There Might Be 100 Million Planets In Our Galaxy With Complex Life

a reply to: Xtrozero

When we talk advance life we can look to earth as an example. Is there life on a planet with methane seas? Maybe, but I would not think advance life much less some kind of civilization would be sailing the seas there. So far we have seen that advance life falls within a extremely narrow band even though life in general has been seen out farther from that band in both directions. We can look at the extreme life on our planet and see it doesn't get very far even though the rest of the planet is unrestricted.

These completely different life types right now are basically fictional, so the "what ifs" are great, but I'm really expecting that complex life follows somewhat of the same requirements we see on earth.

The whole habitual zone really comes down to whether water can be in a liquid form or not. Any life that doesn't need water would be extremely alien in nature, not saying it is not out there though.

Thanks for your interesting reply, but that's really my point mate.

In terms of comparing habitats for advanced life, we have a comparison sample of just one, Earth...so really everything is a 'what if' at the moment.

We can't begin to expect other forms of advanced life not native to Earth or native to the conditions in our Solar system as a whole to share similar requirements to the life originating on Earth, as i said, not even all life on our one small planet shares the same environmental requirements for life, although the more advanced species here do, more or less.

The sheer amount of variables and unknowns make it impossible to predict what life originating on different planets in different star systems would be like. I would imagine there would be many that do indeed share similarities to ourselves or to other Earth species, but in the same vein, with the numbers of species and the distances and timescales of development and mutation over time we must be talking about, there will undoubtably be advanced species so alien to our concepts of life, that we may not even recognise it as life at first.

Planets orbiting different types of stars in our Galaxy, never mind those of any of the billions of other galaxies (or Universes...) will be operating under very different conditions to those experienced by life here.

There are stars and other Solar systems that will have different levels of gravity to ours, it will be putting out different wavelengths to our Star, it will have a different spectrum, different levels of mutagenic radiation, behave differently and cause any life developing in it's system to evolve and behave differently too. Any one of those variables can and probably will have a dramatic effect on life developing on one or more of the Stars' planets, compared to ours.

Then the planets themselves will be different, orbital periods, gravity, weather patterns, atmosphere - all environmental conditions will be somewhat different to a small or very large degree. It's location within the Galaxy itself will have a pronounced bearing on what type or form of life may develop and it'll be influenced by gravitational and radiation sources acting on it's parent Star different to that here.

There's SO many variables in an infinite Universe, we can't just take our very limited experience of life originating here on Earth, a sample of just one planet, as any kind of benchmark to apply to expectations of the forms and structure of life elsewhere.

The only time we could expect life to have developed and evolves in at least a similar way to life on Earth is if we find an exoplanet that belongs to a Star system with very similar conditions to our own, with a very similar Star and number of Solar planets and an Earth like planet that closely matches our own in size and environment.

While there seems to be many Earth like worlds out there, that would fit that bill, there are many worlds and systems that are totally alien to ours, and may well produce totally alien forms of sentient life.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: JadeStar

While I personally agree with you, and I feel there almost certainly is a lot of life in the galaxy, and probably a lot of complex life, a part of me still wonders if we know enough to fill in a value for fl.

I still think that the value we assign to fl can't be anything more than a wild guess until we learn more about how life began here on Earth. We still don't know enough about what sparked life, or what exactly was the tipping point between "non life" and "life...

...i.e., what was the first thing that was considered "alive", and what was the thing that immediately came before it that was not "alive". What event or series of events occurred that tipped the scales for that non-living group of molecules to develop into something that we would recognize as life.

Like I said, I personally think that life probably is relatively ubiquitous in the galaxy, and I think even complex life may be relatively common, so hopefully nobody will reply with attempts to convince me of such by talking about the shear size of the universe; I don't need convincing. However, what I think is irrelevant, and I could be wrong.

It seems that before we can set a real value for fl that I am comfortable with (other than my simple "belief", which is not at all meaningful when we get right down to it) we need to understand how OUR life began -- and we don't.

