Are we alone?

[Mercury]

Ok, so SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) has been at it for thirty years now without so much of a whisper of a signal from an alien race. So where are they?

Consider, life has been on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, of which intelligent life has been around for less than half a million years. A tiny fraction of the history of life on Earth. So, life may teem throughout the universe, but intelligent life may be incredibly rare.

We really may be alone out here. What do you think?

[Spherical Time]

If there is other life throughout the universe, it may simply be too far away for us to find, or in a form that would be unrecognizable to us.

I'll keep hoping to find something though.

(Anyone else in the U.S. see the new Doctor Who premiere on SciFi last night?)

[Mercury]

Well, if life is so rare that it's extra-galactic, we may as well be alone - communication will be forever impossible.

I suppose that SETI observers are rather anthropocentric in expecting ET's to communicate in ways we would expect them to, but I suppose it's the only yardstick we have.

Given the universe's physical make-up, though, any complex and intelligent life will have a far better chance of having evolved to such if it's carbon-based, so we would expect some sort of recognisability.

[Mercury]

Doctor Who? I've seen a few, not really into it much, though it's not bad.

[Spherical Time]

Well, if life is so rare that it's extra-galactic, we may as well be alone - communication will be forever impossible.

I suppose that SETI observers are rather anthropocentric in expecting ET's to communicate in ways we would expect them to, but I suppose it's the only yardstick we have.I think that looking for radio signals is an intelligent idea. It is the most recognizable signal coming from this planet, anyway.


Given the universe's physical make-up, though, any complex and intelligent life will have a far better chance of having evolved to such if it's carbon-based, so we would expect some sort of recognisability."Carbon-based" covers a lot of possibilities. What if they need a different environment than we do. We may never interact with them the way that aliens in Star Trek interact.


Doctor Who? I've seen a few, not really into it much, though it's not bad.Ah, the season premiere was about humans finally having unequivocal proof that we aren't alone in the universe. It was fairly interesting.

[Mercury]

I"Carbon-based" covers a lot of possibilities. What if they need a different environment than we do. We may never interact with them the way that aliens in Star Trek interact.

.

Well, looking at the plethora of environments that the Earth has had over it's history (for most of that history, it's atmosphere would have been toxic even to us) it's almost definite they will need a different environment.

Some methods of communication we can expect to be universal constants, though. Radio is one. It's do damned obvious we can expect any developing intelligence to utilise it.

So, with an assumption that complex and intelligent life may well be a radio using, carbon-based lifeform, the galaxy should be full of signals. Unless, as I suspect, intelligent life is incredibly rare and very likely an improbable proposition for most environments in the universe.

If it isn't rare, we return to Enrico Fermi's paradox, 'so where are they?'.

[WhispWillow]

Of course we're not alone. My martian friend Bob will tell you that.

[Mercury]

Ah well , looks like we're not going to get the deep scientific/philosophical debate this subject has drawn on other forums.

Never mind, I might re-try it when the forum has grown.

[WhispWillow]

Ok I willl be serious.

Personall, I think no, we aren't. I mean there are so many other planets out there and so, why only have one speices inhabiting just one planet?
What's the point of all those other planets. Come on now, realistically, they aren't there just for the hell of it. They have some purpose but what that is, no one knows.

[Daniel]

Consider, life has been on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, of which intelligent life has been around for less than half a million years.


I personally beg to differ. I believe in a young earth as a 4 billion year old earth has yet to be proven.

But yes, I think we are alone as far as alien life is concerned.

[Mercury]

I personally beg to differ. I believe in a young earth as a 4 billion year old earth has yet to be proven.

But yes, I think we are alone as far as alien life is concerned.

A young earth? You mean the creationist argument for an Earth that's just a few thousand years old?

Well, there is sedimentation in rocks dated to around 4 billion years ago. Plus there's the evidence from uranium decay dating for an age to the solar system. Also, how do the creationisits explain the fossil record? The evolution and exctinction of so many millions of species in just a few thousand years?

That's a very different debate, though, but still an interesting point.

[DagunZain]

I believe there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe. I think it's just a question of if we find them, or if they find us.

What if there is intelligent life near us in the universe, that DOESN'T want to be found by creatures like us?

[Spherical Time]

I personally beg to differ. I believe in a young earth as a 4 billion year old earth has yet to be proven.That's interesting. I believe nearly the opposite. I believe in a 4.56 billion year old Earth because a 6000 year old Earth has yet to be proven.

:) But, as Buddha said, these sorts of questions are only a distraction from the questions that actually matter.

[d00m5day]

A young earth? You mean the creationist argument for an Earth that's just a few thousand years old?

Well, there is sedimentation in rocks dated to around 4 billion years ago. Plus there's the evidence from uranium decay dating for an age to the solar system. Also, how do the creationisits explain the fossil record? The evolution and exctinction of so many millions of species in just a few thousand years?

That's a very different debate, though, but still an interesting point.

i dont think Earth can be a few thousand years old. if it was, it must have been SUPER fast to have nothing evolve into prehistoric creatures, then dinos, then ice age, then humans. if you add up all the generations of mammoths alone, they would have lived up to about 100 years. and you can find PLENTY of mammoth skeletons. think about it. :D

[WhispWillow]

Earth was around for millions of years, I don't think anyone can argue about it. Like doom5day said, things need time to evolve and so I draw to the conclusion that the earth has been around much longer than us, yetI belive we will be the last speices. Although imagine if we get wiped out like the dionsuars and another speices takes our place. Though I highly doubht that.

