Thread replies: 144
Thread images: 20
Thread images: 20
Why haven't we found life on other planets yet? I've read the counter to this is that, "it's highly probable that life is extremely rare", this being a plausible explanation because, well, we haven't found unarguable proof of life existing outside of Earth.
To piggyback on the above, how about the current explanation for how non life turned into life? If the explanation for how life evolved from non life was that at a certain point in time, Earth had precisely the right set of circumstances for non life to turn into life, what about other extremely Earth like planets such a Kepler? Wouldn't one of these planets have some detectable form of life with all the tools we have to monitor such things these days? Wouldn't one of the other extremely Earth like planets {that we're currently aware of} have signs of life?
It just doesn't make sense. There are more habitable planets than Earth that surely would have had to have gone through the exact same processes as Earth to have nurtured non life into life, surely one of these planets would not only have a currently detectable life form but even have produced a more complex, more advanced or more intelligent form? But all we have is life on Earth and some wingnut claiming they can demonstrate what they believe to be the building block of life somewhere else without any objectively proof.
tldr How do you explain life likely not existing on the Earth like planets given our best explanation for non life turning into life?
>>
Let's just name all those space probes we sent out to explicitely analyise other planets and moons for forms of life.
Uuhhhh.
>>
>>7649030
to counter this, if non life can produce life then surely one of the other earth like planets would have evolved an intelligent form of life capable of receiving our communication signals. the way a habitable planet forms isn't unique to earth and thus there must be billions of earth like planets out there -- and none of them can communicate with us.
>>
>>7649019
>hen surely one of the other earth like planets would have evolved an intelligent form of life capable of receiving our communication signals.
It only has been very recently that we were able to detect other planets at all, nevermind those with actual possible living conditions. Then there is the thing that just because a planet can sustain life, it doesn't mean it can sustain very complex life. And thirdly, even if has been listening to all those different exoplanets for the past 100 years, that's still a tiny fraction in terms of civilisation.
We humans weren't even capable of receiving any possible signal until the 1950s maybe, and life has been existing for almost 4 billion years here. There is just a tiny tiny tiny window of a tiny tiny fraction of other stars' signals we have been able to observe now, and not only has the transmission of singals be made properly (which is a story for itself) , their window of 'sophisticated civilisation' has to match other window time shifted by the distance thir signals need to get here.
>>
>>
>>7649035
2 ideas:
1. simple life might be common, complex life is super rare. evidence suggests life/organic compounds/single celled life arose relatively quickly as soon as conditions were favorable suggesting the procedure might be common or easily done. it took relatively much longer to evolve to multicellular/more complex life suggesting this is less common/harder for life to achieve. each filter from here on in seems to get harder and more fortuitous. just think, if brutal dinosaurs were never crushed, thoughtful relatively harmless mammals may have never had the chance to dominate due to being so low on the food chain.
2. there hasnt been enough time. not a single star has truly "died" yet. not a single black dwarf exists yet because there hasnt been enough time for them to form. every star thats ever nova'ed is still in its white dwarf/neutron star/black hole whatever phase. this to me seems like the universe is still "young" (i know young isnt the best word since every passing moment is the oldest the universe has ever been.) tl;dr we are the achient first intelligent lifeforms
>>
>>7649035
First, the range at which we could find an equivalent civilization to ours isn't all that great.
Second, we don't really know what a more advanced civilization would actually be like.
Third, this is pretty iffy, but you might be able explain there being no expansionist type civilizations in detection range using the anthropic principle. A civilization like that might end up as a rule transforming everything it comes across really quickly and precluding new civilizations from emerging.
>>
>>7649046
>It only has been very recently that we were able to detect other planets at all, nevermind those with actual possible living conditions.
True however SETI has been around long enough to pick up a whole shitload of alien signals, if there are any.
> Then there is the thing that just because a planet can sustain life, it doesn't mean it can sustain very complex life
But why? Again, there must be billions if not a near infinite amount of Earth-like planets out there. When you consider our current best explanation for how non life turns into life then surely those same conditions must exist an unthinkable amount of times over throughout the universe. Any explanation ignores the efficiency of natural selection which would surely rapidly breed an intelligent form of life.
>>7649050
>Plus, there's the thing that some civilisations might not want to communicate at all
I don't really buy this. It's more likely they'd communicate by mistake than intentionally not communicate at all.
>>7649095
>simple life might be common, complex life is super rare
What makes it super rare? Earth had no problem creating us so why wouldn't the same happen while another Earth-like planet forms? There are more habitable planets out there than Earth.
>not a single star has truly "died" yet. not a single black dwarf exists yet because there hasnt been enough time for them to form
Or maybe they don't die at all? If that's your explanation, that is. If time is of the essence then explain the time it takes form a habitable planet to form. There are many fully formed habitable planets -- they're all that much earlier in the life cycle than Earth?
>>7649105
>we don't really know what a more advanced civilization would actually be like.
It was created under the same building blocks the rest of the universe uses it couldn't be that much different from ours.
>>
File: 1445144761452.png (103KB, 313x315px) Image search:
[Google]
103KB, 313x315px
For all we know 1 in 3 star systems could have a planet like Earth with bipedal mammals living on them.
>>
>>7649019
There are many possible answers to this, maybe they're still to far away to have received a message from us, maybe we already have received messages from them and didn't notice due to some sort of encryption or it just being too alien for us to understand, or maybe they just don't exist.
