[MB.]

What is the source of the paper you cited? Starman

[starman2003]

What is the source of the paper you cited? Starman

http://dml.cmnh.org/2017May/msg00095.html

It's not open access...

[neopagan]

The whole "life on other planets" idea is based on two concepts.

1: Wishful-thinking by those who are enamored of the possibility.

2: Size - the Universe is a big place, so there must be life out there somewhere.

Followers of both schools of thought congratulate themselves on being open minded, but unfortunately neither concept can accommodate irony. While life may exist beyond our solar system, there is no logical reason to actually believe it does, other than concept 2. And as most of us recognise, the Universe is only big in our minds because we are small. When the mathematics of bigness can explain irony, it may start to explain life. At this point in the history of human consciousness, it does neither, and so it is no more logical that life should exist out there, than that Earth is an oasis in vast desert.

[starman2003]

The whole "life on other planets" idea is based on two concepts.

1: Wishful-thinking by those who are enamored of the possibility.

2: Size - the Universe is a big place, so there must be life out there somewhere.

What about the principle of mediocrity? The idea there's nothing special about us. Processes which occurred here could, in similar circumstances, occur anywhere.
And what about the plethora of known exoplanets--around 4,000--which would be higher if truly earthsized planets were as easily detectable as gas giants and superearths? It's not just the size of the galaxy--let alone the Universe--but the proven likelihood of many habitable worlds.

[stephen50right]

To believe that there is not life on other planets is just naive. Of course there is life on other planets and moons. It's not even a debatable point, it's a mathematical certainty.

[Potemkin]

To believe that there is not life on other planets is just naive. Of course there is life on other planets and moons. It's not even a debatable point, it's a mathematical certainty.

The galaxy is probably teeming with life. However, almost all of it will be microbial. After all, life had existed on Earth for about 3 billion years in the form of microbes, and it is only about 500 million years or so that multicellular life first emerged. Even to this day, in terms of sheer biomass, most life is microbial. And when we get up from a chair, more bacteria than body cells stand up.

Good luck having a philosophical discussion with that green slime that lives on Rigel IV....

[stephen50right]

The galaxy is probably teeming with life. However, almost all of it will be microbial. After all, life had existed on Earth for about 3 billion years in the form of microbes, and it is only about 500 million years or so that multicellular life first emerged. Even to this day, in terms of sheer biomass, most life is microbial. And when we get up from a chair, more bacteria than body cells stand up.

Good luck having a philosophical discussion with that green slime that lives on Rigel IV....

I don't disagree at all with that. So many theories about intelligent life. But there should not be any debate about other life in the universe - it is a factual certainty without question.

However intelligent life is another matter based on a premise that when a species gets to be intelligent enough to have advanced technology IE advanced weapons, it winds up destroying itself in some manner. Unfortunately, this isn't a far fetched premise by any means.

If we humans are foolish enough to destroy ourselves, then perhaps whatever evolves in our place, and if it evolves to the point of being able to examine our fossil record, well maybe they can learn from it.

Also based on this premise of self-destruction, there may be a short window of when the destruction occurs, say around a century or whatever. Don't forget it's only been since 1945 when we've had this horrific ability.

Despite the countless millions of planets which contain life, it could be theoretically possible that, right now, we could be alone in the universe as the only one with so-called "intelligent" life, because of the premise that the other intelligent life that evolved out there destroyed itself, and the other life evolving hasn't gotten to the point yet of developing advanced technology.

As our space probes become more sophisticated and go further out into our solar system and beyond, we will eventually learn all these secrets, and it will be most fascinating.

[Rancid]

The galaxy is probably teeming with life. However, almost all of it will be microbial. After all, life had existed on Earth for about 3 billion years in the form of microbes, and it is only about 500 million years or so that multicellular life first emerged. Even to this day, in terms of sheer biomass, most life is microbial. And when we get up from a chair, more bacteria than body cells stand up.

