Are We Alone in the Universe?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are We Alone in the Universe?

Posted by michael on Friday August 6, 2004 @06:20AM from the lonely-out-there dept.

cynic10508 writes "CNN is running a story about how ours might be a unique solar system. Of the 100+ systems currently known to contain planets, all contain seemingly only gas giants. However, this may be a case of current technology and techniques being unable to detect planets similar to Earth." There are also BBC and Space.com stories.

58 of 759 comments (clear)

We/they may be better off alone for now by erick99 · 2004-08-06 06:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think most people have an intutive sense that we are, indeed, alone in the universe. We have been looking for "life" outside of our planet for quite a while with nothing even approaching a hit. I participate in the SETI project via BOINC but that is out of a hope that maybe life is way far out there and not quite what we would expect. Maybe we are looking for the wrong sort of thing. Who is to say another life form even has a physical body. I am not optimistic that we will find life out in the universe in my lifetime (I'm 46). On the other hand, I am not so sure finding another form of life outside of Earth is such a good idea. We have a hard enough time getting along with people on the other side of our own planet. Well, this is all one man's conjecture. I am looking forward to reading other /.'s opinions and thoughts. I support whole-heartedly anyone who disagrees with me, it would be fun, in this case, to be wrong.
Cheers,
Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
1. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by meme_police · 2004-08-06 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We've been looking how long? How old is the universe? How big is the universe? There is life out there, it could take a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to find it, though.
  
  --
  The meme police, They live inside of my head
2. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-08-06 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  On the other hand, I am not so sure finding another form of life outside of Earth is such a good idea. We have a hard enough time getting along with people on the other side of our own planet.
  
  I suspect that getting alien radio signals would make our differences look rather trivial. Nothing like a common threat (and it would be seen as a threat) to make people stop fighting each other.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
3. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by techno-vampire · 2004-08-06 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  SETI isn't just looking for Extraterrestrial life, it's looking for advanced Extraterrestrial civilizations. If there are other inhabited planets but none have been using radio/TV long enough for the signals to reach us, SETI won't find them. We won't know for sure if there's life on other planets until we go and look, and even then, if we don't find any we still won't be sure because we might not have looked in the right place.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
4. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by RazzleFrog · 2004-08-06 06:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Those factors may mean nothing. We don't know the exact circumstances and timeframe for life to begin. What if our situation is unique or we are the first? You can't build any assumptions from a sample size of one.
5. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Timesprout · 2004-08-06 06:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  WTF are you talking about? Most people cant really comprehend the true size of the universe but feel that on the scale we do understand its almost impossible for there not to other life out there somewhere.
  
  We have been looking for "life" outside of our planet for quite a while with nothing even approaching a hit
  
  Five billion years of evolution for this planet alone, any you consider your lifetime a significant timescale? We have barely begun to even scratch the surface of exploration at this stage. You may ultimately be correct and we are alone but to base that assumprion on what we have done so far is truly premature.
  
  I agree though though that if we did encounter intelligent alien life in the next few years the problems would be manifold.
  
  --
  Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
  What truth?
  There is no dupe
6. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by garcia · 2004-08-06 06:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  and it would be seen as a threat
  
  As it should be but if anything it would make people fight against each other even more. Religion fuels a lot of our current social problems. What the hell is it going to do when we fight intelligent life that wasn't created in what our cultures felt was "God's vision"?
7. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by jyoull · 2004-08-06 06:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  all those o's reminded me of gooooogle. can we google the universe for life?
8. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by RazzleFrog · 2004-08-06 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Man I screwed that up. I meant that 1 out of 1 x 10^500000 suns. My point seems kind silly the other way around. Spent too much time with the scientific notation.
  
  How about looking at it this way. I have a mix cd here with 20 songs spread out over the last 60 years (big band to Korn - don't ask). Now based on the huge number of cd's that have been burned since cd-burners have become common place I believe that someone must have created the identical cd (same songs and order of songs). But based on my sample size of one I will never know until I find someone with the same mix.
9. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Oxy+the+moron · 2004-08-06 06:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Being a Christian myself, I'll take a crack at this.
  