The universe is still very young really, but the earth is old relative to it. We be among the first or possibly even the very first intelligent life to form, or maybe there are super advanced aliens that already know about us and intentionally hide themselves from us.
There's tons of different answers you could provide for this. The fact remains we don't know why for sure and we can't know, none of these theories can really be definitively tested, we just know that we haven't found anything yet and that's that.
>>
>>7649149
>The universe is still very young really, but the earth is old relative to it
But there are Earth like planets older than Earth.
>maybe there are super advanced aliens that already know about us and intentionally hide themselves from us
How would they hide from the other super advanced aliens? Where are the star wars?
>>
>>7649154
Why do they need to hide from other aliens? Why does there need to be any star wars?
And just cause there may be some earth like planets older than earth doesn't mean there must intelligent life significantly more advanced than us.
You also have to consider the insane distances. Maybe they are out there and they are really smart but we're just too far apart to ever interact with each other in any meaningful way. Super advanced doesn't necessarily = they have FTL technology, FTL may just be impossible.
>>
>>7649019
God only made life here on earth.
It's time to put away your childish ideas and get right with God.
>>
>>7649162
>FTL may just be impossible
ayy stupid human cant into our technology
>>
>>7649162
>Why do they need to hide from other aliens?
What causes an alien civ the desire to develop a highly advanced form of hiding from other aliens, if not star wars? What are they hiding from otherwise?
>And just cause there may be some earth like planets older than earth doesn't mean there must intelligent life significantly more advanced than us.
It's not required however you then need to explain why we're so unique when considering the current best explanation for how non life turns into life and the rabid efficiency of natural selection.
>You also have to consider the insane distances. Maybe they are out there and they are really smart but we're just too far apart to ever interact with each other in any meaningful way
Meaningful needs only pings from outer space. We don't have many questionable signals to analyze. We have virtually no signs of life in any form, not just the signs most subject time distance of travel such as literally aliens in their alien form on planet earth, for example.
>>
>>7649127
I am trying to argue earth had a HUGE problem creating us, i.e. the organic precision watches that we are, and that is why complex life is super rare. it took 3.5 billion years or extinction and worthless germs to finally arrive at our state of evolution. thats 3.5 billion years of "fucking up" by making organisms that are just going to fail/become extinct. 3.5 billion years of not creating us but something less complex, something deformed and inferior to the human race. 3.5 billion years of getting it wrong and just recently getting it right. it doesnt seem like earth easily created us. if it did I might be inclined to believe intelligent design.
>>
>>7649171
Just cause you see it in movies doesn't mean it must work.
There's reasons to believe it doesn't work, not many to believe it does.
People who insist upon it end up sounding allot like the "you can't disprove god!" people.
No I don't have to prove it doesn't work, our current knowledge of nature says it doesn't work, its on you to prove it does. Unless you can do that I'm not going to treat it as a realistic possibility.
>>
>>7649175
>I am trying to argue earth had a HUGE problem creating us
You can start with a much simpler explanation -- how non life turns to life and how that doesn't happen while other habitable planets were forming.
>thats 3.5 billion years of "fucking up" by making organisms that are just going to fail/become extinct
There are habitable Earth-like planets older than Earth, time is relative and Earth's age then isn't a special circumstance here.
>>
File: how-far-in-space-our-radio-broadcasts-reach1.jpg (70KB, 1000x917px) Image search:
[Google]
70KB, 1000x917px
>>7649019
Life could be on every other planet out there. It could be on half the planets and asteroids in our own solar system - and we wouldn't know it.
As for the Fermi Paradox... Why we don't detect other civilizations using radio waves... The damn universe has been capable of supporting such civilizations for billions of years. We've been broadcasting radio waves for just over a hundred, SETI for about half that. Aside from SETI, which is directional, we've all but quit broadcasting interpretable analog waves just a decade ago, thanks to the switch to digital formats. That means, out of maybe, 5 billion years, you've got maybe a 100 year window where another, similarly equipped civilization could "hear" us, and assuming parallel development, and that said civilization is similarly stupid enough to broadcast its location (as we are)... Given the time involved, the odds of any two such civilizations being in existence, broadcasting and listening for such signals, at the same time, are next to none.
Even if every star had a radio broadcasting civilization orbiting it at some point in its history, the odds of any one of them being in a position to hear another are pretty damned astronomical.
>>
>>7649177
>I don't understand it so it's impossible
>>
>>7649127
>Again, there must be billions if not a near infinite amount of Earth-like planets out there.
In the Universe, not necessarily close enough to detect.
>It's more likely they'd communicate by mistake than intentionally not communicate at all.
Stray signals mean inefficiency. You don't get to the top tier by being inefficient.
>It was created under the same building blocks the rest of the universe uses it couldn't be that much different from ours.
You can do a lot of things with those blocks. You shouldn't assume humans have been around long enough to figure out all of them.
>>
>>7649175
mass extinctions/giant impacts could have occurred tons of times within that 3.5billion years and life had to start over again and again.
on another Earthlike world somewhere else maybe it only took 1 billion years who knows.
>>
>>7649174
Maybe they hide cause they just want to observe us and maybe they've done this to other species. Maybe they're the only super advanced species and they made their technology not to hide from war but just to hide from other less intelligent life for the purpose of observation.