Good luck having a philosophical discussion with that green slime that lives on Rigel IV....

I would love nothing more than one night, just one night with the triple breasted whore of Eroticon 6.

[Oxymoron]

Clairvoyance will be a real thing in 2017 apparently.

[MememyselfandIJK]

On a serious note, the Drake Equation is a mathematical formula that estimates the total amount of civilizations found in our milky way. It goes like this:

N = R*Fp*Ne*Fl*Fi*Fc*L

Where:
R = the rate of star formation (stars/year)
Fp=Fraction of stars that have planets (times the number of planets or related celestial bodies)
Ne= Fraction of bodies that can support life
Fl= Fraction of habitable planets that develop life
Fi= The fraction of life-bearing planets that develop intelligent life (times the number of instances of intelligent life)
Fc= The fraction of intelligent species that develop technologies that can emit a detectable signal
L= The length of time on average that the species emits such signals (until they become extinct, develop better tech, etc.)

Play around with the numbers and see what you get. (For reference, Drake got 900 civilizations in the Milky way at any time)

Note: Theoretically, you could also add a term (Ng) for number of galaxies in the universe, but it takes millions or billions of years to communicate between galaxies, so intergalactic communication is all but pointless.

Questions?

[stephen50right]

On a serious note, the Drake Equation is a mathematical formula that estimates the total amount of civilizations found in our milky way. It goes like this:

N = R*Fp*Ne*Fl*Fi*Fc*L

Where:
R = the rate of star formation (stars/year)
Fp=Fraction of stars that have planets (times the number of planets or related celestial bodies)
Ne= Fraction of bodies that can support life
Fl= Fraction of habitable planets that develop life
Fi= The fraction of life-bearing planets that develop intelligent life (times the number of instances of intelligent life)
Fc= The fraction of intelligent species that develop technologies that can emit a detectable signal
L= The length of time on average that the species emits such signals (until they become extinct, develop better tech, etc.)

Play around with the numbers and see what you get. (For reference, Drake got 900 civilizations in the Milky way at any time)

Note: Theoretically, you could also add a term (Ng) for number of galaxies in the universe, but it takes millions or billions of years to communicate between galaxies, so intergalactic communication is all but pointless.

Questions?

Drake wrote that in the 1960's and it still has relevance today, even though since then we now know that the universe has perhaps at least ten times the amount of galaxies.

Yes, communication is a problem because the speed of light seems to be the speed limit for the universe. And of course with an expanding universe, that communication problem gets worse by the second.

All this being said, I'm glad that President Trump is putting emphasis on NASA again. I realize it's very expensive. But the technical benefits to mankind that arises out of the research are of great value. And of course the knowledge regarding our solar system and universe is priceless. We humans are inquisitive little rascals and we just have to know what's out there - it's our nature.

[MememyselfandIJK]

All this being said, I'm glad that President Trump is putting emphasis on NASA again. I realize it's very expensive. But the technical benefits to mankind that arises out of the research are of great value. And of course the knowledge regarding our solar system and universe is priceless. We humans are inquisitive little rascals and we just have to know what's out there - it's our nature.

He barley changed NASAs budget. If it were up to me I would tax the rich 5 times what they are now, pool that money with 90% of the DoD funding, and split it between social services and Science (EPA, NASA, NSF, etc)

If we did this than within 3-4 decades we could feasibly:

• Establish lunar colonies
• Make a manned trip to Mars, and start planning colonies
• Start serious planning for a manned Jovian mission (Not the "planning" that we have for a Mars mission today)
• Design more space probes capable of traveling a significant fraction the speed of light

And that's just NASA. Look at this list (by 2050)

• Halt and reverse Climate change
• Improve food/water production and distribution to seriously cut down hunger and thirst
• Make significant strides against cancer and other diseases
• Start constructing a particle accelerator that makes the LHC look like a child's toy
• Improve gene therapy to eliminate most disorders before a child is even born (or after)

Hell, we could even launch unmanned craft capable of traveling to proxima Centurai within decades, rather than hundreds of thousands of years. But I guess we can't have that because the US doesn't like socialism.

