New hope for intelligent life on other planets

Recent study challenges a widely held anti-ET argument based on evolution

Intelligent life beyond Earth might not be as dim a hope as many scientists think, according to a new study challenging a widely held anti-ET argument.

Many skeptics tout an idea called the anthropic argument that claims extraterrestrial intelligence must be very rare because the time it takes for intelligent life to evolve is, on the average, much longer than the portion of a star's existence that is conducive to such life.

But now astrobiologist Milan M. Cirkovic and colleagues say they've found a flaw in that reasoning.

New hope for intelligent life on other planets

(visit the link for the full news article)

Exciting news!

To think that we're an oddity in the universe is so dumb... That we're somehow that unique example of life being out there in the universe.

I think it was Arthur C. Clark that said this, I am not sure. Someone clue me in. Something about 'It is terrifying to think that we may be the only ones in the universe. It is equally terrifying to think that we may not'. So what is the rush to find life, who could turn out hostile? And way ahead of us technologically? Personally, I think that is absurd. But it makes sense for all you simpletons who think that there is no God.

reply to post by Gregarious


Here is why the ones we will find are not hostile towards us.

We would already be dead.

I think that sums it up just fine don't you?

Originally posted by Gregarious
o what is the rush to find life, who could turn out hostile? And way ahead of us technologically? Personally, I think that is absurd. But it makes sense for all you simpletons who think that there is no God.

Yes, let's never find out. Let us never know whether we are alone in this Universe or not. And let us hope there is no one out there to come here and disturb this Garden of Eden that we call Earth. It would be a shame because everything is perfect here on Earth, just as you designed and intended All Mighty God.

And oh dear Lord, save us from the simpletons who want to know things about the Universe and ourselves. Save us from the simpletons who dare think about these complex things or even, god forbid, your existence.

Praise Jesus.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Many skeptics tout an idea called the anthropic argument that claims extraterrestrial intelligence must be very rare because the time it takes for intelligent life to evolve is, on the average, much longer than the portion of a star's existence that is conducive to such life.

On the average? And they based this "average" on how many known instances of intelligent life? That's like grabbing the first man who comes along and declaring him to be the average height.

According to currently accepted theory, it took billions of years for intelligent life to evolve here on earth. For all we know, we may be the rare exception, the planet that had many events that delayed the normal development of intelligence. Maybe it happens in just a few million years on most planets. Maybe it never happens at all. We don't know a thing about the "average" rate of development. We have exactly one known instance upon which to base our conclusions. It's not enough.

I don't see why intelligence has to be unique to us, or rare. As we've learned more about the world, we've seen that the world isn't the center of the Universe, nor even of the solar system. Time and again we've learned that there is nothing unique or special about our planet, solar system, or galaxy. Why should we be special in that we have intelligent life (especially since I'm not altogether convinced we do have it)?

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, possibly even more than that. Within those galaxies there are more billions or trillions of stars, any of which might have a planet. The sheer numbers seem to suggest that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

reply to post by converge

Converge.. I [snip] love you mate... I love you. My question is this:
Why is it always the simpleton that has no answer and quickly refers to something along the lines of "Becuase god said so" or.. my favourite "Its in the bible." Bloody hell! Even the Bible.. almost the entire works of hebrew beliefs, the Hindi texts, and so on are FULL of things more relative to ET life than exists proof of any god. Do not mistake me. I myself believe in sort of a set of higher powers. Its usually the ones curious enough to look into the origins of these higher powers that find the greatest answers.. beyond that of books.

New arguments now.. a repair to the hubble telescope... Constant modifications to ISS for further views in space.. and rumours of a new more powerful telescope being built for space exploration along with modifications to the ion engine technology.. hmmmmm... could this be the advent of disclosure? Not conserned with the source of said disclosure.. just disclosure in and of itself.