You don't think we're unique? Allot of specific things had to happen to make us there's no garuntee they happened else where as well. Even if life randomly started somewhere else life doesn't necessarily evolve to be intelligent. Earth was dominated by unintelligent life for a long time. Other life may well have evolved to be more like dinosaurs than like us. Its a fine design, they ruled the earth for a long time assume no meteor wiped them out we might never exist.
The distances could be so great we haven't received a message yet. Radio transmissions are subject to the C limit, there are no instantaneous pings.
>>
>>7649182
You do? Explain it then. Enlighten us.
>>
>>7649177
Leaving aside the fact that science is in its infancy, and we've only known there was a speed of light for a few hundred years. FTL doesn't need to be a thing.
Biological immortality is entirely within the realm of theoretical possibility, as is technological immortality. Could be any number of immortal civilizations roaming around out there, not giving a shit on how long it takes to get from one place to another. Or even naturally space fairing live, sentient or not.
Not that the odds of us encountering said don't still suck ass, regardless of how common such occurrences are.
>>
>>7649184
>You can do a lot of things with those blocks. You shouldn't assume humans have been around long enough to figure out all of them.
No where did I imply humans have figured anything close to everything out however another intelligent life form, different and more intelligent than ours almost certainly would have realized that other intelligent forms of life may well be using a less advanced form of communication, one that they once used too, and preserved it specifically for the purpose of alien communication. Think like NASA only far more advanced.
>>
File: 1401274522201.jpg (38KB, 450x240px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 450x240px
>>7649191
>us
>>
>>7649189
>You don't think we're unique? Allot of specific things had to happen to make us there's no garuntee they happened else where as well.
It's not that I don't think we're unique it's that I know Earth-like habitable planets are not unique and the current best explanation for how non life turns to life would suggest that the same thing could happen on other Earth-like planets, while they are forming. If they didn't, specifically, why?
>>
File: 1415312365565.jpg (21KB, 250x240px) Image search:
[Google]
21KB, 250x240px
>>7649198
>while they are forming
Yeah in an ocean of lava and melted iron we get life
>>
>>
>>7649200
Or a habitable planet forming in the infancy of natural selection taking place.
>>
>>7649185
the "fucking up" is actually totally necessary. life will never get it right the first time. I believe you actually need tons of mass extinctions before something as complex as humans are created. the environment needs to be abruptly changing and hostile for life to become more complex. life has to fail and start over a few times and that means life WILL need a few billion years. 1 billion years without any change and life will not be prepared when it suddenly does, resulting in extinction.
really human thought exists because it is the ultimate adapting tool. a changing environment is telling life "sorry genetics and built in instinct alone will not help you survive the curve balls im going to throw at you. you are no good and need to evolve something quicker than passing on genes" thought exists because I can't wait for my offspring to not make the same mistakes as me. ive got to learn to not make my same mistakes in my lifetime. arguably no other organism adapts like that. mass extinctions forced us to adapt that quickly
>>
>>7649192
Yea that's true there are other methods of interstellar travel without FTL but its still pretty unlikely we run into each other.
>>
>>7649204
>There could be lots of Earth like planets with life that never evolved to be intelligent
If you ignore the efficiency of natural selection, sure.
>>
>>7649218
Dinosaurs did pretty well without it.
>>
>>7649179
favorable conditions seems to have formed 4billion years ago after the crust cooled after the hadean(hades/hell/fire) eon and only .5billion years till life arose. thats only a blink of an eye probably a really easy procedure. and planet with these favorable conditions and simple forms of life seem likely to be there.
I'm not totally interested in how non life formed into life. its highly speculative, could happen for many reasons, even if i got a phd in this field people will still argue against you
>>
>>7649222
Dinosaurs were probably high intelligent. But they didn't have hands and arms like primates therefore they couldn't make tools or build anything.
>>
>>7649236
K so maybe these aliens can't either.
>>
File: paypay.jpg (42KB, 550x550px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 550x550px
how do we know what makes something an alien signal
>>
Hey, idiot. Yes, you.
DON'T FUCKING ASSUME EVERYBODY IS THE SAME AS YOU. 7 BILLION PEOPLE AND YOU THINK THEY ALL BELONG TO YOUR GROUP?
It's entirely possible aliens are already here. Just because you don't see it, doesn't make it untrue. The same can be said about any new scientific revelation that has yet to catch on. Stop fucking including everyone in your delusions.
>>
>>7649222
>dinosaurs did pretty well
>mfw
I know it sounds like a homer simpson line but: if they did so well how come theyre dead? we didn't die
>>
>>7649243
Oh boy the
>they're already among us!!
Meme
This is highly unlikely but I guess like everything else involving aliens technically possible.
>>
>>7649244
i know this is a troll post but if not god damn you are fucking dumb
>>
>>7649236
That's an interesting idea but, as far as this topic is concerned, intelligence means the capability to make communication equipment that can reach other stars.
>>
>>7649244
They're death had nothing to do with their lack of intelligence nor did our survival have anything to with having intelligence.
In fact what ever tiny mammalian ancestor of ours that did survive back then probably wasn't much smarter than the dinosaurs themselves.
>>
>>7649237
Will anyone rebuttal this man?
>>
>>7649251
Did you get dropped on your head as an infant?