  My personal belief is that believing the Bible does not preclude belief in other life forms. In my mind, the book of Genesis clearly shows what God's hand did in our world, our solar system, our planet, etc. However, nowhere in the book of Genesis does it specifically say He didn't create life somewhere else. While it does say He created man in his own image, that does not mean it was impossible for Him to create life elsewhere in a different or similar form.
  
  Though I don't think many other Christians share my viewpoint...
  
  --
  Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
10. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by TGK · 2004-08-06 06:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As an adendum, we're looking for civilizations that have the will to communicate.
  
  We're not trying to communicate right now. If ET is out there listening to Earth like we're listening to space he won't hear us.
  
  Factions of SETI have talked about building the VLA (Very Large Array) which would be a 1km square array of C-Band sized dishes spaced almost side to side. With this they could pick up transmissions from distant worlds about the strength of a TV broadcast.
  
  As is, unless we've got a radio telescope pointed at us with enough juice going through it to vaporize an airliner we're not going to hear them calling.
  
  --
  Killfile(TGK)
  No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
11. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by ViolentGreen · 2004-08-06 06:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As it should be but if anything it would make people fight against each other even more. Religion fuels a lot of our current social problems. What the hell is it going to do when we fight intelligent life that wasn't created in what our cultures felt was "God's vision"?
  
  Oh please. There might be some wackos out there that may take that issue but there are pleanty of other wackos out there too. I don't think that most "Christians" would have any problem with the idea that God created life elsewhere and didn't bother to give us details.
  
  --
  Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
12. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by dargaud · 2004-08-06 07:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What the hell is [religion] going to do when we fight intelligent life that wasn't created in what our cultures felt was "God's vision"?
  
  My silly hope is that they are gonna go: "There are aliens ? Really ? And they don't believe in $Deity ? REALLY ? Well, I guess we were wrong all along. Sorry guys".
  But I know full well that the responses will range from: "Then we must show them the way of $Deity", to "They do, they just don't know it", to "Who cares, let's keep fighting here."
  When you see that the same line in some dumb old book can be interpreted as "kill them all" or "god is love, though shalt not kill", by the same religion at different times, I'm very pessimistic.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
13. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by meme_police · 2004-08-06 07:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah, but I wasn't going to say anything .
  The CD analogy isn't that good. The universe could be infinite, or big enough, in size allowing for anything to happen multiple times.
  
  --
  The meme police, They live inside of my head
14. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Total_Wimp · 2004-08-06 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What if our situation is unique or we are the first?
  
  The idea that we are the first is very intriguing. If you assume the big bang theory is accurate then there is a leading time for it to be possible for life to exist. Furthermore there is a leading time for it to be likely that life exists. Has anyone made any attempt to find those leading times?
  
  For example, you can assume that planets made out of elements more complex than hydrogen and helium are necessary to support life. When is it theorized that these elementally-complex planets were possible? How long ago was that compared to when Earth was formed? If it was a long time before earth was formed, then we can go about making some calculations about how many other civilizations might have existed before/with us. If it was around the same time that Earth was formed, then there is the very real possiblity that we are on the "front wave" of life in our universe.
  
  It may in fact be very unlikely that we are first. But someone wins the lottery every week. People must remember that unlikely events are almost guarenteed to happen to someone if the numbers involved are big enough. In this case, even if we aren't first, it's a certainty that some civillizaion was.
  
  TW
15. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by LurkerXXX · 2004-08-06 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What if the aliens are even more fanatically religous and want to convert us? Can you imagine being invaded by little gray, big-eyed, Jahovah's Witnesses?
  hmm, I just had a great idea for a DOOM 3 mod...
16. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by RWerp · 2004-08-06 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Granted, if the aliens look fairly similar to us and have the ability to communicate with us it will probably all work out fairly well, eventually anyway.
  
  Or not. Aztecs were very similar to Pizarro or Cortez, but this did not prevent their demise.
  
  --
  "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
17. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by CreatureComfort · 2004-08-06 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Except to push your analogy a little farther, not only have the SETI people not found a CD with the same mix, they haven't even found anyone else with a CD burner.
  