Indeed, the drake equation is as scientific as calculating gravity by completely ignoring the mass of a planet.

i.e. A bowling ball falls faster than a tennis ball...because it has to, it is OBVIOUSLY heavier.

a reply to: kykweer

I meant the elites controlling 1000's of exo-worlds inhabited by Human colonists being a more attractive proposition to them than just controlling a single planet, not Human elites controlling aliens. (a carrot to release the tech...)

Personally, species MUCH further along the technological developmental path would probably not be concerned with anything we did. Those that are 100,000's of years ahead would probably not see us as a threat if we colonised a million worlds.

Those nearer to our level would be the ones to watch out for though...but it is a VERY big sandpit out there and there are unlimited opportunities for all species to claim as many worlds as they chose to, without conflict.

a reply to: MysterX

Your theory about inventing radio+10years was really good I liked it.

I wonder though, at which point will a civilization get the the development ceiling?

If development is exponential in time, resources remain finite. It is difficult to comprehend intelligent developing past 100 000 years. Not that it is not possible, but we can't even imagine it, they may well just go chill out in Jupiter's gas oceans, maybe they evolved into spiritual beings of light.

Then again it is difficult to see us evolving any further, we are simply growing weaker. Indeed, it is only the 1% Elites that will evolve if we follow the laws of natural selection.

a reply to: kykweer

Your theory about inventing radio+10years was really good I liked it.

Thanks, it was more of an easy to imagine example rather than a theory, but thanks anyway.

If development is exponential in time, resources remain finite.

The resources only remain finite if the technology doesn't advance to get that species into space and onto other worlds, where the resources would then become virtually infinite.

maybe they evolved into spiritual beings of light.

Who knows, maybe some have done. Or at least, evolved technology to allow them to leave their bodies behind and become like light-beings through advanced tech.

Imagine computing power combined with nanotechnology in a 1000 years time. We could well become 'light' or spirit beings ourselves.

The technological power available to us will literally make us immortal and godlike. The nanites that could make up our bodies will be each powered by a series of future nano-quantum computers able to carry our consciousness and personality / memory and reorganise and change our physical shape into any form we wanted to take on demand instantly, anything from ethereal 'spirit beings' to a gust of air, to any shape or form we wanted to take.

Imagine 10,000 years down the line...or a 100,000 years?

Probably wouldn't even need physical craft to travel anywhere in the Galaxy...just reorganise ourselves into a 'light-ship' and go.

Then again it is difficult to see us evolving any further, we are simply growing weaker.

If we stay here, we will probably destroy ourselves fighting over the right to control our finite resources...that's why i believe it is imperative we become a multi-world species as fast as possible, or we will just become a sad blip in the Galaxy that didn't amount to anything at all, and winked out of existence as quickly as it arose.

I think Humans are better than that, but we need to spread out to survive ourselves and our petty foibles.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: kykweer

Who knows, maybe some have done. Or at least, evolved technology to allow them to leave their bodies behind and become like light-beings through advanced tech.

Imagine computing power combined with nanotechnology in a 1000 years time. We could well become 'light' or spirit beings ourselves.

The technological power available to us will literally make us immortal and godlike. The nanites that could make up our bodies will be each powered by a series of future nano-quantum computers able to carry our consciousness and personality / memory and reorganise and change our physical shape into any form we wanted to take on demand instantly, anything from ethereal 'spirit beings' to a gust of air, to any shape or form we wanted to take.

Imagine 10,000 years down the line...or a 100,000 years?

Probably wouldn't even need physical craft to travel anywhere in the Galaxy...just reorganise ourselves into a 'light-ship' and go.

I have a problem with this though, scientists want to us to believe that we evolved over 4,5 billions years... or even 14 billion years naturally... but now today humans are "special" our future evolution will happen technologically?

Our entire human history since living as nomads we have constantly explored and searched for resources, conflict has followed us everywhere, I want to share your optimism that "next time it will be different", but I can't.

a reply to: MysterX

I have no problem with exploring, in fact I have myself found some benefit in the SKA construction.