>intelligence means the capability to make communication equipment that can reach other stars.
Yeah and if Dinosaurs had the ability to make stone tools and build things they would have eventually made communication devices.
>>
>>7649248
It's not a fucking meme. ayy lmao is a meme.
The large amount of documentation regarding UFOs and alien contact is not a meme.
>>
>>7649251
>intelligence means the capability to make communication equipment that can reach other stars.
In that case, even humans aren't intelligent.
>>
>>7649262
natural selection would imply that if other older earth like planets had dinosaurs then they could just as well have a being that could communicate with other planets by now
>>
>>7649263
>Yeah and if Dinosaurs had the ability to make stone tools and build things they would have eventually made communication devices.
But they didn't and they didn't.
>>7649269
No they are, we just have shitty range. The technology exists to send signals to Alpha Centauri that current technology would be able to pick up, I'm sure of it.
>>
File: HabitableWorlds.jpg (80KB, 960x521px) Image search:
[Google]
80KB, 960x521px
>>7649019
Because they are so far away and could have died out millions of years ago or not gained intelligence yet for millions of years. Aliens that do have intelligence could have visited Earth or be here now but that is a different topic.
>>
File: sagan_everywhere.jpg (65KB, 500x642px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 500x642px
>>7649268
>large amount of documentation
including hundreds of declassified documents that leave no doubt about the fact that the national security agencies are very concerned about the ET presence on this planet
>>
>>7649019
>Why haven't we found life on other planets yet?
Surely you jest. Microbial life at interstellar distances is essentially invisible. It just can't be detected until you can obtain sufficient spectra from the warm wet rocky worlds such life is on. And we're very far from obtaining such information, since such worlds are so very small at such huge distances.
The next upgrade of telescopic technology (named "ATLAST") will give us angular resolution to finally obtain images of nearby G- and K-type stars. Perhaps with that sort of resolution, we might obtain spectra from the still tiny points of the rocky worlds around such stars. It might well be possible to find oxygen in the spectra of the tiny points of light we'd find beside the glare of Alpha and Beta Centauri, 4.3 lightyears away. Oxygen as an atmospheric indicator is key.
>>
>>7649019
Watch the Planets 1999
Come back after and ask this question again
>>
>>7649218
Most organisms don't need human level-intelligence to survive. For example, everything on Earth besides humans.
>>
>>7649391
not sure if ironic shitpost or not
>>
File: Whoa!Signal.jpg (267KB, 1024x578px) Image search:
[Google]
267KB, 1024x578px
>>7649263
>Yeah and if Dinosaurs had the ability to make stone tools and build things they would have eventually made communication devices
But they didn't. Could you imagine what would happen if they did?
>inb4 reptilians made they debut back in the 1960's
>>
>>7651191
>the fact
>>
>>7649019
We haven't really be looking for it long and to the extent we have searched is has been far from thorough.
Even if you're using the argument that common life should mean common human level of intelligence and technological capability consider this. Of all the human cultures on this planet only one produced technological advancement that would make long range detection of our species possible through the means with which we've tried to find others(ie radio and lasers), and out of all cultures only maybe 2 or 3 can be seen to have definitely been on a path in that direction.
So any species that even made it to our level still would have had to make the choices we've made (or similar)to get were we're at. Now combine this with the fact that even at our level (the only level we definitely empirically know is possible to reached) detection of a planet with OUR level of technological achievement is only possible if the planet is what? Like 20 light years or less?
The only thing we can rule out at this point is millions of inconceivably high powered broad spectrum radio transmitters littering our galaxy along with obvious things like dyson spheres. Locally we can only rule out high powered radio/laser system the happen to be transmitting in our direction on frequency we're listening to when we're listening to it.
This so far as not been enough evidence to convince me of our solitude among the stars yet.
>>
>>7653683
>Of all the human cultures on this planet only one produced technological advancement that would make long range detection of our species possible
This could be a testament to the power of natural selection. It could be that human intelligence is highly efficient at weeding out lesser intelligence from the gene pool or else there would be many forms right now. Again, the power of natural selection.
>>7651179
See above.
>>
>>7654005
>This could be a testament to the power of natural selection
I don't see that. Intelligence within a certain context is advantages however there are many many more paths to reproductive success than intelligence. Using experience from personal life all of the people I know that are reproducing the most certainly aren't the most intelligent.
Human societies CAN create sub-environments that select for higher intelligence but it's not by any means an absolute. In fact a large part of evolutionary pressure on hominid evolution was probably the pressure of their society creating a feed back effect. That doesn't seem to be a constant thing though if you look at aboriginal Australians or Pirahãs.
And even if you get complex intelligent societies one still needs to develop advanced engineering which means one needs to develop empirical science and formalized math and all the until. Only one society did this on Earth(although as I previously stated few others very well could have eventually). Not only does it need to be developed but it needs to be spread and include many not just as a hobby niche for a few board intelligent rich individuals.
Then if you make it that far I certainly hope you have a lot of hydro carbons or some other low hanging energy source at your disposal.
To get we are at is a long shot much more so then even being intelligent tool users.
Not saying there are/weren't others but I'd imagine they're few and far in between.
Probably much further than a few 100 hours of relatively insensitive radio telescope time at a few frequencies can account for.