[stephen50right]

He barley changed NASAs budget. If it were up to me I would tax the rich 5 times what they are now, pool that money with 90% of the DoD funding, and split it between social services and Science (EPA, NASA, NSF, etc)

If we did this than within 3-4 decades we could feasibly:

• Establish lunar colonies
• Make a manned trip to Mars, and start planning colonies
• Start serious planning for a manned Jovian mission (Not the "planning" that we have for a Mars mission today)
• Design more space probes capable of traveling a significant fraction the speed of light

And that's just NASA. Look at this list (by 2050)

• Halt and reverse Climate change
• Improve food/water production and distribution to seriously cut down hunger and thirst
• Make significant strides against cancer and other diseases
• Start constructing a particle accelerator that makes the LHC look like a child's toy
• Improve gene therapy to eliminate most disorders before a child is even born (or after)

Hell, we could even launch unmanned craft capable of traveling to proxima Centurai within decades, rather than hundreds of thousands of years. But I guess we can't have that because the US doesn't like socialism.

<<< He barley changed NASAs budget. >>>

For now...but the important thing is that Trump stopped the bleeding. And there is no doubt the NASA budget will get increased as the Trump administration and our economy becomes stronger.

You have some great ideas there. Except that I never saw the importance and huge cost involved of having colonies on the moon or mars. The probes are fine, but in my view various mechanical devices are good enough to learn what we wish to learn. With computers, robots, etc being made these days, it is that which should be used and simply directed here from earth to do what we want to get done. In my view, there's no advantage or potential gain in placing human lives at risk, and again, the huge cost factor.

[starman2003]

However intelligent life is another matter based on a premise that when a species gets to be intelligent enough to have advanced technology IE advanced weapons, it winds up destroying itself in some manner. Unfortunately, this isn't a far fetched premise by any means.

Despite the countless millions of planets which contain life, it could be theoretically possible that, right now, we could be alone in the universe as the only one with so-called "intelligent" life, because of the premise that the other intelligent life that evolved out there destroyed itself

Sagan suggested the same thing but it's too pessimistic IMO. If life is intelligent enough to build WMD it's intelligent enough to be deterred. Nuclear weapons=effective deterrence =no war. If not one of the thousands of nuclear bombs built in the past 70 years has ever been used, it's not because people are inherently peaceful or moral, but too smart to be suicidal. And the threat appears to have diminished significantly since 1989.
I agree it's probably best to rely on robots to explore and exploit the moon, Mars and other worlds. Humans are just too frail for space. The costs of dealing with radiation, calcium loss, need for oxygen and food etc, appear prohibitive. In the future cyborgs designed for space may do it.

[stephen50right]

Sagan suggested the same thing but it's too pessimistic IMO. If life is intelligent enough to build WMD it's intelligent enough to be deterred. Nuclear weapons=effective deterrence =no war. If not one of the thousands of nuclear bombs built in the past 70 years has ever been used, it's not because people are inherently peaceful or moral, but too smart to be suicidal. And the threat appears to have diminished significantly since 1989.
I agree it's probably best to rely on robots to explore and exploit the moon, Mars and other worlds. Humans are just too frail for space. The costs of dealing with radiation, calcium loss, need for oxygen and food etc, appear prohibitive. In the future cyborgs designed for space may do it.

What I think is another real problem of sending humans to other planets, is the grave danger of them unknowingly picking up some alien organism, bringing it back to earth, and the damn thing multiplying like crazy since it might love the earth's environment so much to the point of it being totally out of control. Something that could kill plants and animals including us on a massive scale. Chances are exposing it to earth's environment would probably kill it, but why take the chance of a possible horrific event? Best to send out the space probes, transmit the pics and data as we do now thru radio waves, and permanently leave the space probe and everything else right there where it can do us no possible harm.