I have a problem though with people claiming that the fundamental question of the human race is, "are we alone?" It is bull****, the fundamental question is, "where will my next meal come from?" and that's the last question these guys asked themselves before this hearing.

Billions of people could not care less, about finding double celled life 10 million light years away.

a reply to: kykweer

I have a problem with this though, scientists want to us to believe that we evolved over 4,5 billions years... or even 14 billion years naturally... but now today humans are "special" our future evolution will happen technologically?

Our entire human history since living as nomads we have constantly explored and searched for resources, conflict has followed us everywhere, I want to share your optimism that "next time it will be different", but I can't.

Yeah, but what's the one thing we have had in common throughout our history of conflict?

We are limited to one world, with limted resources.

With an infinite variety of worlds and access to vast almost infinite resources of every description, there will be zero requirement conflict between ourselves any longer.

Land and living area resource based conflict - eliminated if we have as much land and space as we wanted.

Technology innovations in energy will make war for energy and fuel obsolete - even if we stayed on the hydrocarbon fuels (which is doubtful) there is more hydrocarbon based fuel in our small Solar system alone, than the Human species could ever use in millions of years. So no more conflict over energy resources.

Religious and / or ideological conflict? Also eliminated. The reason we fight over these things, is confinement on Earth. We can't get away from each other if our religious or ideological differences are polar in nature.

With access to the Galaxy...there could be entire Star systems populated exclusively by beings choosing one religion or ideology and others populated exclusively by beings with the polar viewpoint, separated by 100's of light years that would never have to interact again.

Others still might be populated by a mixture of more tollerant beings who don't wish to murder or oppress those with a different point of view to themselves.

Either way, with access to space and multiple worlds, religious or ideological conflict is eliminated.

Apart from those, there's not much left to fight over...if we have access to much much more than we want, need or could ever use in a million generations...cooperation would be preferable to pointless conflict.

a reply to: MysterX

A very optimistic perspective, did all conflict cease in the Star Wars and Star Trek Universes ?
It's amazing how one small group can ruin a Galaxies millennium.

But the "Fermi Paradox" at this point seems to be trumping the Drake Equation, yes there are other class M planets, that part is true. Personally I believe there is no life on them, one day we will expand beyond this earth we will live on them.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Again though, the Star Wars saga and Star Trek Universe stories were concieved and written by minds used to the politics and history of our species which is confined to Earth. It's not surprising conflict was an integral part of the narrative.

Star Trek, at least TOS was basically a propaganda piece for the USA and the West (I still loved it though)..bearing in mind the series was made during the cold war...guess who the clean, shiny and moral Federation was meant to represent and who the barbarian and war obsessed Klingons were meant to be?

Star wars was about the age old good and evil conflict, but again it was flawed as the protagonists had access to limitless resources and could control their own spheres of influence, which could have been as large or as small as they desired, yet the story reflected the attitudes and mind set of species occupying a single planet fighting over control of finite resources...since the writers grew up in such a world, it's unsurprising these attitudes were incorporated into the story.

Besides, would either Star Wars or Star Trek have been so successful at the box office if everyone in the story just got along and never fought? Probably not!

a reply to: MysterX

Yet in the non-human spirit realm, there was one guy who started evil, and recruited others to his side.
All it takes is one, human or spirit. Going back to Star Wars a Sith Lord said "Good is a point of view", once others agree with that and decide to manipulate it with propaganda, it is a slippery slope. Germany in the 30's is a prime example.

a reply to: JadeStar

Hence, more time for some life to become advanced.

IIRC . . . the whole multiverse has NOT EXISTED REMOTELY LONG ENOUGH

for even the most basic of 'evolutionary' life building to have occurred.

Pretended slick mumbo-jumbo with numbers does not equal truth.

The solid numerical picture is different.

Shoot, IIRC . . . there's plenty of conjecture in calculating a lot of stuff in this sphere.

