Slashdot Mirror
First Rocky Exoplanet Confirmed
Matt_dk writes "The confirmation of the nature of CoRoT-7b as the first rocky planet outside our Solar System marks a significant step forward in the search for Earth-like exoplanets. The detection by CoRoT and follow-up radial velocity measurements with HARPS suggest that this exoplanet has a density similar to that of Mercury, Venus, Mars and Earth, making it only the fifth known terrestrial planet in the Universe. The search for a habitable exoplanet is one of the holy grails in astronomy. One of the first steps towards this goal is the detection of terrestrial planets around solar-type stars. Dedicated programs, using telescopes in space and on ground, have yielded evidence for hundreds of planets outside of our Solar System. The majority of these are giant, gaseous planets, but in recent years small, almost Earth-mass planets have been detected, demonstrating that the discovery of Earth analogues — exoplanets with one Earth mass or one Earth radius orbiting a solar-type star at a distance of about 1 astronomical unit — is within reach."
I appreciate the Rocky movies and all, but there's no way I would live on a whole planet dedicated to them. I'm fine here on Earth, thank you very much.
My webcomic
By the time we actually got to one of these planets, would it still be able to sustain life? Should we be looking for planets that are in their early, less habitable stages?
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Looks like this little guy is only 0.002 AU away from it's parent star. I wouldn't expect to find any life there, but still, this is an amazing discovery. As these methods get fine tuned it's only a matter of time before we start finding planets roughly Earth-like not only in form, but also in relation to the habitable zone around their star. I don't think we'll ever get a probe, much less a person, to any of them within my lifetime, but at least we'll have an interesting list of spots to visit when we do reach that capability :).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
A kick in the nuts from me for being a jackass.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Is it class M?
It might have Roddenberries.
You seem to be neglecting the fact that this - "let's image the surface! yeah! [...]" - is an entire area of science: astronomy.
It's not only the (seemingly pointless, as your post insinuates) search for celestial bodies beyond our own planet's atmosphere, but through this search we learn more about our own planet's origins and those of our local solar system, as well as our general role in the cosmos and what we can expect in the years and millennia to come.
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
By then we'll be living in space and the presence or absence of "habitable worlds" will be moot. We will once again be going beyond the next horizon because "it's there".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Smallest maybe, and the first to have a confirmed radius value, but hardly the first rocky exoplanet discovered. PSR 1257+12 wins by about 18 years.
Here's a scientific paper describing how the period/mass/size/etc of the planet was deduced from observation data: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0241
According to the paper, this planet's orbital semimajor axis (or in plain English, the "average" distance from the planet to the sun) is about 0.0172 astronomical units. Since its sun's temperature is roughly at the level of our Sun (also in the paper), it means the planet is probably a hell much hotter than the Earth...
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
... that is the CoRoT needed to keep the donkey going...
I'm packing my bags
factor 966971: 966971
Joking aside, if we found an exoplanet, with earthlike environment that would be completely amazing and would have interesting philosophical implications. If we found such a planet with life on it, that has profound implications. If we found a planet with roads and a city - civilisation, that has truly astonishing implications for our entire culture. Now, if it turned out that we were imaging ourselves... that's still a neat result and we'd learn a hell of a lot about how space-time works for that to happen. None of this is a waste of time - in the long view, our civilisation will only grow by looking outwards.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
So you're saying we're on the interior surface of Concave Hollow Earth?
.... watch me pull a planet out of my hat!
Also known as Balboa.
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
I'm sorry, I thought this article was about Stallone, in space.
...What about Bullwinkle?
-1, Disagree is not a valid option. Troll, Flamebait and Offtopic are not a substitute.
Maybe jump to the left?
Then a step to the right, perhaps?
General Relativity dictates that nothing can travel faster than light, and that the speed of light is constant in every frame of reference. Therefore, although we measure distance in light years, it doesn't lead to twice the duration if we traveled at half the speed of light. In fact, as we approached relativistic speeds, the duration within our frame of reference would stay the same, but from an external point of view, our speed has not actually reached such a velocity. Therefore, we would perceive the time to travel to a nearby star as shorter than the value arrived at by a simple ratio applied to c. Likewise, the actual time passed on the target planet will have been many times longer by the time we get there such that we cannot assume that millions of years haven't passed since we first set out from our own home planet.
This kind of craziness is why people would rather study QM than GR.
seemingly pointless, as your post insinuates
ummm.. how? Asking "what can we do about it?" does not insinuate it is pointless.. it insinuates that we have a lot of work ahead of us.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It was the "hmmmm" mostly. The implication seemed to be that we were simply looking at ourselves from far away and we were in truth only finding what we already knew to be. Afterall, if we really wanted to see a life-bearing rocky planet up close we could just go outside. :)
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
How far away is this rock? hmmmm.
