New Estimate on likely no. of alien civilisations in our galaxy
- Thread starter Serendipity
- Start date
I'm disappointed it's not 42...
Elckerlyc
"Philosophy will clip an angel's wings."
To quote from this article: “They would be quite far away … 17,000 light years is our calculation for the closest one,”
Contactable? How are we going to contact these civilizations? Any Q&A will take 34000 years. Our civilization will be gone before the answer arrives. And all this doesn't answer the question were all the life-signs from older civilizations are.
This number is so theoretical, it's basically meaningless. IMHO.
Contactable? How are we going to contact these civilizations? Any Q&A will take 34000 years. Our civilization will be gone before the answer arrives. And all this doesn't answer the question were all the life-signs from older civilizations are.
This number is so theoretical, it's basically meaningless. IMHO.
Likewise! It must be an error...
The real problem is the impossibility of communicating with any hypothetical alien civilisations should they arise. The laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe: there is a draconian limit to how far communication signals can be transmitted and still be discernible against background radiation. Military radars - each costing hundreds of millions of dollars - are by far the most powerful signal transmitters ever constructed, nonetheless their maximum range is about 200 light years. And we're talking about hypothetical civilisations living thousands of light years away. So in all probability, even if they are talking to us we will never hear them.
Sure, we could beggar the world economy by building a far more massive transmitter, but why would we do that? It would take centuries or millennia to get a reply and by then the civilisation that constructed the transmitter will be long gone. Technological advances aren't going to change things - a powerful signal needs a powerful energy source, no matter how sophisticated the tech. You could try the Moties' lasers, but they need to be aimed at a single planetary system that also isn't too far away. Which one if you don't already know where life is?
Sorry about the cold water.
Sure, we could beggar the world economy by building a far more massive transmitter, but why would we do that? It would take centuries or millennia to get a reply and by then the civilisation that constructed the transmitter will be long gone. Technological advances aren't going to change things - a powerful signal needs a powerful energy source, no matter how sophisticated the tech. You could try the Moties' lasers, but they need to be aimed at a single planetary system that also isn't too far away. Which one if you don't already know where life is?
Sorry about the cold water.
Last edited by a moderator:
Despite the fact that it negates half my literary output I suspect that their figure is out by 35.
You need a lot more than mere habitable zones and active biology.
Opposable thumbs, farming, a sweet spot oxygen level that supports fire but doesn't torch everything and a Francis Bacon, to name a handful from thousands.
Of course it is possible that herds of wildebeest will eventually produce aluminium alloys, calculus and semiconductors but I'm not banking on it
You need a lot more than mere habitable zones and active biology.
Opposable thumbs, farming, a sweet spot oxygen level that supports fire but doesn't torch everything and a Francis Bacon, to name a handful from thousands.
Of course it is possible that herds of wildebeest will eventually produce aluminium alloys, calculus and semiconductors but I'm not banking on it
Ori Vandewalle
Well-Known Member
I don't think we know the full breadth of possible conditions that could support intelligent life. We know present Earth is in the space of possible conditions, but N=1 statistics are notoriously poor.
Danny McG
Lid closed, monkey dead.
That's my sci fi dream ruined then.
*Gutted!*
Last edited:
tegeus-Cromis
a better poet than swordsman
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,343
I totally agree. But what I really want to say here is, "Why, I had no idea you were a hip hop fan, Parson!"
Ori Vandewalle
Well-Known Member
Reading through the paper, most of the work is in calculating the current number of high metallicity stars more than 5 billion years old and the number of Earth-like planets in the habitable zone of said stars. The former they estimate by looking at the star formation history of other galaxies (mirroring our own galaxy at younger ages). The latter comes from Kepler data.
The "Astrobiological Copernican Principle" isn't the main thing; it basically amounts to setting the "fraction of habitable planets that give rise to aliens with radios" terms from the Drake equation to 1. They're pretty upfront about the limits of the whole approach, though. From the paper: "The traditional approach toward examining whether CETI have formed in the Galaxy has been proposed through the use of the Drake equation (Drake 1965). This has remained the primary method for inferring the likely number of CETI in our Galaxy, yet it is fundamentally an unsolvable equation (prior to any extraterrestrial life being found)."
