▲ 12 points
back
17 comments
Previous related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17389842 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17302924.
Interview with Anders Sandberg (co-author in the cited paper) making clear that he thinks there's still almost certainly life out there even though the estimations are pessimistic: https://futurism.com/life-universe-scientist-drake-equation-...
The presumption to all these discussions is, that we're actually capable of detecting intelligent life if its out there. Which is probably silly. We're looking for radio waves. If we were talking about this in the 1800's, we'd be looking for what? Telegraph signals?
In future, spacefaring civilizations will use something other than broadcast EM fields to communicate. Maybe soliton lasers through the interstellar plasma. Maybe highly encrypted light bursts that are actually indistinguishable from noise (like, you know, the internet does now). And our chance of intercepting point-to-point signals depends entirely on our planet wandering into the path of one of these signals (if they were so stupid as to even send it where they knew Earth would be later). And recognizing it as a signal. And we're way out on the edge of things, so not actually between anybody and anybody else.
Maybe, its a silent galaxy because nobody is talking to us.
The Drake equation assumes there are no limits to technology and that without some kind of great filter the Universe would be so permeated with advanced civilizations that signs of their existence is inescapable.
I find it more likely that the speed of light is the great filter and that interstellar travel is so difficult that the rare instances of life are unlikely to leave their star system never mind their galaxy group (which would require faster-than-light travel).
Previous related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17389842
The thing to keep in mind about the Drake equation is that the last two terms of it, fc and L, concern themselves with 'detectability'. I didn't have enough stamina to mine the treatment or modeling of these two terms from the paper, but relative to the entire universe the number of civilizations of our stature that we would plausibly 'detect' through spurious emission or environmental impact (aka transit spectroscopy) would seem vanishingly small. Detection of a civilization outside of our galaxy would likely be limited to Kardashev Type II and greater civilizations that are intent on making contact with ours.
So, if you find a way to squeeze the word 'detectable' in the title, you're probably closer to the actual findings of the paper (even though the paper itself seems to lose track of that term).
Previously discussed in June here[0] and here[1], both the original article and another summary of it.
It's so arrogant to assume that intelligent life here that is made of the 5 most common elements in the universe (C, H, O, N and Other) cannot arise in the myriad of other star systems out there.
Let’s see how common the arrangement of a world like Earth with such a large moon actually is. Blame the Moon for life having enough time to evolve into us.
Weirdly these same scientists who ask where is everyone? will deny Ufo stories without looking, on principle alone.
No. A conclusion saying that humanity is unique, even if true, is useless. The only thing we can take from this is that we shouldnt bother looking. Ill accept such defeatism only once im chatting by phone with my grandson who lives in another solar system. Until then the search must continue.
You will never chat by phone with someone in another solar system. In principle you could record a message which they will hear years later, and then they'll record a reply which you'll hear even more years down the road; hardly a chat.
Also, text will be much cheaper to send over that distance, so think telegrams not telephones.
So my point stands. The question continues until we have perfected realtime interstellar communications. Until we can do that we cannot be sure that someone else isn't out there just ahead of our perceptions. If that tech never happens, the search must continue.
We're not even alone on this planet, nevermind the universe!
Well if we were alone on earth, we'd not exist... What would we eat? Life must have an ecosystem / food chain for energy.
I bet there's a ton of dinosaur-like planets out there.
The Fermi paradox concerns the galaxy, not the rest of the universe which is too far away to know anything about.
I want to believe.
Famous last words.