I do have to agree with the rather blatantly stated "We're not dead yet" comment. That is something to take into consideration. Entertain the thought if you will. I refer to the Battle of LA.
An object in the sky. Something alarming enough to trigger a violent defensive/offensive response from the US Navy.
Something more advanced that we. Something we cannot destroy if we tried. We blew more than 1500 shells at that thing and didnt so much as make what ever it was sniffle. Why did this thing not fire back? Why did this thing just keep floating over the bay as if it was oblivious to all the fire power? and again.. WHY didnt it fire back. Now people can argue until blue in the face that it was just a practise excersize. Fine.. carry on. but when footage shows something so large and lights from our own military reflecting off said object, When the Military fires LIVE rounds within the confines of the City of Los Angeles, When Artillary rounds light the night sky in plain site of the entire state of California.. There is clearly cause for alarm. Bottom line.. they were firing at something.. not of US, German, Japanese, or UN origins. It never fired upon us. Not even during the barage of metal insult, and steel rain. This thing was clearly very advanced. I think if it was able to with stand a bombardment of that magnetude (greater than used in any war in a single area) it also has the ability to utterly destroy us.. like a pair of Nike's to an ant. and again... as stated so blatantly...... we are still alive.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by stanlee]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 31-8-2009 by mrwupy]

Originally posted by chiron613

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Many skeptics tout an idea called the anthropic argument that claims extraterrestrial intelligence must be very rare because the time it takes for intelligent life to evolve is, on the average, much longer than the portion of a star's existence that is conducive to such life.

According to currently accepted theory, it took billions of years for intelligent life to evolve here on earth. For all we know, we may be the rare exception, the planet that had many events that delayed the normal development of intelligence. Maybe it happens in just a few million years on most planets. Maybe it never happens at all. We don't know a thing about the "average" rate of development. We have exactly one known instance upon which to base our conclusions. It's not enough....

Very well put. Not to mention just a few years ago we were screaming that life cannot exist beyond some.. 120F.. and we find life flourishing on super heated vents in the ocean on volcanic vents. We say nothing can live in tempuratures of less than -20 comfortably or what have you... and then we find the elusive Ice Worm.... My question is pretty simple in response.. WHy is earth intellect so obtuse? Some bloke earns a degree and says he/she knows everything. We accept it. then we find something that blatantly challenges and spits in the face of this conclusion and we say... its not real?

Perhaps we should wait for intelligence to arrive to earth before assuming intelligence takes billions of years to evolve. Secondly.. What defines one year?
How the hell do we know there arent worlds that take 30+ earth years to circle their sun? Wait a moment.. Jupiter? and who is to say there isnt a star so large that a planetary system fitting the ratio of distance between our sun and earth, could take about that long? Wait a moment.. are we not discovering new things about physics every day? Are we not baffled STILL by astro physics? arent we JUST NOW tackling hyperdimensional physics, and torsion physics?? Oh yeah.. we are.. so to all the scientists, and wanna be's approaching life from other peoples mistakes... shut up. You really have nothing to say... you have no knowledge. none of us do. We look to the skies mystified every bloody night no matter how much we think we know.

The ONLY conclusive answer to life, space, distance, etc. is this: The possibilities are endless. This alone is a scientists mantra. "In science, Nothing is impossible. Only improbable."
So for ANY scientist to say "no.. there is no et life.. we have never been visited." is nothing short of bad science. End of discussion

[edit on 13-8-2009 by stanlee]

Originally posted by Gregarious
I think it was Arthur C. Clark that said this, I am not sure. Someone clue me in. Something about 'It is terrifying to think that we may be the only ones in the universe. It is equally terrifying to think that we may not'. So what is the rush to find life, who could turn out hostile? And way ahead of us technologically? Personally, I think that is absurd. But it makes sense for all you simpletons who think that there is no God.

It's funny you should say that because when you go around to websites like this preaching about your god and thumping your bible, I wonder who you think you're converting?

It's absurd to base your life around an old tome with no consistency and constant contradictions. Do you think dinosaurs are only placed in the ground by god to challenge your faith? Now what's absurd?

I know this thread is old now but I just came across it today thanks to another post by the OP and felt I had to reply.

reply to post by stanlee


I have to agree with you wholeheartedly as well as with the posts by converge, chiron, and Baron.

However I feel that the default position, that higher intelligences have to be friendly because we are not dead yet is monumentally naive. Do we kill cows because they are less intelligent than us? No they are a resource, just as water is. We should never forget that in all of our experience of life in the universe only predators reach the top of the food chain. I would posit that any advanced intelligence has a good chance of being predatorial, and despite this would probably not kill us outright because it would be a waste of resources.