Not very far. You're actually looking in the mirror I left out there.
What are these hand-wavy implications you speak of?
I guess we could try beaming them 'Hi', and if they happen to be watching, they might answer, but we (as in you and I) would probably be dead before such a thing was finished.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Thinking wastes energy and adds to entropy. Better to run on instinct, programming, or blind hormone-induced rage.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Well, it was a revolution in thought to discover that we weren't the centre of the universe. It would be a revolution in thought, politics and theology to know that we weren't alone in the universe. The discovery of an earth-compatible environment would also imply that interstellar colonisation was possible with sleeperships/seedships - that would greatly enhance the potential survivability of our species.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I'd like to see you do that through the internet. Who's the jackass now, jackass?
I guess, they will eventually find a habitable exoplanet or moon.
By that time Mars or some other planet or moon will have a permanent population in our solar system.
Given the incentive, it is almost sure they will develop 50% light speed travel and populate the exoplanet too.
We won't live to see it anyway.
Anyway, finding such a habitable place seems the easiest, safest and cheapest of the steps.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
if we found an exoplanet, with earthlike environment that ... would have interesting philosophical implications
I honestly can't think of any implications, if the planet is merely habitable. It wouldn't invalidate any religion I'm aware of.
Now if we found signs of life, even mundane life, we'd never hear the end of it. But it wouldn't affect me in the least because my religion already teaches that there are uncountable worlds similar to Earth (I'm LDS).
It will only have profound philosophical implications for people who believe in an earth centered, human centered or, may you be helped, god centered view of the universe. Most scientist will be thrilled but it will hardly have profound philosophical implications on the philosophy of science.
Therefore, although we measure distance in light years, it doesn't lead to twice the duration if we traveled at half the speed of light. In fact, as we approached relativistic speeds, the duration within our frame of reference would stay the same, but from an external point of view, our speed has not actually reached such a velocity.
Um, what? If it's 500 ly away, and something goes there at c/2, it takes 1000 years. What else could a speed of "half of lightspeed" possibly mean? Even relativity isn't so weird as to change that.
Therefore, we would perceive the time to travel to a nearby star as shorter than the value arrived at by a simple ratio applied to c. Likewise, the actual time passed on the target planet will have been many times longer by the time we get there such that we cannot assume that millions of years haven't passed since we first set out from our own home planet.
You're right that the passengers on the trip would experience less proper time than the observers on Earth (I believe this is really due to the acceleration involved, although it can be calculated using SR). But the time as measured by clocks on Earth and the destination will still be the one millennium you would expect from Newtonian physics. (What would surprise Newton is the anomalously large energy required to get to that speed, and the bizarre view out the window had by the travellers.)
Kanye's the jackass. Didn't you see TMZ? ;-)
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
I think you might be disappointed in the actual overall reaction.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
If we found a planet with roads and a city - civilisation, that has truly astonishing implications for our entire culture.
Do they have oil? Gold? Rare materials? Do they believe in Christ? We must build an FTL drive ASAP so we can find these things out!
Just be careful if they approach us with open gun ports. It might just be a greeting......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
But if we were looking at ourselves....imagine the distance. Yes, we'd be looking at ourselves hundreds of years ago. Time voyeurism :)
In the grand tradition of selling things you don't own, like the names of stars and acres on the moon, I hereby offer to sell 40 acre lots on this planet for a mere $10,000 each. That's cheaper than a lot this size would cost in any large city here on earth. Imagine what you could do with your lot. Since there isn't any law enforcement there yet, you could grow illegal crops, build a manufacturing plant without any polution controls, or just use it to test your nuclear bombs. This is a limited time offering, and quantities are limited, so don't delay. And if you order today, we'll include the plans for a trebuchet so you can fling dead animals onto your neighbors property.But wait, order during this program, and we'll include a set of ginzu knives (shipping, handling, and other fees are an additional charge) which can cut through the toughest tomato without the need for a hammer, but you'll want to use one anyway just for the splattering fun.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Such a planet already exists... it's called Philadelphia.
I happen to be an inhabitant of said planet. My name is Adrian, I welcome you to my world.
Dead serious, yes, my name is Adrian, and in fact, in my high school there was a also a guy named Rocky, and we were both in marching band and our band once performed "Gonna fly now." Such is the life on my planet, even though I'm a guy.
*goes back to watching sports and eating cheesesteaks*
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
If you assume that only most of, say, a 1000 light year journey takes place at 0.5c (so the trip will take 2 or 3 or 4 thousand years, assuming some clever sort of acceleration is worked out), the rest frame (the planet you launched from) will only be experiencing time about 15% faster than the ship, so only 2,300, or 3,450, or 4,600 years will have passed by the time you get to the other planet (or so).