  --
  "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
  Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
18. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Rei · 2004-08-06 07:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I suggest you read some Ed Babinski. An excerpt from one of his works:
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part1.html ... let's get to the big questions. The biggest one is, "Are there intelligent beings elsewhere in the cosmos?" The cosmos as it is presently known, contains over 50 billion galaxies, each galaxy containing between 100 to 200 billion stars. Recent advances in telescopic magnification have allowed astronomers to detect rings of matter and planets that circle stars other than our own. It is conceivable that intelligent beings exist, or have existed in the distant past, or will exist in the future, on planets other than the earth. Are we the only intelligent beings who have evolved in the cosmos' vast dimensions of space and time?
  
  Even a "Biblical creationist" might find himself unable to believe that we are the only intelligent beings "God created" in a cosmos of countless blazing stars and (who knows how many) planetary bodies? So much cosmic "real estate" going to waste. Doesn't sound very "purposeful" does it?
  
  Yet, if intelligent beings exist on other planets, how are they going to react to the "Biblical creation account?" Are they going to believe that the cosmos was created in "six days" as measured from one planet's perspective, the earth's? Such beings might well wonder why the cosmos wasn't created based on the length of a "day" on their own planet, rather than ours.
  
  Neither are they going to believe that five out of the "six" days of creation, or, five sixths of the "creation period" was focused solely on the earth, during which its seas, dry land and sky, and the plants and animals on it, were created. The "rest" of the cosmos with it's 50 billion galaxies, and it's unknown multitude of planets, including the one these other beings live on, took only "one day" out of "six" to create? They'd be on the floor laughing at such earth-centered viewpoints in the very first chapter of the Bible. Only one planet, the earth, took five sixths of God's creation time to complete? No intelligent being inhabiting another planet is going to believe that!
  
  Or, how about this for a "worst case" scenario after meeting a technologically advanced being from another planet: (Being from another planet speaking with Billy Graham's son) "So, you say, five sixths of God's `creation time' was spent on your pitiful little planet full of natural disasters and turmoil and idiocy, and God only spent one sixth of that time creating the rest of the cosmos, including what was to become our vast pan-galactic civilization whose history stretches back before the first pitiful little Biblical book was scrawled on goat skin parchments?"
  
  Hence my next big question, ARE THERE CREATIONISTS ON OTHER PLANETS? Do they quote from a book somewhat like our earth-centered book of Genesis? And, supposing that the name of their planet is "Zontar," does their book read something like this...
  
  In the beginning God created the heavens and ZONTAR, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters OF ZONTAR and God said let there be light, and there was the first evening and morning. And God separated the waters and caused dry land to appear ON ZONTAR, and there was a second evening and morning. And God made the land bring forth green plants and fruit trees ON ZONTAR, and there was a third evening and morning. And God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS, one to rule the day ON ZONTAR, and one to rule the night ON ZONTAR, and he made the stars also, and set them in the sky to light ZONTAR and for signs and seasons, and there was a fourth evening and morning. And God made animals ON ZONTAR, and there was a fifth evening and morning. And God made beings IN HIS OWN IMAGE, and he visited them in the garden where He and they left slimy trials as they moved and talked to each other via their antennae, and there was a sixth evening and morning. And on the seventh day God "rested" from creating the heavens and ZONTAR.
  
  Of course, we earthlings, being raised on the Bible, would know that God
  
  --
  Pathetic humans! Prepare to write down the recipe!
19. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by RatBastard · 2004-08-06 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We may be the first intellegent life to exist in the universe. Or we may be the first ones to live past the developement of nuclear weapons. Or we might be the first ones not killed off by a asteroid colliding with our planet, or a plague, or a massive volcanic eruption, etc... It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot to kill a species off. We can't even count the number of near misses the human race survived.
  
  The universe is massive and ancient. It is also heartless and dangerous.
  
  --
  Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
20. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by luna69 · 2004-08-06 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > one of Christianity's greatest qualities is
  > the adaptability and universality of its
  > message.
  
  read: its willingness to CHANGE its message when inconvenient facts present themselves (i.e., evolution, heliocentric solar system, women not made from ribs, etc.)
  
  Mod me troll, I don't care. I think that it's high time that we all called a spade a spade and recognized religion for what it is.
  
  --
  No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
21. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by QuantumFTL · 2004-08-06 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My personal belief is that believing the Bible does not preclude belief in other life forms. Nowhere in the book of Genesis does it specifically say He didn't create life somewhere else. Though I don't think many other Christians share my viewpoint...
  
