The Universe: Can we really be the only ones in it?

FlareBlitz

Relaxed nature. Loves to eat.
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
I think it's reasonable to assume that an alien species would definitely have concepts of aggression, territoriality, and conquest. On any planet there will be competition for resources, and those instincts evolve naturally because the organisms that have them are going to be the ones that win that competition.

The relevant question is whether an alien species would be advanced enough mentally to understand that possible benefits from cooperation with the human race outweigh the benefits of conquest. If that's not the case, and if they have the technology to travel across the stars, we're going to be looking a brief and bloody invasion.
 
The relevant question is whether an alien species would be advanced enough mentally to understand that possible benefits from cooperation with the human race outweigh the benefits of conquest.
I suspect it may have less to do with a rational cost-benefit analysis and more to do with emotion or beliefs. True, there is no reason to believe aliens would be emtional, but nor is there any good reason to believe they WOULDN'T be.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
We all share gene ancestry, aliens do not.
While this is true, wouldn't the concept of Evolution apply just as well to any other planet with life as to our own? I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be true, and if true, it would undoubtedly lead to aggressive characteristics in other organisms.
 

skarm

I HAVE HOTEL ROOMS
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
While this is true, wouldn't the concept of Evolution apply just as well to any other planet with life as to our own? I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be true, and if true, it would undoubtedly lead to aggressive characteristics in other organisms.
I think it is entirely ridiculous to assume that everything in the Universe must be the same way as Earth. Just because species on Earth share same characteristics does not mean that Alien Planet A and Alien Planet B will be alike, nor should we assume they would be the same as Earth.

That being said we can make inferred guesses about what other life would be like based on present day biology and animal sciences, but it would be a pure fallacy to suggest they would be even slightly similar to anything extra-terrestrial. A huge factor in behavior, as many psychology majors can mention, is environment. We have no idea what that is beyond Earth.
 
1. Absolutely not. Life is auto assembling, it's inevitable that life exists now or in the past, given almost infinite trials per second over billions of years to create life in favorable (or even non-favorable) areas.

2. I find the idea of interstellar travel impractical and fantastical. I'd say that we, and they, would be foolish to try. If it is possible, I'm scared to think what would happen if they found us first. Just because they are advanced doesn't make them peaceful and odds are they didn't travel all that distance just to say hello.

3. We will probably make it a planet-wide life preserve for aliens, lol.

4. For daft people, it will be profound. For people with a brain and a concept of deep time and how life can form, it is already assumed, so we'll just go "yep, science works once more".

5. Not at all?


This whole discussion is so science fictional, if there isn't life in our solar system I doubt we're gonna find it. Also, life may not exist just on planets.
 
1. Seems hugely unlikely, for reasons already repeatedly mentioned. I suppose there's a chance we're the first, although unless there's evidence that our solar system is one of the earliest, I don't see much point in entertaining that line of reasoning. There are plenty of other reasons for why we wouldn't have heard from aliens, even if they exist, which I'll mention as I answer the other parts.

2. Human radio signals have only traversed less than 100 light years into space. This means they have only reached a relatively small number of stars. Aside from speculative technologies based on rather poorly understood physics, there's no feasible way for an alien civilization not within that range to have heard from us. If aliens with such technology exist, it may be that they are aware of many, many other civilizations like us and simply don't care. Otherwise, they might target us for conquest if Earth proves sustainable to them. Any truly intelligent race would probably stay the fuck away, considering that if we still kill each other over trivial differences among ourselves, we'd probably have no qualms killing people of a different species.

Quantum entanglement seems to violate relativity (or the collapse does, at any rate), and if we manage to manipulate space (in ways that it theoretically could be manipulated, according to our current understanding) there are loopholes around it. I don't expect interstellar travel to happen this century or the next, but the prospect of what technology could look like a thousand years from now is mind boggling. Thus, I don't necessarily rule out the possibility that some alien civilization can travel the stars. It doesn't mean that we would notice them, or they us.

3. Finding other life forms before we find them (yes read the OP) is a far more grievous violation of relativity than interstellar travel, but I suppose NASA would try to contact them by radio (though it would take a while), unless the government didn't want them to or something. I don't think there are any laws about it though, so if they don't want to be told "no" they don't have to ask... At any rate, what SETI has done so far in search of alien life is equivalent to dipping a cup in the ocean in search of fish.