That's still too long. The sensible way to measure velocities is in the frame of the source and destination (which might as well be in one frame when we're talking about SR), so you can calculate the travel times in that frame directly by dividing the distance by the velocity. The only weirdness is the amount of time observed by the travelers, which is smaller than that observed by the endpoints, but not because the latter amount is increased beyond what Newton would expect.
Really? I already assume there are exoplanets out there that have life even intelligent life. Obviously this is just an assumption without evidence but why should it be surprising? Perhaps you are right though. Perhaps if we do find planets with intelligent life it'll knock down our collective self-centeredness a notch. I suppose that's worth it, but I'd really rather see the money/effort spent on gravity wave detectors as those will provide the most profound insights into the origin of everything.
Whether it's a nearby supernova bathing the planet in radiation for years, or a rogue comet or asteroid impact - whether it's man's inhumanity to Mother Earth or a return of the periodic glaciation which has been Earth's habit these last billion years, or something else, the Earth will become uninhabitable by humans eventually.
I've always wondered why some people seem to think it inevitable that the entire human race will forego living on planets.
At the time I've described above if there aren't human colonies off this rock it's game over for the human race. Life will go on, but it won't be us. All humans may not forego living on planets, but some by necessity must. Or we won't, and there'll be nobody left to call me a liar.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It's one thing to say "Odds are that there's life on other planets because the Universe is so big." It's quite another to say "There is life on other planets for example the second planet of star X2949!" Even if we don't find any life, finding planets around other stars increases our solar system sample size from one and tells us a lot about how planets form.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Meanwhile, as scientists on an outer planet look our way:
"Rocky planets like the one recently discovered are turning out to be quite common throughout our area of space. Given a dense enough atmosphere, this planet could even support life like ours, although it's hot enough to kill all but the most tolerant extremophiles known. Spectroscopic analysis, though, reveals its deadly nature: much of its surface is covered with molten hydroxic acid, which forms toxic clouds and then falls as corrosive rain. If life-giving ammonia was ever present on the surface, it's long since combined with the abundant free oxygen in the atmosphere. Our chemists are still uncertain what could produce so much free oxygen; fantasists have speculated on forms of life that would metabolize oxygen in the same way that we metabolize hydrogen, but the analogy breaks down quickly as you look more closely at the chemistry involved."
Great... we can go there and take THEIR oil.
That's three reasons why we should do it. Got any more?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But of a logical jump there. It might be like Australia, or Pakistan.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Naturally, this civilization would practice the same religion as ours. And anyone here who disagrees with that truth needs to be dealt with. Harshly. Praise [fill in the blank]!
Having lived there most of my life, I'm pretty sure Australia has civilisation. But I might be wrong.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Soon to be followed by Rocky 2, Rocky 3 and Rocky 4. All of which will suck.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
...it insinuates that we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Yes, if the place has oil we need to build supertankers to travel the stars!
Of course, the first barrel will very expensive... so we'll just skip that one and get the rest of them instead.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Joking aside, if we found an exoplanet, with earthlike environment that would be completely amazing and would have interesting philosophical implications. If we found such a planet with life on it, that has profound implications. If we found a planet with roads and a city - civilisation, that has truly astonishing implications for our entire culture.
...And once we got over that momentous wonder and awe, we would have to go kill them.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
This planet is too big, too close to its Sun, and orbiting too fast to be habitable in any way we are accustomed too. But this doesn't mean its discovery is not news: Astronomers are finding more evidence that planets are common. Progress is being made towards discovering planets more like our own than the gas giants which were first discovered.
What is needed is more telescopes of good sensitivity. Each main sequence star not wholly unlike our own needs to be carefully monitored over time, in order to detect planetary crossings, and then focus the best telescopes on the most promising stars.
The summary (and TFA too ;-) reminded me of the recent debate over the definition of "planet".
One obvious problem is with the claim that we only knew of four "rocky planets" before this one. Since Mercury and Mars are included, it's likely that the definition they're using would also classify at least Titan and Triton as "rocky planets", giving us six.
But, (I can hear people saying), Titan and Triton aren't planets because they don't orbit the sun. Well, neither does this new planet; it orbits another star. Some people have seriously defined "planet" to mean objects that orbit our sun, and of course that definition immediately says that there can't be any more planets in the rest of the universe. If you accept this new object as a "rocky planet", what's your definition? You'll have to word it very carefully so that it includes things orbiting a distant star, but not those that are in orbits around local gas giants.