  Actually I don't think it's that unpopular... I've heard my rather fundamentalist (with a lower case f) pastor talk against many things, from evolution to homosexuality... but never against finding life elsewhere in the universe. I think that most of the christians that I know would consider aliens to simply be another amazing creation.
  
  It disturbs me to hear people talk about how finding life elsewhere in the universe would be the "end of religion." Religion survives scientific discovery, because ultimately it's not based on what is possible to know, but what is possible to feel - something science cannot touch.
  
  In short, there's a lot more of us out there than you think! Also, there's plenty of christians that are rather apathetic about doctrinal details like this, never underestimate the power of apathy.
  
  Cheers,
  Justin
  
  P.S. I hope we do find some life out there in my lifetime!
22. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Hatta · 2004-08-06 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My personal belief is that believing the Bible does not preclude belief in other life forms.
  
  Of course not. Basic logic tells us that if you assume a contradiction, you can derive anything. Since the bible is full of contradictions, if you assume that it is true, you can prove any statement you want (as well as its inverse.)
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
23. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Rich0 · 2004-08-06 08:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, most scientists would consider a willingness to change ones profession of beliefs upon gaining more knowledge as a good thing...
  
  Personally - I'm a scientist, and a Christian.
  
  Being a scientist means that I know that all statements have a concept of certainty associated with them. For examples I believe that the world is round, and I'm extremely certain of that. I tend to thik that there are no spacial dimensions outside of the obvious 3, but I'm not at all certain about that (to the degree that extra dimensions are very small).
  
  In the same way, I can look at the Bible and make interpretations with varying certainties. Does the Bible teach that there is a God - I think I can give that a high level of certainty. Does it teach that there is no chance that aliens could exist - well, I'd have to say that I'm not sure, but I can think of good arguments one way or the other. So, I think that in cases where the Bible is vague, we should certainly look to the knowledge we can gain with our eyes and ears to help clarify things.
  
  Remember, the Bible was written with a purpose. Its purpose was not to describe the orbits of the planets, the size of the earth, the nature of matter and energy, the nature of time, whether there are aliens, or how in detail the world came to be. The primary purpose of the Bible was to teach about the existance of a God, the relationship of man to God, the nature of man as being inherently flawed, and how God set out to fix that. It also has a lot to say on what the right thing and the wrong thing to do are in a variety of situations, and principles behind these distinctions.
  
  If I want to understand human psychology, I'll pick up a psychology text. I won't expect it to be 100% accurate - just a snapshot of what experts in the field currently think. The same applies to physics/chemistry/whatever.
  
  When somebody goes off about how one line in the Bible about the radius and diameter of a large bowl suggests that pi is equal to 3, I stop and ask myself whether the point of the passage was the exact (to the nearest micron) measurements of the bowl, or if it was just a footnote in an overview of a massive construction project. Usually, when the authors of the Bible wanted to get a point across, they generally repeated themselves and used a variety of examples - just like most normal people would do. If something in the Bible is fairly obscure, chances are that it is fairly unimportant in the big scheme of theology...
  
  Christians - just like scientists - would be wise to be honest about the limits of their knowledge. People confuse being honest about uncertainty with being wishy-washy, and as a result we have churches full of preachers who like to bang on the pulpit and pick any contentious issue in theology and say that if you don't agree 100% with them on it you're destined for eternal flames... If you want to know what the Bible teaches - read the Bible. Take anything else that anybody says with a grain of salt...
24. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by b00le · 2004-08-06 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What if our situation is unique or we are the first? You can't build any assumptions from a sample size of one.
  
  While it's true that we can't do statistics with a sample of one, it's not as if there is no data. The universe (very large) is certainly a datum, and one of the things astronomy has taught us is that it seems everywhere very similar: made of the same stuff and subject to the same laws. And in this one sample we have many subsamples showing how life appears as soon as, and everywhere, it can.
  It doesn't matter how probable or improbable life is - even if it occurred less than once in every galaxy that would be far more probable than our being unique. Unique is a big word. That idea that we are unique cannot be counted as rational in the face of even the little we know - in fact, it is precisely because it is not rational that it is often so passionately defended. What it would mean - and this is the superstition hardly anyone wants to abandon - would be that we were not natural. But we are.
  