4. If we find them, it will just blow minds, but nothing else. If they come to us, the results could be anything from the end of mankind to an era of prosperity through trade and learning. I doubt we will catch their viruses (or visa versa) since even if they have DNA and use it to create proteins from amino acids, they would likely use different bases, or at least "read" codons differently, meaning that our viruses would be unable to effectively copy themselves in the other species' cells. I think it's likely that at least some life out there uses similar chemistry to ours, even if some is also completely different.

5. We would go from having one example of life to having two. That would greatly increase our understanding of how life forms, as we'd have basis for comparison. Perspectives might shift in response to their scientific or philosophical understanding, as well. While we may be extremely different, I find it highly implausible that two sentient species trying to communicate with each other would be completely incapable of doing so, especially with the aid of computers. I think most religions would struggle to explain the existence of other forms of life, although fundamentalists are so good at ignoring evidence that I wouldn't put it past them to rationalize away how it still works with [holy book].
 
I think it is entirely ridiculous to assume that everything in the Universe must be the same way as Earth. Just because species on Earth share same characteristics does not mean that Alien Planet A and Alien Planet B will be alike, nor should we assume they would be the same as Earth.
Given the following:
* "Individual" is meaningful and there are many individuals
* There are differences between individuals
* Those differences can affect reproductive success
* Those differences can be inherited

Then I think evolution is pretty much inevitable.
Details will vary a lot, but I think certain things will generally be true. For example if there are oceans of a liquid with a similar viscosity to water, many of the creatures living in them will be fish-shaped.

2. Human radio signals have only traversed less than 100 light years into space. This means they have only reached a relatively small number of stars. Aside from speculative technologies based on rather poorly understood physics, there's no feasible way for an alien civilization not within that range to have heard from us.
They could infer the presence of life, though not intelligent life, by observing our atmospheric chemistry - an atmosphere with ~20% oxygen tells you that SOMETHING odd is happening at least. They might also be able to observe regional albedo changes related to changes in vegetation, though it would probably be difficult to be certain such changes were biological in origina, especially as Earth probably has bigger albedo changes from seasonal effects on snow and ice cover.
Aliens might be able to detect human activity from up to 150 light years by picking up on the rise in atmospheric CO2 cause by the Industrial Revolution. But that would be far from conclusive and probably get interpreted as a natural event. Our radio signals are the only thing that really screams out "intelligent life here". That is in fact going to be lost, because efficiently compressed digital data is almost indistinguishable from random noise. (The other things aliens could spot is our lights, but they'd need a damn good telescope to do it, the radio waves are proportionately much stronger - IIRC the Earth can outshine the Sun in radio waves at times).
 

skarm

I HAVE HOTEL ROOMS
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Given the following:
* "Individual" is meaningful and there are many individuals
* There are differences between individuals
* Those differences can affect reproductive success
* Those differences can be inherited

Then I think evolution is pretty much inevitable.
Details will vary a lot, but I think certain things will generally be true. For example if there are oceans of a liquid with a similar viscosity to water, many of the creatures living in them will be fish-shaped.
I wasn't attempting to suggest nothing will hold true for other yet-to-be discovered species of flora and fauna, but merely it would be a fallacy to say something such as "Due to the way life on Earth any life requires Oxygen" when we have seen only a very exceedingly minuscule microscopic portion of the Universe.

I do agree with you about evolution so I am not going to push my point further. I was just trying to avoid the arguments that begin with "because on Earth a is b thus on planet c: a is b must also hold true"
 
They could infer the presence of life, though not intelligent life, by observing our atmospheric chemistry - an atmosphere with ~20% oxygen tells you that SOMETHING odd is happening at least. They might also be able to observe regional albedo changes related to changes in vegetation, though it would probably be difficult to be certain such changes were biological in origina, especially as Earth probably has bigger albedo changes from seasonal effects on snow and ice cover.
That's a very good point out the vegetation, which I completely hadn't thought of. Human technology has reached a point where we have actually seen extrasolar planets well enough to do spectroscopy and determine some aspects of their chemical makeup. So far, we can only spot planets much larger than Earth, but it isn't too much of a jump to think that aliens might have the capability to see Earth. If they could, they could potentially use spectroscopy to spot the green of chlorophyll. They might notice that it doesn't match the spectroscopy of any mineral or element, and that furthermore it is extremely well suited to absorbing the particular wavelengths of light that are emitted by our sun. Humans have theorized about which kind of pigments might develop in response to light of different types of stars, so if an alien could see Earth, they might be able to infer the presence of plant life, even out to hundreds of millions of light-years away (although the further you get the less plausible this hypothetical telescope becomes).
 