And if you find a good wording for that, you face another likely future problem: How small an object is allowed as the primary? Suppose a new rocky-planet-like object is found in orbit around a nearby "brown dwarf". The primary isn't a proper star, so is the object merely a moon and not a planet? It's also likely that we'll soon find Jupiter-class objects in free space, not orbiting a star; if one has a Mercury- or Mars-like object in orbit, would it be classified as a rocky planet or a moon? If it's a planet, then why isn't Ganymede also a planet?
I'd predict that in the not-too-distant future, as smaller things can be detected remotely, astronomers might decide to abandon such definitions that depend on the type of primary, and rewrite definitions so that they only use properties of the object itself. Either that, or they'll deprecate "planet" as a lay term that's not useful for scientific purposes. Dunno what they'd replace it with, though.
Meanwhile, the Sophists amongst us may be in for a lot of fun in the near future. Those of us who sat at the sidelines chuckling over the angst caused by the demoting of Pluto are probably looking forward to a lot more astronomical geek humor in the next few years.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
if we found an exoplanet, with earthlike environment that ... would have interesting philosophical implications
I honestly can't think of any implications, if the planet is merely habitable. It wouldn't invalidate any religion I'm aware of.
Now if we found signs of life, even mundane life, we'd never hear the end of it. But it wouldn't affect me in the least because my religion already teaches that there are uncountable worlds similar to Earth (I'm LDS).
Um, can you name a religion that insists there is no life on other planets? I'm not aware of any, and I have a fairly broad and reasonably deep knowledge of a number of different religions.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I find it almost impossible to believe that, if there's another rocky, Earth-like planet out there, that it doesn't have intelligent life on it. Whether we'd actually recognize intelligent life when/if we saw it is quite another question. If we found the extraterrestrial equivalent of dolphins, I'm guessing it might take us a while to discover their true intellect.
"if the place has oil"
There are oceans of oil there. But, we'll have to politely ask the natives to move their floating habitats out of the way, so we can package it up for shipment. And, we'll have to fight off the native sales critters who want to sell us portable cold fusion plants. Damned profiteers.....
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Speak for your self. I'm hoping for head in a jar status or at least occupying a big chunk of RAM.
I drank what? -- Socrates
And if the inhabitants are nothing like humans but have a dominant religion claiming that they were "created in god's image"?
Or does that just mean that their religion is wrong (like all the other ones on Earth)?
1178161 is prime...
I find it almost impossible to believe that, if there's another rocky, Earth-like planet out there, that it doesn't have intelligent life on it.
Don't the first few billion years of earth's history provide strong evidence against that idea?
Let's assume that, when we find this planet, it is the closest habitable planet for life as we know it. If we also assume that the goal of our life is propagation, then it is reasonable to think that we may have come from that planet - that THAT planet found ours, and pushed life onto it (seeded it, say, with a probe carrying everything necessary to evolve here). Based on that assumption, we should then use that planet as the focal point of a sphere in space, whose radius is defined by the distance from there, to our star. Based on the swept area that sphere includes, it would be our obligation to look for habitable planets outside that area, preferably as far from the originating planet as possible, and take our tun at seeding.
Don't the first few billion years of earth's history provide strong evidence against that idea?
I wouldn't think so, necessarily. The key phrase I used was Earth-like. I wasn't trying to imply that just about any rocky planet we found was bound to have intelligent life on it (although I think a lot of them will probably have some life on them, even if it's just algae-like), but I think if it's got rocks, an atmosphere (maybe oxygen-rich, but maybe not), and, of course, enough time to do it in, I don't see why it should evolve that much differently from our own. Maybe I'm thinking too intuitively, but I would think that if you have that kind of potential for life, you're going to get lots of lower forms first, just like we did, and that those forms are going to have to compete, and that intelligence would have its advantages. (Whether it is an advantage over size or speed in any given situation is a toss-up, I guess, but it should certainly give you some advantage, over being a dullard.)
And if the inhabitants are nothing like humans but have a dominant religion claiming that they were "created in god's image"? Or does that just mean that their religion is wrong (like all the other ones on Earth)?
I think you underestimate the lengths people will go to in order to insulate their religion from falsification. Sure, it might upset some evangelicals, but that's a small group, compared to either a) the sheep who will believe what their pastors tell them to believe, and b) those who will come up with the latest mental gymnastics to think themselves out of this quandary. No sooner will the discovery be made than you'll have theologians "discovering" that the thing "made in God's image" is the soul, not the body -- a message this other lifeform either hasn't "heard" or "understood". People have an unfortunately large capacity to take perfectly good facts, and assimilate them into their own bullshit ideas. :)
I've lived there most of mine also, I think you might be...
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Our sleeperships/seedships might greatly enhance the potential survivability of our species. Their sleeperships/seedships might do the opposite.