I actually feel that open and obvious hostility from an alien intelligence is much more likely if they were at a similar or inferior stage of their evolution than us, because it would be those that would feel threatened. But of course these are only assumptions being used to counter assumptions. And yes, I believe it's possible for inferior civilisations to visit us before we can visit them. Progress is not uniform in all aspects of our civilisation, patents and making inventions 'classified' are ways that are used to suppress our own tech. So who knows how an alien civilisation might evolve. I have read a number of plausible hard sci-fi novels where spacecraft were made from wood.

On the matter of what conditions allow for life, one only needs to look at the Tardigrade to see how huge that 'goldilocks zone' can be.

reply to post by Mak Manto

The title for this post was so oddly worded; I just had to look at it.

You realize that the title could have more than one meaning...

Anyway, it's good to see "science" inching forward on this issue. But the whole concept is awfully naive, except from the viewpoint of the most hard-core disbelievers in what the disclosure people have been putting down for about 10 years now.

I prefer to stay real on this: "science" doesn't know what it's talking about on this issue. The issue involves concepts that science is just beginning to wrap its wits around. So if you want anything close to a realistic view of what the scene is on the issue of "intelligent life on other planets" you have to go to the Disclosure Project or some similar source. The people who could really settle this debate just aren't talking.

reply to post by Mak Manto


No surprise here by many, thanks for sharing this excellent news with us.

In fact in a recent debate over intelligent ET life I used the "non rare life" argument. For years we have been learning more and more so that life appears to be no 'miracle' by any stretch. Now granted the creation of the Universe itself may have been somewhat of a rare chance, but even now as we delve deeper into M-Theory and other hyperspatial theories we are quickly finding out that even something apparently as 'miraculous' as the Big Bang is nothing all that special, just nature doing what it does, just on a still very hard to comprehend level.

With all the evidence mounting that the seeds and complex molecules for life are abundant in the Universe and also readily CARRIED BY COMETS AND ASTEROIDS. Now let us take all that into consideration with the fact that the Universe is 13.7 BILLION years old. So after around a billion years or so the Universe was stable enough for stars, galaxies, PLANETS, etc to form. So, again considering the apparent ease of life to form, we could very easily have countless intelligent civilizations that are BILLIONS of years more advanced than we are, to such a point where time travel, dimensional travel, intergalactic travel, etc may be as common as getting in our cars and going to the store. Very soon we will find a planet that shows undoubtedly shows conditions for life, and also very soon I (and many actual scientists) believe we have a strong chance of finding ET microbial life. My point is I think it is beyond obvious now that there should be no question IF life exists, but rather to what extent and where?

Just chimeing in in order to add that Milan M. Cirkovic is not some dude whatsoever:

Milan Ćirković is Senior Research Associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and Assistant Professor of the Department of Physics at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro. Milan’s interests include astrobiology and SETI studies, the evolution of galaxies and baryonic dark matter, the philosophy of science (especially philosophy of cosmology and quantum mechanics), future studies (in particular related to existential risks and transhumanism), science fiction, and the history of physical sciences. Milan is co-editor with IEET Chair Nick Bostrom of the 2008 volume Global Catastrophic Risks from Oxford University Press.

ieet.org...
I'm in partial agreement with him, there's some flaw in the construction finding a flaw in the previous construction, but it would be too complicated to explain. One of our problems is the TIME: even assuming the existence of alien civilisations, we MUST know that many of them already existed and died, as well as many of them are yet to born; our hopes are linked to the ones allegedly existing right now: this narrows our field of research: physical distance is another problem, all we know is that IF they do exists of course they are not in the immediate closeness.
Etcetera.
What i'm trying to say is that everything is theorethical at this level, nothing can be said for sure, and paradoxically enough sometimes scientists spread more BS than ordinary men, NOT in this case though.


[edit on 31/8/2009 by internos]

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Gregarious
o what is the rush to find life, who could turn out hostile? And way ahead of us technologically? Personally, I think that is absurd. But it makes sense for all you simpletons who think that there is no God.

Wow, are you serious?? Simpletons?? That does not sound very christian of you. But then again it actually does sound VERY christian. Such a great religion of persecuting those who do not follow the laws of christians.
Same folks who persecuted the scientists for questioning the almighty bible which is actually just a few passages from thousands of books that the various religions can modify and omit to fit what they believe.

If religion makes you happy and fulfilled that is great for you, but please get off your high horse.
If I am wrong and there is actually a God all I can say is that he sure is an under-achiever.



[edit on 31-8-2009 by nepafogo]