Life: is it inevitable or just a fluke?

Nanook wrote:

TimeGhost wrote:Not like I've got anything better.

Heh. An interesting theory though, don't you think? It's basically a mathematical way of saying that's it's more likely for life to exist elsewhere in the universe than not to exist or to ever have.

Indeed, it's lovely stuff.

Nanook wrote:

Falsey wrote:Nah I dont want those things. I just want a Subaru Impreza and Emma Watson really.

I guess Im just like one of them rogue particles that strawberry floats up all the equations.

Well... there's even those. No one really understands why people want the things they want. But on a chemical level, somewhere, those things must be reacting with you somehow. Maybe the Id and Superego.

Our behaviour reflects our existence, I think. We are physically and mentally nothing more than a manifestation of the effects of positive and negative stimuli on a mix of ancient chemicals. It's both fascinating and faintly depressing.

As far as psychology is concerned, the behaviours that emerge from us are broad and deep and different, but they're only there because we die. And we know it. And time has elapsed. The Bible was on to something with the Apple in the Garden of Eden. Whether it's an inevitability for a complicated, large brain or not, the emergence of self-image is the key to most of our behaviour that isn't covered by the base needs in Maslow's list.

*edit* Was just re-reading about what species pass the self-image 'mirror test', and it appears certain Magpies have it. That is crazy. The insult 'birdbrain' suddenly doesn't seem so damning. Ain't life mad?

*edit* Meant 'self-awareness', not self-image.

Lagamorph wrote:If you look at the image I posted,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... PEG%29.jpg

I think you'd have to be insane to try and make the argument that in all of that, there is no intelligent life anywhere but on Earth, or that there never has been or will be.

It also depends on the subjective meaning of 'intelligent life'. If it's a life form analogous to man, you have to take into account that if the life span of the earth was condensed and simplified into 1 year, man didn't pop up until the evening of the 31st of December, and our advanced achievements in the final seconds. Not a great case for the inevitability of advanced civilisation.

$ilva $hadow wrote::lol: No one read the article before posting.



The space barrier looks like it's such a huge barrier for humans to overcome. I don't think humans will even get off this planet in time. Any alien species out there probably kills itself or is simply too far away for us to detect their signals.

Regardless of how old the universe is, even travelling at light speed from day one (not singularity you cockchode) would get you to one side of the universe to other, space is just too vast. How do you come up with faster than light travel? It doesn't seem remotely possible at all.

Anyone who is reading or has read the article, nice to think that life could be a lot more common than we thought and possibly not too far away. Intelligent life too, who's to say there isn't another intelligent civilisation out there in space, stranded, alone on their planet because nothing can break the barrier of lightspeed.

Homo sapiens won't. Our descendants might if we don't strawberry float up the planet entirely first, then hypothetically it might become possible for us to engineer a descendant species that can actually live in the vacuum of space. No space-ships for us: We will BE the space-ship.

Fascinating reads, cheers Silva.

I tend to lean towards the idea that there will be plenty of life out there but very little if any would have experienced the event that led to complex life here. There might be others though but, even if there are, I don't think those life forms will ever encounter each other.

Something Fishy wrote:I tend to lean towards the idea that there will be plenty of life out there but very little if any would have experienced the event that led to complex life here.

Kind of difficult to say without understanding the event that led to complex life here.

TheTurnipKing wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote::lol: No one read the article before posting.



The space barrier looks like it's such a huge barrier for humans to overcome. I don't think humans will even get off this planet in time. Any alien species out there probably kills itself or is simply too far away for us to detect their signals.

Regardless of how old the universe is, even travelling at light speed from day one (not singularity you cockchode) would get you to one side of the universe to other, space is just too vast. How do you come up with faster than light travel? It doesn't seem remotely possible at all.

Anyone who is reading or has read the article, nice to think that life could be a lot more common than we thought and possibly not too far away. Intelligent life too, who's to say there isn't another intelligent civilisation out there in space, stranded, alone on their planet because nothing can break the barrier of lightspeed.

Homo sapiens won't. Our descendants might if we don't strawberry float up the planet entirely first, then hypothetically it might become possible for us to engineer a descendant species that can actually live in the vacuum of space. No space-ships for us: We will BE the space-ship.

I don't think a large biological entity could survive in space.


As the author of the article says though, it requires massive amounts of energy for even small eukaryotes to stay alive and he seems to be of the opinion that any alien species that we do find, will have one thing similar to us; mitochondria. Mitochondria are the little engines that keep eukaryotes on earth, alive.

I too would bank on the idea that any alien life will have mitochondria or a variant of it.

I'm always amazed that from earth (plus the hubble etc) such an incredible (accurate?) map of the observable universe can be created, as if seen from the outside.