  --
  Science fiction for grown-ups...
25. Re:We/they may be better off alone for now by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-08-06 11:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  To (mis)quote Isaac Asimov: "One is a very strange number and ought not to exist".
  If the universe is inimical to life then we should not exist. If it is life-capable, then chances are that there are other life-filled worlds out there (possibly even life-filled stars). If there were 'only' a few millions such worlds, that would still only leave at most a couple such planets in our own galaxy. There would have to be billions of life-bearing planets for us to have a good probability of having (much less finding) a second one in our galaxy.
  We are (for obvious reasons) the first life that we've found in this universe. The probability of being the only is low.
  As for the fact that most of the planets we've found so far being gas giants close to their stars ... well duh! We're mostly finding them as a result of things like star transits, and wobble effects. Earth has a near-zero effect on the wobble of the sun (too small). Jupiter is too far out -- if you consider the probability of Jupiter being observerved transiting the sun from some random orientation, that's near zero.
  
  --
  Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-06 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is this even being posted here?
1. Re:Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence by NanoGator · 2004-08-06 06:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. Why is this even being posted here?"
  
  Though you are correct, this is not what the article is saying. It's suggesting that the theoretical model for how planets are formed may not be accurate. If what they're saying turns out to be true enough, then Earth-type planets could be extremely rare. They do not say that we're alone. They do not say they have evidence that we are alone or close to it. Instead they've come up with an alternative that may provide a reasonable assumption that it'll be a LOOONG time before we find another earthish planet.
  
  Scientists just don't work that way.
  
  --
  "Derp de derp."
2. Re:Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence by MarkusQ · 2004-08-06 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's suggesting that the theoretical model for how planets are formed may not be accurate.
  Right, but their basis for suggesting that is a pattern in the data that is totaly explained by known selection bias in the data. Occam's razor, if nothing else, should have made them stop and think. If you knowingly mount a security camera in an ammusement park angled so that it can only see people over six feet tall, do you then conclude that an alternative theory of amusement parks is needed, because by the standard model you would have expected to see more children than you did? Or do you say "sample bias" and try to develop a better camera setup?
  We can't detect earth-like planets at earth-like distances from their starts (yet) but we can detect large planets that orbit close to their stars. So of course the extra-solar planetary systems we find will be the ones with a gas giant close in. That just proves that our detection methods are detecting the sort of things that can be detected with those detection methods. It says nothing about what we aren't detecting (yet) one way or another.
  -- MarkusQ
3. Re:Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence by ave19 · 2004-08-06 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Though the parent to your post was correct, you are off by just a tad.
  
  The basis for the assertion that there's a problem with the model is based on the current population of known extra solar planets. It's almost completely made up of big planets close their stars.
  
  Well, duh.
  
  We have only detected short period orbits because we need to see multiple passes of a planet in front of its start to confirm it's presence. This technique finds the shortest periods first. We have to keep watching to catch the longer periods.
  
  The bigger the planet, the bigger the wobble, the easier the confirmation of the presence of a planet.
  
  Big planets on short orbits are the first off the assembly line.
  
  We have to wait longer to detect longer orbits (if an orbit takes 10 earth years, and we need three passes of the planet to call it a dedection...)
  
  Smaller planets don't make their stars wobble enough to be detected in the current manner.
  
  The original post is absolutly correct, there's no news here.
  
  I just KNOW somebody's getting a new grant to take a look at this possibility, though.
  
  -ave
  
  --
  ...or maybe not.
Gun-Jumping by cephyn · 2004-08-06 06:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Its too early to say there are none or few rocky body systems out there. First off, we haven't even come close to surveying a representative portion of the sky, and second, we don't yet have good enough technology to detect small planets. If we were 500 light years away from our system, we probably wouldn't be able to detect earth.

--
Moo.
1. Re:Gun-Jumping by PhuCknuT · 2004-08-06 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You missed the point of the article. We can detect jupiter sized planets, the problem is, every one we've seen has been way closer to the star than jupiter is to our sun, we haven't found a single solar system like our own. Aliens looking towards our gas giants would see something different than all the rest of the nearby systems.
2. Re:Gun-Jumping by Jahf · 2004-08-06 06:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It is not that the technology isn't yet good enough to detect small planets ... it is more severe than that. The technology we are using to detect planets specifically is geared towards finding the large gas giants.
  
