Their Actions Are Indicative That They Believe

[Baddad (Marty)]

Learned people have been able to convince governments to invest billions of dollars in the search for life elsewhere than Earth.

To me that spells out that they believe there must be life elsewhere. That they believe we are not alone.

Mars devices searching for evidence is a big step. Evidence on Earth indicates just how adaptive and robust the various life forms can be.

Microbes that exist in rock cracks where there has been no rain in 10 years.
Bacteria that lives in deep caves. Existing on alternate energy sources other than the Sun. Or in deep oceans. The number of whole mini worlds of life forms that develop near underwater hot springs. Tube worms etc.

Investigating these weird life forms and the conclusions drawn go to show that scientists believe that Alien life exists. Just because there is no conclusive evidence either way it does not stop them believing it. Possibly they want to believe.

I bet if they were asked, the answer would be, "We don't have any proof either way."
Yet they have the funding to conduct the search. I believe that is a good thing.

Cheers

[Shano592 (Shane)]

I read recently, that they found a type of leech that can live for extended periods of time in pure liquid nitrogen.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/01/th...quid-nitrogen/

We can't be the only planet with life so diverse, surely.

[clive milne]

Well... they also convinced the main stream media that it was a good idea to promote spending a trillion or two looking (with extreme prejudice) for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in spite of the fact that their specialist advisers had told them all along that there weren't any...

Ergo: the level of commitment to a search is not indicative of its validity... that's basically a circular argument.
but you know, what ever makes you feel good I suppose.

[LewisM]

20 years ago, there were 9 planets in the Solar System. Since then, we unfortunately downgraded one, but added a host more. We only were just discovering our first exoplanets.

20 years ago, microbiologists were discovering the true extent of Extemeophile Bacteria, in thermal vents, at great barometric pressures, in vacuum environments, stored in deep glacial ice for centuries and true Archaea were only just really being looked at and discovered.

20 years is not a lot of time. 20 years is time for humanity to wake up to reality and throw off shackles of prejudices and beliefs. A lot changes.

[JJDOBBER79 (Jas)]

just last week scientists discovered 715 new planets, some of which orbit in the habitable zone of their parent stars.

http://earthsky.org/space/kepler-con...cc5c-393668969

I recently read that it is likely that half of all the stars we see in the night sky, potentially all of them, have planets orbiting them. probability would indicate that an astronomical number of these would be in the habitable zone of their parent stars. Therefore, IMHO, it is absolutely irrational to believe that we are the only planet out of that huge number that had a comet crash into it bringing the ingredients necessary for life, if indeed that is what happened. Whatever happened to us, it has to be obscenely unlikely (almost impossible) that it didnt happen to any other planets.

[graham.hobart (Graham stevens)]

This is the basis for the Drake Equation is it not?
E.T phone home (wonder how much credit that would cost?)
Graz

Originally Posted by JJDOBBER79

just last week scientists discovered 715 new planets, some of which orbit in the habitable zone of their parent stars.

http://earthsky.org/space/kepler-con...cc5c-393668969

I recently read that it is likely that half of all the stars we see in the night sky, potentially all of them, have planets orbiting them. probability would indicate that an astronomical number of these would be in the habitable zone of their parent stars. Therefore, IMHO, it is absolutely irrational to believe that we are the only planet out of that huge number that had a comet crash into it bringing the ingredients necessary for life, if indeed that is what happened. Whatever happened to us, it has to be obscenely unlikely (almost impossible) that it didnt happen to any other planets.

[ianB (Ian)]

Now I am not saying that life does not exist elsewhere, but there must have been a time when there was no life within the universe, then at some stage First life began, so at some point there was a time when within this huge universe with billions of planets there was only one place where there was life.

Now to say that that place was earth may seem reasonable to some yet unreasonable to others, but nonetheless it is possible that life first started here, and in the grand time scale of the universe it is possible that life has not as yet started elsewhere, but given time maybe the universe will become filled with life?

Spending billions trying to understand this universe is a noble endeavor, mankind has a natural instinct to learn and understand their surroundings, no matter how far they may be, I too love to learn about the universe, and to ask the question " are we alone"? Is natural, hence all the time and money being spent in this pursuit.

Now, and I am not saying we are, but if we are the only life as yet within the universe the search for other life, while frustrating and maybe unattainable, is not pointless as so much is being learned along the way.

But at the same time I think it would be interesting for a part of the scientific community to explore the thought that if we are the only life in the universe, then what? What could we then do, what questions could we then ask and seek to answer?

Maybe if that question was asked and followed with funding more research could be carried out in relation to how can man survive on this planet in the future, or maybe research more fully the possibility of one day living elsewhere within the universe and so forth.

Basically what I am saying is that we ( mankind ) are too intent in looking for life elsewhere, we have tunnel vision, maybe it would be worthwhile exploring the thought that maybe we are alone, if so what does that mean for mankind and this planet, and what should we now do?
I think it would be really interesting to explore this thought and to see how scientists would react, as in the questions they would ask and stratagies they would formulate.
Just a passing thought.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by JJDOBBER79

Therefore, IMHO, it is absolutely irrational to believe that we are the only planet out of that huge number that had a comet crash into it bringing the ingredients necessary for life, if indeed that is what happened. Whatever happened to us, it has to be obscenely unlikely (almost impossible) that it didnt happen to any other planets.

