"Promising hints of life on distant planet"

To be sure, to be alone wouldn't necessarily mean we're "special".

We're working from a single data point, so we really have no idea what "special" even means. I mean, if civilization is "certain," then surely it's valid to claim that there must be something "special" about civilization, right? Maybe evolution has some built-in predilection for popping out technological civilizations, and Sid Meier is God. (Yikes. Let's not.)

All we know for sure is that we happened once; and we assume that evolution is blind and purposeless. From that all we can claim is that the probability of our existence lies somewhere between "we're nothing special among millions of civilizations" and "we're nothing special like any other unique event in the universe". Either way, we're still "nothing special."
No. There are literally trillions of planet's in the observable universe. If we are alone, that is the very definition of "special", so that line of reasoning should be treated as highly suspect at best. More likely is that civilizations like ours just never extend their footprint beyond their own solar system. We very likely won't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




No. There are literally trillions of planet's in the observable universe.
Multiple that number by another several TRILLION and you get in the ballpark. The observable universe is estimated to have 21 SEXTILLION planets. Basically take all the water on earth, and put it in eyedroppers of liquid, you could have an eyedropper for every planet.

This doesn't change your point, I am just using it to showcase how much people vastly underestimate the ridiculous scale of the universe. Again...this is just our "back yard", probably not anywhere close to the actual scale of the full universe.
 


To the question of "Is civilization inevitable?"

If we assume that intelligent life is a given on a world (certainly a bold assumption) than will that intelligent life inevitably form a civilization?

First, you would have to assume a certain form of social structure. A super intelligent alligator would be a badass hunter, but its still a solitary creature that wouldn't really build up anything or coordinate with other fellows. Though perhaps one sign of such intelligence in these creatures is that they force social structures because they recognize its utility, even if their instincts follow a more solitary path. Though imagine the constant infighting such a race might experience, we have enough trouble getting along and we are instinctively born to socialize and form bonds and connections. Imagine a race trying to build structure and coordinating resources when in their hearts they are solitary creatures?.... it just might not be feasible.

Then you would have to assume that species can either consume stationary "plants" like we can, or could find moving creatures that could be penned and cultivated (aka like a cow). Civilization started when humans settled in an area and stopped migrating constantly, if there isn't something stationary for us to live on, civilization is likely out of the question.

But if we assume that, then ultimately the benefits of civilization (better quality food, safety, resistance to predators, etc) would likely win the calculus of evolution, and become a natural consequence.

BUT....if we are talking an advanced civilization such as ours, capable of going to space or at least communicating with it, that also requires access to certain materials. Part of our success in the modern era was access to a HUGE abundance of stored energy in the form of coal and fossil fuels....born out from geologic conditions and the wealth of creatures that came before us. This might actually be the folly of a species that gets intelligence "too early" in a planet's life cycle, there just may not be enough stored energy around to kick off an industrial era.

Likewise take silicon (sand) for example. Without the abundance of that material on earth, we would not have been able to construct the ubiquitous computer networks we have. Though that said, there are other materials computers could be fashioned from, and I mean we did a whole lot with computers (go to the moon) before they were wide spread. So even with a more limited supply of said materials we might have made it to 1960s technology, but resource shortages could have prevented a push toward the modern information age.
 


This is one of those places that text only communication threatens to fail. so, thanks...?

It was genuinely enlightening. I was thinking well, with 120+ light-year, it might be that even close to light-speed we might never be able to send anyone alive (except if we send a toddler), but it's too easy to forget about time dilation. Even if we're nowhere near being able to approach lightspeed, I liked your post and wanted to express it. It is sad that being appreciative on a board can sound snarky!
 

It was genuinely enlightening. I was thinking well, with 120+ light-year, it might be that even close to light-speed we might never be able to send anyone alive (except if we send a toddler), but it's too easy to forget about time dilation. Even if we're nowhere near being able to approach lightspeed, I liked your post and wanted to express it. It is sad that being appreciative on a board can sound snarky!
Well keep in mind though, time dilation is only relative to an observer. If I send a ship out on a 120 light year mission at 99% the speed of light, to a person on the ship it still takes 120+ years to get there, aka they will all be dead or it will decedents taking over the ship. Its just if that ship makes it back to earth, potentially thousands of years would have passed
 

Remove ads

Top