Rare Earth

[otseng]

Imagine there's no spacemen except the ones we launch
No alien rock n' rollers to listen to Sagan's hunch
Imagine we're all stuck here and must confront ourselves

.. uh oh!

Imagine now that Star Trek is just a TV show
No cosmos full of life forms just earthlings here below
Imagine there's no 'contact' to make 'cause no one's there

... uh oh!

You may say I'm a realist but I'm not the only one
Who knows there's zero data from SETI - or anyone!
Imagine your dream's over no Yoda to soothe you
And your only choices left then boil down to two
Imagine you're unique here and must opt for love or hate

... uh oh!

You may say I'm religious but I'm not the only one to say if you seek communion
it's the heart that must be won!

From the Rare Earth Song

In the book Rare Earth, the authors make two main points:
- Microbial life is common in planetary systems.
- Advanced life (animals) is rare in the Universe.

The arguments they give can be found at wikipedia.

But, in the book, they don't really explore the implications of their hypothesis.

So, what I'd like to ask is:

What are the implications if earth is the only planet with advanced life on it?

[QED]

Frankly if the rest of the universe turned out to be dead, as an ahteist I'd be sitting very uncomfortably in my seat, and start to get really tetchy with all those thiests humming confidently to themselves.

Maybe, but I think you'd only really be justified if:

Likewise an empty Goldilock's planets goes against evolution.

But then we would have to pin down precisely what prerequisites were needed to promote life. If examples were found and yet were devoid of life then it would indeed be telling us that some of our assumptions about evolution were wrong.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi QED

Frankly if the rest of the universe turned out to be dead, as an ahteist I'd be sitting very uncomfortably in my seat, and start to get really tetchy with all those thiests humming confidently to themselves.

Maybe, but I think you'd only really be justified if:

Likewise an empty Goldilock's planets goes against evolution.

But then we would have to pin down precisely what prerequisites were needed to promote life. If examples were found and yet were devoid of life then it would indeed be telling us that some of our assumptions about evolution were wrong.

Yeah. But I was careful not to say disproved. I'd just be uncomfortable with evolution as I understood it. And having to make some major revisions to what I see as its implications would be a tad embarrassing , because I don't think evolutionary theory will need major changes. I do predict life on planet Goldilocks.

Will the anti-evolutionist predict there will not be life do ya think?

[Chad]

One is as the song says, it would make all of our space movies purely fictional with no hope of them ever being true. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, Lost in Space, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, etc.

I never considered them anything but fictional anyways Although, Aliens was a pretty cool movie!

Also, wouldn't it make you kinda feel "lonely"? Suppose the universe is 78 billion light years in size, and there are 100 billion galaxies, and there are 500 billion stars in a galaxy. That's a lot of stuff out there. And we are it. There are no other creatures scurrying around on another planet. No other creatures swimming in waters. And especially no other creature to even ponder the meaning of life.

I personally wouldn't feel anymore lonely than I currently feel. However, it sure would seem like a huge waste of space.

[otseng]

Hypothetically, yes, we could be the ones. But just like the Queen of England, when she considers her situation, we shouldn't conclude that there must be something special about why it happened to be us. Any suggestion that it should would equally give justification for the Queen to see herself as being a special person, over and above the luck of the draw.

But, in the Rare Earth scenario, there is no "luck of the draw". There is only one stick to draw from - Earth. It is not the fact that we picked out that one stick called Earth that is special. But the fact that there is only one stick to draw from.

Frankly if the rest of the universe turned out to be dead, as an ahteist I'd be sitting very uncomfortably in my seat, and start to get really tetchy with all those thiests humming confidently to themselves.

Will the anti-evolutionist predict there will not be life do ya think?

Personally, that is what I predict. No complex life, or any life form, will be found that originated outside of Earth. Even on Goldilock planets.

I also think that if the Copernican Principle and the Mediocrity Principle are disproven, then it is a strong argument of the existence of a God. This is also the conclusion of The Privileged Planet, which also explores the conditions for life in the universe.