Fantasies do not equal truth.

originally posted by: StellarX
The relative silence in our local area then basically proves that FTL travel is either impossible or impractical ( too dangerous or too expensive) or that sentience is a very dangerous thing indeed and intelligent life/species have a very limited shelf life!

Stellar

I don't see how we can conclude from there being no overt extraterrestrial presence at Earth that sentient life is inherently unstable and short-lived. Neither does this appear to prove that interstellar travel is impractical. Technical civilizations could be widespread in the galaxy and star travel common.
It may merely be that extraterrestrial civilizations wish to avoid establishing an overwhelming presence in relatively primitive cultures, such as ours. We, ourselves, are already wise enough to have cultural and ecological preserves on this planet, where things are allowed to proceed with very limited interference. Earth itself could be such a preserve, as far as extraterrestrials are concerned.

a reply to: JadeStar

While this is an estimate, it is not a guess, there is sound reasoning based on what we know about exoplanets and the stars they surround now. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But it is a guess because until we find another planet with life its only a theory that theirs life out there. You need two numbers to make an equation and right now all we have to go off of is earth. besides we don't even know how life is created so you cant even account for how difficult it is for life to get started.

a reply to: MysterX

Though I agree there is most surly other kinds of life out there I tend to have a more limited view in how many extremes there might be. Truly extreme, as you suggest, would most likely mean we would have a hard time determining if it is actually life, viruses anyone?

When we suggest complex life, or even intelligent life, if it isn't carbon base then it would be so extreme we could not communicate or interact.

I'm more incline to believe that there isn't a million combinations to life and so life like many other things in the universe is a very defined chemical reaction. But as you suggest there are millions of different influences that would create what we would see as basic life into many different types based on those influences.

This could really be tricky in what life would be able to advance into a intelligent spacefaring life form, so when we take 100 million and weed it down to where maybe another intelligent life form exists we might be rather lonely.

originally posted by: Ross 54

It may merely be that extraterrestrial civilizations wish to avoid establishing an overwhelming presence in relatively primitive cultures, such as ours. We, ourselves, are already wise enough to have cultural and ecological preserves on this planet, where things are allowed to proceed with very limited interference. Earth itself could be such a preserve, as far as extraterrestrials are concerned.

The old Prime Directive...

Intelligence is just a piece of the pie, we might be lucky to have intelligence and a opposable thumbs, agility, communication etc to maybe enter the far reaches, so having everything needed is a lot of discriminators than just intelligence.

Earth maybe got it right once in 4.5 billion years, maybe, so I have a hard time believing there is a Star Trek utopia out there.

Really good work and certainly the drake equation is worthy of an update. Personally, I think we underestimate the capability of a planet to have intelligent life. In the last 20 years, we have found life higher, deeper and in places hotter than we can thought possible. We have also seen many human intelligent behaviour in other animals e.g. Whales being self aware.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Earth maybe got it right once in 4.5 billion years, maybe, so I have a hard time believing there is a Star Trek utopia out there.

"getting it right" may not always mean "intelligence".

There are creatures on Earth who have arguably evolved more successfully than humans -- crocodilia and sharks, for example. The be-all end-all of evolution may not necessarily be "intelligence". Intelligence may be just one way for a species to become successful, but nature shows that there are many other evolutionarily successful creatures who are less intelligent than less-successful creatures.

If we came across a planet without intelligent life, but with a shark-like creature who had roamed that planet for 250 million years basically unchanged, then I'd say evolution was pretty darn successful in the case of those shark-like creatures.

The Drake equation is an educated guess. It gives a number based on the knowledge of several variables whose value changes as our data changes. It is also predicated on "life as we know it" that's integral for our viewpoint.
Life as we don't know it could be much more common than our present form. No way of knowing that until we encounter it.
Nothing preventing differing types of life to have separate Goldilocks zones around a single star.

a reply to: MysterX
How much time and money would we be have to spend to determine whether a planet is habitable?