>>
>>7649192
Technological immortality is flawed and no civilization would be so self sacrificing to make biological immorality a possibility
>>
>>7655369
>I don't see that
Well actually, you quite literally do see that. Look around you. Where are the other human intelligent forms of life? Natural selection dictates that there aren't any because we alone are what's best suited for this environment at this current period of time. That would then mean that intelligent life forms aren't necessarily rare outside of earth at all insomuch as a question of whether or not there's life on any other planets. From all the examples we have of life on planets, we have one, Earth and in that one example, human intelligence is 100% likely to occur. If we extrapolate this fact onto other planets with life, according to the efficiency of natural selection, all planets with life would evolve a human-esque level of intelligence.
>>
>>7649019
What if our idea of "advanced" is all wrong and sentience is a recipe for the extinction of an organism. That would explain why we haven't found "intelligent" life forms; they are all extinct kr in the process of going extinct. How would we find them anyways? We are less than a moment on the scale of time in the universe. What are the chances that our twilight would coincide with another "intelligent" species?
>>
>>7655521
>That would explain why we haven't found "intelligent" life forms
You're retarded. We have one star system to use as reference.
It's like going to the ocean and scooping up a cup of sea water and saying "yep, there are obviously no whales in the ocean, heres the proof"
For all we know every system with terrestrial worlds in their habitable zone have intelligent earth like life.
>>
>>7655521
>What are the chances that our twilight would coincide with another "intelligent" species?
>Implying we're in our twilight
>>
>>7649035
Im a hardcore UFO believer but even I think that searching for intelligent life outside of the solar system is a waste of time. We dont have anywhere near the technology to find them and they alledgedly do yet never show their faces so its safe to say if they exist they dont want to be found. We should focus on our own solar system looking for simple life. As another guy said all we have really searched is Mars.
>>
>>7655530
I dont think we have much time left in the grand scale of things. As a species i believe there is much more time behind us than ahead of us
>>7655527
I dont see how your response has anything to do with what i said. Perhaps you should read my post again and only pay attention to things that i actually wrote.
>>
>>7649177
youre retarded, the laws of 200 years ago said flight was impossible then someone discovered the airfoil. Right now we cant go FTL because we have no way to reliably warp spacetime, doesnt mean there never will be. The Alcubierre drive says its theoretically possible. Its like the rocket equation. At the time it was invented and said spacefliht was possible autists like you would trash it because of course at the time there was absolutely no way to construct a rocket of the required power.
>>
>>7655554
>searching for intelligent life outside of the solar system is a waste of time
All they do at the moment is listen for radio signals and use telescopes like kepler to measure light dimming on planet transits. Both of which arent a waste of time at all.
>We should focus on our own solar system looking for simple life
Yeah that sounds good, but the only way to do that is physically build craft to go to icy moons and drill though thousands of feet of ice to get to the supposedly warm subterranean liquid water oceans.
Its far easier and immensely cheaper just to listen for radio waves in space.
>>
>>7655554
Your ideas aren't really mutually exclusive. Finding a simple form of life would be amazing because it could mean there was once far more advanced forms. We've looked a lot further than mars if you consider SETI or the soon JWST.
>>
>>7655565
Oh i'm sorry, I assumed you were "intelligent" life. My mistake.
>>
>>
>>7655565
>I dont think we have much time left in the grand scale of things.
Civilization=/=species
What events could possibly transpire to cause the decline and subsequent extermination of us as a species? Collapse of civilization? Shit happens all the time. Doesn't mean the end of our species.
The worst possible scenario is nuclear Armageddon and that's the collapse of civilization not humanity which also relies on people being a lot more fucking stupid than we currently are.
>>
>>7655577
Are you underage? I never said that life doesnt exist outside of our solar system. Where did you get that idea from my post?
>>
>>7655582
Shortage of clean water. Shortage of habitable areas. Inability to live off the land due to bad location/catastrophic cultural and environmental change on a global scale. Reliance on unsustainable technology to survive causing massive die offs. Small pockets of surviving humans inbreeding and prone to disease with no culture to deal with a new world.
>>
>>7655622
Counterpoint: Doesn't happen and there's no basis for it to happen
Let's assume for whatever reason over the course of X number of years the entirety of human civilization effectively shoots itself in the foot making MOST OF THE PLANET an uninhabitable wasteland. Let's ignore how fucking hard it would actually be to ruin MOST of the water supply and MOST of the land on earth (it would be pretty fucking hard). So okay I'll agree with this theory and say civilization slowly self implodes causing an extremely sharp decline in global population.
To get to a point where humanity AS A SPECIES is unable to sustain itself would require a massive undertaking by the previous civilization to systematically destroy every aspect of the world that we rely on down to 99% in order to ensure we actually die off.
I know you must think shit like pollution and landfills and shit look "really scary" but we can keep the same shit going for a ass long time as it is and we're already trying to steer away from these destructive methods right now.
>>
>>7655644
putting things IN CAPS means they are REALLY IMPORTANT
>>
>>7655644
Extinction is a matter of when, not if. We lived the same way for a hundred thousand years. For the last 10,000 years(especially the last 300) we started to really fuck things up. We wont continue like this for much longer. All the game that used to exist is gone. I'm sure there will still be farmers out there and maybe we will stick it out, who knows. Anything can happen but i think extinction is inevitable
>>
>>7655656
So is italicizing and putting quotations on shit. Better stop that too.