[Mercury]

Yep, the fossil record indicates millions of species whose evolutionary lineage can be traced over the eaons. Also, given the rate of sedimentation, how could we have the millions of years of sedimentary rock strata that we do?

As far as diversity of complex animal life goes, it only really appeared on Earth after the 'Cambrian Explosion' about half a billion years ago. for the previous 3.2 billion years, bacterial life dominated. It may be that a rare sequence of events led to the sort of oxygen rich atmosphere capable of sustaining animal life.

If these sort of events are rare, the only sort of life awaiting us 'out there' may be microbial.

[Enkil]

Life hasn't been on earth for 4 billion years, it was only made 4.2 billion years ago. I bet for a billion years or so there wasn't even oceans on Earth.

My grandmother always says, "The surest sign of intellegent life in the Universe is that they haven't contacted us yet." I know she's quoting it from someone though.

I do believe there is other intellegent life out there, and that they're not all carbon based (I believe in this very strongly).

[Mercury]

Enkil, the first traces of bacterial life enter the fossil record about 3.7 billion years ago.

Oh, and the latest theories put the earth's age at about 4.5 billion years.

Also, we know from the periodic table that of all the elements, carbon is more suitable for forming complex compounds such as those in organic chemistry. You COULD do it with other elements I suppose, but it would be far more dificult to form complex creatures such as animals.

Still, it's always possible, but more improbable.

[Nexus]

Did anyone here know that DNA, being the basis of life, was created in a volcano out of Silicon when the earth was first being formed? Interesting isnt it.

About the main topic though, the universe is so huge their is no way that their is no more life out there. THe thing is, there is also no way for them to get to us and vice versa. We are certainly not alone but we might as well be.

[Felony]

Well I believe there may be more intelligent species out there..well intelligent enough to stay away from us..lol. But seriously there is no way we can be alone in the universe.

[Mercury]

Did anyone here know that DNA, being the basis of life, was created in a volcano out of Silicon when the earth was first being formed? Interesting isnt it.

.

Where did you get that info from? Silicon isn't even an element in organic chemistry. DNA is carbon based, and carbon is formed in stars during stellar nucleosynthesis.

We can find organic compounds, such as those DNA is made from, in all manner of places such as comets, but nobody yet knows how DNA was first formed on the planet. Maybe yours is just one of those theories.

[Nexus]

Well, I got it off a TV program being presented by Sir David Attenborough. I forget, its not silicon, its a very similar compound. I agree, it could be wrong.

[Daniel]

A young earth? You mean the creationist argument for an Earth that's just a few thousand years old?

Something like that, yes. I'm not saying it has to be, just what I choose to believe.


Well, there is sedimentation in rocks dated to around 4 billion years ago. Plus there's the evidence from uranium decay dating for an age to the solar system. Also, how do the creationisits explain the fossil record? The evolution and exctinction of so many millions of species in just a few thousand years?

One possibly explanation for the sedimentation is the flood (which I do believe). I'm a theist and I believe in the old testament account of a worldwide flood. This would create enough pressure to create the same effect as millions of years of decay.

As for the fossil record - the fossil record is the embarrassment to evolutionists.

[Daniel]

Also, all of your are making the assumption that evolution is true. It is a theory. Basically the options are this:

1. Evolution - Old Earth
2. Creation - Old Earth
3. Creation - Young Earth

There isn't really room for a young earth evolutionists, which should be obvious.


If these sort of events are rare, the only sort of life awaiting us 'out there' may be microbial.

Back on topic...

Think about it. What are the chances of life whatsoever invovling evolution? Miniscule. Near non-existent. Highly improbable. That means that homo sapiens are a result of chance. That the conditions to allow even the smallest life to form are difficult to understand the chances against it.

In contrast, if we have billions or trillions of years behind us (or an infinate universe timewise) then chances are also that we aren't the only one's to have evolved. If that's so then other life would exist - and also would most likely be far more advanced than ourselves.

[Peter]

It don't think it matters whether it is Creation or Evolution theory that is correct, all that matters is what theory serves mankind best. And at the moment that's Evolution. After thousands of years basing our ideas on religious texts and teachings, the 20th century saw for the first time massive and sustained progress in science and technology. Creation theory might serve us in the future, but Evolution is doing a fantastic job just now.

As for whether or not we're alone, I think there are definitely other intelligent life forms out there. The universe is just too big. But I'm guessing if they or we do make contact, the chances are they would be as aggressive as ourselves, as the most important variable to progress is competition, violent, unflinching competition. I don't think civilisation will ever be able to weed that out. We've been trying for donkies but are still failing miserably.

[Mercury]

Think about it. What are the chances of life whatsoever invovling evolution? Miniscule. Near non-existent. Highly improbable. That means that homo sapiens are a result of chance. That the conditions to allow even the smallest life to form are difficult to understand the chances against it.

In contrast, if we have billions or trillions of years behind us (or an infinate universe timewise) then chances are also that we aren't the only one's to have evolved. If that's so then other life would exist - and also would most likely be far more advanced than ourselves.


It's a good point, and one considered by SETI researchers like Frank Drake with his 'Drake equation'. Yep, there are billions of stars in this galaxy alone, but then, the probability of intelligent life may well be billions to one. Meaning that intelligent life may be so rare it could well be forever beyond our technological reach.

