←back to thread

417 points fuidani | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
seanhunter ◴[] No.43714467[source]
Firstly that is completely badass science. The idea that you can use observations to detect the chemical composition of an exoplanet millions of kilometres away is an absolute triumph of the work of thousands of people over hundreds of years. Really amazing and deeply humbling to me.

Secondly, my prior was always that life existed outside of earth. It just seems so unlikely that we are somehow that special. If life developed here I always felt it overwhelmingly likely that it developed elsewhere too given how incredibly unfathomably vast the universe is.

replies(14): >>43714565 #>>43714577 #>>43714584 #>>43714631 #>>43714656 #>>43714773 #>>43714830 #>>43714875 #>>43714914 #>>43714940 #>>43714971 #>>43715045 #>>43717003 #>>43717397 #
ta8645 ◴[] No.43714565[source]
If life is very common in the universe, then that is probably bad news for us. It means that civilizations should exist that are millions of years more technologically advanced than us; and should be leaving telltale signatures across the sky that we'd likely have detected by now. And the absence of those signs would be relatively strong evidence that life, while common, isn't long-lived. Suggesting that our demise too, will come before too long.

If, on the other hand, life is relatively rare, or we're the sole example, our future can't be statistically estimated that way.

replies(34): >>43714604 #>>43714608 #>>43714615 #>>43714618 #>>43714624 #>>43714625 #>>43714636 #>>43714650 #>>43714691 #>>43714706 #>>43714729 #>>43714760 #>>43714766 #>>43714781 #>>43714825 #>>43714839 #>>43714844 #>>43714975 #>>43714991 #>>43715000 #>>43715063 #>>43715072 #>>43715084 #>>43715118 #>>43715227 #>>43715286 #>>43715299 #>>43715350 #>>43716046 #>>43716710 #>>43716759 #>>43717852 #>>43726399 #>>43727782 #
aardvark179 ◴[] No.43714604[source]
You seem to be conflating life, multicellular life, and intelligent life. Life appears to have developed on Earth pretty quickly, multicellular life took a long time to appear, and we are only aware of one species that developed civilisation building capabilities.

Life might be very common, but intelligent life still be incrediblY rare.

replies(4): >>43714634 #>>43714694 #>>43714879 #>>43714903 #
martopix ◴[] No.43714694[source]
It depends what you mean by "civilization building". I think we gloss over that a bit too much. We're not the largest population, not the largest total mass, not the only one that builds large structures. We're the only one that sent stuff outside of Earth, yes, and a few other things. But discussing the definition is itself interesting
replies(3): >>43714724 #>>43714804 #>>43715173 #
1. TheOtherHobbes ◴[] No.43715173[source]
Human civilisation means intelligence and memory are collective, externalised, persistent, communicable. There's also a layer of symbolic abstraction (science and math) which makes it possible to predict useful consequences with some precision.

Individuals die but their inventions and insights remain. Individuals can also specialise, which is a kind of civilisational divide and conquer strategy.

Most animals don't have that. Some do train their young to a limited extent, but without writing the knowledge doesn't persist. And without abstraction it only evolves extremely slowly, if at all.

They have to reinvent the wheel over and over, which means they never invent the wheel at all.

We actually have this problem with politics and relationships. We keep making the same mistakes because the humanities provide some limited memory, but there's no symbolic abstraction and prediction - just story telling, which is far less effective.

Bonus points: I often wonder if there's a level of complexity beyond our kind of intelligence, and what it might look like. Abstraction of abstraction would be meta-learning - symbolic systems that manipulate the creation and distribution of civilisational learning.

AI seems to be heading in that direction.

There may be further levels, but we can't imagine them. We could be embedded in them and we wouldn't see them for what they are.