Oh, you must be from Sydney.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I know it's cool and all, but a giant planet in the habitable zone is more important than a rock planet hovering close to its star's burning atmosphere. Imagine a Saturn + Titan in the habitable zone. We'd only see the Saturn from here, but we can assume that such a planet might have large moons, moons capable of sustaining a dense atmosphere (which I know isn't the most common thing, but still).
Let's imagine a Titan around whichever giant exoplanet we know that's in the habitable zone, and that it has the same amount of biological activity as the Earth does now, what would it take for us to see it spectrally? Actually, what would it take for us to see oscillation in the spectrum of a planet's light (which I suppose isn't easy to separate from its star's light to begin with) that would occur when one of its satellites would be occulted or would occult the planet? (thus allowing us to detect the satellite and learn about its chemical composition). I imagine it's currently out of reach, but that's still an interesting question.
You just got troll'd!
It would be nice if news submissions to *science*.slashdot.org contained hard data URLs, rather than simply paraphrasing other press releases. I would like for example to know precisely *what* us being measured and how it is being measured (brightness vs. radial velocity, spectroscopic planet "light" frequency shifts, etc.). If you only know the orbital period and a radial velocity shift then it would be complete "fiction" (or "certitude" based on dead universe physics). With only a couple of parameters (the star type/age isn't even specified) it is entirely speculation to label an "object" a "planet" rather than say something like a Jupiter Brain.
I would think that finding a rocky, Earth-like planet might be a near-guarantee for finding life, but not necessarily intelligent life. However, some of those life forms might have some level of intelligence. They might not be little green men building flying saucers, but they might be smart pack hunters on the order of wolves. Even if we just found alien bacteria, though, it would be huge.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Having lived there most of my life, I'm pretty sure Australia has civilisation. But I might be wrong.
I also wondered about that, but then it occurred to me that the GP might in fact be aware of this, and the apparent implication that there is no civilisation on Australia is perhaps merely a playful or ironic 'jab' at the people who live in Australia.
Apparently, this is called something like 'hew-more'.
Our sleeperships/seedships might greatly enhance the potential survivability of our species. Their sleeperships/seedships might do the opposite.
That realisation might also have a big impact.
I think you might be disappointed in the actual overall reaction.
I think you're not thinking in the proper scale here. How much of a reaction do you think Copernicus got out of his contemporaries?
Um, can you name a religion that insists there is no life on other planets? I'm not aware of any,
Neither am I, but I'm sure the discovery of an intelligent civilisation would spark some discussion about their status in regards to sin and salvation in some religions.
And if the inhabitants are nothing like humans but have a dominant religion claiming that they were "created in god's image"?
If their capable of rational thought, they'd be entire correct in that belief, according to my relgion.
I don't think we'd find "little green men"-type life on a planet close enough to us for us to observe (at this stage in our technology, at least). Assuming that stars form at the same rate at the same distance from the center of the Big Bang (which may or may not be true, but which I think makes some sense), I don't think there would be enough time for it. But in a region of the universe with a Sun-type star that formed, say, a billion years before ours, it's hard to say what life would be like. Humans have only had written communication for something like 6,000 years. Life having that much of a head start on us brings up a lot of questions.
There's also, of course, the possibility that an intelligent race of beings would also have our aggression, and would eventually kill themselves off, so maybe it's not even possible for intelligent life to evolve for one billion continuous years...
No sooner will the discovery be made than you'll have theologians "discovering" that the thing "made in God's image" is the soul, not the body
The idea that "God's image" is not about the body is hardly a new one. 3 dimensional bodies are part of this universe. God, as creator of this universe, by necessity isn't. My guess is that "God's image" is about rational though, as that's what distinguishes us from animals.
I suppose you are talking about the heliocentric view not taking hold right away, but coming to influence the history of science, but I don't really see any parochialism like the earth being the center of the universe infesting modern though.
There are probably billions of people who are imposing limits on themselves, but they aren't really the thinkers. Any person with the most basic grasp of cosmology is going to be quite excited at the prospect of life elsewhere, but it isn't going to shake their foundations, the unimaginable size of the universe makes it a clear possibility.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
No sooner will the discovery be made than you'll have theologians "discovering" that the thing "made in God's image" is the soul, not the body
The idea that "God's image" is not about the body is hardly a new one. 3 dimensional bodies are part of this universe. God, as creator of this universe, by necessity isn't. My guess is that "God's image" is about rational though, as that's what distinguishes us from animals.
Two points here:
:)
1) Human beings are animals. Nothing distinguishes us from them, per se. We're (most of the time) thinking animals, but that's it. And it's not even clear that we're the only thinking animals, depending on how you deinfe "rational thought". Other animals use tools, make decisions, etc. What actually seems to distinguish us the most from other animals is written communication. If chimps, whales, or dolphins ever start writing things down, though, we might be in deep shit.