Incredible.

And make you feel very small and insignificant, especially if you are having a moan about something trivial.

TheTurnipKing wrote:

Something Fishy wrote:I tend to lean towards the idea that there will be plenty of life out there but very little if any would have experienced the event that led to complex life here.

Kind of difficult to say without understanding the event that led to complex life here.

Fair point.

$ilva $hadow wrote:Mitochondria are the little engines that keep eukaryotes on earth, alive.

God?

$ilva $hadow wrote:Mitochondria are the little engines that keep eukaryotes on earth, alive.

I thought they channeled the Force.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:Mitochondria are the little engines that keep eukaryotes on earth, alive.

I thought they channeled the Force.

Parasite Eve used Mitochondia as bad guys with dreams of world domination before they were cool.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:Mitochondria are the little engines that keep eukaryotes on earth, alive.

I thought they channeled the Force.

No that's the Real Thing.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Actually Peter, Homo Sapiens Sapiens only arrived on Earth around 150-120 thousand years ago.

There was a thread recently where some people refused to believe that there's no genetic difference between us now, and humans from 40,000 years ago, citing things like changes in height and lactose tolerance as evidence. Essentially, that humans today are significantly different to those back then.

Anyway, the question of 'why haven't we encountered intelligent life yet' reminds me of George Carlin's 'Life Is Worth Losing' show, where he spends about 30 minutes discussing all the interestingly perverse things we do as humans: murder, genocide, cannibalism, necrophilia, torture, human sacrifice, etc. He basically concludes that we're nothing but Cro-Magnon with grandiose delusions still operating out of the reptilian brain. To quote: 'We're barely out of the jungle. What we are, is semi-civilised beasts... With baseball caps and automatic weapons.'

Consider how quickly civilisation could reverse several thousand years in a relative blink of an eye.

"Civilisation" is just a posh word for "social norms that, if you obey them, probably won't result in you being stabbed in the throat".

It's a paper thin tissue of formalised ways to interact with other humans, and it's not significantly more complex than, say, pack behavior in wolves.

Humans are still basically slaves to evolution; much of our behaviour is determined by unruly natural forces we have no control over. This is why I am largely sympathetic towards transhumanism. Once we rid ourselves of that whch created us we can remake ourselves as we see fit. I'm not talking about simply making people more intelligent and stronger, as most people interpret transhumanism, but also making ourselves morally superior by eliminating base instincts, which dictate how individuals behave, and improving our capacity for reason and self-determination instead.

Igor wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:Actually Peter, Homo Sapiens Sapiens only arrived on Earth around 150-120 thousand years ago.

There was a thread recently where some people refused to believe that there's no genetic difference between us now, and humans from 40,000 years ago, citing things like changes in height and lactose tolerance as evidence. Essentially, that humans today are significantly different to those back then.

What I meant was that the basic species arose 120-150k years ago. Even if lots of changes have taken place within our genome, little modifications that let us tolerate dairy and grow a bit taller and whatnot, we're still the same basic animal now as we were then.

I think humans are a post-evolutionary species; our intelligence means it is quicker and easier to adapt our enviroment and technology to our own needs than stick things out for evolution to do its work. You might see some slight shifts here and there but there's no real pressure being exerted on us. For example, lifestyle in different areas have done things like make Europeans more tolerant to dairy and alcohol (asians and such do not have the same level of tolerance for these things because they have not been as consumed as widely in their regions). However, white people being more tolerant to dairy is not going to fundementally change the nature of the species.

The next magor shift in humans is probably going to be as a result of scientific intervention.

Meep wrote:Humans are still basically slaves to evolution; much of our behaviour is determined by unruly natural forces we have no control over. This is why I am largely sympathetic towards transhumanism. Once we rid ourselves of that whch created us we can remake ourselves as we see fit. I'm not talking about simply making people more intelligent and stronger, as most people interpret transhumanism, but also making ourselves morally superior by eliminating base instincts, which dictate how individuals behave, and improving our capacity for reason and self-determination instead.

If we did that though, would we be human anymore?

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Igor wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:Actually Peter, Homo Sapiens Sapiens only arrived on Earth around 150-120 thousand years ago.

There was a thread recently where some people refused to believe that there's no genetic difference between us now, and humans from 40,000 years ago, citing things like changes in height and lactose tolerance as evidence. Essentially, that humans today are significantly different to those back then.

What I meant was that the basic species arose 120-150k years ago. Even if lots of changes have taken place within our genome, little modifications that let us tolerate dairy and grow a bit taller and whatnot, we're still the same basic animal now as we were then.

You misunderstand, I know that's what you meant. I said that other people, in a recent thread, refused to believe that a human 40,000 years ago was essentially identical to a human today, culture notwithstanding.