>>
>>7655670
The growth of our consumption of resources is not infinite. Carrying capacity exists and will self regulate. Meaning we'd have to actually both majorly increase our consumption and worsen the methods by which we do it which would be pretty unlikely seeing as how we, as a society, are already catching shit for not being as efficient as possible.
The issue isn't complete collapse of civilization due to food shortage or destroying our environment (which even in terms of thousands of years is still unlikely) but that this downward spiral would continue over such an immense span of time that there's literally no option for the remnants of humanity to survive. Whatever civilization can cause such calamity is going to collapse under itself before it can cause that much damage.
It's certainly not impossible for our extinction to be self inflicted but any major trend that results in killing off 90% of the population that comes from the population itself isn't going to be as bad when there's only 10% of the population left to do it.
>>
>>7655425
>>7655425
No, that's jumping to some bing conclusions because we only have one data point. Earth existed with complex life a long fucking time before humans , one asteroid on a different trajectory and you and I or any other intelligent tool-maker might not be having this conversation.
I'm not arguing we're alone by a long shot only that life with the technology to be spotted at vast distances is rare enough for us not to catch with our current efforts.
I don't see anything to suggest we're totally alone or in good company.
>>
>>7655579
I have ad hominem + actual counter-argument
You have ad hominem + ???
>>
>>7655572
yeah but drilling Europa or floating on Titan while more expensive we are more likely to find something as opposed to hoping intelligent beings are still using 1930's technology.
>>
File: 1441775610945.jpg (19KB, 251x242px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 251x242px
>>7655817
>instead of looking at distant stars with telescopes we should just go there!
>>
>>7655832
are you ever going to see an alien squid in another galaxy with a telescope? No. Are you ever going to see an alien squid on Europa with a rover? Maybe.
>>
>>7655835
You are a stupid fuck.
How do you suppose we build a robotic space probe drill that can fly to europa, enter orbit, launch a craft that lands on the surface, then proceeds to drill through hundreds of thousands of ice thats hard as rock then launch a minisub at the end and have it descend through thousands of feet of water in crushing pressure to find your little alien squid
>>
>>7655839
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryobot
Who is the stupid fuck now? How about you actually know what youre talking about before insulting others? Fucking retard.
>>
>>7655849
>The cryobot is a surface-controlled instrumented vehicle that can penetrate polar ice sheets down to 3,600 metres (11,800 ft) by melting.
lol too bad Europa's crust is around 330,000 feet thick, Fucking retard.
>>
>>7655800
>No, that's jumping to some bing conclusions because we only have one data point.
It's a more reasonable explanation for the reason why there aren't more intelligent life forms on planet earth than the reason being that intelligent life is super rare. That's looking at it backwards. Natural selection dictates the rarity of a kind and we have no evidence to suggest a kind such of ours wouldn't be produced through natural selection on every planet with life.
>>
>>7649181
How was this picture taken though? WAS IT AN ALIEN!?
>>
>>7656084
>we have no evidence to suggest a kind such of ours wouldn't be produced through natural selection on every planet with life.
That's just it we have no evidence you can't prove a negative. The only evidence we have is one data point, us. Once again 1 is an absurd number in universal terms so we are probably not "alone", but I'm going to have take the empiricist hardline here and say have no evidence to suggest abundance of intelligent species either.
We just don't know yet it's that simple.
>>
>>7656389
My comment had nothing to do with whether or not we're alone but the degree of certainty that other planets with life would produce a human intelligent life form. I believe the efficiency of natural selection dictates this to be a near certainty.
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis
We've been declared savages. Nothing left to do but destroy ourselves.
>>
>>7656590
right, because a massive galactic rebellion couldn't happen under the zoo hypothesis.
if the zoo hypothesis were true I'd think it would be more likely that the reality we live in is completely non existent, something more matrix like and everything is a simulation of sorts where the superior ancient civilization has god like control from within rather than thinking they could superimpose rule on the entire universe(s). it's not a new idea. just think about the concept of god literally being god, angels and demons rebelling against god even though it's the creator of everything.
>>
Here's a question: using the equipment we currently have looking for radio signals and the like, how far away would the radio signals become indistinguishable from the cosmic background radiation if we were looking for our own signals?
I'm guessing not very far.
>>
>>7657756
after a lightyear from the source good luck distinguishing anything
>>
>>7657747
When we send shuttles into space we decontaminate them so that no germs or bacteria will make it into space. We acknowledge that if we do not then the germs or bacteria could be very harmful to whatever distant planet or comet that the shuttle might land on. We have no moral problem eradicating the billions/trillions/etc of germs/bacteria, and we know that by doing so we're protecting whatever might be out there.
Let's say the Zoo Hypothesis is correct. Humans are the germs/bacteria. We're out of control. It's in our nature to be violent and cruel. We're still barbarians, even the men and women wearing suits. If the Zoo Hypothesis is correct then I think that any attempts at a manned mission to another galaxy would be shut down by outside forces. The fly would be swatted. Look at the Van Allen radiation belt - if the Zoo Hypothesis is correct, and we are being observed by aliens with technology so complex that we can't even begin to understand it, then they could easily set up a belt of radiation as easily as humans build a fence. So any humans that would dare to reach another planet would be sterilized, and the threat of humans would be neutralized.
We'll never have contact with aliens until they decide to eradicate us.