I'd love to see the research that supports the precision with which you claim we can check for exoplanetary composition. As far as I know, it's all inferred from the wobble of the star and blinking of its light, assuming it's in the "goldilocks" zone and therefore that it has liquid water and therefore life and blah blah blah.

Honestly astrobiology is so ridiculous sometimes in making claims that, as of now, are fundamentally unprovable and then going further to make assumptions on assumptions.
 
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603376
One paper on it.

The stuff I was talking about was what aliens can do. But it's based on the idea of them simply doing what we do better, as opposed to them having to do something qualitatively different.

It should be borne in mind that because the methods we know use transits, they only work for a small proportion of planets. For aliens to observe us in the same way, they would need to be in a "slice" of space in the plane of Earth's orbit.
 
1) Lol no. The universe is a massive, massive place, and it's arrogant (and probably a religion-based opinion) to assume that we're the only intelligent life in it. Such an opinion has no basis in science. Then again, we have no direct evidence that there are aliens out there, but it's a possibility (probability). They can assume all kinds of forms, and it may even be true that there are other models for life besides "carbon-in-water".

2) If they find us and have a technological superiority, we are totally fucked, since species in general tend towards aggressiveness, hostility, and conquest rather than cooperation. Think about what we did to the Native Americans.

3) If we find them and have technological superiority, we will enslave them and strip-mine their planet for whatever it's worth, if our history is any clue.

4 and 5) Dunno.
 
It's hard to imagine we haven't reached the point where we would make "not stupid" decisions when discovering a new species... especially after the public has been exposed to Avatar . haha

It would be interesting to know what we would do though, considering it would probably be a first (native americans being a recent example).
 
1) Lol no. The universe is a massive, massive place, and it's arrogant (and probably a religion-based opinion)
"made in His image" in combination with the opinion (ask DK about this one) that we have dominion over all of Gods other creations.

Diinbong, Avatar is just pocahontas in space, I doubt that morality or any sort of intelligence was used in making that bullshit horrible movie. We have learned from first nations, or at least (I hope) from Afghanistan and Iraq in that when you conquer something, you CONQUER.
 
It's hard to imagine we haven't reached the point where we would make "not stupid" decisions when discovering a new species... especially after the public has been exposed to Avatar . haha

It would be interesting to know what we would do though, considering it would probably be a first (native americans being a recent example).
It's not a stupid decision to enslave and subjugate a technologically inferior species, it's probably a rational choice. Backwards and morally reprehensible, yes, but it makes sense from an economic perspective.
 
I am personally a big believer in the probability of life in the universe. The scale of the universe is quite literally unimaginable, billions upon billions of galaxies each with billions upon billions of stars, and each star possibly having several planets around it. Currently, we are looking for planets capable of having earth like life, or in other words, planets that surround a star similar to our own sun (or in a ratio of the size of the star to distance from the planet that is similar to earth, and have things like water and such). The possibilities of there being a planet like that are pretty likely. That scope is pretty limited though considering our knowledge about the origins of life is limited itself. I imagine that there are many, maybe countless, different ways that life could form. Taking that into consideration, imagine how many more planets can actually sustain life that we don't know about, or haven't considered.

The thing that irks me is the belief that alien life is anything like our own. Had there been a single different base pair in the earliest life form would have taken life in a completely different direction. Even before that though, the fundamental concept that they evolve like us could be very wrong. Why do the need to use DNA or anything similar to it. Evolution is believed to be caused by mutations in genes that lead to favorable mutations that are passed on to future generations. But what if they don't use a system like that or reproduce. Once again I feel as though our scope is limited by our own understanding of life. I find it hard to believe that they might develop societies, religion, or technology. Just because humans have done that, I don't feel that it is totally necessary for aliens to consider the use something as simple as electricity to their advantage. Life could look like or be anything, and yes there is a possibility that it could resemble humans, but I think that odds are they will be unlike anything we could currently imagine, especially if they are sentient.
 
If complex life exists elsewhere, it will probably be Carbon-and-Oxygen based. It is possible that they could be based on Nitrogen, Helium (maybe, very unlikely) and Silicon, but ultimately the chemical probabilities for forming complex molecules and abundances of those materials compared to the baser blocks are just lower so Carbon-Oxygen life is far more likely.
 