  If you do a grep for the wrong pattern, you're not going to find the pattern you are looking for.
  
  Additionally, we can only scan a small chunk of the galaxy, much less the universe as a whole.
  
  Probability is still WAY on the side of other earthlike or at least life sustaining planets existing. Hell, we are finding life in so MANY places that we thought were uninhabitable that it probably can form in any environment with liquid water and a sustainable energy source.
  
  That only covers a small chunk of what we are secretly hoping/dreading finding. Next we would want to find not just a planet, not just life, but intelligent life. Given how intelligence probably evolved in people, we will need to find a massive amount of life before finding intelligence.
  
  Then to find civilization of some form that intelligence has to survive into the maturing process (a point we haven't passed yet ourselves) or we have to get lucky enough to find it before it dies off (and before we die off).
  
  Chances of anyone from Earth ever seeing an alien culture? Pretty slim, but a large part of that is the question of our ultimate survival. Chances of civilization existing at some point somewhere in the universe? IMO 50/50. Chance of -some- form of life existing elsewhere? IMO 100%. Chances of me being alive when it happens? IMO 1% and then only if it originated within our solar system.
  
  --
  It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Ok Seriously... by still_sick · 2004-08-06 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

How frigging arrogant would we have to be to honestly believe that in the ENTIRE universe, we are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNIQUE?

Come on, people... Seriously.

--
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
1. Re:Ok Seriously... by Jonny_eh · 2004-08-06 06:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There's probably a good chance that there is other 'life' out there. But what about 'intelligent life', that would be more rare, we might just be an evolutionary fluke. Now try this: What are the odds of intelligent life existing out there at the same time as us. How long have we been around since radio was invented? 100 years? How much longer can we survive before we blow ourselves up? What if every other intelligent civilization never invented radio, or they did and then invented nuclear weapons, but didn't survive their cold war. If you actually think about it, we can be very VERY rare.
2. Re:Ok Seriously... by still_sick · 2004-08-06 06:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You're absolutely right - there's no doubt that we are Very Rare.
  
  But on the other side of that coin, the entire Universe is Very Large - and the vast majority of it is completely unmapped / unexplored (from our perspective) to any reasonable degree.
  
  I'd argue that our two "Very"s cancel each other out nicely.
  
  The odds of us being fairly Unique? They're probably pretty high. But the odds of us being COMPLETELY Unique? ...
  
  And plus your argument of timing is very good. But I'd argue that the finding artifacts from a long-doomed alien civilization would be almost as tasty as finding the civilization itself.
  
  Certainly if they were already gone, at least we wouldn't have to worry about forming (and maintaining!) good relations with them.
  
  --
  ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
3. Re:Ok Seriously... by Decameron81 · 2004-08-06 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How frigging arrogant would we have to be to honestly believe that in the ENTIRE universe, we are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNIQUE?
  
  That's not arrogance, it's just a belief. You can call it a "statistically improbable belief" but not arrogance.
  
  On the other hand I would like to understand how is it even possible to calculate the chances of life appearing in another spot of the galaxy, and the chances that such life becomes intelligent. Personally, I don't think they are as high as you seem to believe.
  
  --
  diegoT
Well, duh. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-08-06 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

"... this may be a case of current technology and techniques being unable to detect planets similar to Earth ..." Yeah, exactly. If the only way you have to detect planets orbiting other stars is to look for the gravitational effects of large, massive planets orbiting close their stars, then is what you're going to find.

It occurs to me that a useful way to think about these "hot Jupiters" may be as failed double stars, not planets equivalent to our own gas giants. And we already know that double stars are more common than singletons like the Sun. (Er, I think -- someone please tell me if I'm wrong.)

One thing that frustrates me about the articles I've seen on this subject is that they don't explain why formation of big, close-in gas giants precludes formation of Earth-like planets farther out. Accretion disks are really, really big; surely parts of them can clump into gas giants while others slowly form smaller, rocky planets?

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
1. Re:Well, duh. by CheshireCatCO · 2004-08-06 06:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  One thing that frustrates me about the articles I've seen on this subject is that they don't explain why formation of big, close-in gas giants precludes formation of Earth-like planets farther out. Accretion disks are really, really big; surely parts of them can clump into gas giants while others slowly form smaller, rocky planets?
  
