←back to thread

417 points fuidani | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
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 #
Andrew_nenakhov ◴[] No.43714650[source]
It is quite plausible that life is abundant, but sentience is not. If we take Earth, it formed 4.5 billions years ago, conditions became suitable to support life like 4B years ago and first known signs of life are dated 3.7B years ago.

Now, in just .5B years Earth would likely become uninhabitable due to Sun becoming a red giant. In other words, on Earth life spent 90% of its total available time before sentience emerged. So on one side life is constrained simply by time, and on the other, sentience might not be necessary for organisms to thrive: crocodiles are doing just fine without one for hundreds of millions of years. To think of it, it is only needed for those who can't adapt to the environment without it, so humans really might be very special, indeed.

replies(8): >>43714685 #>>43715004 #>>43715048 #>>43715056 #>>43715071 #>>43715156 #>>43715257 #>>43721953 #
uwagar ◴[] No.43715056[source]
why isnt a crocodile sentient?
replies(2): >>43715121 #>>43715174 #
mkl ◴[] No.43715174[source]
Technically, it is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentient (the first two definitions). You mean the science fiction definition though (the third), and it's because it's not self-aware and not very intelligent, because it doesn't need to be to survive and procreate successfully. A slightly smarter crocodile must not have enough of an advantage over its peers to matter for evolutionary purposes.
replies(1): >>43715281 #
BirAdam ◴[] No.43715281[source]
Honestly, I do not think high-intelligence is useful for life. The most successful life forms aren’t the most intelligent, and humans seem to be fixed to self-annihilate.
replies(1): >>43721765 #
jayGlow ◴[] No.43721765[source]
what do you consider the most successful life forms to be? humans currently inhabit every continent and are unquestionably at the top of the food chain.
replies(1): >>43724263 #
1. BirAdam ◴[] No.43724263[source]
Are we though? Bacteria do better than us. Cockroaches. Rats. Ants. Grasses. Plankton. We aren’t the most numerous. We aren’t the most widespread. We are serious risk of killing off our own species.
replies(1): >>43724303 #
2. hollerith ◴[] No.43724303[source]
If the Earth was about to be hit by a huge asteroid, some people might survive (by fleeing in spaceships) but none of the species you list have a chance unless people choose to save them.
replies(1): >>43724324 #
3. BirAdam ◴[] No.43724324[source]
I highly doubt much of the bacteria would care. The amoeba probably wouldn’t either. Also, rodents have already survived such impacts. All mammals alive today are alive because our ancestors didn’t die with dinosaurs.
replies(1): >>43724515 #
4. hollerith ◴[] No.43724515{3}[source]
Suppose the asteroid is much bigger than the one that ended the dinosaurs.
replies(1): >>43728098 #
5. BirAdam ◴[] No.43728098{4}[source]
If the Earth is completely destroyed, the humans on space ships wouldn’t survive either. There is no self-sustaining off world colony currently, and there most likely will not be in the lifetime of anyone alive today. At such time that there is, bacteria, rodents, and other life will likely come with humans as humans build the biospheres that we need elsewhere.
replies(1): >>43728482 #
6. hollerith ◴[] No.43728482{5}[source]
With a few years to prepare, the humans would have a chance IMHO.