The flood theory of sedimentation is interesting, but I can't agree with it. that amount of sedimentation as a one-off event wouldn't show the different rock strata and gradual change of fossil types through that strata that are well-known and easy to see.

Something as simple as rock strata is the death-knell for creationist arguments as it's rock-solid and obvious proof of a long and varied history of the Earth as well as of its evolving life-forms.

Consider, if there was a creationist event, why would god create a world seething only with bacteria for most of its life? And why do we see increasing complexity of species with many new species coming into existence long after any intial event would have taken place?

[Daniel]

It don't think it matters whether it is Creation or Evolution theory that is correct, all that matters is what theory serves mankind best. And at the moment that's Evolution. After thousands of years basing our ideas on religious texts and teachings, the 20th century saw for the first time massive and sustained progress in science and technology. Creation theory might serve us in the future, but Evolution is doing a fantastic job just now.

Firstly, I'd like to say that it does indeed matter. If Creationalists are right, then there's a God. If there's a God (let's say the Christian God) then there's the possibility of salvation, heaven, hell, forgiveness, and so forth. I'd say eternal life or damnation is something that should matter.

I'd say that we'd made some decent technological leaps before the discovery of evolution. After the dark ages near the renaissance and reformation we started making all sorts of inventions such as the printing press long before evolution was an established scientific theory.

[Daniel]

Something as simple as rock strata is the death-knell for creationist arguments as it's rock-solid and obvious proof of a long and varied history of the Earth as well as of its evolving life-forms.

Funny, you failed to mention the fossil record.


Consider, if there was a creationist event, why would god create a world seething only with bacteria for most of its life? And why do we see increasing complexity of species with many new species coming into existence long after any intial event would have taken place?


My belief is that he wouldn't. I don't believe in evolution.

[Mercury]

I respect your beliefs, but often wonder why creationists challenge evolution when arguing for a biblical creation. Why not accept evolution and that maybe the entire universe itself was created? Surely the big bang could be seen as a creationist event.

Some of the well-argued Intelligent Design debates have merit and carry more weight than simply denying the evidence for evolution.

[shake the constant]

I respect your beliefs, but often wonder why creationists challenge evolution when arguing for a biblical creation. Why not accept evolution and that maybe the entire universe itself was created? Surely the big bang could be seen as a creationist event.

Creationists argue against marco-evolution, not microevolution. It is understood and proven that small changes are made when animals migrate to different locations, and that if they stay in said places long enough, they because a part of that ecosystem.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, seems so much more difficult to understand.

One question i have always had that none of my evolutionist friends can answer is this:
If the big bang did occur, then how does one explain mating? It seems that both the male reproductive and female reproductive areas would have to evolve at the exact same time so as to [1] preserve the species and [2] allow it to evolve. As even the reproductive area of mice is so complex, how can we say that two different creatures made the same evolutionary jump at the exact same time, and said jumps were still 100% complatible?


Some of the well-argued Intelligent Design debates have merit and carry more weight than simply denying the evidence for evolution.

I agree. But it should also be remarked that too many people just flat-out deny ID because of the religious implications. You'd think God was as taboo as discussing sex toys in a convent.

[The Freshmaker]

At any rate, back to the initial topic.

It is possible and probable for life to exist elsewhere in our universe and even in our own galaxy. I don't know if any of you have read about nanobacteria. A while back, a Martian rock was found, and upon studying it, scientists found what appeared to be fossilized evidence of tiny bacteria. The problem was, they were too small to possibly live. Later on, a geologist found similar samples here on earth. So far, research has found them to be self-replicating. But the debate goes on about whether or not they are alive. If it does turn out that these nanobacteria are living, and that they (at least at one time) lived on Mars, the implications would be huge. Life on another planet, and so close to home! However, it could turn out to be nothing.

[ewomack]

As research into extra-galactic planets progresses (astronomers have "detected" quite a few now) we should be able to determine which have the highest probability for life (based on what we know now, of course).

Or you can enter the contest: Money for Earth-like planets (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20564107-2702,00.html). Or: Planet Quest (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm)

Then we can focus our communication efforts on those locations. Life very probably exists out there somewhere. Whether we can communicate with it or not, who knows right now? But SETI currently leads the charge on doing what we can with what we have. Hopefully someone out there knows how to respond to frequencies.

The bigger question (dependent on the first): what do we do when we find new life? That day will blow everyones' minds (assuming that we hear the details; governments may want to withhold the information out of concern for the public well-being). A few years back astromoners tracked an asteroid that looked like it would hit the earth the next day. What's the first question the government asked: do we tell people? When someone finds life they'll likely ask the same thing.

[Verto]

Its very hard to come to a decison about this, the universe is always expanding. And with every star that explodes new planets are formed. So you would think that there is another planet out there which could sustain some form of life. Intelligent or not.

[Mercury]

As much as you guys are correct about the probability of life existing elsewhere being high, the question is about the probability of intelligent life.

Yes, the universe probably seethes with bacterial life. It appeared on Earth in its very early and very hostile stages and has been here ever since. We know bacteria will thrive deep in rocks in the Antarctic and in Death Valley. We know it will survive in super-heated water around oceanic geothermal vents. But what about complex or intelligent life?

That's a very different proposition. It may well be that the correct environments for such life are a freak occurence - literaly billions to one against them happening.

