Ok, since the Psionics thread started to get way derailed with a discussion about the future and life in the galaxy, I figured I should fork to a new thread. The derail starts somewhere around here.
It seems impossible for life to only develop on our planet. There's evidence that Mars once had life, if only bacteria. But to presume that nobody has left their own solar system just because we haven't been visited seems as blindly ignorant as the Aztecs in 1500.
The evidence you're thinking about turned to be Earth microbes contaminating the sample.
I was probably actually thinking of the ALH84001 meteorite when I mentioned life on Mars. Still, it is hard to imagine that of the billions of star systems in the Milky Way, we're the only ones that have developed life.
The thing is colonization once it starts is exponential. the first colony sends out it's ships and spawns a few more worlds and each successive one does the same until the entire galaxy is filled. If the Earth develops workable FTL technology we would colonize the entire galaxy in maybe 100,000 years, probably a lot less. Given that the age of the Milky Way is in the billions of years old, that's more than enough time for such a thing to happen if even ONE .... ONE starfaring civilization had come to pass.
The Aztec version of you might claim: "If humans develops workable Seafaring technology we would conquer the entire world in maybe 100 years, probably a lot less. Given that the age of the Earth is in the millions of years old, that's more than enough time for such a thing to happen if even ONE .... ONE seafaring civilization had come to pass."
We'd also be seeing their traces of stellar engineering, hearing their radio traffic, even incidental ones. The Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico can detect it's duplicate if it's broadcasting anywhere in the Milky Way.
That's still assumes a lot about the way aliens communicate. The majority of our signals would be washed out by the radiation from the sun. We can barely detect exo-solar planets by seeing them pass in front of stars. As our technology improves, we are using more and more directional signals with less power. How long did Arecibo transmit its message into space? What are the odds that someone would happen to have an Acreibo pointed at us for the hour or so they felt like screaming "We are here!" into space?
BTW, the Aztecs and the Mayans weren't ignorant... they just had a lot less in tools to work with. Yet the Mayans calculated the orbit of Venus to within 8 minutes. Don't underestimate the difference in situation.
I'm not saying the Aztecs and Mayans were completely ignorant of all things. They had a very remarkable civilization. I'm saying they were as ignorant about what was going on in Europe as we are about what is going on in other star systems.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. There are all sorts of reasons why we haven't seen anything yet. It is entirely possible a probe passed through our star system at some point in the past (or right now) took readings, and moved on. Only if it landed would we ever have evidence to the contrary. It is entirely possible life arose on earth from a crashed meteor fragment carrying frozen bacteria. Not necessarily likely, but there are all sorts of things that we simply do not know.
Back to gaming. I find it interesting that Traveller, created when we were still fairly gung-ho about space exploration, presumes the infinite expansion colonialism theory. But even at 6 parsecs per week (~1000x lightspeed), it took months to get from the outer reaches of the empire to the center. And the mapped known space of the Third Imperium was still just a small fraction of the galaxy.
Eclipse Phase takes the more pessimistic route (with the exception of Gates). It looks at the more modern view that we are kind stuck in our own solar system for the forseeable future. Although the level of technology described would allow generational sublight ships.
The evidence you're thinking about turned to be Earth microbes contaminating the sample.I was probably actually thinking of the ALH84001 meteorite when I mentioned life on Mars. Still, it is hard to imagine that of the billions of star systems in the Milky Way, we're the only ones that have developed life.
Unless there's some new info out there, as of November 2009's reporting, the microbial evidence on ALH84001 is still believed to be extraterrestrial and not Earth microbes contaminating the sample.
Unless there's some new info out there, as of November 2009's reporting, the microbial evidence on ALH84001 is still believed to be extraterrestrial and not Earth microbes contaminating the sample.
The evidence you're thinking about turned to be Earth microbes contaminating the sample.I was probably actually thinking of the ALH84001 meteorite when I mentioned life on Mars. Still, it is hard to imagine that of the billions of star systems in the Milky Way, we're the only ones that have developed life.
In the previous thread I mentioned evidence of life on mars, and I believe LazarX thought I was referring to some early findings from the Viking probes.
I of course made my first mention on vague recollections, and it was only reading some on wikipedia that I narrowed down what I was talking about to ALH84001. I will admit that most of the Martian life evidence is still rather weak.
I do think there is life elsewhere. Maybe nothing at all like us, but it is a bit Argonaut to assume we are the only life in the whole of the galaxy.
Now FTL is not possible as we know it and if I recall there was some findings that even radio signals fade into background noises after a small distance.
