We can feel the accomplishment of the human race. Our greatest feat. Together we came together to build the ISS. History will show this was the first step. When intelligent lifeforms beyond our world observe it, they will see it for what is. An alien spacecraft built by an alien race. A home off our world where we learn about the greatest of frontiers. Space. How many oasis will we find in this vast desert? In time we will find out.
One thing is sure: the discovery of so many exoplanets in the last several decades certainly exacerbates the poignancy of Fermi's Paradox. At the time he blurted it out it was only supposed that solar systems frequently formed along with stars but no one really knew for sure.
I have always had a different idea behind a Great Filter argument, that being that there is some sort of artificial bubble placed around our solar system that filters what we are able to see. This bubble is what has led to many of the gaps in our science at are currently explained by "dark matter and energy". Let us assume that humans are not the top and most advanced of the galactic food chain, instead there are dozens or hundreds of other intelligent, space travelling peoples out in our galaxy. And let's put ourselves in their shoes, would you want to be bothered by these annoying, hyper violent and easily corruptible people that live here? Would you want to make your presence known to humans, give them some more incentive to work on interstellar travel and colonization? And not just humans, but any pre space flight civilization that figures out how to use radio waves in infrared light, to me that would be like being constantly bombarded by obnoxious robocalls. So, until we actually, physically make it out there, I am going to live under the assumption that the human race has been quarantined in this solar system until we learn to not only treat each other with decency and respect, but we learn to treat even the life we must sacrifice to keep ourselves alive with decency and respect. Without that we have no business moving off this planet and deserve to be stuck here.
I was reading that the universe, in absolute terms, is the same age everywhere so if there is intelligent life somewhere out there then maybe it has developed at the same pace we on Earth developed . Maybe then none of us have reached the stage where we have the technology to reach each other.
Last edited:
Well, maybe we are a virus. Or even a cancer in the great body of existence. We need to be exterminated in order to preserve the function of whatever everything is. Like a cell or two in our body that decide to go their own way and define their own will in defiance of instruction.
And perhaps our destruction is by a Virus Checker seeking out activity by life backed up by a VPN.
Perhaps Machine Intelligence will be a mutation we can make to defeat our opposition. But perhaps just accept our fate.
And perhaps our destruction is by a Virus Checker seeking out activity by life backed up by a VPN.
Perhaps Machine Intelligence will be a mutation we can make to defeat our opposition. But perhaps just accept our fate.
Last edited:
Every developing form of intelligent life evolves. It is reasonable to assume that intelligent lifeforms are either less advanced, or more advanced. Half less advanced and half more advanced would be a reasonable assessment. It is certainly possible that an intelligent lifeform could be millions of years ahead of us. Let's assume we survive the next million years. The question to ask is what will humanity do in our future, as we continue to explore the universe?
I think the idea that we might survive another million years is fanciful
. We might evolve into something more sensible (machine intelligence or cyborgs), but our behaviour points to "Self Destruct".Our only hope is for 'outside' assistance, lol.
I believe that Humans are over or underthinking this problem. Life is likely everywhere where conditions are right and within a stable environment for the complex chemical reactions to occur that led to life. Further, I think that life will naturally evolve intelligence, predators and prey are in a constant arms race to outwit the other, and predators tend to have the intelligence edge. However, I believe there is more to this than meets the eye.
Beat me to it. Apart from anything else a true interstellar ship would need to be self sufficient, both in energy and necessary resources (food, water etc). The ISS gets its energy from solar panels (not much use in interstellar space!) and it relies on frequent cargo deliveries of food from Earth.
I did before the comment which seemed to suggest you had more to say. I was wrong, sorry.
That is a constantly evolving thought process, I assumed you had not read it, so apologies for assuming incorrectly. What are your thoughts on the article and its conclusions?
I thought the article was deeply thought through and probably correct in general terms. But, there are exceptions, once-offs offs and unique circumstances. I am sure the Author would agree of course.
It does offer a good perspective on the issue I thought.
