The alien hypothesis?

[Joel Katz]

sagan's theory was that life is sprouting up in the galaxy all the time, 
even simulateneously -- but that advanced civilizations destroy themselves 
before they can make contact.  think about it:  we've been radiating for 
less than 150 years, and in that time we've already come within minutes of 
extinction, and are probably even-odds for making it through the next 150.

set against a backdrop of cosmic time, the existence of other life is almost 
a mathematical certainty -- whiile contact with it is highly improbable.





>From: Blake Stacey <blake.stacey at ens-lyon.fr>
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: The alien hypothesis?
>Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:16:04 +0200
>
>Quoting jbor at bigpond.com:
>
>>Actually, "Science" does seem to spend an awful lot of time (and money)  
>>investigating whether Mars could support, or has supported, organic  life 
>>and so forth. I'd imagine that the probability of the existence of  "life" 
>>elsewhere in the universe could be calculated scientiffically,  i.e. via 
>>some sort of equation where the expanse of the known universe  is 
>>moderated against the likelihood of environmental and chemical  conditions 
>>needed to generate and sustain "life" manifesting  spontaneously. I 
>>suspect that the odds would be quite good.  Hypothetically-speaking, that 
>>is.
>>
>
>Been done.  We have the "Drake Equation", named not for any Celtic dragon 
>but
>for astronomer Frank Drake, which takes the big question "Is there anybody 
>out
>there?" and divides up our uncertainty.  Each factor in the Drake Equation 
>can
>be estimated (or guesstimated) based on a different set of scientific 
>findings.
>The first number, R*, is the rate of star formation in the galaxy, which we 
>can
>figure out by looking through telescopes.  Other parameters, like f_L -- 
>the
>fraction of possibly life-bearing planets which in fact go on to develop 
>life
>-- must be estimated using biochemistry, molecular biology and geology.  
>While
>all of these variables have considerable "plus or minus" as regards their
>values, the most contentious is probably the last, the number Drake called 
>L. The variable L represents the average lifetime a civilization stays 
>"alive". Drake estimated L at 10 years; Michael Shermer puts it at 420.  
>(Pass the bong,
>dude.)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(drug_culture)
>
>In Timothy Ferris's book **The Mind's Sky**, he quotes a poem which 
>apparently
>floated through the SETI community:
>
>>Of all the sad tales
>>That SETI might tell
>>The saddest would be
>>A small value for L.
>
>Freeman Dyson pointed out, some years ago, that the Drake Equation should 
>really
>be called the "Drake Inequality".  According to Dyson, the equation needs 
>one
>more factor, a parameter to represent how many "daughter" civilizations are
>colonized by each intelligent species.  The Drake Equation as it was 
>originally
>stated gives the **minimum** number of civilizations in the galaxy, but if
>civilizations achieve interstellar spaceflight, the actual number would be
>higher, possibly much higer.  At present, the only way to estimate this 
>number
>is to take an average over the values proposed in science-fiction novels.
>
>>As to "intelligent life" or UFOs, well, that'd be a separate equation.  Or 
>>a derivative of the first. But the concept of "intelligent life" is  
>>problematic in that it's another one of those self-defining systems or  
>>semantic constructs. And, coming at it from another perspective, it's a  
>>little but egotistical, if not downright solipsistic, to assume for  
>>oneself the mantle of supreme being in all of existence.
>>
>
>Don't wanna go there.  Murky waters.  Let me just say that the SETI people 
>have
>worked very hard to imagine what sort of communication might be possible 
>with
>species as different from humanity as scientists can imagine.  (As 
>different,
>that is, while still being consistent with known physical law.  Beings from 
>the
>Q Continuum need not apply.)
>
>Blake
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/