Also you need to take into account that any life out there that is of our intelligence level unlikely started at the same time. so it leaves us with the idea of most other life is far more advanced then us, dead or far below us.
Sorry to necro this, but I just read LazarX's suggestion that colonization is exponential and capable of covering the galaxy in the billions of years since the universe began. I disagree with both of those points. First, we're just as old as everything else in the universe, the whole "we're made of stardust" cliche is technically true. That means that all life has developed for the same amount of time, and outside of crazy things like physics working differently in different places we can't say for sure there aren't billions and billions of races at exactly the same technological level of development that we are. This is not a point at which we can colonize other planets effectively, so why assume that all other possible life would have done so already?
Second, even if there are multiple races actively colonizing new worlds, we shouldn't just assume that colonization is exponential. Ideally, if you were trying to eat up space as fast as possible for some reason, colonization would be exponential. But if you have other goals, preservation of native life, travel for travel's sake, etc., then exponential colonization becomes very unlikely. Not to mention that there are certain physical realities. Colonies don't spring fully-formed into life, they require lifelines to established territory and a great deal of time in order to develop independence. This might change with improved technology but I think the changes would be glacial. Meaning that we might be able to colonize Mars in several generations of incredibly difficult work, so a technology that allowed to do so in just a handful of decades would be super-science by comparison.
So, basically, I don't concede that colonization is exponential for a number of reasons.
Even assuming it was, then the time it would take to claim and populate entire planets would be long by any standard. To populate all the possible nooks and crannies of the entire galaxy... that would be a mind-numbingly immense expanse of territory to tame. Space is a good deal too big to be dominated by any given species. Further, I think that if you had reached the level of technology necessary to colonize the entire galaxy, you would probably have developed technology that makes that level expansion simply unnecessary. There's a difference between taking up resources because you need them and taking them because it's something to do, I suspect that any race capable of creating a galaxy-spanning empire would realize that it's not worth the trouble.
Sorry to write a long, rambling post about this.
I think the main argument is that we know there are many, many star systems that formed much earlier than ours. On average, the closer to galactic center you get, the older the star system is. So in theory, there should be more advanced civilizations closer to the middle.
I think that their could be advanced civilizations. Radio signals are hard to spot next to the giant ball of radiation that is any star we look at. The lack of evidence for extra solar civilizations is not evidence that there are none. There are all sorts of reasons why it could take a long time before we meet alien civilizations. Space is big, and terraforming is hard. Colonization might average 1 light-year per thousand years.
PS: I'm cool with this thread being necro'd. There's plenty still to be talked about on the topic.
Do we have anything to say that the life outside is also intelligent. Don't soils take a really long time to form as well.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Some (not me in particular) believe that because we (the human race) started much later in the time table of our own world we may have fallen behind in terms of the intelligence race. These particular people also believe that our first encounter with extra-terrestrial will be with an artificial intelligence, possibly one that has out lived its original creators.
Civilization spreads when parts of an old one are dissatisfied and have the resources to leave. This would mean a not exactly amicable relationship to mother earth. Then, of course, adaptation would reshape those who left pretty quickly.
I think the biggest problem is lack of FTL. I love SF, but I have serios doubts that any speed faster tnan c is possible. With regards to the sea faring analogy, if you don't have access to ship technology sufficient to even cross the smallest of oceans in a human lifetime, then colonization will not happen.
So, there is undoubtably life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe, even likely more technologically advanced life than us, but since they are in all likelihood limited by the speed of light just like we are, they are probably content to live out their existence in their own little corner of the galaxy.
Greg
Actually there are several ways to get around that problem.
Cybernetic seedships. with genetic material and supplies could manufacture Humans to order once the ship arrived at it's destination.
Cybernetic descendants. I believe at least several scientists including one at Goddard have stated that the stars don't belong to us, but to our robotic successors.
But then, robots and spaceships breakdown. Space is a harsh environment. Just because they can build them doesn't mean they can operate, with enough fuel to last long enough to colonize/explore the galaxy.
Plus there are the economics of it all. Why are we burdened by cost/public will but yet we assume other alien civilizations will collectively want to explore the galaxy? Remember, that while the ship captains back in the 1400-1500s were explorers, their financiers were looking for riches. After all, Columbus was looking for an easy route to India for trade purposes.
Greg
Because when all other drives fail, biology wins out. Or to put it quite simply, when this planet becomes sufficiently unlivable, the push will be made, even if it's at the cost of others. That of course depends on the push being possible.
I suspect phase 1 of any attempt to spread out beyond the home planet will involve artificial environments on less habitable worlds. Once that is perfected, the need to find "Earth 2" as it were, will become less of an issue. And, even then, my guess is that the distance between habitable worlds is going to be much less than the distance between inhabited worlds (at least of the intelligent kind) so a civilization may never have the need, even over the course of millions of years, to travel outside of their galactic neighbourhood.
Now, if this neutrino business turns out to true, we may have a different story on our hands (but I'm not holding my breath).
Greg
Because it wouldn't matter if 99.9999 percent of life out there was at our level or lower. All it would take is ONE... ONE race with practical starfaring technology, and they would have filled the Milky Way Galaxy in under a million years. That's just a snapshot in the panoply of time.
Again, you can make the assertion that it would be POSSIBLE for them to do so, but you can't make the assertion that it's a given. Unless we just make things up and call them facts now.
For any number of reasons! Psychology, resources, and the fact that even if you managed to inhabit a dozen new planets every year a million years is unlikely to afford you the time to fill the universe.
I'm not sure you're grasping just how big a volume we're talking about, not to mention that "inhabitable" is a pretty broad term.
Also, since we're making bald, unsupported statements: Colonization has NEVER been exponential and WILL NEVER be so, irregardless of the means of travel.
|
Colonization and life beyond our world.
An intelligent star faring race would need to have a few things going for it.
1. Be close enough to the galactic core to have had enough time to advance sufficiently to have the technology to be able to traverse the stars, yet not so close that the harsher conditions of the core affect them negatively.
2. Have actually developed the technology, and advanced culturally enough to use it responsibly without advancing so much that they no longer have a need to do so.
3. Have a world in just the right place with just the right set of circumstances. The effect of the Goldilocks zone combined with a moon and large outer ring planets should not be under estimated, at least for life similar to ours.
Should we go out amongst the stars? I think so. At some point we will run out of room here. Now theoretically we could jam the entire world population into a region the size of Texas and only be as crowded as New York City. At some point it might even come to this.
Will we meet someone else out there? Maybe, but will we even recognize them?
Drake equation
Has all sorts of assumptions and variables which are speculation at best.
|
|
R = The number of suitable stars
Fp = The fraction of these stars that have planets.
Ne = The number of Earth-like planets — meaning planets that have liquid water — within each planetary system.
Fl = The fraction of Earth-like planets where life develops.
Fi = The fraction of life sites where intelligent life develops.
Fc = The fraction of intelligent life sites where communication develops.
L = "The "lifetime" (in years) of a communicative civilization.
equals
N = The number of communicative civilizations within the Milky Way today.
John 14:2
|
|
Also check out Epsilon Eridani which is the right type of star to support life and is all things considered not that far away, and seems to have planets.
I know that this is total hearsay from another nut on an internet message board, so take it for what you will. I spoke with an astronomer passing through at the motel where I work a couple of years ago, and he said that we were only four to seven years from discovering extra-solar life. He seemed to really believe what he said was true. The guy seemed reticent and almost embarrassed to admit something that, in his field of study, would have gotten a person banished to the Art Bell zone just a few years ago.
|
|
I know that this is total hearsay from another nut on an internet message board, so take it for what you will. I spoke with an astronomer passing through at the motel where I work a couple of years ago, and he said that we were only four to seven years from discovering extra-solar life. He seemed to really believe what he said was true. The guy seemed reticent and almost embarrassed to admit something that, in his field of study, would have gotten a person banished to the Art Bell zone just a few years ago.
As cool as that would be, I find it hard to believe without more information. Of course he might not have had any he could give out. Did you call him a tease?
As cool as that would be, I find it hard to believe without more information. Of course he might not have had any he could give out. Did you call him a tease?I know that this is total hearsay from another nut on an internet message board, so take it for what you will. I spoke with an astronomer passing through at the motel where I work a couple of years ago, and he said that we were only four to seven years from discovering extra-solar life. He seemed to really believe what he said was true. The guy seemed reticent and almost embarrassed to admit something that, in his field of study, would have gotten a person banished to the Art Bell zone just a few years ago.
He didn't have any secret information. He was basing his prediction on the advancement of the technology astronomers use to find these extra-solar planets. The technology should advance to the point that greater and greater detail and information about those far away worlds will be gotten. At some point, astronomers will be able to detect signs of life, or at least prove mathematically that a planet supports life.
Here's an example of what I was talking about from my last post. The article is about halfway down. It's a Star Trek fan site, but they put a good deal of stories about scientific research.
http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/05/science-saturday-mars-500-asteroid-flyby-ne w-element-names-new-et-search-more/
My stance on the subject of extraterrestrial life is "Possible, but unlikely", meaning that statistically it seems very reasonable to presume there might be life out there somewhere, but that the conditions might not be as widespread as thought to be.
On one hand, it has always troubled me that all presumptions have been made over a sample population of 1. We try to look for planets with oxigen, liquid water, and within the optimal orbit around stars of a particular type in search for life, but we literally have no means of objectively determining the chances of life springing up in such scenario. Our situation as a life-carrying planet could very well be a statistical cruelty.
That doesn't rule out the chance of there being something we could deem life somewhere else. Just that I'm not quite so sure the chances are on our side in terms of finding it anytime soon.
A completely different subject is intelligent life, however. While I don't rule it out either, there's a few things that make me lower the chances of us ever meeting any:
1.- Considering the age and size of the universe, if intelligent life had even a minuscule chance of happening somewhere else, countless forms of it would have happened by now.
2.- Assuming the previous case, if we had any chance now or in the comming thousands of years of meeting an intelligent species, then statistically it would imply that some kind of evidence of another should have been noticed by now. If it wasn't, it would be:
A) A statistical anomaly indicating that simply by chance it hasn't happened yet without compromising future chances (always possible; statistics are quite reductionist, after all). This is the option that would mean we could still meet one sometime in the future.
B) Mean that intelligent species do exist/have existed, but are too far appart in time/space to ever be noticeable by another. This one means intelligent aliens exist, but that we won't be meeting them.
C) Mean that intelligent species do exist, but do not reach a level of impact in the universe that would be noticeable. This is similar to case B, but implying that no technology level would make it possible for species to somehow make contact or notice each other.
D) Mean that intelligent species other than ours do not exist.
E) Aliens are actively hiding from us/preventing us from noticing them.
In short, my point is that if there was any chance of us ever meeting another intelligent species within a reasonable timeframe, it would be a statistical anomaly that so far we have noticed nothing that would indicate the existence of one, considering the scale of the universe, the amount of time available, and the tools currently at our disposal.
Anomaly does not mean impossible, of course. My hopeful side certainly expects us to find aliens one day and see what their version of swiss meatballs is like.
On one hand, it has always troubled me that all presumptions have been made over a sample population of 1. We try to look for planets with oxigen, liquid water, and within the optimal orbit around stars of a particular type in search for life, but we literally have no means of objectively determining the chances of life springing up in such scenario. Our situation as a life-carrying planet could very well be a statistical cruelty.
That doesn't rule out the chance of there being something we could deem life somewhere else. Just that I'm not quite so sure the chances are on our side in terms of finding it anytime soon.
Man, I am so pleased every time I dig up this thread.
While I would tend to agree that there's nothing I've ever seen to indicate that we're on the cusp of discovering ET, I don't know how I feel about a statistical approach to the universe. For one thing, statistics have nothing whatsoever to do with prediction. Oh, they talk a good game, but people still accomplish the "impossible" every day in casinos and mountain lion attacks, while statisticians just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, we never said it COULDN'T happen..." We simply don't have the necessary data to use predictive statistics on a universal scale. I can't give too much credit to conjecture based on incomplete theory.
As for our tools, they're kind of crap. All those pretty pictures of space that are taken with the Hubble are doctored, ahem, EDITED to include colors that astronomers think might be accurate, the actual pictures are pretty bland and undetailed. Most of what we know about the universe has been extrapolated using math. (most definitely including anything dealing with extra-solar phenomenon) And it's not even GOOD math! (The entire field has a nasty habit of ball-parking figures but I suppose that's a hazard when you're dealing with the distances and sizes involved) Space exploration is like string theory that way, all we can really do is make a best guess and wait for the body of knowledge to expand until it either proves us right or wrong.
Plus, if I let statistics determine my fate, the odds of me waking up next to Keira Knightley tomorrow are pretty slim. And that I do not abide.
Personal gripe: We should have begun colonization of the moon by now. For space reasons, as well as for use as a staging area. The fact that the U.S. space program has languished while American Idol has done well almost convinces me that there's no intelligent life right HERE.
Personal gripe: We should have begun colonization of the moon by now. For space reasons, as well as for use as a staging area. The fact that the U.S. space program has languished while American Idol has done well almost convinces me that there's no intelligent life right HERE.
To be fair, American Idol has a tiny budget compared to the space program and isn't publicly funded. On the other hand, we could have probably started a moonbase with the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