>>
>>7656590
Humanity has already passed the great filter.
Most of the other civilizations in the galaxy are probably on par with us or less advanced.
>>
>>7658034
Define the great filter that we have passed. What was it exactly.
>>
>>7649019
It's highly probable that distances in space are
1. Really really fucking far and
2. Not traversible above the speed of light
>>
>>7660036
for what reason? 100 posts of bullshit and speculation wasn't enough for your pissant brain to comprehend?
>>
>>7649035
The distance between things in the universe is so extreme that our various radio emissions etc. haven't made it very fucking far at all at this point.
>>
>>7649019
It will take many centuries to get our asses off this rock and find life on another rock in space.
>>
>>7661456
that's just your own personal worthless opinion. We will most likely launch robotic probe missions to Europa within the next few decades that could possibly find life in its subterranean liquid ocean.
>>
>>7649174
>rabid efficiency of natural selection.
The fact we developed intelligence is entirely down to luck, it could easily have never happened.
>>
>>7660043
plebs gonna pleb m8
>>
File: 0983409834.jpg (943KB, 1596x1206px) Image search:
[Google]
943KB, 1596x1206px
>>7649019
>Hey everyone, look at me I'm a meme science major.
end thread.jpg
>>
>>7661694
Or it could be that human intelligence is guaranteed
>>
>>7662325
Not in your case unfortunately.
>>
Imagine if Earth only made Africans. We'd still be in mud huts and not even close to making telescopes.
>>
>>7662360
We are all descended from African apes you moron
>>
>>7662342
sure but my point stands kiddo
>>
All evidence supports life existing on Earth and no place. Believing anything else is purely faith-based and you should be ridiculed for letting emotion cloud your judgment.
>>
>>7662325
What does this even mean
Guaranteed by who
>>
File: 1423796383102.jpg (12KB, 203x200px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 203x200px
>>7662425
well tip'd sir
>>
>>7662441
It could be that an at least human level of intelligence is guaranteed through the efficiency of natural selection. It could be that all habitable planets that spawn life will produce an at least human level of intelligence.
>>
>>7662445
Ironically, atheists like Sagan are often the biggest proponents of aliens existing. Must be an attempt to fill the hole in their lives that emerges when they reject God.
>>
>>7662459
>human level of intelligence is guaranteed through the efficiency of natural selection
Yet there have been countless living things that have evolved and gone extinct on this world that never achieved human level of intelligence. And I wouldn't call natural selection particularity efficient. It did take nearly a 4th the age of the universe to go from slop to better slop.
>all habitable planets that spawn life will produce an at least human level of intelligence
As a poster above said its all down to pure luck. One day millions of years ago a dinosaur could have been chasing a furry little critter to eat for lunch. For whatever reason the dinosaur got distracted and lost track of the creature. That creature then went on to propagate and become what we know as mammals today.
If the asteroid that caused the Chicxulub crater never hit Earth, then perhaps no creatures would have ever achieved human level of intelligence. it's all random events.
>>
File: 9654345678.jpg (12KB, 364x251px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 364x251px
>>7649095
Please keep posting pics of my husbando
>>
>>7662477
>Yet there have been countless living things that have evolved and gone extinct on this world that never achieved human level of intelligence.
The amount of living things has no bearing on matters whatsoever. When you consider the possibility to that human level of intelligence is an eventuality and a certainty of life.
>And I wouldn't call natural selection particularity efficient
Int terms of allowing non life to turn into life, I would.
>It did take nearly a 4th the age of the universe to go from slop to better slop
Meaningless statement is meaningless.
>As a poster above said its all down to pure luck
Or maybe human level intelligence is a common byproduct of a habitable planet with life. I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.
>>
>>7662503
Sorry, I was under the impression you actually knew what you were talking about.
>>
>>7662510
You haven't posted anything that hasn't already been refuted. More kinds of life that aren't intelligent doesn't refute the possibility that human level intelligence is an eventuality due to the efficiency of natural selection if efficiency means the ability to produce human level intelligence. You've given no reason to conclude otherwise. Why didn't natural selection give dinosaurs a human? Your responses are all horribly short sighted. And saying it's all luck is a total cop-out. You may as well flat out say you're clueless as fuck.
>>
>>7662503
>human level of intelligence is an eventuality and a certainty of life
[citation needed]
>human level intelligence is a common byproduct of a habitable planet with life
[citation needed]
>I see no evidence to suggest otherwise
And how many habitable planets with life have you seen?
>>
>>7662459
>It could be that an at least human level of intelligence is guaranteed through the efficiency of natural selection.
[hand waving intensifies]
You skipped a step.
Evolution doesn't drive towards your personal goals, nor towards all possible goals.
There's no guarantee any given survival strategy will be implemented.
It certainly didn't drive dinosaurs towards intelligence, and it's likely that without the dino-killer Chicxulub we wouldn't be here today, at least not this early.
There's only about 1.5 billion years between the Cambrian Explosion and the time when the sun gets hot enough that there won't be any liquid water on Earth.
It took life here a third of that time to produce us, and that's with Chicxulub.
>>
>>7658005
>So any humans that would dare to reach another planet would be sterilized, and the threat of humans would be neutralized.
Or we could just send a probe out and see what happens. And again, I'd wager that this super alien race would have a real tough time keeping the other super alien races in check.