Sorry. I forgot I had another point. :)
2) Indeed, the idea of the soul being "God's image" is old, but that's not the point, really. The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain. Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply). And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter. That would be enough for them to keep believing. Like I said, people make up all kinds of nonsense to keep believing that which they can't afford to give up on.
1) Human beings are animals. Nothing distinguishes us from them, per se.
Nothing? Seriously? Are you saying other animals are just as capable of developing our level of culture and art? Of abstract discussion? Of undersatanding science? Of controlling fire, inventing cars and computers?
We're (most of the time) thinking animals, but that's it.
That's a pretty big "it" if you ask me.
And it's not even clear that we're the only thinking animals, depending on how you deinfe "rational thought". Other animals use tools, make decisions, etc.
And you really don't see a difference between their tools and decisions and ours?
What actually seems to distinguish us the most from other animals is written communication. If chimps, whales, or dolphins ever start writing things down, though, we might be in deep shit. :)
And your claim is that that is not related to rational thought?
Really, the difference we're talking about here is not one of gradual steps, it's one of many orders of magnitude.
2) Indeed, the idea of the soul being "God's image" is old, but that's not the point, really. The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
Wasn't the point of a food chain that it's a circular thing? We're being eaten by bugs and worms (and the occasional shark) and all that? But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply).
That's not at all certain. I just gave you an excellent alternative theory (that fits the bill much better, IMO).
And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter.
A "more advanced soul"? What does that even mean? I think the discussion (in Christian circles at least) is much more likely to be about whether they have their own original sin (or maybe ours applies to them too?), whether they're in need of salvation too, whether Jesus' death on the cross applies to them too (or maybe they've had their own messiah?), etc. There's no need to make up (new) weird nonsense to keep believing in anything, it just raised new theological questions.
If they have an advanced civilisation and dominate their planet in the same way we do, it's a good bet that they have a similar favoured position in God's eyes as we do. The big question is: did they fall like we did (having stuff like sin, crime and politics) or did they not fall, which means they'd be some sort of perfect beings without crime and suffering. (Yeah, I'm betting on the first one here.)
Of course having established that they're just as sinful as we are, some people will want to push their religion on the aliens, causing all sorts of new suffering.
There's quite a bit of difference between abstract expectations and knowing something for real and dealing with it. The expectation that there's probably life somewhere out there is very different from the certain knowledge that there's an intelligent civilisation just like us on that planet right there.
There's no way that's not going to make an impact.
1) Human beings are animals. Nothing distinguishes us from them, per se.
Nothing? Seriously? Are you saying other animals are just as capable of developing our level of culture and art? Of abstract discussion? Of undersatanding science? Of controlling fire, inventing cars and computers?
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that human beings aren't different from other animals. I'm saying that human beings are animals. We're not a separate category just because we can speak to each other and write (which is where all those other things you mention come from).
We're (most of the time) thinking animals, but that's it.
That's a pretty big "it" if you ask me.
Maybe yes, maybe no. We don't really have a good way of finding out what, if anything, other species are thinking right now. In certain animals, we understand what different behaviors mean generally, but we don't have any way of discerning any more specifically what and how animals are thinking, beyond simple tests to see if they have, for example, the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror and such.
Understanding what other species are actually thinking will only come when animals have a sufficient grasp of our communication to try and match us on our terms. I certainly don't expect a Shakespearian sonnet from a chimp any time soon, but they seem capable of at least a limited form of ASL at this point, and that could be built upon. That's not a bad first step. The thing that has to be remembered is that thinking and expressing those thoughts are two different things. I think it's anthropocentric to believe that just because animals don't chat with us, they can't have thoughts worth expressing.
And it's not even clear that we're the only thinking animals, depending on how you deinfe "rational thought". Other animals use tools, make decisions, etc.
And you really don't see a difference between their tools and decisions and ours?
We generally use better, more sophisticated tools and materials. But a lot of that could be anatomical, rather than because we're more intelligent. What's a dolphin or a great whale going to build? I've never actually tried it, but I don't think you'd be too successful trying to do smelting underwater (especially in salt water). And that's if you can somehow get around the serious impediment of not having hands (let alone opposable thumbs). Higher primates would obviously have an easier time building such structures, physically, but I don't recall ever hearing of a chimp that did problem solving tasks above the level of a first grader. And you generally don't see first graders in construction or engineering positions. But no one would argue that first graders can't think. They certainly lack some perceptual skills and the ability to think very abstract thoughts, but that doesn't mean they're not thinking.
