so much...oh never mind.

[jberryhill]

74. People are different

They express themselves differently and sometimes perceive things differently. They do not always conform to your expectations.

[Blue_true]

88. Not so.

Stars have recently been found that are believed to have stable elements that are not on our periodic table. If that is posdible, lots of things you claim are impossible become real.

[Blue_true]

87. From all practical points.

We just might as well be alone. By the time we become advanced enough to reach another star, we will be extinct.

[brush]

96. You may have a point the way we're plowing thru the planet...

and it's resources and climate.

[Persondem]

99. Actually the OP says the we are likely the only civ in the Milky Way galaxy (in the text)...

... which, of course, if far different from the whole universe. Also, we may well be the first as the universe is about 14 billions years old. That sounds like a long time but when the universe started out with that Big Bang it was 99.9% hydrogen. The heavier elements such as the iron in our blood or the calcium in our teeth were spawned in supernova explosions over many billions of years. It's not like the universe has had all of those 14 billion years to roll the dice to get something like us to pop up. The basic building blocks of life took a long, long time to even be present in sufficient amounts to get even rocky planetary bodies. Getting a rocky planet in the "Goldilocks zone" with an iron core to provide protection from solar radiation is by itself extremely rare (so far) ... so ... The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, therefore a statement that humans could well be the first successful (insert qualifier), (semi) intelligent civilization in the galaxy is not so far fetched.

[Mariana]

113. That really is a terrible headline, isn't it?

It completely misrepresents the content of the article.

[StevieM]

106. I don't think it is fair to say that it is anti-science to consider the possibility that we are

the only intelligent life in the universe. I think all ideas deserve a fair hearing.

It is hard to know what science indicates when the science is so incomplete.

Here is the post I put up about this below:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210786230#post76

[brush]

107. At one time the Earth was thought to be flat and the Sun revolved around it.

[StevieM]

108. That's exactly my point. People just thought they knew the truth even though they were

basing their conclusions on incomplete evidence.

I am not saying that there is no life out there. Did you read the post I linked to? I said that I believe that simple life is very common. And there are probably a lot of worlds with plants and animals. I just don't know how often mammals, primates and humans--or their counterparts--are able to rise.

That asteroid hit in the Yukatan was an awfully good stroke of luck, for us, if not the dinosaurs.

[Staph]

49. And for the musical explanation,

From the Amazon description of the book of the same name...

'Are there intelligent civilizations in this universe other than ours?'

One day, folk singer Peter Mulvey had a conversation with Vlad, and this is their story.

This is also our story the story of the universe, and of all of us in it. Peter Mulvey has been singing this song around the country and the world, with an audience (including YouTube) into the hundreds of thousands, including a TED stage and many hallowed concert halls and clubs.

Mulvey has teamed up with iconic woodcut artist Peter Nevins in both of their first children's book. And in one word, it's breathtaking. A large square book, with stunningly vivid prints, this is a book that children love, and parents love more.

As an important side note, Vlad the Astrophysicist is a real person: Dr. Vladimir Chaloupka, physics professor at the University of Washington. Peter Mulvey met him at the National Youth Science Camp in Bartow, West Virginia, where he has been playing every summer for sixteen years. Vlad has written a special note in the back of this book, and has made it possible for 10% of the proceeds of the book to be given to the National Youth Science Foundation.

Over a beer, Peter really did ask Vlad, 'Are there intelligent civilizations out there other than ours, and if so why haven t they contacted us?'

Vlad really did answer, and Peter's whole world-view was altered in that moment.

[rickford66]

51. Self replicating probes could potentially travel forever.

[gulliver]

52. It seems to fail to factor in the possibility of interstellar and intergalactic travel

A civilization would have some probability of developing at least interstellar capability (we aren't all that far from it). So we would need to increase the probability of intelligent life in any given location by the probability that something moved there.

[triron]

53. I call bullshit.

We have already been visited by extraterrestrial technically very advanced beings many times.

[yallerdawg]

59. I know!

I read it the newspaper while checking out at the grocery store (with pictures)!

[jberryhill]

68. When?

And why have they stopped visiting?