The "Astrobiological Copernican Principle" isn't the main thing; it basically amounts to setting the "fraction of habitable planets that give rise to aliens with radios" terms from the Drake equation to 1. They're pretty upfront about the limits of the whole approach, though. From the paper: "The traditional approach toward examining whether CETI have formed in the Galaxy has been proposed through the use of the Drake equation (Drake 1965). This has remained the primary method for inferring the likely number of CETI in our Galaxy, yet it is fundamentally an unsolvable equation (prior to any extraterrestrial life being found)."
I'm sorry, that's just the reality of any customer help-line.
"Welcome to the Zargian Empire. Your call is important to us and you are 16,000 lightyears into the queue. If your enquiry is not urgent, press one now and a warship will get back to you as soon as it is available..."
I sure am a hip hop fan. You should see me with my 3 year old granddaughter. We hip and we hop.
There is a widespread fallacy concerning ‘teleology’, the concept of the universe working towards achieving goals, including the idea that all life strives onwards and upwards from lower to higher, and from simple to complex. It is seen in the false but widely believed-in cartoon image of the evolution of man (and it is always man, not woman) as progressing from lemur to monkey to ape to ape-man to stone-age human to modern man, getting bigger and more upright (and whiter) as the progression develops. But this image is completely false. Monkeys are still here and they are doing just fine, they have never thought of themselves as an imperfect stage on the journey towards humanity, because they are not one. Evolutionary pressures often lead to lineages becoming more simple or smaller. There is absolutely no reason in the universe for ecosystems to strive towards technological intelligence. It isn’t a goal and ecosystems don’t strive.
The Drake Equation is firmly embedded in the teleology fallacy, and assumes that technological intelligence is a goal that ecosystems will work towards if they can. That’s the whole point of estimating the fraction of life-supporting planets that form life, the fraction of those living planets that develop intelligent life forms, and the fraction of those intelligent life forms that develop technology. But this is bad science. The tetrapod body plan of lizard-like proportions, with a large body and a small brain, was hugely successful for hundreds of millions of years, and still is successful in crocodilians and reptiles. No dinosaur line felt any evolutionary pressure to develop technological intelligence. It isn’t necessary for survival if you are a dinosaur, and that’s the only evolutionary pressure there is.
For some reason, our ape-like ancestors became the first organisms in the history of life to experience strong pressure from generation to generation in which the most intelligent survived at the expense of the least intelligent, in one lineage for long enough that our species eventually developed technical civilisation. Even so, Homo erectus was globally successful for two million years, lasting far longer than it looks like we are going to. There was no pressure on any Homo erectus line to develop a technological civilisation, so none of them did.
Evolution is the word we use to describe what’s left after everything else is dead. It isn’t a teleological process and it isn’t striving towards a goal such as technological civilisation. Genetic lineages develop and diverge as they experience different circumstances in which different factors lead to survival, such as long noses, large size, fast running, small size, camouflage, ability to breathe on land when the river dries up, and so on. If our line experienced pressure to become less intelligent, it would have done so. It is quite possible that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was more like us than like modern chimpanzees, and that the savage wild animals in the jungles of the Congo have become like that over time because that was how to survive.
Ecosystems won’t develop technological civilisations unless there happens to be a unique set of circumstances that promote long, slow development of brains, language and intelligence. It’s certainly not something that will happen wherever it can happen, because it isn’t a goal that life is striving for.
Even if there are millions of complex ecosystems out there in the universe, technological civilisations will develop if and only if there is long-term pressure on genetic lines to develop technological intelligence, and if and only if those intelligent species have the physical ability to make and build, experiment, develop agriculture, medicine… There is no reason to think that such pressures should ever occur under standard circumstances.
They might. However, the comment in the article by Dr Patricia Sanchez-Baracaldo saying “But, yes if we evolved in this planet, it is possible that intelligent life evolved in another part of the universe,” is a reiteration of the medieval scholastic statement “ab esse ad posse valet consequentia”, that is, “from the fact that something exists, it follows that it is possible for it to exist.” Scholastic philosophy was never very impressive, and it doesn’t tell us anything important here.