What actually seems to distinguish us the most from other animals is written communication. If chimps, whales, or dolphins ever start writing things down, though, we might be in deep shit. :)
And your claim is that that is not related to rational thought?
Really, the difference we're talking about here is not one of gradual steps, it's one of many orders of magnitude.
No. My claim is that speech and writing are not the sin qua non of rational thought. Sophisticated prolbem-solving can take place without them.
2) Indeed, the idea of the soul being "God's image" is old, but that's not the point, really. The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
Wasn't the point of a food chain that it's a circular thing? We're being eaten by bugs and worms (and the occasional shark) and all that? But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
The food chain isn't circular. If it was circular, it would be called a cycle (or, if you like the circular chain idea, maybe a bracelet).
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagonize an animal (getting between a female lion and her cubs, for example).
Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply).
That's not at all certain. I just gave you an excellent alternative theory (that fits the bill much better, IMO).
Your alternate theory concerns what, in particular, in man is made in God's image. That's not what I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is what it means symbolically to be made in God's image. The symbolic significance would seem to be that humans are closer to God (i.e., his chosen people) than any other creature. If we were confronted with a species that was as well or better off than us in significant ways, that would pose a problem for that vview.
And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter.
A "more advanced soul"? What does that even mean?
Europeans used the same kinds of arguments against indigenous people all the time. Even the most advanced race can be thought of as "poor, ignorant savages" if your definition of knowledge includes knowing God. Even people in the same culture can have those kinds of thoughts about each other, if one groups religious practices are outside the norm for that community.
I think the discussion (in Christian circles at least) is much more likely to be about whether they have their own original sin (or maybe ours applies to them too?), whether they're in need of salvation too, whether Jesus' death on the cross applies to them too (or maybe they've had their own messiah?), etc. There's no need to make up (new) weird nonsense to keep believing in anything, it just raised new theological questions.
If they have an advanced civilisation and dominate their planet in the same way we do, it's a good bet that they have a similar favoured position in God's eyes as we do. The big question is: did they fall like we did (having stuff like sin, crime and politics) or did they not fall, which means they'd be some sort of perfect beings without crime and suffering. (Yeah, I'm betting on the first one here.)
Of course having established that they're just as sinful as we are, some people will want to push their religion on the aliens, causing all sorts of new suffering.
I think you're painting Christianity to be far more open-minded than it actually is. In Christianity, there is no "other" Jesus to turn to. There's also the Adam & Eve problem. If you try to keep creationism in the mix, you've got to explain a) multiple creation events, and b) why God said that we
The key phrase I used was Earth-like.
... and, of course, enough time to do it in, ...
No, I think the key phrase is:
If you want to argue that all (or most) Earth-like planets will produce intelligent life at some point, that's a perfectly good hypothesis. But even if that's true there still will be many Earth-like planets out there that's haven't reached that point yet (and might not last long enough to do so). My point was just that, if you take your post at face value, you find it "almost impossible to believe" an X could exist without Y, when you're standing on an X that didn't have Y for the vast majority of it's existence - and that sounds kind of silly.
The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
(...) But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagonize an animal (getting between a female lion and her cubs, for example).
So what you meant above was: "if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans having no natural predators"?
I think you might want to revise that argument.
Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply).
That's not at all certain. I just gave you an excellent alternative theory (that fits the bill much better, IMO).
Your alternate theory concerns what, in particular, in man is made in God's image. That's not what I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is what it means symbolically to be made in God's image. The symbolic significance would seem to be that humans are closer to God (i.e., his chosen people) than any other creature. If we were confronted with a species that was as well or better off than us in significant ways, that would pose a problem for that vview.
It would only pose a problem for the view that we're the only favoured ones. But the notion of each planet having its own favoured species wouldn't pose any fundamental theological problems.
And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter.
A "more advanced soul"? What does that even mean?
Europeans used the same kinds of arguments against indigenous people all the time. Even the most advanced race can be thought of as "poor, ignorant savages" if your definition of knowledge includes knowing God. Even people in the same culture can have those kinds of thoughts about each other, if one groups religious practices are outside the norm for that community.
The idea of other humans having no soul or a lesser soul is a rather backward view that I doubt anyone still subscribes to nowadays.
Although I'm sure some people will want to convert the aliens.
I think you're painting Christianity to be far more open-minded than it actually is.
And I am certain that you're painting Christianity as far more backwards than it really is. I'm not going to argue that all Christians are this open minded, but many are.