[The Freshmaker]

Well, there is a possibility that civilizations (if others exist besides our own) snuff themselves out of existance after a certain point. Furthermore, a lot of people assume that another civilization could be thousands of years more advanced than we are. But what if that's not true? What if we're, like, technology pioneers of the universe? The thought is kinda scary.

I would be very disappointed if we turned out to have the only intelligent life in the universe.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say. I'm just kinda throwing random, mismatched ideas out there right now.

[Spherical Time]

Well, there is a possibility that civilizations (if others exist besides our own) snuff themselves out of existance after a certain point. Furthermore, a lot of people assume that another civilization could be thousands of years more advanced than we are. But what if that's not true? What if we're, like, technology pioneers of the universe? The thought is kinda scary.

I would be very disappointed if we turned out to have the only intelligent life in the universe.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say. I'm just kinda throwing random, mismatched ideas out there right now.I just thought I would pop back into this controvertial topic and point you to "The Uplift Wars" by David Brin.

He has some very interesting ideas about the formation of intelligent life. I think that, extrapolated from the science-fiction of his work, you might enjoy the idea that the next intelligent species humans might encounter might be one that already exists: dolphins.

[Nexus]

I dont know? Its possible Dolphins are THAT intelligent but lack the dexterity to use their minds physically. From all respects though, Dolphins are just highly intelligent and social animals, nothing extremely special?

Its not just from the way they do things but from the way they react to us, its just not intelligetn enough? It is possible though that it comes across that way because of difference in the way that each race views the world?

[Daniel]

At any rate, back to the initial topic.

It is possible and probable for life to exist elsewhere in our universe and even in our own galaxy. I don't know if any of you have read about nanobacteria. A while back, a Martian rock was found, and upon studying it, scientists found what appeared to be fossilized evidence of tiny bacteria. The problem was, they were too small to possibly live. Later on, a geologist found similar samples here on earth. So far, research has found them to be self-replicating. But the debate goes on about whether or not they are alive. If it does turn out that these nanobacteria are living, and that they (at least at one time) lived on Mars, the implications would be huge. Life on another planet, and so close to home! However, it could turn out to be nothing.

What sort of implications would this have?

[Daniel]

I respect your beliefs, but often wonder why creationists challenge evolution when arguing for a biblical creation. Why not accept evolution and that maybe the entire universe itself was created? Surely the big bang could be seen as a creationist event.

Yes, the big bang can be seen as a creationalist event, as can evolution. However, there really isn't enough evidence for certainty.

As said, miroevolution is accepted.

[Max Vantage]

I think there's a certain level of arrogance with the way in which intelligence is understood by us primarily on our level as a species all of our own that we simply expect to be true to other life forms in comparison.

You can compare the levels of intelligence between two humans because we are all common to each other. But we can't simply just "throw" the same way of conscious thinking on other species, such as a common household pet (dog or cat), as they must have a different type of consciousness, or their own laws of logic that are similar but not exact to ours. It might be similar but we can only begin to understand anything about any other species on our human conscious level otherwise it simply becomes confusing to us.

We can train any animal to mimic our thought and behavioural patterns, but sooner or later the animal concerned will simply delve back into its own conscious wake.

Same goes with all of us having the ability to act physically like other animals or mimicking their sounds, but when we enter back into our "normal" selves the acting ceases to exist as we enter our normal behavioural patterns.

Of course there is intelligent life out there, but we have to start thinking that it is intelligent in its own right.

We all assume that if an extra-terrestrial isn't "super-duper" intelligent based on our "Hollywood-ised" viewpoint of what intelligence is then we automatically assume that they can't be very intelligent at all.

Hell, if we discover a species on another planet that is exactly like a cow on this planet then it's fair to say that we have inadvertantly discovered other intelligent life form. It may not be able to solve complex mathematical algorithms, or [insert HUMANdefinition of intelligence here] but it's still intelligent nonetheless.

Never forget the possibility that we are looking for signs of life that may have already discovered us a LONG time ago and simply thought of us as so primitive compared to them that they simply thought to pass us on and go somewhere else in the vast universe instead, the same way we would with something like an ant-like colony. It's humiliating, but it's just another possibility.

We can't always use ourselves as a comparison example. If we walked into an "alien" species right now exactly how can we begin to even comprehend the species with which is right in front of us? It's also fair to say that an alien might conform to a whole different biological, mathematical, psychological, etc laws that we couldn't even begin to fathom out based on our own laws of thinking and logic that we know of and are familiar with today.

I think it would be best to further evolve a few million years before we begin to even desire to make contact with a species that we have no prior knowledge of. If we gave out signals that we have been doing for the last thirty years, which we have been doing through SETI, and any malevolent species out there (who may have missed us) figure out how primitive we are compared to them, it's quite obvious that a full-scale planetary invasion could occur knowing that there would be no way in hell that we could even have the military might and resources necessary to survive an attack.

Of course, I'm not trying to rehash any cheesy Sci-fi film plot or idea that we have seen in the past fifty years. It's just thinking in terms of logic the possible dangers of interaction in what could be percieved that we may be as yet vulnerable in our current evolved state as a species (after all, we as a species can't seem to interact without starting wars against each other. What makes anyone think that any other species out there wouldn't do the same to us no matter how vastly intelligent they are?)

Awesome thread by the way! :cool:

[Raven]

Does anyone else think that there is other life out there.
Or am I the only one of this opinion.

I refuse to believe that we are the only lifeforms in the universe. There has to be others out there.
They could even be humanoid like us.
What are your thoughts on this.