The Drake Equation is firmly embedded in the teleology fallacy, and assumes that technological intelligence is a goal that ecosystems will work towards if they can. That’s the whole point of estimating the fraction of life-supporting planets that form life, the fraction of those living planets that develop intelligent life forms, and the fraction of those intelligent life forms that develop technology. But this is bad science. The tetrapod body plan of lizard-like proportions, with a large body and a small brain, was hugely successful for hundreds of millions of years, and still is successful in crocodilians and reptiles. No dinosaur line felt any evolutionary pressure to develop technological intelligence. It isn’t necessary for survival if you are a dinosaur, and that’s the only evolutionary pressure there is.
For some reason, our ape-like ancestors became the first organisms in the history of life to experience strong pressure from generation to generation in which the most intelligent survived at the expense of the least intelligent, in one lineage for long enough that our species eventually developed technical civilisation. Even so, Homo erectus was globally successful for two million years, lasting far longer than it looks like we are going to. There was no pressure on any Homo erectus line to develop a technological civilisation, so none of them did.
Evolution is the word we use to describe what’s left after everything else is dead. It isn’t a teleological process and it isn’t striving towards a goal such as technological civilisation. Genetic lineages develop and diverge as they experience different circumstances in which different factors lead to survival, such as long noses, large size, fast running, small size, camouflage, ability to breathe on land when the river dries up, and so on. If our line experienced pressure to become less intelligent, it would have done so. It is quite possible that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was more like us than like modern chimpanzees, and that the savage wild animals in the jungles of the Congo have become like that over time because that was how to survive.
Ecosystems won’t develop technological civilisations unless there happens to be a unique set of circumstances that promote long, slow development of brains, language and intelligence. It’s certainly not something that will happen wherever it can happen, because it isn’t a goal that life is striving for.
Even if there are millions of complex ecosystems out there in the universe, technological civilisations will develop if and only if there is long-term pressure on genetic lines to develop technological intelligence, and if and only if those intelligent species have the physical ability to make and build, experiment, develop agriculture, medicine… There is no reason to think that such pressures should ever occur under standard circumstances.
They might. However, the comment in the article by Dr Patricia Sanchez-Baracaldo saying “But, yes if we evolved in this planet, it is possible that intelligent life evolved in another part of the universe,” is a reiteration of the medieval scholastic statement “ab esse ad posse valet consequentia”, that is, “from the fact that something exists, it follows that it is possible for it to exist.” Scholastic philosophy was never very impressive, and it doesn’t tell us anything important here.
I suspect that language is key to technological development. Once any species has a speech centre, language enables the description and transmission of ideas. In some way the 'logic of language' creates a new type of thought which can construct and extrapolate far beyond the immediate.
Language's close relative, numeracy, enables precice experimental thought and mental model making, moving from shells and beads to calculus. These lead almost inevitably to technological progress. Starting, very often, with an odd fusion of religion and number creating a cultural imperative to predict star and planetary movement.
( The Antikythera mechanism)
Language's close relative, numeracy, enables precice experimental thought and mental model making, moving from shells and beads to calculus. These lead almost inevitably to technological progress. Starting, very often, with an odd fusion of religion and number creating a cultural imperative to predict star and planetary movement.
( The Antikythera mechanism)
Last edited:
Yes I completely agree. My point above is that there has to be a survival reason for the evolution of large brains, language and culture in the first place, and if that evolutionary pressure isn't there, then it won't ever happen. Big brains use up a lot of energy, dinosaurs were much happier without them.
But here’s another point. There is growing evidence to suggest that the second most intelligent species on Earth is the humpback whale. These whales demonstrate empathy, awareness of themselves and others and what others might be feeling. They also have long, complicated songs. Their songs do not constitute language, but it is very possible that if humans do the decent thing and exterminate themselves then humpback whales might develop true rational intelligence and true language.
If so, will they develop a technological civilisation? Obviously not, because they can’t make anything. There is no possibility of humpback whales having a Bronze Age, or discovering electricity. They can’t physically do anything technological at all. We can, we have hands. If by pure chance intelligent language-using humpback whale creatures evolve on another planet, they will not develop a technological civilisation.
The universe is very, very young. It's only three times as old as the Earth. I find the chances of anyone else being out there to be vanishingly remote.