I wrote it. I do also agree that nature will produce outliers in many cases, the question is their commonality, and I think stars below 0.6 solar masses and stars above ~1.8 solar masses are unlikely to be the home of intelligent planet dominating species. They can certainly host planets upon which life may arise where they have stable environments for millions of years that are at the right temperature and pressure range to allow the compex chemical reactions that create life and llow its natural evolution, but in the case of stars below 0.6 solar masses, the question is the characteristics of the star, it will be an M type dwarf flare star, this seems to reduce the possibility of sustainable life supporting environments except perhaps where a planet has an ice crust over a saline ocean - but then there will be no technology - with stars ~1.8 solar masses and above, its the temperature of the star and its shorter life time - a total of about 2.5-2.8 billion years, and only around 1.9 billion years. Even if life has the right environment from day 1, as it now appears Earth did, and life evolves much the same way it did on Earth, which is likely representative, then with natural events creating mass extinctions periodically, it is highly likely that a planet around such a star would never evolve a technological civilisation capable of that which humans have achieved so far.
I believe that the bulf of life will be single cells organisms or similar to cephalopods, such as sea cucumber's etc, only where a planet stays stable for extended periods will complex life evolve, but then when it does, given sufficient time, it will evolve towards intelligence, just as we see on Earth.
Interesting reading your article.
But I see places where the math isn't explained well enough for me to follow.
For instance, where it seems to change from "56 billion" to "560 million" between paragraphs. That would seem to propagate through the rest of the calculations, putting 100 suitable stars within 301 lightyears, or reducing the diameter to about 65 lightyears per suitable star.
Similarly, for R*, you first say that about 3 solar masses form stars each year in our galaxy, but then end up with 1.5 of those stars being in the range where you previously said about 16% of all stars fall in the mass range. I understand that the ages of stars needs to be accounted for, but that is not evident in the paper, if indeed it was done. And, it is not that clear how this is later accounted for in the calculation. I am assuming that it is used to guestimate the ages of the stars that we know exist, but the math involved is not clear.
Finally, considering that Earth is definitely one example of a planet that has evolved the kind of technologically capable life we are looking for, if we assume that all such planets are located in their own x-diameter spheres uniformly distributed about our galaxy, then that would put the closest other such stars at a distance of x, rather than 1/2 x, to Earth.
But, is random distribution logical to assume? Perhaps not. If our Sun was born in a "star forming cloud of gas and dust" along with many other stars, then there should be many others that are of a similar age and chemical composition not so far away in our galaxy, even though they were dispersed from their common birth site.
For me, this math still leaves me in the limbo of thinking that finding another civilization around another star is neither highly likely nor clearly nearly impossible.
But I see places where the math isn't explained well enough for me to follow.
For instance, where it seems to change from "56 billion" to "560 million" between paragraphs. That would seem to propagate through the rest of the calculations, putting 100 suitable stars within 301 lightyears, or reducing the diameter to about 65 lightyears per suitable star.
Similarly, for R*, you first say that about 3 solar masses form stars each year in our galaxy, but then end up with 1.5 of those stars being in the range where you previously said about 16% of all stars fall in the mass range. I understand that the ages of stars needs to be accounted for, but that is not evident in the paper, if indeed it was done. And, it is not that clear how this is later accounted for in the calculation. I am assuming that it is used to guestimate the ages of the stars that we know exist, but the math involved is not clear.
Finally, considering that Earth is definitely one example of a planet that has evolved the kind of technologically capable life we are looking for, if we assume that all such planets are located in their own x-diameter spheres uniformly distributed about our galaxy, then that would put the closest other such stars at a distance of x, rather than 1/2 x, to Earth.
But, is random distribution logical to assume? Perhaps not. If our Sun was born in a "star forming cloud of gas and dust" along with many other stars, then there should be many others that are of a similar age and chemical composition not so far away in our galaxy, even though they were dispersed from their common birth site.
For me, this math still leaves me in the limbo of thinking that finding another civilization around another star is neither highly likely nor clearly nearly impossible.
Not sure where you got the 0 from, but the million was typo I have missed and now corrected - thank you for the heads up. This does not impact any of the maths as the correct figures were used in the table, they were produced in an excel sheet and the transferred to the article.
I am not sure what you mean that the age of stars was not accounted for, it most certainly was. The number of stars that evolve off the main sequence each year was fully accounted for and is clear within the article.