>>
>>7662518
You seem to think human intelligence is the end result of natural selection. That's your delusion.
>why didn't natural selection give dinosaurs a human
Oy vey
>>
>>7662528
>There's no guarantee any given survival strategy will be implemented.
This doesn't refute the concept of human level of intelligence being an eventuality on all habitable planets with life.
>It certainly didn't drive dinosaurs towards intelligence
More importantly, what drove dinosaurs to be dinosaurs to begin with? You realize there are different theories surrounding exactly when dinosaurs lived and with who, don't you? It could very well be that one of our human ancestors lived during the dinosaur era. That would mean that point is entirely moot as it would then seem that our current intelligence was only a matter of time rather than necessitated by some mass extinction event.
>>
>>7662530
You're saying that our kind of intelligence didn't arise through the process of natural selection? That it just somehow magically appeared or what? Please, enlighten us.
>>
>>7662542
Don't confuse natural selection with intelligent design.
Natural selection equipped humans to understand and comprehend medium objects moving at medium speeds.
Our natural ability is to avoid being eaten by predatory animals on the African plains.
We were not equipped with the ability to understand things like quantum physics and rocket engine design, those things are a fortuitous happenstance of our larger brain and physical attributes that are tailored to facilitate building things with our hands.
For all we know, Human level of intelligence is a fluke and is so extremely rare and improbable of happening again that we could be one of only a few civilizations in the galaxy to possess it.
>>
I think that the Hubble's lense(s?) can't look into space with that much clarity. Possible planets within our viewing range haven't reached luminescent, Tesla era either.
P.S Does anyone know how much of the electromagnetic spectrum we see with technology?
>>
>>7662540
>It could very well be that one of our human ancestors lived during the dinosaur era.
You are a special kind of idiot aren't you. Ignorance must really be bliss.
>>
>>7662545
>For all we know, Human level of intelligence is a fluke and is so extremely rare and improbable of happening again that we could be one of only a few civilizations in the galaxy to possess it.
Or it could be a common survival mechanism. Because of mass extinctions. What kind of living thing will possess the theoretical capability of surviving mass extinction, if not the ones aware of such event about to occur? Mass extinctions are common. What are the odds that other planets with living things don't respond and evolve similarly to mass extinction events?
>>
>>7662549
Oh right tell us more about how dinosaurs would have stopped us from ever existing you fucking retard. Your theory parroting and name calling is truly the pinnacle of intelligent discussion.
>>
>>7662551
>What kind of living thing will possess the theoretical capability of surviving mass extinction
Mammals that used burrows or lived in aquatic environments would have been shielded from the intense heat that briefly followed the impact that killed the dinosaurs. Once the heat was off, mammals could come back out and make the most of the remaining food resources. And with no giant lizards around to kill them, they became dominant.
>>7662558
>dinosaurs would have stopped us from ever existing
Yes that is correct. Dinosaurs were the dominant species. They ate lesser animals. See above for the reason why mammals were able to eventually flourish, you fucking retard.
>>
>>7662561
>Mammals that used burrows or lived in aquatic environments would have been shielded from the intense heat that briefly followed the impact that killed the dinosaurs. Once the heat was off, mammals could come back out and make the most of the remaining food resources. And with no giant lizards around to kill them, they became dominant.
That is only one kind of mass extinction but there are many. The most well suited means of survival is being aware.
>Yes that is correct. Dinosaurs were the dominant species. They ate lesser animals. See above for the reason why mammals were able to eventually flourish, you fucking retard.
No, not if you consider that mass extinction events are a near certainty and that human intelligence could be an evolutionary response to life being wiped out.
Retard.
>>
>>7649019
Do you all not understand how fucking weird it'd be having an inhabited planet of our technological capabilities within a popularized telescopic view?
We'd compete with each other like mother fuckers.
>>
>>7662567
at least an interplanetary Cold War would motivate us to make some serious progress
>>
>>7662570
It'd be 'stellar' for sure.
>>
>>7662540
>This doesn't refute the concept of human level of intelligence being an eventuality on all habitable planets with life.
Yes, it does.
If evolution doesn't guarantee any given survival strategy will be implemented, then it doesn't guarantee intelligence will be implemented.
There's no aspect of evolution that makes intelligence inevitable, and you only suggestion otherwise is "maybe it's inevitable".
>You realize there are different theories surrounding exactly when dinosaurs lived and with who, don't you?
No, there really aren't.
While our knowledge of any subject is incomplete, when you say "theory" on /sci/, you're implying _scientific_ theory.
And only young-earth creationists fail to accept the scientific community's consensus on dinosaurs.
And NO, young-earth creationism does NOT count as a _scientific_ theory.
>>
>>7662579
You are trying to educate a guy who seems to think Humans ancestors walked the Earth with Dinosaurs. It's a losing battle.
>>
>>7662579
> There's no aspect of evolution that makes intelligence inevitable
yes, there is. humans inevitably do exist.
> you only suggestion otherwise is "maybe it's inevitable".
whereas your only suggestion is it isn't. i'd reckon the limited number of kinds with human like intelligence is due to breeding selectivity.
> No, there really aren't.
well, there is that triceratops horn but it's a distant side discussion that's highly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>>7662603
placental mammals, retard.
Thread posts: 144
Thread images: 20
Thread images: 20