That is a stunning thought after all the sf I've read with elder races in. Human beings the elder race. Yikes. We have a lot of growing up to do.
Or maybe we are destined for the role of dying out leaving enigmatic remains for future xenoarcheologists from the next race to evolve......
Or maybe we are destined for the role of dying out leaving enigmatic remains for future xenoarcheologists from the next race to evolve......
We won't last long. We certainly won't become a great Elder Race. But it's correct to say that we have a lot of growing up to do. Humans still believe in gods and spirits and engage in religious rites, for goodness sake.That is a stunning thought after all the sf I've read with elder races in. Human beings the elder race. Yikes. We have a lot of growing up to do.
Or maybe we are destined for the role of dying out leaving enigmatic remains for future xenoarcheologists from the next race to evolve......
The best way to think about it is to use the temporal unit of a Grandparent. A Grandparent is 50 years. That's the difference in age between an older member of the family sitting down with the little grandchild and telling them all about what life was like when they were young. There have been ten Grandparents since Shakespeare, forty since the start of the Roman Empire and one hundred since the beginning of human civilisation. That's not very many. We are very young and in many ways very primitive. To get to survive to be an Elder Race later in the lifetime of our galaxy we have to grow up fast, now.
Actually you may find it a comforting thought, given the "great silence". If you believed a very much more optimistic view of alien technological life, say the original paper giving 36 civilisations out there* and we were the youngest of the bunch, then where are the others?** Yes there are a lot of 'solutions' to the Fermi paradox, but the absence of evidence at the moment, (and assuming the above optimistic viewpoint) then perhaps that means that there is a great filter that stops all technological civilisations getting much further than we've got. And that should be a slight worryThat is a stunning thought after all the sf I've read with elder races in. Human beings the elder race. Yikes. We have a lot of growing up to do.
Or maybe we are destined for the role of dying out leaving enigmatic remains for future xenoarcheologists from the next race to evolve......
Or perhaps it really has 'needed' 13.8 billion years for an aspiring interplanetary/interstellar species to come into existence and we are, indeed, one of the first. Hence the lack of anyone else out there. This paints a bit more optimistic future, I feel!
Anyway the clock is ticking. The sun is getting brighter and more intense all the time and we only have (probably) half a billion years before the surface of Earth will become as hellish as the current surface of Venus.
====================================================================
* I don't have such an optimistic view. The Great Boo's arguments about intelligence are, I think, part of the answer, but also I suspect that, although there will be a lot of life out there in the universe, it will likely be virtually all single celled forms! Hence I believe that the chances of finding intelligent life forming technological interstellar societies is vanishingly small. However ignoring this for the argument...
** Even if we were stuck with sub-light speeds to travel between stars, a progam of self-replicating Von Neuman machines could, in principle, survey the entire galaxy in a blink of cosmic time - I believe 10 million years is usually given - and although we don't have the technology to do this now, this seems something that I do believe would be possible in the future. So it just required one civilisation to set off such a project that could litter the galaxy with evidence. But even then if that was not the case, a Kardashav type 2 should be reasonably obvious to spot - assuming they build Dyson swarms around their star and that we have powerful enough telescopes to find them.
I don't buy the view that religion writ large is a sign of immaturity. Perhaps holding a view that there is something greater than myself and my needs is more a sign of maturity, than of ignorance.
Edit: This is a discussion that could cross the line about what we can discuss on this site. If we start discussing the relative values of certain religions we will find this discussion ended very quickly by the moderators.
Edit: This is a discussion that could cross the line about what we can discuss on this site. If we start discussing the relative values of certain religions we will find this discussion ended very quickly by the moderators.
Wayne Mack
Well-Known Member
Given the distances, I view the argument for intelligent life to be moot. If other life exists, we will never come into contact with it.
Similar threads
-
-
Unlikely Actors and Actresses You'd like to see in Iconic Movie And Television Roles
- Started by BAYLOR
- Replies: 8
-
Considering the current advances of AI how likely do you think an AI might replace you in your job?
- Started by CultureCitizen
- Replies: 115
-
Threat of a super-advanced AI to humanity, estimated as "likely" in paper- Started by Eduardo Ficaria
- Replies: 35
-
