A question or proposition as to why we are not alone

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bartman

K, Craig the Fermi paradox is a very compelling piece of Theoretical stuff....hehehehhe. Sure there is no hard evidence for extra-terrestrial life,
but....in your heart Craig....your deep down feeling .......statistics and theory aside ....... including the Fermi Paradox.....
do you really think there is life out there?
Simple yes or no.......and please, no - "what type of life" ..... just life in a sentient form....ie like you and I….

Bart;
The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with theoretical ‘stuff’.
The link I posted, gives an excellent summary of most of the ‘for’ and ‘against’ points raised in recent discussions here at IIS, and then some.

You could replace this entire thread with that one link.

In my heart do I really think there is life out there ?
Bart, in my heart, I really don’t care whether there is life out there or not. Toss a coin if you must have an answer ! I choose to contribute to the community in ways other than by voicing my opinion on such a topic.

I respect people’s right to choose, and I respect yours.

Narrowing the field of answer options to your question, won’t make a difference to the part that matters.

I remain open to consideration of all points of view.

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So too, is to state that they do exist .. especially if we'll never know .. as you state, we'll never reach them ..

(Better off stating that they may or may not exist. Its more accurate and better balanced).

See also, the Fermi Paradox .. its all been said before.

Cheers

This is what you are doing in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor. Saying that because we can't see it that it isn't there that is the simple answer and as the article shows the simple answer usually isn't the correct one. You are also trying to shift the burden of proof an old and well used arguement when one can't actually back up their statements with facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...urden_of_proof. Hope you are well and happy in your beliefs. I know I am in mine. And we don't know that we can never reach them all we know is that at present we can't reach them that does not mean that we won't be able to in the future.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Why would you want to find life like us? We are violent, cruel, greedy and cunning. Every time we get a better technology we turn it into a weapon. Our richest countries have people starving and dying for lack of medical care. War, violence, intimidation and just good old financial power are our most used ways of dealing with problems.

Perhaps we should hope that if we do find life that it is nothing like us.

Brian

As a race we are not so violent,cruel and greedy as we once were just look back at history and see what used to be quite exceptable and isn't now

[bojan]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

I want to believe!

Same here...
And I would like to witness the discovery of at least microbial life forms (on Mars?) but this is unlikely, I am afraid..

However, as for existence of intelligent life (in our Milky Way), Fermi paradox is the best evidence suggesting the opposite, that we have so far, unfortunately.
I was following the work of Milan Cirkovic for some time, he is trying to explain Fermi paradox by proposing the regular sterilisation of the large areas of Galaxy by GRB's, or some other events (including self-destruction of civilisations).. even the re-evaluation of the whole concept of SETI (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506110)
But, all this is based on BELIEF that life is abundant and that it MUST happen... and that Fermi paradox is a genuine paradox. But what if it isn't?
We simply don't know.. we even don't HOW life started here, on our own Earth.

So, in principle I am with Craig here: the whole discussion is quite meaningless.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by casstony

I think you're focusing exclusively on the negative Brian - it's not hard to find the good side of human nature either.

I would suggest that if it is raining and I note the rain that I am not being negative... rather I am simply observing correctly. I will change my understanding of humanity when you or anyone else can show me 1 moral / ethical advance that all of humanity has adopted any time in the last 10,000 years.

There have certainly been enlightened individuals throughout history who have tried to advance humanity but none of their movements have ever succeeded.


All species have to compete to survive; we're in a transition period where we've achieved a level of intelligence that may not be beneficial to our species survival unless we can alter our competitive instinct. Perhaps that pressure to cooperate or die will lead us to continue to evolve through this phase.

Your thinking in the above is a little fuzzy. All species have to compete we are a species so we must have to compete... yes?

Then you say we are in a transitional period. Assuming that the theory of evolution is more or less correct of course we are changing.

But I believe that you need to show that evolution can affect morality (I can see no evidence in the history that I have studied) and that evolution unites a species.

As I understand it all of humanity evolved from one smallish group of wandering people who originated in what is now Africa. If that is the case then to date evolution has not produced unity but rather diversity.

We learned to cooperate first in family groups, then in tribal groups because it benefited our survival. Learning to cooperate on a planetary scale would benefit the survival of our species today - maybe that pressure will lead us to continue evolving and ensure a future for humanity.