[triron]

92. For thousands of years and it has not stopped.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/03/12/ufo-encounter-new-footage-shows-u-s-navy-pilots-apparent-sighting-alien-craft-near-east-coast/415951002/

[jberryhill]

111. So if you see something and don't know what it is...

...then that means that extraterrestrials exist?

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. The paper actually says "30% chance of being the only intelligent life in this galaxy"

The chances of being the only intelligent life in the observable universe are 10%. Page 5: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

[yallerdawg]

65. We went from Sagan's notion of probability-based certainty...

to "Fermi's paradox" - it really is an awful waste of space - to:

When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.

"We are not alone" is more likely "We are alone" - based on evidence and new parameters applied to the formulations.

[OldEurope]

64. We are intelligent?

We destroy our planet and kill each other.

[MineralMan]

66. The most interesting thing, I think, is that we are not observing

the universe or even our own galaxy in the present time. Everything we observe we are seeing as it was in the past. Our observations are almost entirely based on light and other electromagnetic phenomena. That means that whenever we are looking outward, we are observing things as they were in the past. How much in the past depends on the object's distance from us.

It doesn't matter what direction we choose to look. The rule is the same. We are extraordinarily limited in what we can observe in the present time. We see our universe at many different times, depending on what we are observing. The only place we see as it is right now is our own tiny planet. Even within the solar system, we look back in time. If the sun exploded, we would not know about it for 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

Our search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is a search into what was there, not what is there. If we actually found signs of life, and sort of real-time communication with that life would be impossible.

[StevieM]

76. Maybe the only way to travel to other parts of the universe is to actually leave the universe

and then re-enter at a different part of it. If there is a multi-verse than maybe that isn't a totally irrational prospect.

I personally believe that sexual reproduction is necessary in order to have plants and animals. And I think that doesn't happen nearly as often as simple life. In other words, simple life, like microbes, is probably fairly common. But getting to the point where we have sexual reproduction, plants and animals is a lot less common. Maybe it happens on one planet in one out of 10 million galaxies.

If there are 200 billion galaxies in the universe than that means that it happens on 20 thousand planets across the universe. And I suspect that most of those planets never get hit by a perfectly-sized asteroid in the worst possible place. So they are probably dominated by dinosaur-type creatures.

Maybe there are primate-type creatures on 100 of them. I am not sure how often the primates come down from the trees.

Of course, they are now saying that there may be 2 trillion galaxies. So numbers are always being updated.

[Oneironaut]

84. True, and vice-versa, an alien viewing our planet from millions of light-years away would see

dinosaurs, and would assume there is no intelligent life.

Human radio signals have only really traveled ~130 light years, which is a crappy distance in the scheme of the observable universe.

It's sad that there's so much to explore, but we will never get there. It's just too far away, and we're bound by the limits of physics.

[Blue_true]

91. The thing about you MM.

Is you always find a way to make the skin on my gonads shrink. The Sun exploding? What a happy thought

But all you technical points were on point, even the one about the remote possibility that the Sun COULD explode (it is just a big ball of fusing hydrogen, an alien race come in and sneak in the right amount of oxygen and toss out a spark and blamo, we're gone)

[Blue_true]

93. Actually, observations of stars very near us are good.

Real time in Galaxy time. But stars closer to Sag A or outside the Galaxy? You're takings more that 25,000 years ago minimum.

[meadowlander]

75. That's fine. Don't want to be right next door to the Klingons

[Blue_true]

77. Wow, what a bold statement.

The Milky Way Galaxy is believed to be 30,000 Parsecs long and an unknown number of Parsecs wide. From our position in the Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, we can't see what is on the other side of Sagitarrius A, nor can we see into most of the Galaxy arms that are on our side of Sag A. There are an estimated minimum of around 400 BILLION earth like planets in the known Milky Way, the probability of there being no life on many of those planets is close to zero. The newest stars to us are Proxima A and Proxima B at just over 3.58 light years away (around 19 trillion miles), both have two earth like planets each, one have a potential third one. In order to get to either earth like planet we would need spacecrafts that don't need star power (solar power) or conventional, or expendable fuel, because most of their travel will be in dark space without a chance to refuel. In addition, the spacecraft must be capable of continuous acceleration at 1 G for around a year to even make the trip in about 4-5 years, the energy expenditure for such a feat is beyond what is considered feasible by scientists. So the issue isn't whether there is intelligent live in the MWG, it is whether there is life intelligent enough to figure out how to overcome the technical challenges of reaching other life.

