Is there life on Maaaaaaars! (er, Venus)

[Snarf Zagyg]

We can't talk to microbes.

Well, we can.

They just do a really poor job of holding up their end of the conversation.

 

[Ryujin]

While true, it's also not really the point -- intelligent life is more interesting than successful life. We can't talk to microbes.

It's rather on-point when discussing the Fermi Paradox/Equation. Intelligence might be one strategy for life but it's not necessarily the successful strategy, as how we screw with our environment shows. As a result while life may be plentiful, intelligent life may be an extreme rarity.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Well I tend to look at the Fermi Paradox from the angle of Great Filters that might be ahead of us. If intelligence is just really freaking rare that's good. If every intelligence lifeform tends to blow up their planet the first time they try to crack FTL, well, that's bad for us.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well I tend to look at the Fermi Paradox from the angle of Great Filters that might be ahead of us. If intelligence is just really freaking rare that's good. If every intelligence lifeform tends to blow up their planet the first time they try to crack FTL, well, that's bad for us.

If we survive 2020, we should be cool like the other side of the pillow.

 

[Tonguez]

While true, it's also not really the point -- intelligent life is more interesting than successful life. We can't talk to microbes.

Trees are both interesting and (arguably) a much more successful group of species than humans are

 

[Ryujin]

Trees are both interesting and (arguably) a much more successful group of species than humans are

Other examples:

10 Oldest Species in the World - Oldest.org

Discover the 10 Oldest Species in the World here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest species that exist.

www.oldest.org

 

[Umbran]

The most successful creatures on this planet, ie. the species most unchanged over millennia, are unintelligent by our standards.

That's a very particular and narrow definition of "success", and there are flaws with it - they become apparent when you ask the question: Which was more successful - Neanderthals, or modern humans?

Neanderthals came on the scene between 315,000 and 800,000 years ago. Some authors claim "modern humans" are whatever didn't become Neanderthals. Others claim that the modern human lineage arose between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago. With that kind of ambiguity, you cannot make a clear argument as to which creature has/had been around longer with least changes. And, the modern human line isn't done yet. It may last a million more years, it may not last out the century.

The whole concept of measuring evolutionary success is a human construct largely based out our need to rank things, and is based on our subjective ideas as to what "success" even means.

 

[Umbran]

While true, it's also not really the point -- intelligent life is more interesting than successful life. We can't talk to microbes.

And that's a narrow definition of "interesting"....

 

[Morrus]

And that's a narrow definition of "interesting"....

Interesting to me!

 

[Ryujin]

That's a very particular and narrow definition of "success", and there are flaws with it - they become apparent when you ask the question: Which was more successful - Neanderthals, or modern humans?

Neanderthals came on the scene between 315,000 and 800,000 years ago. Some authors claim "modern humans" are whatever didn't become Neanderthals. Others claim that the modern human lineage arose between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago. With that kind of ambiguity, you cannot make a clear argument as to which creature has/had been around longer with least changes. And, the modern human line isn't done yet. It may last a million more years, it may not last out the century.

The whole concept of measuring evolutionary success is a human construct largely based out our need to rank things, and is based on our subjective ideas as to what "success" even means.

And some suggest, based on the DNA evidence, that we are the product of breeding between Neanderthals and our parallel lineage, meaning that they (and we?) are pretty much as successful as each other.

The point being that "last man standing" isn't necessarily a measure of how successful a species is, either. We co-exist with species that have a billion or more years on us, largely unchanged. Species have lasted millions of years longer than we've been around, despite no longer being prevalent. That makes them pretty damned successful.