There is an old joke or truism in the Mennonite culture that might be applicable here; what is the first thing a new Mennonite community does? it hires a Lutheran to be the police man!

Humanity did not learn how to cooperate in family and group. What humanity learned was the need to drive out those who did not fit in so that the larger group could function and survive.

I fear and believe that if we ever do begin the exploration of space that it will be a great deal more like 'Avatar' than 'Star Trek'

Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

There you go I should never answer mail before coffee. Sorry about the last post but it should be understandable.

Brian

[avandonk]

I have as much proof of extraterrestrial 'intelligent' life as all the religions have for their deities and the afterlife NONE!

We can however by observation and inference conclude given the right conditions life will inevitably occur given the correct conditions. This is only due to the laws of the Universe. Not some mythical deity invoked by primitive hunter gatherers.

Fortunately for us they are too far away to even communicate let alone pose a threat if they were more advanced than us. If they are less advanced the answer is obvious.

I personally think the Universe is teeming with life without any proof only because the alternative is equally terrifying!

Bert

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Brian W

There is an old joke or truism in the Mennonite culture that might be applicable here; what is the first thing a new Mennonite community does? it hires a Lutheran to be the police man!

Humanity did not learn how to cooperate in family and group. What humanity learned was the need to drive out those who did not fit in so that the larger group could function and survive.

I fear and believe that if we ever do begin the exploration of space that it will be a great deal more like 'Avatar' than 'Star Trek'

Brian

Well, Brian,
Your beliefs are founded on a very strong historical and factual evidence.
Such behaviour was essential and absolutely necessary for humans to survive in the first place. And it is not only the speciality of human species..
Now, whether such hard-wiring of our brains is good for survival in the future, as humans are becoming the dominant species on Earth and the Darwinian evolution in the classical sense is no more, is to be seen.
Historically, it can be proven that the behaviour can be modified, especially because it seems that humans are social animals in a first place - so other urges we have can be controlled (by laws and culture) and sublimed.

[casstony]

The caring side of human nature is all around us Brian; to pick one example the Victorian government spends money to support children with a variety of intellectual, physical and behavioural disabilities - in the not to distant past such kids might have been considered a burden on society that are at best ignored and at worst disposed of. One can find plenty of examples of good or bad human behaviour, but I think most people try to help others rather than kill them, depending on the circumstances.

Still, you might be right Brian but chin up - we're not dead yet .

[Brian W (Brian)]

lets hope I'm wrong.
Brian

[casstony]

I imagine many have seen page 29 of Australian Sky & Telescope (April edition). We've looked for life in a poofteenth of our galaxy so far. Our ability to search for transmissions from other civilizations is ramping up rapidly.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

This is what you are doing in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor. Saying that because we can't see it that it isn't there that is the simple answer and as the article shows the simple answer usually isn't the correct one. You are also trying to shift the burden of proof an old and well used arguement when one can't actually back up their statements with facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...urden_of_proof. Hope you are well and happy in your beliefs. I know I am in mine. And we don't know that we can never reach them all we know is that at present we can't reach them that does not mean that we won't be able to in the future.

Warren;

I wasn't the one who said we'll never reach them.
To state: "That they don’t exist" is just as valid as stating: "That they do exist" … because we have no empirical data to make either claim, with any assurance.

The issue about reaching them is basically irrelevant, but under the same logic created in the original post, the statements:

1. “They do exist because we can never reach them”.
is as equally as ‘ludicrous’ (not my words) as:
2. “They don’t exist because we can never reach them”.

The original premise:

...if only 1 star in each galaxy has 1 planet that is capable of supporting life

makes statement (1) above redundant and eliminates the possibility of statement (2).

The whole argument premise is rendered meaningless (no disrespect implied towards Trevor) ... which is OK. I don’t mind living in a world that is empty and meaningless. That way, I can choose to do whatever I please).

Cheers

[TrevorW]

The term ludicrous was used because IMO to dismiss the existence of alien life because there has not been a genuine supported close encounter of any kind is farcical IMO in the face of all probability. This is a purely personal assumption.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

The term ludicrous was used because IMO to dismiss the existence of alien life because there has not been a genuine supported close encounter of any kind is farcical IMO in the face of all probability. This is a purely personal assumption.