[Galphanore]

The rare earth hypothesis claims that the reason we have not met other intelligent species is because life is rare, not that it is unique. It was posited as an explanation for the Fermi paradox, which is is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for or contact with such civilizations. It makes the claim that those civilizations are separated by many thousands of light years, not that they do not exist.

The implication you drew from this was that these people thought they had evidence that earth was unique, but that is not what they are claiming. If what they are actually claiming turns out to be true it would be interesting, but not terribly disheartening because it would mean that there are other civilizations, they're just not easy to meet up with. If, however, your own hypothesis were to turn out true then it would have some very interesting implications. I don't think it will be, but I will explore them none the less.

I am not sure how, if we somehow turned out to be the only complex life in the galaxy, we would be able to escape religions. One of the major points of religions through the ages was geocentricism. It was, for a good while, completely believed that the earth was the center and everything orbited around us. We found that to be wrong, and then we eventually found that the sun was not the center either, and that in fact the galaxy it's self is just one of many. Fairly sure all of the progress that has resulted from not thinking of ourselves as somehow unique would begin to reverse if we did not find another intelligent species anywhere in the universe.

When, however, we do find other intelligent species in the galaxy with their own hang-ups and beliefs I think it will do us a great deal of good in allowing ourselves to progress more toward a less superstitious society.

[otseng]

The rare earth hypothesis claims that the reason we have not met other intelligent species is because life is rare, not that it is unique. It was posited as an explanation for the Fermi paradox, which is is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for or contact with such civilizations. It makes the claim that those civilizations are separated by many thousands of light years, not that they do not exist.

Not sure what you get this from, but this is not the claims of the book.

The Rare Earth hypothesis:
- Microbial life is common in planetary systems.
- Advanced life (animals) is rare in the Universe.

http://www.astro.washington.edu/rareear ... ebook.html

Further, I do not recall anywhere in the book where it mentions the Fermi paradox. I could've missed it though. Could you point where in the book it mentions explaining the Fermi paradox?

One of the major points of religions through the ages was geocentricism. It was, for a good while, completely believed that the earth was the center and everything orbited around us. We found that to be wrong, and then we eventually found that the sun was not the center either, and that in fact the galaxy it's self is just one of many.

Actually, science is now pointing us back to geocentrism. Feel free to post your evidence against geocentrism in Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

[McCulloch]

Also, wouldn't it make you kinda feel "lonely"? Suppose the universe is 78 billion light years in size, and there are 100 billion galaxies, and there are 500 billion stars in a galaxy. That's a lot of stuff out there. And we are it. There are no other creatures scurrying around on another planet. No other creatures swimming in waters. And especially no other creature to even ponder the meaning of life.

Now let us further suppose that our current understanding of the fundamentals of physics is pretty close to correct, that faster than light travel is just not possible, safe magic worm holes really don't exist and that the speed of light is really the maximum speed of any communication medium.
Given those restrictions, the number of places that we could verify that there is or is not life is quite limited. There might be a planet that developed life 100 thousand years ago, 101 thousand light-years away. We'll never know about it. There might be a planet that developed advanced communications technology 500 thousand years ago, 1 billion light years away. Yes, the Earth is rare, but perhaps not as rare as we might otherwise think.

[Galphanore]

The rare earth hypothesis claims that the reason we have not met other intelligent species is because life is rare, not that it is unique. It was posited as an explanation for the Fermi paradox, which is is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for or contact with such civilizations. It makes the claim that those civilizations are separated by many thousands of light years, not that they do not exist.

Not sure what you get this from, but this is not the claims of the book.

The Rare Earth hypothesis:
- Microbial life is common in planetary systems.
- Advanced life (animals) is rare in the Universe.

http://www.astro.washington.edu/rareear ... ebook.html

Further, I do not recall anywhere in the book where it mentions the Fermi paradox. I could've missed it though. Could you point where in the book it mentions explaining the Fermi paradox?

Both from the wikipedia article, the book review was to short to provide an understanding of what the hypothesis actually is. Also, the hypothesis it's self seems rather naive. It assumes that the only way complex life could develop is if a large number of things that lead to our development are present in other locations, but ignores that other kinds of pressure could just as easily lead life to develop into more complex forms.