I would agree with ya about being "too pessimistic" if it wasn't for the rise of Iran and North Korea. We shall see...of course the future is always uncharted waters.

[MememyselfandIJK]

For now...but the important thing is that Trump stopped the bleeding. And there is no doubt the NASA budget will get increased as the Trump administration and our economy becomes stronger.

NASA's budget has seen spikes, down spirals and stagnation since the organization was formed.

I doubt that Trump has NASA's best interests at heart. What organization will he defund next to give the rich their next tax break, "upgrade" the military, or attack science, reason, and truth? Definitely not the department of homeland security.

[starman2003]

What I think is another real problem of sending humans to other planets, is the grave danger of them unknowingly picking up some alien organism, bringing it back to earth, and the damn thing multiplying like crazy since it might love the earth's environment so much to the point of it being totally out of control. Something that could kill plants and animals including us on a massive scale. Chances are exposing it to earth's environment would probably kill it, but why take the chance of a possible horrific event? Best to send out the space probes, transmit the pics and data as we do now thru radio waves, and permanently leave the space probe and everything else right there where it can do us no possible harm.

They've been aware of this sort of risk from the start. Given the huge importance of an alien biological sample, it may be worthwhile to bring it back to Earth where it can be better scrutinized than in a space probe. It shouldn't be too difficult to take precautions-- freezing the microorganisms in a hermetically sealed container, thoroughly sterilizing the exterior etc. As an added precaution, study it in an polar or desert laboratory.

I would agree with ya about being "too pessimistic" if it wasn't for the rise of Iran and North Korea. We shall see...of course the future is always uncharted waters.

The alleged threat from Iran has been greatly overstated. This may not be the right forum for this, but they face an Israeli enemy with scores if not hundreds on nuclear bombs already in being yet are mercilessly hounded over the 1 or two they might build... An ex-Mossad official called Iran's leaders "very rational."
I don't have high hopes for NASA under Trump.

[stephen50right]

They've been aware of this sort of risk from the start. Given the huge importance of an alien biological sample, it may be worthwhile to bring it back to Earth where it can be better scrutinized than in a space probe. It shouldn't be too difficult to take precautions-- freezing the microorganisms in a hermetically sealed container, thoroughly sterilizing the exterior etc. As an added precaution, study it in an polar or desert laboratory.



The alleged threat from Iran has been greatly overstated. This may not be the right forum for this, but they face an Israeli enemy with scores if not hundreds on nuclear bombs already in being yet are mercilessly hounded over the 1 or two they might build... An ex-Mossad official called Iran's leaders "very rational."
I don't have high hopes for NASA under Trump.

<<< It shouldn't be too difficult to take precautions >>>

You're right about "They've been aware", I was just reiterating it. We all know how invasive species of plants or animals can harm an environment. And we all know what happened to the Native Americans when they met the Europeans, and the Native Americans didn't have immunity from the diseases the Europeans had, and so the Native Americans died by the millions from these newly introduced diseases as a result.

But I disagree with your premise about bringing it back to earth. Anything could happen, leakage of some kind, the thing escapes somehow, or it gets stolen and a terrorist uses it in some manner. All sorts of Hollywood movie scenarios that could become real and so we just can't take the chance - it's just far too dangerous.

[starman2003]

But I disagree with your premise about bringing it back to earth. Anything could happen, leakage of some kind, the thing escapes somehow, or it gets stolen and a terrorist uses it in some manner. All sorts of Hollywood movie scenarios that could become real and so we just can't take the chance - it's just far too dangerous.

Maybe they could just equip a space station to handle and study biological samples.

[stephen50right]

Maybe they could just equip a space station to handle and study biological samples.

That's not a bad idea. Then when the space station becomes obsolete, just launch it towards the sun, don't ever allow it to come back to earth.