←back to thread

417 points fuidani | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.736s | 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 #
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 #
energy123 ◴[] No.43715071[source]
This is now much less plausible. Intelligence, like eyesight, is believed to be a result of convergent evolution[0].

[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/intelligence-evolved-at-least...

replies(2): >>43715113 #>>43715249 #
lupusreal ◴[] No.43715113[source]
Being intelligent doesn't necessarily lead to runaway technological development. Dolphins are smart but they're never going to invent radios to broadcast their existence to other star systems. They're stuck in the water and don't have thumbs. And even orangutans, who have thumbs and live on land, don't seem tracked for technology even if humans weren't around; their ecological niche is small even if we assumed humans weren't wrecking their environment, and they seem comfortable and steady in it.
replies(4): >>43715215 #>>43715222 #>>43716661 #>>43718806 #
lordnacho ◴[] No.43715215[source]
We don't even need to look at other species.

Humans have been just as smart as you and me, maybe even smarter according to cranial measurements, without inventing anything that significantly changed their way of life.

There could be loads of planets with prehistoric humans, having a fine time hunting with bows and picking fruit.

replies(3): >>43716673 #>>43717882 #>>43718959 #
Loughla ◴[] No.43716673[source]
I don't think so, though. I think that unless there are limiting factors (no ores or some other necessary component) life would tend toward technology.

Curiosity as an evolutionary trait is quite an advantage, and I would think is necessary for intelligent omnivores. It's what helped us figure out what we could and couldn't eat, and taught us better techniques for living. Curiosity naturally leads to technological developments, I would argue.

replies(2): >>43717431 #>>43717695 #
andrewflnr ◴[] No.43717431[source]
> life would tend toward technology

Based on what evidence? We only know if it happening once, after a very long delay.

replies(1): >>43723503 #
Loughla ◴[] No.43723503[source]
I think it's a natural product of curiosity. And I think that intelligent life would only be so because of curiosity.

You want to figure things out or you're interested in seeing what happens when you fuck around with things.

So I think a technological progression is a natural progression for intelligent life.

Does that make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining myself well.

replies(1): >>43724768 #
1. andrewflnr ◴[] No.43724768[source]
Lots of animals have been curious for hundreds of millions of years, but technology more advanced than breaking bits off rocks and sticks has only been around a couple thousand years. If you say it's a "natural progression", you also have to say there are serious barriers that most species will never pass.
replies(1): >>43728439 #
2. Loughla ◴[] No.43728439[source]
Okay?
replies(1): >>43728658 #
3. andrewflnr ◴[] No.43728658[source]
So the notion that "life would tend toward technology", charitably speaking, does not make any useful predictions. Based on all evidence available, including the dearth of extraterrestrial technosignatures, you can't rely on it happening in any particular situation or timeframe. At best it's speculation, more likely it's just false.
replies(1): >>43732284 #
4. Loughla ◴[] No.43732284{3}[source]
Correct, we disagree in what we think.