You have lost me talking about 1/2 x to Earth. The true distribution throughout the galaxy will be reasonably random, but we can average out the spread, as was done in the article, to give us an approximate estimate of numbers and what we could reasonably expect.
Spectroscopic surveys of nearby stars has identified some that may be chemically similar to the Sun, but we have found no "smoking guns" and we do not even know of stars that appear to be moving with the Sun as part of a dispersed stream, like we see with the Hyades cluster, which it was thought the Sun was part of, but this has now been disproved by the likes of Hiparchus and Gaia. Even if the Sun formed in a cluster that has since dispersed, bearing in mind it has completed about 20 orbits of the galactic centre by now, the fact is that the cluster was certainly not a compact one nor a dense one because there would be clear evidence of this in the solar system - we would either be in a binary system, or the plane of the planets would be warped in a way that would indicate a strong external gravitational force, and we do not see this at all. The Sun was likely born alone or in a very widely dispersed cluster with the stars no less than 0.5ly apart, but not a orphan because it has us!!
I am a massive proposent of life outside the solar system and for technological civilisations to be out there, but I do feel people get hung up on the human way of thinking and they fail to understand the impracticalities of interstellar communication and especially interstellar travel.
It is certainly possible we will evolve beyond our current state of social aggression and reach a state where the needs of humanity and (the diversity of life) on our world, will outweigh all else. In this scenario we will have a promising future as being 'one' as a species. If this happens we will continue to progress in a future that looks promising. The glass is half empty to many , but there are those who believe it is half full. A million or even a billion more years of evolution is certainly a worthy goal for humanity.
We have barely skimmed the top of the iceberg in our search for intelligent life. Our technology will continue to improve in these methods.
Give us some credit. There is a lot of good in this world.
We have barely skimmed the top of the iceberg in our search for intelligent life. Our technology will continue to improve in these methods.
Give us some credit. There is a lot of good in this world.
Finding life would only tease us. Can't talk or signal them. Can't go there.
Probably start several new religions here. And many new schools of supposition theories. The only fact we would have is that it's out there. And no idea of what that life is. And never know.
Probably start several new religions here. And many new schools of supposition theories. The only fact we would have is that it's out there. And no idea of what that life is. And never know.
I do not think humans will evolve as much as some think, this is not to suggest evolution for us has stopped, it most certainly hasn't, but we make out lives easier with technology so there is no environmental pressures to think faster, run faster, swim faster, beath less Oxygen, have the eyesight of a hawk etc etc etc - and this definitly slows down natural evolution.
Will humans ever dump their aggression - on the day the final human dies. We are a territorial, omnivorous predator, that is at our core, we are not specialised in anything except adapting to the environment are are in or adapting the environment to suit us - and this will also be the driving force behind any animal that becomes a technologically dominant species on their planet. I hate conflict, I have seen enough in my 58 years, but at the same time I accept that without conflict we have stagnation, so whilst we may not have wars on the scale of WWI and WWII, we will still have disputes that will erupt into violence, and even if we had a single world government - god forbid - we would still get regional and criminal conflicts.
Just look at any species - even Hippos are aggressive and they are a herbivore, Lions fight, Cows fight, there is not a species alive today or the in the past that did not undergo conflict - it is how the strong survive and pass on effective DNA. This may be uncomfortable to accept, but the truth is what it is.
Evolution is not easy to predict, especially if it involves a "pinch point" where a species is almost driven to extinction, but survives and expands thereafter.
It is thought that modern humans had such a pinch point, but there is not real consensus on that. See https://www.theguardian.com/science...most-wiped-out-human-ancestors-say-scientists for one take on it, but the total population estimates and timing are still subject to substantially different estimates.
Humans may well be approaching another pinch point, because of our population growth and the unsustainability of the level of "affluence" desired by (most of) the population.
So, what will that mean for our evolution?
Currently, our evolutionary pressures are to become more capable with analytical thought and technological development. Bigger, better mind, but weaker bodies. Longer life spans.
But, what if we have a 95% die-off event, due to a combination of environmental pressures and human nature responses? Who will survive, and what will they "learn" from that experience?
My best guess is that the people who survive such an event will be the most brutal and self-serving, but not the most technologically competent. Technology might be totally lost, resetting human evolution back to something like our last pinch point, but probably with an environment less suitable for redevelopment of what is lost.