+1
I believe nothing special has happened on our planet.... given the abundance of hydrogen/oxygen/carbon/nitrogen in the universe, I think anytime a rocky planet ends up in the habitable zone of a star, that the sort of processes that lead to life on earth start up.... eventually....

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Lee

+1
I believe nothing special has happened on our planet.... given the abundance of hydrogen/oxygen/carbon/nitrogen in the universe, I think anytime a rocky planet ends up in the habitable zone of a star, that the sort of processes that lead to life on earth start up.... eventually....

Well... even if you adopt the contrary, creationist view, it would seem illogical to stipulate such an awful lot of unnecessary redundancy as a priori.

[ianB (Ian)]

P,S
Just to clarify, in case any think otherwise, I am not a creationist, if I happened to give you that idea from my comments.
The universe is billions of years old, as we well know.

[pdalek (Patrick)]

NASA Astrobiology hosts many workshops and seminars on this sort of stuff.

In February there was the Habitability of Icy Worlds Workshop.
The recorded presentations are at
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/seminar...rlds-workshop/

Starting on March 16, there is the Search for Life Beyond the Solar System Conference.
Details and recorded sessions, when available, are at
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/seminar...em-conference/

Typically the recorded items are posted about an hour after each event.

[kinetic (Steve)]

Maybe one of the natural progressions of evolution is to make the
apex species have a character flaw.
I think humans have this flaw. We put every other animal in a zoo.
We use up resources unsustainably.
We dislike other humans that look slightly different to us.
We are more likely to be killed by another human than by any other animal.
Maybe that is why the universe is strangely silent........

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...srazor/5303368

Steve

[Baddad (Marty)]

Interesting points have been made here.
Another point that comes to mind is from someone, a long time ago said; Is there life out there that we may not even recognize as a life form.

Cheers

[Shano592 (Shane)]

Wasn't that in Star Trek Voyager?

Where they found a silica-based lifeform ... instead of carbon-based?

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

the key i think is what were the conditions that catalysed life in the first place? whilst life exists in all sorts of varying and extreme conditions on Earth it was not always so, when and wherever it sparked into existence life migrated and evolved to live in those conditions. other places eg Europa may not have had the conditions to spark life in the first place even though it may be possible perhaps for life as we know it to exist there currently.

cheers

[Wavytone]

What I don't understand is why some people seem to be so obsessed with the idea of being "first". "we" just happen to be "here", "now". Never mind "how", and there's no "why".

We almost certainly aren't the "first" technological culture in the universe for the simple reason the Universe is much older than the earth.

Nor will we be the last.

The Drake equation - and that NASA is beginning to be able to put reasonably good numerical values to some of the coefficients - and the conclusion we certainly are NOT alone is inescapable.

[ianB (Ian)]

I think the point i was " trying " to make is being missed.
I will try to be clearer, If there was a branch / group in the scientific community that did research with the thought that there is no other life out there ( and i will say it again i am not saying there is no other life ) then their research would take a different path to what is being taken now ( in searching for life ) i think it would be very interesting to see what path they would take, what research they would do and what effort they may take concerning the future of this planet and the possibilities and research of one day living elsewhere.
Now i think the point i am trying to make is a simple and interesting one, so please try not to get hung up on the ' but why keep saying we are the first ' drama.
Thank you.

[astroron (Ron)]

Quote
I will try to be clearer, If there was a branch / group in the scientific community that did research with the thought that there is no other life out there ( and i will say it again i am not saying there is no other life ) then their research would take a different path to what is being taken now ( in searching for life ) i think it would be very interesting to see what path they would take, what research they would do and what effort they may take concerning the future of this planet and the possibilities and research of one day living elsewhere.

How do you think they would research trying to say there is no other life out there surely all they would have to do is nothing and save all those dollars
By looking for life, the answer will come about if there is NO result in the affermative.
My own oppinion is that we should get our own house in order rather than spend the billions of dollars looking for other planets to colonise.
Don't get me wrong I am all for space exploration, but the stated aim of going to other planets because our own planet one day may become unihabitable is an Anathema to me.
Stuff this planet up and then go somewhere else and do the same there.

Cheers

[ianB (Ian)]

Hi Ron,
I am not saying they should do research to say there is no life out there, what i am trying to say is that ( while others are searching for life, as they are now ) another section / branch of science could do other space research with the thought that if we are alone then where should we focus our attention?
i.e I wonder what direction research would take if looking for other life was taken out of the equasion, maybe more thought and money would would be directed to visiting other planets or maybe more funding would be available to find out how we could travel faster through space and so on.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by ianB

... another section / branch of science could do other space research with the thought that if we are alone then where should we focus our attention?...

I would think that the majority of space science, research or exploration is already doing that.