Sometimes I wonder if the reason we’ve not found any life might be because we just don’t recognise it as such. It might be too alien; maybe it’s such a large system that we don’t fully comprehend it, or perhaps it moves at a timescale that we just cannot grasp.
We created gods in our image to explain existence. Anthropocentric as we are, we assumed that humanity was somehow special, distinguished from all other life on Earth. Now we’re doing the same with the very definition of life. Life looks a certain way on Earth, so obviously it needs to look the same everywhere.
It makes sense as an outset though, you can only look for what we know to look for.
If you think about it, looking for life that’s very similar to us is the exact opposite of presuming we are special. It’s presuming we are average.
That’s certainly one perspective! I’m a pessimist by nature, which I suppose is reflected in my view on humanity as a whole.
We humans are made out of most basic atoms of the universe, so it does make some sense to assume most life to be carbon based. There could be more advanced silicon based life forms, but it would be much more complex.
Of course it might be that more advanced life forms would consider us as same level as we consider ants. How many conversations have you had with ants lately.
deleted by creator
Well statistically speaking you and me are probably both quite average…
But average here means just a rocky planet inside it’s stars habitable zone. That is then shoved into the drake equation and that gives out that prediction for planet harboring at least microbial life within 65 light years, provided that 1% of planets with a chance to do so eventually develop life.
deleted by creator
The problem is, due to the anthropic principle, we cannot say that the occurrence of life is average, because there is an inherent selection bias there. If life didn’t exist on earth, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. We only come into existence where life already is, and so we do not have a true average planet. To have a true average planet, we would have needed the ability to come into existence on a lifeless world. The cosmological principle actually doesn’t quite hold, because we are in a privileged position, as we, by definition, cannot come into existence where there isn’t life. This includes the kind of universe we exist in, as well, if multiple universes exist.
So, from our existence we cannot form any conclusions on how common life is. At best only an educated guess. If we detect life on another planet, only then can we begin drawing conclusions, as in that case we avoid a selection bias.
Speak for yourself. I’ve got higher than average number of hands, feet, fingers, toes, arms., legs, teeth, eyes, ears, hair, and more!
Reminder, that the furthest man made spacecraft right now is the voyager that started 46 years ago in 1977. it is 18 lighthours away. Not a lightday, not a lightweek. No a lightmonth. Not a light year. Not 60 lightyears. 18 lighthours in 46 years. One human lifetime is around 24-28 lighthours, in voyagers speed.
If we want to reach a system that is 60 lightyears away, we need to astronomically advance our technology for propulsion technology and long time human space flights. Bone and muscle loss is a real problem when staying in space even for relativity short time.
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/bone-and-muscle-loss-in-microgravity/
Yes.
Communication could happen though. A person could send and receive a message in a single lifetime.“hello”
“What?”
*dies*