Several time here, I have stated that if alien life reach us, we are screwed if it is hostile to us, by the time we even knew it was here, we would likely be thousands of years less advanced that it is.

Maybe I am wrong, but I get the sense that this OP was done for religious reasons, that is cool, a person believe as a person believe and have reasons for that. But I want to throw something out for you to ponder. If life has reached earth other than us, it is potentially millions of years more advanced than us. What if what religious people call God, was instead an intelligent race that simply left the seeds for us on this planet and moved on. Who do you pray to? I am a Deist, I believe in something more universal that us, but the firm is something that I will spend a lifetime seeking to understand. I don't believe in hell, but I do believe in karma, in karma, our hell comes at consciousness of death being imminent, as in those last seconds we relive our lives, all the good, all the evil, if most was evil, our hell comes in the seconds that life drains out of us, if good, we die with a smile on our faces.

[jberryhill]

82. It's faith based reasoning either way

The “God of the gaps” is simply substituted with the “extraterrestrials in the gaps”.

Saying “we are immensely ignorant, therefore my preferred belief (or unprovable hypothesis) is probable” is the same structural reasoning either way.

Rather than to accept that there are things of which we are simply ignorant, then we fill in the blanks with gods, fairies, aliens, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[Blue_true]

94. The amount that we know about our own Galaxy is but a tiny speck.

While I don't believe classical religious doctrine, I run into limits when I try to invision something other than some larger form. Not to put them down, but Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jewish people, ect, all take the simplest route of blind faith, even as increasing scientific discoveries wash away the foundation of their beliefs. I don't think that it is the goal or role of science to attack religion, but accumulation of scientific data has that effect, maybe that is why rightwing Christians so hate science.

[yallerdawg]

98. The point is...

many of us have spent decades waiting for the proof we have been told is certainly out there.

When that "belief" is challenged, funny how upsetting that is.

[Crunchy Frog]

89. I think that sounds idiotically provincial.

It's more about a failure of imagination, and maybe a sort of neo Ptolemaic desire to see humanity as the center of the Universe.

I think the greatest likelihood is that we simply don't yet even remotely have the tools to seriously search for intelligent life outside our Solar system. I think that we probably can't believe conceive of the sorts of signals that more advanced life than our own might be putting out there, and probably couldn't even register them with our current technology.

I hate human arrogance.

[StevieM]

105. If we don't stop climate change then we will never have the tools to search for anything

because humanity, along with most species, will go extinct.

[Crunchy Frog]

109. No. The planet's gone through much more dramatic climate change than this.

And life has gotten through it just fine.

Not saying that it wouldn't feel catastrophic to the people living through it, but I don't think we'll be looking at extinction.

[StevieM]

110. You might want to read this article.

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

[The_jackalope]

114. Here's a simpler way to look at the problem.

1. Intelligent life is probably carbon-based, and evolves most readily on planets with an oxygen atmosphere. This is due to the energetic nature of carbon combustion (02+C -> CO2) which would power carbon-based life.

2. The jump from merely intelligent life to technological life requires relatively large amounts of controllable energy.

3. The most available form of energy on a carbon/oxygen planet would come from burning carbon, likely plant material such as wood.

4. As more energy is required to support advancing technology, stored carbon would be used (i.e. fossil fuels.)

5. The useful energy available from such combustion is immediately apparent. The effects of the waste gas CO2 is not.

6. By the time the climate change induced by the waste CO2 is recognized (and the risk of climate change is accepted as being greater than the benefit of fuel combustion) it's too late.

And another one bites the dust.

If anyone thinks I'm being parochial, I challenge you to come up with another scenario that generates the energy needed for technology, but avoids the CO2 trap.

[StevieM]

117. Nuclear power. (eom)

[roamer65]

115. I don't consider us an advanced civilization.

[DiverDave]

118. They watch us and say

NOPE, not giving them advanced technology.