In Christianity, there is no "other" Jesus to turn to. There's also the Adam & Eve problem. If you try to keep creationism in the mix, you've got to explain a) multiple creation events, and b) why God said that we have dominion over the earth,
This is the whole point: we have dominion over the earth, which is a single planet. Nowhere does the bible claim any lack of competition out there. And if there is competition out there, there are several possible ways of dealing with it:
Perhaps wherever the bible says "human", it should be read as "all advanced intelligent species", God's plan for salvation as described in the bible is for them too, and we need to convert them
Duh dah nah-nah-nah nah-nah-nah nah-nah-nah
Duh dah nah-nah-nah nah-nah-nah nah-nah-nah
Nah nah-nah-nah nah-nah-nah nah-nah-nah, wah waah
Wah wah waah!
Nah nah naah!
Wah wah waah!
Nah nah naah!
Nah-nah-na-nah
Blah-bla-blah-blih-blah-blah
Wa-wah
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagonize an animal (getting between a female lion and her cubs, for example).
So what you meant above was: "if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans having no natural predators"?
I think you might want to revise that argument.
This is why I specified "in a literal sense". If we found another race of beings somewhere in the universe, and they were "superior" to us, in intellect, technology, or just brute power, we might become their prey. Maybe not in the gastronomical sense, but at the very least, in the competition for resources. To put it in a really basic way, for probably the first time in our species' existence since we developed agriculture, we'd have real competition for resources from other animals (in this case, the aliens).
Your alternate theory concerns what, in particular, in man is made in God's image. That's not what I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is what it means symbolically to be made in God's image. The symbolic significance would seem to be that humans are closer to God (i.e., his chosen people) than any other creature. If we were confronted with a species that was as well or better off than us in significant ways, that would pose a problem for that vview.
It would only pose a problem for the view that we're the only favoured ones. But the notion of each planet having its own favoured species wouldn't pose any fundamental theological problems.
Are you sure about that? It seems to me that if humans suddenly saw themselves as only one of potentially billions of "favored" species, a lot of people wouldn't exactly enthusiastically embrace that idea. There are people who reject evolution for essentially the same reason: They want man to be set apart and special, not just one of billions of things God has created.
The idea of other humans having no soul or a lesser soul is a rather backward view that I doubt anyone still subscribes to nowadays.
Although I'm sure some people will want to convert the aliens.
Having no soul or a lesser soul isn't really that foreign to Christianity. Sure, that's not a common view about humans (although one could argue that certain sects of Christianity believe that they are the "elect" or "chosen", which I think at least implies that anyone outside the group is "lesser"). It's a very common view about animals, though. And I think what you'll find in a lot of literalist circles is that they won't rush to embrace the idea that there were all of these additional beings that God made deals with and acts of creation that were never spoken about in the bible. You're talking about a theology that doesn't have man at the center of the universe, and that's going to be very hard for a lot of people to accept.
I think you're painting Christianity to be far more open-minded than it actually is.
And I am certain that you're painting Christianity as far more backwards than it really is. I'm not going to argue that all Christians are this open minded, but many are.
I can't argue that there aren't any Christians who would be open to the idea. But I think a very significant proportion of them wouldn't be, simply because it causes them the same problem as evolution does: It makes humans less special. It even makes creation less special. One of the favorite arguments of people who a
The key phrase I used was Earth-like. No, I think the key phrase is: ... and, of course, enough time to do it in, ...
If you want to argue that all (or most) Earth-like planets will produce intelligent life at some point, that's a perfectly good hypothesis. But even if that's true there still will be many Earth-like planets out there that's haven't reached that point yet (and might not last long enough to do so). My point was just that, if you take your post at face value, you find it "almost impossible to believe" an X could exist without Y, when you're standing on an X that didn't have Y for the vast majority of it's existence - and that sounds kind of silly.
How are you defining "Earth-like"? Are you defining it as a planet that will one day have Earth's conditions, or one that already has Earth's conditions? If we find a planet that has the same conditions we have now, it's likely they'll have intelligent life. The Earth is something like 4 or 5 billion years old. For most of that time, it didn't have the conditions it has now. Anatomically modern humans have been around for about 195,000 years. For most of that time, the Earth would've been recognizable to people today (albeit with different flora and fauna). So if we find a planet that looks the way that ours does now (in terms of atmosphere, etc.) I can't see any reason to think it wouldn't be at the same developmental stage that ours is at. And if a planet doesn't have those conditions, then how "Earth-like" is it?
Now, we will probably find a very different kind of species from us, and they would be at a significantly different technological level (since technology moves at a different rate than biology), but if you assume that intelligence will always emerge eventually, then if we find a planet that looks like ours, it will probably be at roughly the same stage of development as ours (except, as I said, for the technological development).
To some people, "Earth-like" and "like Earth is right now" are pretty distinct concepts. All I'm suggesting is that your original post would have been less prone to misinterpretation if it had used terms that more explicitly expressed your idea.