In order for a small rocky planet to support complex life, the values of hundreds of variables must fall within narrow ranges. The universe is so vast that it could contain multiple Earth-like planets. But if such planets exist, they are likely to be separated from each other by many thousands of light years. Such distances may preclude communication among any intelligent species evolving on such planets, which would solve the Fermi paradox.

One of the major points of religions through the ages was geocentricism. It was, for a good while, completely believed that the earth was the center and everything orbited around us. We found that to be wrong, and then we eventually found that the sun was not the center either, and that in fact the galaxy it's self is just one of many.

Actually, science is now pointing us back to geocentrism. Feel free to post your evidence against geocentrism in Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

Geocentricism is the claim that the earth is the center of the universe, I hardly think a theory that makes every point the center of the universe supports Geocentricism, because the whole stance behind it is that being in the center somehow makes us special.

[otseng]

Given those restrictions, the number of places that we could verify that there is or is not life is quite limited. There might be a planet that developed life 100 thousand years ago, 101 thousand light-years away. We'll never know about it. There might be a planet that developed advanced communications technology 500 thousand years ago, 1 billion light years away. Yes, the Earth is rare, but perhaps not as rare as we might otherwise think.

It assumes that the only way complex life could develop is if a large number of things that lead to our development are present in other locations, but ignores that other kinds of pressure could just as easily lead life to develop into more complex forms.

I would counter that both you and McCulloch are appealing to the unknown.

There might be unknown aliens out there, but just don't know about them yet.
There might be unknown environments and conditions favorable for life, but we don't know about them yet.

However, again, the main point of this thread is not whether the hypothesis is true or not, but if it is true, what are the implications?

I hardly think a theory that makes every point the center of the universe supports Geocentricism, because the whole stance behind it is that being in the center somehow makes us special.

Only if you believe in an unbounded universe would every point be at the center. But, in that thread, I've argued why the universe can not be unbounded and must be bounded.

[Galphanore]

Given those restrictions, the number of places that we could verify that there is or is not life is quite limited. There might be a planet that developed life 100 thousand years ago, 101 thousand light-years away. We'll never know about it. There might be a planet that developed advanced communications technology 500 thousand years ago, 1 billion light years away. Yes, the Earth is rare, but perhaps not as rare as we might otherwise think.

It assumes that the only way complex life could develop is if a large number of things that lead to our development are present in other locations, but ignores that other kinds of pressure could just as easily lead life to develop into more complex forms.

I would counter that both you and McCulloch are appealing to the unknown.

There might be unknown aliens out there, but just don't know about them yet.
There might be unknown environments and conditions favorable for life, but we don't know about them yet.

As are you by assuming that there are no other planets with similar conditions to earth. The point is that in this circumstance we cannot escape the unknown as estimations of what might be because our instruments are not precise enough to allow us to see anything more then planets in the closest solar systems, and with SETI we are assuming that other intelligent species would have the same desire to be found that we have. We're addicted to anthropomorphising.

However, again, the main point of this thread is not whether the hypothesis is true or not, but if it is true, what are the implications?

Yes, and I answered what I thought they were :

• I am not sure how, if we somehow turned out to be the only complex life in the galaxy, we would be able to escape religions. One of the major points of religions through the ages was geocentricism. It was, for a good while, completely believed that the earth was the center and everything orbited around us. We found that to be wrong, and then we eventually found that the sun was not the center either, and that in fact the galaxy it's self is just one of many. Fairly sure all of the progress that has resulted from not thinking of ourselves as somehow unique would begin to reverse if we did not find another intelligent species anywhere in the universe.
  
  When, however, we do find other intelligent species in the galaxy with their own hang-ups and beliefs I think it will do us a great deal of good in allowing ourselves to progress more toward a less superstitious society.

I hardly think a theory that makes every point the center of the universe supports Geocentricism, because the whole stance behind it is that being in the center somehow makes us special.

Only if you believe in an unbounded universe would every point be at the center. But, in that thread, I've argued why the universe can not be unbounded and must be bounded.

Sorry, mis-read your first post in that thread when I skimmed it. Not sure how a bounded universe supports geocentricism though, other then giving the universe a center somewhere, but I'll go read that thread to continue this.