Cheers

Yep, I agree. The 'because I haven't seen it before', as justification for a conclusion, is pure pseudoscientific reasoning in my view, also. And this would stand even without the scale of the universe matters you raise.

Interestingly, many outcomes in science which have required addressing the scales of the universe, and taking them into consideration, have very frequently resulted in unexpected, counterintuitive outcomes. What may seem 'ludicrous' from our perspectives, is very frequently reversed by the reality of how it actually works.

The essence of the case you've raised in this post however, in my view, is not one of them. The 'because I haven't seen it before' argument is nonsensical.

How much haven't we seen of it all, eh?

Cheers

[mill (Martin)]

Ok i make it a bit easier
They might exist but we will never know because we might never have the technology to find out or the human race will be wiped out.
If we find proof then we still might not be able to do anything and we can all have a warm fuzzy feeling that more life forms exist.
Instead wasting money on finding other life forms, it could be used to clean up this world where we live on at this moment, and find alternative fuels.

I myself think that there are other life forms out there (human or not).
But that is solely my opinion and not necessarily other peoples view

All comma and punctuations are placed by me in the believe that they are on the right spot

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by mill

Instead wasting money on finding other life forms, it could be used to clean up this world where we live on at this moment, and find alternative fuels.

.. or .. by spending money on pursuing other life forms, we may accidentally (or intentionally), discover other clean ways of generating power for ourselves !

If we could overcome the obstacles of close-to-light speed travel, I'm sure solving our present energy problems would seem miniscule, by comparison !

One thing that can be said of the search for exo-life is that if we don't pursue the goal, we'll never find out !

Cheers

[TrevorW]

In someways I agree, look how much time and effort has gone into SETI without any genuine return on time invested.

However as space will (again IMO) be our next frontier to ensure the survival of mankind barring some extraordinary catastrophe that curtails population explosion some benefit may come from the scientific exploits into exploring our galaxy or finding such life whether sentient or not.

[avandonk]

Even a negative result is a data point!
Bert

[Rob_K]

Interesting read. To me it seems simple. The universal laws of physics applied to planet formation produce life. We have the empirical evidence in abundance. It is here on Earth. And we have empirical evidence of the building blocks of life in far flung objects such as comets. The alternative is that life is 'special' or magical. Good on you if you believe that, and I mean that sincerely - life's tough enough as it is being a germ on a rock out in the vastness of space.

It's very hard to get beyond our early cultural brainwashing that life is somehow miraculous, rather than a 'proven' expression of the ordering of matter from the chaos of starbirth. When we spectroscopically detect an exotic new compound in a distant star system, do we say, well that is the only place in the Universe that this compound exists, until we get indisputable empirical data to say otherwise?

Life elsewhere in the Universe becomes a reasonable assumption at the very least for similar melting pots, not speculation. And that is only for life as we know it. The burden of proof is on the naysayers to find evidence that life is magical after all, or that the Solar System (or Earth) is somehow unique in all the Universe, or that the universal laws that produce life apply to only our small corner of the Universe. The proof required would be extraordinary because we already have the empirical evidence. Fence-sitters... well they're in denial both ways.

In practical terms we may never detect life outside our own Solar System (or detect it to the satisfaction of everyone!), but we can be pretty certain it exists. We are the proof.

Cheers -



PS... Maybe we should be looking for dark life, seeing as dark matter & energy dominate the Universe...

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

It's very hard to get beyond our early cultural brainwashing that life is somehow miraculous, rather than a 'proven' expression of the ordering of matter from the chaos of starbirth.

No, I wouldn't say that..

The science operates in different way.
Yes, we have one "proof" and it is our own existence, but science also requires repeatability of experiment - and as long as we don't have another example (of extraterrestrial life form) in our hands, we simply can't say that life in universe is a rule rather than just a very rare (or even one off) exception.
Anything beyond that is speculation, whether we like it or not... All we have so far on extraterrestrial life existence is just circumstantial...
But just one other example, even in bacterial form (perhaps a plant or bacterial fossils on Mars surface) will make all the difference. It sounds like a bit formal approach, but that's how science works...