In 1961, University of California, Santa Cruz astronomer and astrophysicist Dr. Frank Drake devised the Drake equation. This controversial equation multiplied estimates of the following terms together:

  • The rate of formation of suitable stars.
  • The fraction of those stars which are orbited by planets.
  • The number of Earth-like worlds per planetary system.
  • The fraction of planets where intelligent life develops.
  • The fraction of possible communicative planets.
  • The "lifetime" of possible communicative civilizations.
Drake used the equation to estimate that there are approximately 10,000 planets in the Milky Way galaxy containing intelligent life with the possible capability of communicating with Earth.[31]
Based on observations from the Hubble Space Telescope, there are at least 125 billion galaxies in the Universe. It is estimated that at least ten percent of all sun-like stars have a system of planets[32], i.e. there are 6.25×1018 stars with planets orbiting them in the universe. Even if we assume that only one out of a billion of these stars have planets supporting life, there would be some 6.25×109 (billion) life-supporting planetary systems in the Universe.



From wiki, I know, but it at least has citations for more information.


Just tossing it out there.
 
If complex life exists elsewhere, it will probably be Carbon-and-Oxygen based. It is possible that they could be based on Nitrogen, Helium (maybe, very unlikely) and Silicon, but ultimately the chemical probabilities for forming complex molecules and abundances of those materials compared to the baser blocks are just lower so Carbon-Oxygen life is far more likely.
You don't find that to be a little bit narrow minded? I mean transformers should show us that life can be more than meets the eye dude. Yeah, seriously though, organic chemistry does lend itself well to complex molecules but it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of life 'not as we know it'.
 

Ice-eyes

Simper Fi
It's very unlikely that there are no other forms of life in the universe. However, the notion of an interplanetary war is fanciful - even if there was a civilisation capable of making contact, the probability that the sides would be evenly matched to the extent that a war would be possible is extremely low. Think how much human warfare has developed over the last century - imagine a modern army fighting one from 1900. The two sides would have to be at a close stage of development, which is extremely unlikely.
 
Life could look like or be anything, and yes there is a possibility that it could resemble humans, but I think that odds are they will be unlike anything we could currently imagine, especially if they are sentient.
I disagree. In terms of biochemistry and physiology, alien life will almost certainly be very different. But in terms of morphology, then alien life will be very like ours, because the problems are the same and so the solutions are the same.
Things that live in fluid will be fish-shaped. Things that fly will do so with flapping wings. "Plants" will capture sunlight for energy, and they'll have leaves. Things that move on land will usually have an even number of legs, and relatively few species will walk on two legs. Eyes will be round and high up on the body. There'll be a mouth, and an anus. If the planet has cold regions there's be something with insulating properties. I'd even suggest that an advanced species will walk on fewer legs than a related non-advanced species, thereby freeing up the remaining limbs to be arms.

These aren't absolutes - there can of course be exceptions. But I believe that things like these will generally hold across the Universe. If life appears on two similar bodies then it will face the same problems and evolution will find the same solutions. This is nothing more than convergent evolution on the intergalactic scale.
(And if something isn't evolving, I'm not sure it can be called life.)
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
cantab, I'm not sure I agree. While natural selection produces the best solution of the randomly generated traits over time, there is a chance we simply did not randomly generate a trait that another species did that is superior. there is also a chance that a slightly less effective solution matters a lot more in their enviroment. (a wing that combusts air instead of flapping because their atmosphere is rich in CO2, lolol)
 
I would say as a general rule, cantab is right, but I still wouldn't say it's a sweeping certainty. There are ways that you could vary an environment only slightly and still get quite different 'solutions' because of the branching nature of evolutionary mutation.
 
1. Is Earth the only planet with life on it?

Probably not, mathematically/statistically

2. If other lifeforms find us before we find them, how will humanity react, and will they react correctly?

see: earth final conflict

3. If we find other lifeforms before we find them, how will we react, and will we react correctly?

see: avatar

4. How will the lives of humans in general be affected by the discovery of other lifeforms in the Universe?

no change


5. How will people's perspectives on the Universe change on the discovery of other life?

acceptance
 
if there even is other life out there it does not matter. We will never be able to interact with them, as even a radio signal will be realativly meaningless. The WOW signal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signalcould have possibly been from aliens, but so what. We sent out a response anyways. They wont get it for another hundred of years and then we wouldnt get it for another hundreds of years etc. So essentially we are sending eachother useless messages hundreds of years apart. Maybe we can send a 121 binary signal that when mapped out as an 11x11 square shows a human shape. BUT SO WHAT???? All they will know is there is other life, something that any intelligent human already knows.

What im trying to say is that we already KNOW there is other intellignet life out there. We dont need to communicate with them to know it, its just mathematically sound. I have never seen the core of the earth. Neither have you, or anyone on the planet. Yet we know the core is there and that it is iron and hot etc. We have figuired this out through math and science. Through math and science we can essentially prove there is other life out there.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top