The alien hypothesis?

[Otto]

All these estimations necessarily must go wrong because we have no 
single piece of "evidence" of any other "developed" life somewhere else. 
As Joel said we are radiating for some 150 years so it seems unlikely 
(to me) that there's any developed planet in our local bubble, that 
relatively safe area where our star system could develop a planet that 
could develop life.

on R*: the number of stars alone doesn't count because it's very likely 
that there are more civilizations in the outer rims of a galaxy than 
closer to the center. There may be more stars closer to the centre but 
the number of "disturbances" that can destroy young planets or simple 
life forms (or life generally) is much higher too.

on fp*: what has been detected up to now seems to indicate that a great 
number of stars develop planets.

on ne*: we are close to the next step where we will be technically able 
to detect smaller planets and not only gas giants. There will be better 
figures if (some day) we can say that a certain number of detected star 
systems develops smaller planets, depending on the number and size of 
the gas giants in those systems.

on fl*: well, that's really a question. Is Mars just a failed Earth? 
What has happened to Venus to make it such a terrible place?

on fi*: I'd say that if there's an earthlike planet in the habitable 
zone of a solar system with an average number of natural disasters like 
our own world has seen there should be the chance of intelligent life on 
this planet.

fc*: I bet if they're able they'll be willing too.

on L*: now it becomes political . . .

Reading:
Stanislaw Lem: "One Human Minute", especially "The World as Cataclysm":
San Diego: A Helen and Kurt Wolff Book, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986 &
London: André Deutsch, 1986
Translated by: Catherine S. Leach from Biblioteka XXI Wieku (Library of 
the 21st Century) Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1986.
Contents:
1. "One Human Minute" by J. Johnson & S. Johnson ("Jedna Minuta" from 
Prowokacja Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie 1984).
2. "The Upside-Down Evolution" ("Weapon Systems of the Twenty First 
Century or The Upside-Down Evolution" from Biblioteka XXI Wieku Kraków: 
Wydawnictwo Literackie 1986).
3. "The World as Cataclysm" ("Das kreative Vernichtungsprinzip. The 
World as Holocaust" from Biblioteka XXI Wieku Kraków: Wydawnictwo 
Literackie, 1986).
Note: One Human Minute contains so-called Lem's Law: "No one reads; if 
someone does read, he does not understand; if he understands, he 
immediately forgets." See 1991 ed. by Mandarin p. 2.
Other English language editions:
‑ London: André Deutsch, 1989 &
‑ London: Mandarin, 1991.

On L*:
Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle: "The Mote in God's Eye"
Read allegorically we are the Splits!

Rob wrote:
 > it's a little but egotistical, if not downright solipsistic, to 
assume for oneself the mantle of supreme being in all of existence.

Indeed, if there's a more intelligent species than mankind on our planet 
it might have been so intelligent to hide this fact (or itself) before us!

Regarding life elsewhere: nobody can tell the ways nature develops life 
just by looking how it happened here. Other possible conditions might 
deliver other solutions. Because we are part of a system of lifeforms 
that have developed in the waters and on the surface of this planet this 
doesn't mean that the development of life is necessarily bound to small, 
wet earthlike planets, or planets at all.

Otto

>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> The Drake equation:
> N=R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc xL
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation for what it all means.
>
> David Gentle


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de