  Here's the explanation: gas giants have to form farther out, past the "frost-line" where ices can first freeze out of the gas disk. In order to be a hot Jupiter, the have to migrate inward toward the star. That migration is slow, but if the planet encounters a terrestrial planet then the terrestrial planet is in trouble because the giant planet will either scatter it out of its way (either out of system, into the Sun, or at least into a fairly eccentric orbit, none of which is good for habitability) or accrete it. And if there is a terrestrial planet, the giant planet will encounter it on the way in since, by the standard model for planet formation, the terrestrial planets will be in the giant planet's path.
Only 120 solar systems? by Amberlock · 2004-08-06 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

I bought 120 lottery tickets and didn't find a winner. Must not be possible to win the lottery then, right?
1. Re:Only 120 solar systems? by erick99 · 2004-08-06 06:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This is a specious argument because you have proof that people do indeed win the lottery. It is not difficult at all to pile up evidence that the lottery can be won by you, and, further, you can calculate the actual odds of winning/losing. We have no such tangible proof of life outside our planet.
  Cheers,
  Erick
  
  --
  http://www.busyweather.com/
2. Re:Only 120 solar systems? by techno-vampire · 2004-08-06 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But we also have proof it's possible for a Solar System to have planets that can support life. We live in one.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
Key wording is "100+ systems currently known..." by MarkEst1973 · 2004-08-06 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

for every one system we know of, there are one billion that we don't. It's a little premature to say we're unique when we have such little data to work with.
Probablility... by ackthpt · 2004-08-06 06:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, seems the odds of an Earthlike system are so remote that this one probably doesn't really exist and we're all dreaming it while drifting through the clouds of a gas giant. Hm.. I should start a religion based upon this and then sue anyone who threatens to reveal my trade secrets.
Nah, been done before....

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is not "news for nerds" by ghost_world · 2004-08-06 06:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's "news" for dummies.

With current technologies (and the amount of time we've been looking) we can only detect very large planets that are quite close their parent star...

SURPRISE!!!! We've only found systems with large planets close to the parent star.

Big news.
Are We Alone in the Universe? by phyruxus · 2004-08-06 06:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes. God was drinking at my house last weekend and he 'splained the whole thing to me. He also rated Google stock a strong buy, then turned back into my cat. I love mescal.
Next story, please.

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Nothing days we are alone by Progman3K · 2004-08-06 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Our situation with regard to the physical parameters of our corner of the universe seems to be average: Average sun Average location in the galaxy (OK, maybe a little out in the backwater, but we have traversed more dense regions of the spirals of our galaxy in the last x billion years). Average matter content (gases, etc...) What might be the case could very simply be that space is awfully big, and we have only scanned a tiny portion of it in a tiny portion of the ways possible to scan it. I mean come on, if the observable universe is TINY, and we've only examined a TINY portion of that, isn't it a bit too early to say "That's it, we're all alone" ? After all, why have such a huge place all for the likes of us? What a waste...

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Would You Visit Earth? by CovertPenguins · 2004-08-06 06:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes we're alone. And even if we weren't, I don't think another race is just going to drop in and say, "Hi".

Take a look at any of the alien visitation movies we make. Aliens come to Earth. Aliens attack humans. Humans unite (that's the truly unbelieveable part of these movies). Humans destroy all Aliens.

What species in their right minds is going to come to a planet who's inhabitants immediately imprison and disect anything remotely extra terrestrial?
1. Re:Would You Visit Earth? by geoffspear · 2004-08-06 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course not. They've already examined our solar system, and found that the only planet here, Jupiter, would be inhospitable to any sort of life, so they didn't bother.
  
  --
  Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
ET probably won't even care about us by American+AC+in+Paris · 2004-08-06 06:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Y'know, there are times I hope we are alone in the universe. Consider the two most likely scenarios:
Scenario 1: We find life outside our planet, but that life turns out to be nothing more interesting than slightly-better-tasting cattle.
Scenario 2: We find ourselves on the receiving end of Scenario 1.
Let's face it, if the odds of finding intelligent life outside our solar system are astronomical, then consider the odds of that life being even remotely analagous to us, development-wise. We're either gonna be finding some glorified alien algae or uber-beings who don't even blink when their uber-Cuisinarts routinely vaporize solar systems...