~Raven.

[Laimtoe]

Humanoid like us? Nah...

But life -- yes.

The universe is said to be eternal in size it's also said that it's exanding..... I don't understand that part because if it's eternal... how could it still be expanding... oh well.

Anyways -- it's BIG!

It's so big that Earth, this massive globe we stand on, is so small that a speck would be too big of a comparison for it.

We are in such a minute splotch in space... so tiny and so miniscule and meaningless that if you look at the eternal scope of just how BIG everything is -- it's inevitable that there's life SOMEWHERE. And if there's life then there's something that's either sentient or will in later years BECOME sentient.

[M.Kirk]

There has to be. The universe is far to vast for us to be the only lifeforms in it.

[Felony]

like E.T. for example...and so girls i go out with are just plain wierd...they might be aliens

[Mercury]

This is a duplicate of an earlier thread, so I'm going to merge the two.

[Wreybies]

It would be awfully lame if we were.

* a bit of threadchaeology on my part today *

[Henry The Purple]

I find it ludicrous that so many humans assume they are the only inhabitants of this universe. I honestly don't understand how so many people can NOT believe/acknowledge that there are other forms of life out there...but to each his/her own I suppose...

I can tell you without an ounce of doubt that there are other alien races out there, the majority of whom are much more intelligent/evolved than our narrow-minded human race. They look at the Earth with sadness...because the Earth is one of the most beautiful planets in the Universe (and amongst the most beautiful planet out of all the other universes. There's more than one you know...), but humans treat the Earth like a dump and pollute it with their stupidity.

[M9A8E6S4TO]

I highly doubt we are alone. If your sky is clear tonight, you should go out and take a look at it. Try to count the stars. You'll count to well past four-thousand, and that's just from your vantage point. You can assume that each of those stars has five or six planets orbitting it. From that alone, the idea of coexisting with other lifeforms doesn't seem so hard to grasp.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. In our galaxy alone, there are over one hundred billion stars. We know of at least two hundred billion galaxies in our Universe. Do that math.

Even if you assume that only one out of every thousand planets has the chance to sustain life, you still must conclude that at least a million planets out there, in our galaxy alone, have life on them. Sentient life? I don't know how many, but with a million planets out there working toward it, I'm sure we are not the only ones.

[Hsnodgrass]

If we are alone, then we are either the first intelligent life or the last...

[arron89]

Its not enough to say these planets could support life therefore there must be life somewhere else. Not enough is known about how the first living organisms emerged to say if life could develop somewhere else. We know, based on observations of those planets, that if life developed in a similar way to the way it theoretically developed on Earth, that similar life forms could develop, but there is simply no way to know if that really is the case. Then there's the problem of evolution. Higher intelligence is not an inevitability of evolution. A look at the variety of creatures on Earth is more than enough evidence of that. The only motivation in evolutionary development is the propogation and continued survival of the species. There is no logical progression towards some goal, simply a response to the environment that will result in the animal being better equipped to deal with its surroundings. So, there is no guarantee at all that life on other planets would be "intelligent", if it existed at all.

So yes, I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe. No, it cannot be proven with current technology. No, the logic of counting planets does not suggest there is definitely life on other planets. No, there is no guarantee other life forms would be intelligent, or even developed beyond single cell organisms.

But it would be fun to imagine :D

[Cogito]

Life is opportunistic. If it gets started, it will spread to occupy every environmental niche it can reach.

That property itself is also one of the key criteria to define life. Another is that it locally acts to decrease entropy, where as nonliving matter tends to increase entropy.

Intelligence is much harder to define. Our definitions are founded on the assumption that we are intelligent. But since it is a circular definition, what we ehhibit IS an example of intelligence. But as we are the sole unequivocably known example, it is difficult to define what the absolute criteria of intelliegence are.

Definitions aside, it all depends on whether you believe life will take root where there is previously none. The Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950's, and others, showed the biochemical building blocks of our kind of life will form under very simple conditions. As long as there are similar conditions elsewhere in the known universe, life is likely to take hold. It's also very likely that there are many other chemical environments that also exhibit the properties of life in other conditions.

However, there is also the position that a Divine spark is needed to cross the boundary between non-life and life. Ten the question comes down to whether our tiny chunk of wet rock around an unremarkable star in a run of the mill galaxy was sigled out as the only abode for life by this transcendant Creator. I find that an extremely arrogant assumption.

So, in a very long winded way, I suggest that it's nearly impossible that only our Earth is teeming with life.

We are not alone.

[emily...]

I will believe other intelligent life forms exist when someone proves it. Until then, I'm not concerned. There's far too much going on inside my planet's atmosphere.

[Gallowglass]

If the Universe is infinite, then the existence of everything is guaranteed.

[Cogito]

However, modern physics reveals that the universe is, in fact, finite.

[NaCl]

Are we alone? Yes . . . until the SETI phone rings! LOL

[mammamaia]

Are we alone?

i sure as bleep hope not!... i'd hate to think the inhumane human race is the best the universe has to offer...

that said, considering the size of the universe, it's the height of arrogance/ignorance/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, to think we're the only sentient life around...

[tbeverley]

So, life may teem throughout the universe, but intelligent life may be incredibly rare.

Are you suggesting that human beings are intelligent life?

Maybe the aliens stay away because they don't want us to shoot atomic bombs at them?

Perhaps we're being observed by space invaders from another planet because we actually exist in a tiny universe in a drop of water under a microscope?

Maybe God created us, ran screaming, and left us all alone so that we'd simply die out before harming the rest of the Gods in heaven?

However, intelligent life? I have to disagree. We're rather idiotic cavemen who beat each other with heavy clubs and chant battle cries with blood paint on our faces, just waiting to leap from the confines of our planet and wreak destruction upon any living being in the univers - until they're dead, dead, dead.

Uh, or maybe the intelligent life on other planets is just like us: unable to span the gazillion miles from their planet to ours without help of a time-warp teleporter capable of deconstructing living flesh into molecules and sending it through black holes to be shot from one end of the universe to another in a quick enough time for the living being to not die of old age 0.00000001% of the way to the first nearest star.

Or: We're really octopus men living at the bottom of the ocean and the ocean is really the sky, and at the center of the earth, and octopus God lounges with a pitchfork and a couple mermaids sleeping beside him in hot bikinis.

I dunno. But, sometimes, I wonder....

are their bikinis red or blue?

[tbeverley]

I tend to think of life as being imprisoned here in this enormous universe so as to keep us from harming the real life that's out there.

Sort of like, the earth is Alcatraz, or Siberia; the gods want to keep us so far away from them that we'll never be able to escape this prison of a universe in which we've been living in exile.

Or, the mermaid theory.

[mammamaia]

Or, the mermaid theory.

what's that?... anything like this?
http://saysmom.com/maia/content.asp?Writing=94

[Atarxia]

Since I do believe in evolution, here is my thought.

I think we are not alone. Considering the fact that there are a good number of planets of similar environments as ours, there has to be at least another one that come to life by accident, the same way we came to existences. However, the idea itself that the foreign "life" capable to evolve into a human race is extremely unlikely, let alone the possibility of an ideal infrastructure within their societies to obtain modern technology. So, I am saying that that we probably will never find out since such a place like that would be too far away and is too specific for our spectral devices to detect

Well... I lied. I've come across a scientific article saying about how there is a way to move past the speed of light. I think they say something about utilizing the expansion, which is faster than the notorious limit, of whole space itself to our advantage. Maybe, there might be potential in that as they said for space travelling.

[Cogito]

There are occasionally theories like that popping up, but to date, every single one has failed to stand against peer scrutiny. Usually the mathematics are flawed, or invalid assumptions are postulated. The speed of light remains a firm limit for physical or information transfer though normal space throughout the scientific community, and it has other ramifications in physics that reinforce it.

FTL travel remains wishful thinking.

[Dante Dases]

I seem to remember that some time ago extraterrestrial life in our own solar system was hypothesised. I have to admit that I don't remember the exact details, but I do remember that conditions were found on Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, which may have been conducive to bacterial life, if nothing else.

Do I believe we're alone in the universe? I believe we're anything but alone in the universe. The conditions needed to start life in its most primitive form are relatively simple, and - in the classic argument of a man who doesn't have much of a clue, but does know his statistics - the law of averages dictates that if it happened here, it can happen elsewhere, and given the size of the universe and the likely number of Earth-like planets it's virtually certain to have happened hundreds - possibly thousands, maybe even millions - of times over.

Sentient life has only arisen once from the millions of species that have grown up on this planet, and it took nearly 4 billion years to arrive on the scene after the first bacterial life (and 4.5 billion years after the formation of the planet). Taking this into account, the number of sentient species in the universe will be small, but I have no doubt that they're there. I'm also one of these eternal optimists who believes that if they have the technology to contact us over the gulf of space in a manner faster than a probe that sends the pop culture from what will be thousands of years ago by the time it's picked up, they'll be intelligent enough to have rid their society of war and such primitive ideas.

[tbeverley]

what's that?... anything like this?
http://saysmom.com/maia/content.asp?Writing=94

Paraphrase: You must be the change you desire to see in the world.

I've always found that, as well as his life's work in the equivalent of that, to be one of the best quotes ever. He sewed his own clothes. On a little machine, a little man sewing: and while that was small, effecting changes in the world that were enormous.

The mermaid theory is the exact same theory as the link, and I'd assume it comes from the same foundation of ideas - the universe is intended to be just as it is: and there is no escape except in death. A nihilistic approach.

However, I do believe that there is something else going on here. Something deeper. We cannot eliminate all that does harm, because it is part of the system. But we can struggle for it in futility.

One of my favorite ideas comes from Kafka: We must fail.

If we struggle in futility, we'll fail. But there's no other struggle.

Thus: We must fail.

[Ragnar]

Ah the arrogance, of course we're not alone. The universe is so big that it's on the borderline of human comprehension, if we can really comprehend it's size at all. There is pretty much bound to be other life out there, but 30 years of searching.... radio waves will probably take millions of years to reach our planets, so once a planet manages to create "intelligent" life, and if/when they invent radio equipment, we have to wait a few million years for our signals to reach them or ours to reach them.

The probability of there being other life in the universe is high, the probability of us meeting them or even communicating with them is extremely low.:cool:

[tbeverley]

The probability of there being other life in the universe is high, the probability of us meeting them or even communicating with them is extremely low.:cool:

Agreed. Life, as Cogito said, came into being on earth rather simply. The necessary elements for life are existent all over the universe. Given the size of the universe, it's not far fetched for those elements to exist somewhere else.

However, the space from earth to the nearest star would require - what - billions of years to ever traverse? And that's only the nearest star.

Unless we find a means to enter a black hole and exit somewhere else in the universe, we're pretty much stuck here.

But, life has proven inventive.

I have little doubt that if we can survive long enough (read: without blowing ourselves up), we'll find a way to travel faster than we can presently imagine.

If not us, then the cockroaches that survive our nuclear war.

Little cockroach men in space suits. Now that's likely.

[Forgetmenot77]

Sorry, I seen E.T and I thought it was a good movie but that is all.

[A2theDre]

I will believe other intelligent life forms exist when someone proves it. Until then, I'm not concerned. There's far too much going on inside my planet's atmosphere.

That's the same for me, but rather about God/s.


However, modern physics reveals that the universe is, in fact, finite.

I may not completely comprehend the physics involved in finding this out, but I find the fact that they believe it to be finite is in contradiction to the fact that we can't even see the edge of the universe. We can only see 14.5 billion light years away. Or rather, 14.5 billion years ago. Apparently, the edge of this "finite" universe is further away than this.

Could it also be that our laws of physics are not absolute? Could there be something that we're missing?

On topic though, I am uncertain. I believe that there must be microbial life out there. Some sort of cell that can reproduce itself in some way. But sentient life? Life more complex that single cells? I don't know. The Rare Earth Hypothesis really makes me wonder....

[Hsnodgrass]

There are occasionally theories like that popping up, but to date, every single one has failed to stand against peer scrutiny. Usually the mathematics are flawed, or invalid assumptions are postulated. The speed of light remains a firm limit for physical or information transfer though normal space throughout the scientific community, and it has other ramifications in physics that reinforce it.

FTL travel remains wishful thinking.

Ah, but that shows such die-hard faith in the fact that our physics are correct. One hundred years ago, people had yet to see an airplane. Who knows what kind of scientific/technological advancements the next one hundred years will bring. It would be a travesty if all physicists just ascribed The Einstein Bible and stopped trying to prove him wrong.

[SA Mitchell]

We shouldn't just believe FTL will happen one day just because planes or olestra(do they still make that?) happened; we shouldn't think aliens are real just because they could be.

[Mystery Meat]

@Hsnodgrass

Scientists are trying to prove Einstein wrong every day. And there are observations that have been made that are not 100% consistent with General Relativity. However, given that Einstein offered outcomes to situations derived directly from his theories, and that each of these outcomes was shown to be correct, despite some of it working against common sense, it can be considered that his theories have some validity. Those scientists who work to prove him wrong are testing the boundaries of his theories, not the basis of them.

In short, nothing stops anything moving FTL as long as it always did. You can't go faster than the speed of light (c) because you are only ever moving this rapidly. You move at certain speeds in the x, y and z axis, and through time (t). The faster you move in a certain direction, the slower you experience time. Therefore if you add the speed with which you are moving through x, y and z and subtract it from the speed of light, this gives you the amount of time that you are spending interacting through time relative to the stationary object that you are measuing your speed against.

[Cogito]

Ah, but that shows such die-hard faith in the fact that our physics are correct. One hundred years ago, people had yet to see an airplane. Who knows what kind of scientific/technological advancements the next one hundred years will bring. It would be a travesty if all physicists just ascribed The Einstein Bible and stopped trying to prove him wrong.That isn't how it works.

Einstein didn't prove Sir Isaac Newton wrong. What he did was find a realm in which Newtonian mechanics did not apply (actually, his contemporaries identified this realm), and devised a theory that would emcompass both disparate sets of observations. Newtonian mechanics is an excellent approximation of Einsteinian mechanics in the conditions under which Newton was taking his observations.

The conditions under which Einsteinian mechanics and quantum mechanics have been developed are exactly at proximaluminal velocities (near light velocities), extending down to zero velocity, and from supergalactic sizes down to subatomic sizes. Where there are discrepancies, theories are constantly being developed to broaden our understanding.

But there are no observations that call into questioin the fundamental reliability of the limiting nature of the speed of light. In fact, new observations only reinforce the notion that we have it right. Believe me, the brightest minds on the planet HAVE been trying to find ways around the lightspeed limit, and not just to reach the stars. All they have managed to do to date is to further verify the absolute nature of that limit.

I am a scientist. That is my training, that is how I think. Scientists don't know everything, but they know where some of the fences are that cannot be crossed. They can state that as long as certain conditions exist, you cannot get from A to B. The possibilities all lie within the realms where those conditions do NOT exist. And that is always preceded by observations that don't fit the predictions.

At this time, all the hopes of bypassing the limit of lightspeed would require bypassing spacetime completely. So far, we have no way of making the necessry observations to accomplish that.

[Hsnodgrass]

Your argument makes perfect sense. What I was getting at is more of a limitation of the human comprehension of the universe to this point. Wasn't it the Greeks who thought that four different humors filled your body and they had many researched theories about it? Then a while later, they proved that to be fundamentally wrong. I think certain aspects of Einstein might be found fundamentally wrong. Just my two cents. I am, however, no where close to a scientist.

[Unus_Vir]

I think certain aspects of Einstein might be found fundamentally wrong.

They MIGHT, but wait until they actually are found wrong to treat them that way.

[Wreybies]

Carbon = Messy

Silica = Clean

Except in the case of respiration where carbon dioxide is an easy to get rid of gas and silicon dioxide is a not so easy to expel solid.