On the other hand, if humanity has previously evolved (technologically and perhaps somewhat physically) to the point that there are isolated, self-sustaining groups elsewhere, perhaps on Mars, repopulation of Earth with a technological society could happen much more rapidly.
If I were to try to put probabilities on the different scenarios, at this point, I would not give the survivors-on-Mars scenario the top probability.
But I also would not claim to have considered all of the possible scenarios.
Perhaps we can evolve our society fast enough to avoid the pinch point. Yes, there will always be conflicts, but society will evolve on the basis of whether those conflicts reward the aggressors or the victims. Part of our problem today is that many of the aggressors also claim victimhood. Will we evolve a society that is better at sorting that out?
It is thought that modern humans had such a pinch point, but there is not real consensus on that. See https://www.theguardian.com/science...most-wiped-out-human-ancestors-say-scientists for one take on it, but the total population estimates and timing are still subject to substantially different estimates.
Humans may well be approaching another pinch point, because of our population growth and the unsustainability of the level of "affluence" desired by (most of) the population.
So, what will that mean for our evolution?
Currently, our evolutionary pressures are to become more capable with analytical thought and technological development. Bigger, better mind, but weaker bodies. Longer life spans.
But, what if we have a 95% die-off event, due to a combination of environmental pressures and human nature responses? Who will survive, and what will they "learn" from that experience?
My best guess is that the people who survive such an event will be the most brutal and self-serving, but not the most technologically competent. Technology might be totally lost, resetting human evolution back to something like our last pinch point, but probably with an environment less suitable for redevelopment of what is lost.
On the other hand, if humanity has previously evolved (technologically and perhaps somewhat physically) to the point that there are isolated, self-sustaining groups elsewhere, perhaps on Mars, repopulation of Earth with a technological society could happen much more rapidly.
If I were to try to put probabilities on the different scenarios, at this point, I would not give the survivors-on-Mars scenario the top probability.
But I also would not claim to have considered all of the possible scenarios.
Perhaps we can evolve our society fast enough to avoid the pinch point. Yes, there will always be conflicts, but society will evolve on the basis of whether those conflicts reward the aggressors or the victims. Part of our problem today is that many of the aggressors also claim victimhood. Will we evolve a society that is better at sorting that out?
The Guardian article is utter tosh - at that time, there were at least 20 species of Hominid alive at that time and such bottlenecks have been claimed before only to be recanted later with new evidence.
Such a bottleneck was proposed following the Toba VEI-8 eruption 74,300 years ago, but that has since been shown to be a misundtanding of the Data.
I am pesimistic about our future if I am honest, we have the ability and capability to go either way.
The geneticists are postulating pinch points based on genetic information and a lot of assumptions.
Having multiple hominid species at the same time still does not rule out a pinch point in the species that eventually dominated. But, there are other hypotheses that argue that the other species did not actually go extinct, but melded into the current population. Nobody actually knows for sure at this point.
But, there are definitely pinch points in evolution. The asteroid strike about 65,000,000 [edit - left out 3 zeros in original post] years ago that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs is an example. Who would have thought that T. Rex would be survived by sparrows? For that matter, who would have thought that the small predecessors of T.Rex in the Jurassic Period would dominate in the later Cretaceous Period?
Having multiple hominid species at the same time still does not rule out a pinch point in the species that eventually dominated. But, there are other hypotheses that argue that the other species did not actually go extinct, but melded into the current population. Nobody actually knows for sure at this point.
But, there are definitely pinch points in evolution. The asteroid strike about 65,000,000 [edit - left out 3 zeros in original post] years ago that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs is an example. Who would have thought that T. Rex would be survived by sparrows? For that matter, who would have thought that the small predecessors of T.Rex in the Jurassic Period would dominate in the later Cretaceous Period?
Last edited:
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Hubble tension is now in our cosmic backyard, sending cosmology into crisis
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
‘The Other Moonshot:’ New podcast centers on unsung black heroes of the space race (trailer)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
SMILE! Europe and China move toward 2026 launch of space weather mission
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Partial solar eclipse March 2025: Everything you need to know
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram