Plendakor and GGI, my friends, you knew I would chime in
Anyway, I personally do believe in the possibility of other lifeforms in the universe. I am very interested in exobiology, futurobiology and such, and I think it's not that improbable.
The main problem is that it is such an inexact science. It's already difficult for us to just have the correct data for our own planets, and the simple lack of positive data collection (we have still yet to find a single lifeform anywhere) don't help to calibrate the statistics formulas used, and the theory they are based upon. Over the last year, the whole scientific community completely changed its mind about the ratio of solar systems vs planets, it turns out there are way more planets out there than we thought. When I was a kid, we still thought there were no planet. This shows how inexact our data on the subject can be, and we can expect many 180 degree turns in the near future.
However, I just don't see humanity meet Roswell or the Venusian, the probabilities are just so small. It's not really a matter of the number of habitable planets in the universe, it's more the distance we can reach, which is certainly gonna be very very very very tiny relatively to the distance you need to reach in order to have a good chance of meeting the greys. Not to mention the further the distance reached, the most number of expeditions you need to send to cover a good area. I doubt we'll ever be able to afford that before we kill each other in a big intergalactic World War XXVI.
I just think there might be life in any form somewhere.
I like also to underline the fact that there have been many types of studies of all sorts, totally hypothetical, which try to depict how life would be out there. The whole problem of it, is that the only life we know, is ours, carbon based, with our type of psyché, hell even a rat and a whale share common ancestors and similarities, we have brains, we react the same ways to stimulis, etc etc. So it's very, very, difficult if not impossible to imagine how life could be somewhere else. But, some scientists try to classify types of civilizations, the most interesting ones being "the % of energy it is able to use from its own star, and galaxy". Some consider several levels of civilization advancement, and very rough calculation estimate a civilization would be ingenuous enough to meet another one from somewhere remote if it is ingenuous enough to get 100% of its sun energy (by building a device around it, which is btw technically doable in a way) etc. A part of it, is to realize that, if our own traits are universal traits, and since all civilization rises and falls, and considering the higher the technological power, the higher the probability to auto-destroy itself, it is considered that if a civilzation is technologic enough for intersideral travel, it has a potential lifespan way too short to have a chance to contact another one. While amibas could stay the same for billions of years maybe, in theory, increasing the chance another civilization visits it. It's absolutely and completely theoretical, but thanks to things that we could universally consider (one being the evolution theory, because there is no reason to believe it wouldn't apply to another type of life), it's interesting nonetheless.
I just wanted to react to a few things I read :
right... i don't. because it's a fact (for now) that there is not.
Well, to be fair, the absence of proof is not a proof either, and in terms of logic, it's actually almost impossible to proof there is no life anywhere else, until you find a good reason to think there isn't (so far the only one I see, is to actually meet God who would tell us "hey guys, you know the bible and all, it's true, and there is no one out there"). it's not NOT a fact there is no life out there. Show us a paper that proves we are alone ?
Tbh, im amazed at how many people doubt the existence of life in the universe.. first of all, there is no evidence that all lifeforms have to be carbon based(Even though its the one most probable to evolve.).
I don't have time at the moment, but when i do i will search for and post up a documentary about the theoretical possibility of extremophiles not only being able to survive in other parts of our own solar system(Not galaxy, solar system.), but the possibility that they even could evolve at these places.
However, if we are to talk intelligent life.. well, then i have my doubts.
I believe that we might be one of, if not THE, most intelligent beings living in the universe.. but is there life in some form elsewhere? Yes, without doubt.
True that it's technically possible to imagine some other type of base of life. However, this lowers the odds even more. Simply because carbon based life is based all around the simplest and most abundant elements in the world, hydrogen, azote, carbon, oxygen, which have the simplest liaisons possible, and in the columns, are the most stable and lightest. I think it's fair to consider there is most chance to meet another carbon based lifeform, but hey, everything is possible when you have no idea what you are looking for. It's true it's not provable either though, just it's a fair asumption imo.
I also think if there are any other, there shouldn't be so many "intelligent" lifeforms out there, because I'm one of those who think that reaching this point is a climax and there is not much more to expect from it, and therefore, the odds of being 2 at the same time in the same portion of the universe are small. I'd love to be proven wrong though
Personally, I'm sure there's life in practically every solar system or almost (for every single star you see in the sky at night). I beleive that it's one of the purpose of the Universe. But, intelligent or not (while I think ALL lifeforms are intelligent in their own right) I don't dig the question to far, just talking about life itself.. a single bacteria or a civilization is the same at this point.
And I'm sure many of our own planets do. I'm sure Mars did at some point if it doesn't now. Or will ? Let's assume we bring bacterias there and it starts something. Humans would become aliens.
Also,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/11/water-ice-organics-mercury/ hey it's fucking mercury, would have never thought of ice on it considering it's proximity to the sun.
I don't think so, it needs so much luck and so many variables need to meet a requirement for life emergence that it is very unlikely all stars have their own life. It would be awesome though, but I really think it's statistically impossible.
A purpose ? Why would there be a purpose ? I prefer to think it's just a random thing that happened to us. The only thing I don't understand in life, is why we have a conscience, why do I know I'm living, why do I see the picture through my eyes and why do I know I do.
I don't like to say all lifeforms are intelligent in a way, I think it's fair to determine intelligence as the possibility to think, react, imagine, be creative. I don't consider amibas "intelligent" for example. I don't know where is the line though
I really don't think any of our other planets have any form of lifeform, but I accept the possibility on a few of them, like venus or mars, I just think it's very very unlikely and I think it just happened on earth in the big mix of mass, simple chemical elements, temperature (to make it move) etc. In the absence of liquid, there is very very little chance atoms form together in pre-lifeforms at some point. It's assuming life was created this way, though.
I think before bacterias we bring there form something, we will be wiped out by ourself, or a flaw in our inner conception (i.e. natural selection, you can imagine a bacteria that would kill us all, after all in a million year it could happen, etc)
How is this a touchy subject? Let's do some logic:
1. If the universe is as big as our scientists say it is, then the odds say there is very likely intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe, more intelligent than us. This is backed scientifically. Not only should there be plenty of intelligent life elsewhere, there should have been intelligent life elsewhere a long time ago (billions of years ago) as well. (The odds of there not being intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is so bad that trying to make an argument for it would be less empirical than believing every word in the Bible
it is more likely that the damn Christians are right and abortion is bad and gays are bad and we are all going to hell anyway etc.)
2. If there was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe in the past, our SETI telescopes should have discovered evidence of their existence by now
3. Based on 1 and 2, at least one of the following scenarios must be true:
-The universe is nothing like what is appears to be
-There were or are other intelligent life forms elsewhere but they are voluntarily hiding from us, or voluntarily swept up their tracks.
Correct me if I am wrong. But I think you have no empirical grounds to you deny both of these scenarios. At least one has to be true.
1 - I don't see where "it is backed scientifically". So far, everything is asumptions, from pessimists to optimists. The variables can change from 1 to 1000 in the event of just a few discoveries, so saying "it's very likely" is not fair imo.
Life billions of years ago is a bit less likely too, because the earlier you get in history, the less you find stars and world cold enough, and stable enough, to theoretically host life. What I mean is that from the first billions of existence of the universe at least, chaos was pretty much reigning, which is probably what life needs to arise. But then it needs a bit more of stability for its long process (supposing life would evolve a similar way to ours) without being stupidly interupted by a comet that blows the planets where it was developing (space was so crowded in the beginnings)
The end of your 1st paragraph is full of self-condifence imo. I still consider those who think life is very unlikely to exist anywhere else very credible too, we're in the very beginning of a very vast enterprise, and we still have no idea what to look for, nor where. No one has ever proved life can exist anywhere else yet, the statistics have just improved the odds recently, but that's about it, and I find it funny that for once, since it goes into your direction, you use the current science paradigm as a way to backup your argument, while the rest of the time you like to say we should think out of the box of our current science.
2 - Tell me how ? To me SETI is just a bottle in the water, and there is just NO WAY it could have met another lifeform in such a short time and searching to such a short distance, our understanding of the universe has changed so much since we started it, and to me it's more of a symbol, than a potentially successful enterprise. I think it's still worth it, because it would be too stupid to miss the contact if we were right with it. But... there is no proof that if any life existed anywhere else, SETI would have found it. This is just assuming wayyyy too much imo. It's assuming it's flawless, 100% accurate, and assuming we know what we are looking at, so much, that we cannot miss the contact. Not to mention, what if the other life doesn't care about sending a message itself ?
The logic you are following here is everything but logic. Logic is not convincing itself, it's just logic. None of this is logic, and even the conclusion you're drawing from your own argument is not a true conclusion. I can find many other scenarios, showing you that yes, you can be corrected on this :
- maybe there is no other life, period (there is still no proof there is, so it's still a possibility, so from the very beginning, your logic is wrong because it starts by an IF)
- maybe the other life is too far for us to reach it
- maybe it's so different than it just doesn't communicate the same way as we do, as universal the means of listening to the universe we are using are
- maybe we missed the call already and it's already finished and we don't know it
- maybe SETI just cannot get for sure all the information like you claim it could (I don't even know how you could use this as an argument)
- maybe the other life is so advanced it doesn't even imagine communicating the same way as we do, because the minimum level of evolution it expects from another life is too high (just like we expect to get signals from another life, while it could be in essence a bunch of cavemen)
etc etc