[crs]

Given that there are roughly 70 sextrillion stars in the universe, a 100 billion in our galaxy alone, and that with almost caveman planet finding technology (in comparison with the technology that's coming) planets in the hospitable zone have been found, there is no doubt in my mind there is life out there and intelligent life at that.
Since scientific method came in to use, one discovery after the other has shown us how special we are not.
In fact, I think alien life won't even be that different from our own. If you look at convergent evolution, there are a striking number of features species on earth have evolved completely separately. Our common ancestor with the octopus for example, had no eyes, yet here we millions of years later and humans and octopus nearly identical eyes and in the same quantity.

[Cogito]

Even though silicon is similar to carbon in terms of its valence, it doesn't form the kinds of complex compounds as carbon, with anything like the functional groups that make carbon organic chemistry so interesting.

Also, silicon dioxide is such a stable byproduct of silkicon chemistry that an oxygen rich environment would probably be fatal to silicon-based life.

[arron89]

Our common ancestor with the octopus for example, had no eyes, yet here we millions of years later and humans and octopus nearly identical eyes and in the same quantity.

The theory of evolution never implies humans evolved from octopi. And if you consider the more intricate elements of our eyes and octopus eyes, it seems clear they developed to a similar state along two different paths. Once "nature" finds a successful "design", it tends to replicate it rather than starting from scratch - the heart, circulatory system, digestive system, all quite similar among mammals, because as a system they work extremely well in our situation. But since evolution is not predestined, there is no guarantee that life on other planets would converge to the same state, or become intelligent - it seems a lot of people assume that "intelligence", at least as we define it, is a given when it comes to aliens, some people even assume that they must for some reason be more advanced than us. Evolution only aids the survival of creatures - in our case, having brains with a greater capacity aided our ability to survive and reproduce, but consider all the millions of other species on the planet who are not evolving bigger brains, even though they could. Its not worth the cost to them since it would not necessarily aid their survival, and for that reason, you cannot assume that intelligent life would evolve anywhere else on Earth, yet alone on any other planet.

[A2theDre]

I think that intelligence is a by-product of a larger brain. I don't think that the course of evolution intended for us to be intelligent. For some reason, we developed a larger brain (possibly just to power our complex internal systems), and as a result, intelligence flowered. I think that, as evolution continues (on other planets), that larger brains are required to run more complex lifeforms. Therefore, I believe, intelligence will develop elsewhere if lifeforms are allowed to evolve.

[arron89]

But that assumes that more complex lifeforms are a necessary product of evolution, which isn't true or there would be no single celled organisms left today. Evolution beyond simple organisms enables organisms to beat their competition for resources, but if there was no competition to drive evolution, it would not continue. Consider the evolutionary arms race between lions and gazelles. As the lion evolves and improves its ability to hunt, the gazelle develops better evasive capabilities. The net result of this evolutionary pattern is zero, yet both sides are becoming more and more "advanced" in their capability to survive. Survival instincts and competitiveness are the only things driving this race - if lions suddenly became extinct, gazelles would likely cease to evolve until a new challenger emerged.

[Cogito]

Non-sequitur. Evloution is not at an endpoint. It continues around us. And there are ecological niches for all manner of life forms, from the least evolved to the most. As long as a niche exists which increased intelligence favors, in telligence will eventually develop to dominate that niche.

[Wreybies]

Non-sequitur. Evloution is not at an endpoint. It continues around us. And there are ecological niches for all manner of life forms, from the least evolved to the most. As long as a niche exists which increased intelligence favors, in telligence will eventually develop to dominate that niche.

Agreed.

One must also watch out for the fallacy that evolution has purpose. It has neither purpose, nor motive, nor wish, nor intention.

It's a numbers game. Probabilities played out in numbers large enough and time-scales long enough to see actual consistent values and patterns arise.

[Shockeye]

Hello, Im new here but I have a few ideas why we haven't made contact yet.

SETI has only been operating for a few decades. It's possible that the radio signals they're looking for originated from a planet so far away they just haven't reached us yet.

Or that they are closer than that to us but they're actually behind us in developing technology. They don't know what radio signals are yet. Maybe they're still in a phase comparable to our colonial period.

Or they are so far ahead of us they have found us first but for some reason have chosen not to contact us. We are a terribly warlike species and they could be snobbish intergalactic pacifists and have simply turned their noses up at us. also they could be waiting for us to mature to a point where they think we're deserving of their contact.

Or they could already be in contact and are being kept quiet by the world's governments.

[crs]

The theory of evolution never implies humans evolved from octopi. And if you consider the more intricate elements of our eyes and octopus eyes, it seems clear they developed to a similar state along two different paths.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply humans evolved from octopi, I meant that we have a common ancestor (as does every living creature on earth) and that despite our ancestor lacking eyes, we (octopi and human beings) nonetheless evolved them completely separately.
Of course intelligent life isn't going to evolve on every hospitable planet, but the sear number of such planets, given what's been found in a very, very small sample thus far, I think, errs on the side us being rare, but in the larger scope of things, no rarer than finding twenty bucks on the side walk.

[tbeverley]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply humans evolved from octopi,

I sometimes think that jellyfish were the original nervous system.

[A2theDre]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply humans evolved from octopi, I meant that we have a common ancestor (as does every living creature on earth) .

That's not necessarily true. Life could have developed in multiple isolated hotspots all over the world. I doubt a sole single celled organism was the only thing alive to start with. I dare say, all humans have a common ancestor, but not the entire biosphere.