--
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
1. Re:ET probably won't even care about us by Metallic+Matty · 2004-08-06 06:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As Bill Waterson said (creator of Calvin and Hobbes,) "Sometimes I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there is that it hasn't tried to contact us yet."
  
  (as closely as memory serves.)
Re:And if we are alone? by flibuste · 2004-08-06 06:32 · Score: 5, Funny

"The best proof that there is intelligent life outthere is that they haven't tried to contact us"
Calvin (from Calvin & Hobbes)
Hard to find by www.sorehands.com · 2004-08-06 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hey, it is even hard to find intelligent life on this planet.

--
Fight Spammers!
Most people have an intuitive sense that the... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2004-08-06 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

...Earth isn't hurtling through space at high speed relative to nearby objects, and certainly don't have a sense that it's orbiting the sun. Thankfully science is informed by more than intuition.

--
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Patterns by ndavidg · 2004-08-06 06:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

There are 200 billion suns in this Galaxy and 125 billion galaxies. The process in which solar systems are formed is caused by forces of physics and the laws of chemistry which are the same through the universe. Just because a terrestial planet has not been seen by human eyes or touched by human feet does not mean it does not exist. In the same way that Europeans in the middle ages could deduce that the earth is round from seeing ships sink in the horizon, we can deduce that planets like Earth or Mars are plentiful throughout the Galaxy. Our geocentricity misleads us to use phrases like "Known Universe" in the same way that Eurpoean history misleads us to call America the "New World" and to say that Columbus "Discovered" America.
OK but what does it really mean? by east+coast · 2004-08-06 06:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

From the article: Either way, it is time to start thinking about the possibility that our system is unique or at least unusual, Livio said.

OK. Perhaps this is true but ultimately I wonder; so what? Even if another M class planet doesn't exist what's the big deal? Even in that model of the universe that doesn't exclude the idea that there may be other life forms. It also doesn't end the possibility of human expansion. While it is possible it's also trivial on many levels.

And with the rate we're going it gives plenty of time for other planets to form... :)

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
method only sensitive to large, fast planets by peter303 · 2004-08-06 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

This article is bogus. About 95% of the planets have been detected so far by causing subtle doppler-motion shifts in their parent stars. The lower threshhold of measuring this doppler shift from earth observatories can only measure the really massive and/or fast (close-in) planets. Several planned space-based observatories will improve on this. They will either have more sensitive doppler or use alternative methods such eclipsing transits (Kepler probe) , or direct observation of planets.
Re:religious aspects of the question by falkryn · 2004-08-06 07:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well if religion's brought up, I feel I must chime in with my islamic 2 dinars. As to the problem from a Christian perspective, which I for obvious reasons don't share though (raised Catholic mind you, and my Dad's a minister currently), what I wonder would be what does that say about Christ being God's unique son, whose atoning sacrifice is supposed to save humanity? What about all the other supposed species of beings out there who probably have not heard of Jesus? Are they all damned? Why would God only send his "son" down to one species. If one then thinks "well maybe He incarnated amongst them too" that definately throws the Christian doctrine in bind, about Jesus being unique and all, and rather relativizes the whole thing. Plus, multi incarnations (reincarnations?) definately seems to be drifting far out of accepted Christian orthodoxy.

Anyway, that's your faith, I can only really comment best on mine. I'm a shia muslim, and in the corpus of our traditions, there are a number of references to there being many other Adams out there, other worlds with living beings. Like one that goes something like (don;t have the exact reference in front of me, Im at work ;-) The imam (for us shias, one of the twelve successors of the Prophet Muhammad) says something like: Do you think yours is the only Adam God has created, rather, He has created thousands upon thousands of other Adams, and yours is but the last.

There are other traditions like this, and the Quran does mention a plurality of worlds. Since we don't believe in the Christian paradigms, original sin, Christ being the incarnation and son (we believe in him as a human prophet, not a god-man), the atonement through crucifixion, etc., these concerns wouldn't really affect our theology.

That said, I'm not holding my breadth for us to soon, or even ever, make contact through means of technology. The universe is a mighty big place, our galaxy being only one many many more. Add to that, the enormity of the ages since it was created, who knows where or even when to look for other beings as us or otherwise? But as we say, God knows best....